Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lone Gunman podcast: L. Fletcher Prouty a xxxx?


Recommended Posts

Actually, Stone's including the scene with Garrison and Prouty in Washington was an excellent dramatic choice, as it for the first time in the movie, clearly defines the enemy and their motives.  It is for me, the most memorable scene in the movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Actually, Stone's including the scene with Garrison and Prouty in Washington was an excellent dramatic choice, as it for the first time in the movie, clearly defines the enemy and their motives.  It is for me, the most memorable scene in the movie.

It's a terrific scene, which condenses a great deal of material from Prouty's books into a brief monologue -- something that I realized by re-watching JFK after studying Prouty's work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2020 at 7:53 AM, Joe Bauer said:

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 decently 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 any 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.

Speaking of a most intriguing figure photographed in Dealey Plaza right during the JFK shooting, take a look at this one.

In the sidewalk crowd right in front of the Texas Schoolbook Depository and just as JFK and his limo are passing by, who do you think this picture depicts?

This is a full frontal face photo.

No backside debate deflating doubt.

The latest facial recognition software would have no problem with this gem of a full face pic.

Comparing this photo to many others of Rip Robertson seems a clear and strong one for scientifically proven identification verses the backside lanky ( supposed Lansdale/Tramp) one.

The height of the man in this picture also fits Robertson. And Robertson was 43 years old at the time. Does the pic you see look like a 43 year old man?Image result for how tall was rip robertson

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 8:01 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

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.)

 

The sun certainly is not traveling through the lens.

There is a gap which exist there. The size of the gap depends on the shape of the persons face and how they specifically fit their glasses, but there is always a gap. The glasses do no rest upon your face other than the nose pads. Along the upper rim of the glasses there will always be a gap.

The sun can very much travel through gaps and create the shadow we see. In my (rudimentary) photo below, it is almost exactly like the tramp photo...

20201018-170243-resize.jpg

Three-Tramps-glasses-crop-ann.jpg

The sun isn't traveling through my lens just like it isn't in the tramp photo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/18/2020 at 4:46 PM, Mark Stevens said:

The glasses do [not] rest upon your face other than the nose pads. Along the upper rim of the glasses there will always be a gap.

 

Can't you see from the photo below that the bridge of the guy's nose blocks light from passing through the gap that you insist is creating the bright area we see on the "Landsdale" shadow? Even if the nose pads create a gap, it will be no larger than 1/8" wide or so. Compare that to the ~1/2" we see at the top of the bright area on the Landsdale shadow.

800px_COLOURBOX2190984.jpg

 

I looked through dozens of profiles of men wearing glasses and found only one that had any gap at all, and it is tiny.

 

business-man-glasses-profile-on-600w-531

 

I'd like to see a profile photo of you wearing glasses to see how light can possibly be passing through the bridge of your nose.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Speaking of a most intriguing figure photographed in Dealey Plaza right during the JFK shooting, take a look at this one.

In the sidewalk crowd right in front of the Texas Schoolbook Depository and just as JFK and his limo are passing by, who do you think this picture depicts?

This is a full frontal face photo.

No backside debate deflating doubt.

The latest facial recognition software would have no problem with this gem of a full face pic.

Comparing this photo to many others of Rip Robertson seems a clear and strong one for scientifically proven identification verses the backside lanky ( supposed Lansdale/Tramp) one.

The height of the man in this picture also fits Robertson. And Robertson was 43 years old at the time. Does the pic you see look like a 43 year old man?Image result for how tall was rip robertson

 

 

Going back to older Rip Robertson in Dealey Plaza threads by John Simkin and others as far back as 2006, most who have seen the above pics agreed there was a remarkable similarity between the Dealey Plaza pic and the one below of Robertson.

The dissenting opinion that the fellow in the Dealey Plaza was not Robertson was shared by an "Abner Stokes?" This fellow worked as a mechanic on boat engines for Robertson in South Florida at a very young age.

He certainly had personal one-on-one interaction with Robertson to a credible degree.

However, Stokes claimed that Robertson's skin ( facially ) was so damaged from sun exposure he was known as "Alligator" man. And that the Dealey Plaza picture did not depict this type skin.

He also stated that Robertson was taller and lankier than the Dealey Plaza man.

Yet, contrarily Stokes did state in one of his posts that he also acknowledged a strong resemblance between the true Robertson in the photo below and the man in the Dealey Plaza photo.

Kind of a mixed take?

Stokes stated several times how much he respected and admired Rip Robertson. Perhaps in a fatherly type way? Robertson guided a 20 year old Stokes into the Marines and offered assistance in his later duty assignments?

Stokes close personal attachment to Robertson does suggest a possible favoring personal bias and the possibility that he might present a view that covered any Robertson involvement in anything connected to JFK's demise?

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2020 at 10:18 AM, Jeff Carter said:

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.

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.

Here comes Osanic's Knight on a white horse...and remember folks for only $110.00 you too can see and hear the man lie directly out of his own mouth! http://www.blackopradio.com/products.html

Re.Antarctica...Actually it does mean something, in his books, writings, forewords, and correspondence, Prouty's "wondering" makes no sense. Given that the trip was routine...something his job required him to do, and the fact he admitted to the ARRB it was never his job to organize extra military protection for the President, then his trip shouldn't have seemed out of the ordinary. Sure the screenwriters took a little license on things, but they didn't pull them out of thin air. Surely Reich's name drop came from Prouty, and in Reich's 15 page interview with the ARRB he didn't even know who Prouty was, never spoke to the man, and wondered what he'd been smoking.

Even Stevie Wonder could see the gaping holes in the Presidential security that day, Prouty is not sharing some grand illumination with the world. Welding manhole covers down, nailing windows shut, and placing snipers on every rooftop were not routine practices prior to November 22,1963. The events of that day surely had an impact on a change in SS protection details. Bottom line is Kennedy wanted to be seen in Dallas that day by the people, given that situation, there's only so much the DPD and the SS could have done. Could they have done better? Sure...but that's a whole different discussion. Bottom line is that Prouty lied about his "role" and a plethora of other things. Please site your source for Landsdale giving him the instructions to go to Antarctica other than Prouty said so...thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

Here comes Osanic's Knight on a white horse...and remember folks for only $110.00 you too can see and hear the man lie directly out of his own mouth! http://www.blackopradio.com/products.html

Re.Antarctica...Actually it does mean something, in his books, writings, forewords, and correspondence, Prouty's "wondering" makes no sense. Given that the trip was routine...something his job required him to do, and the fact he admitted to the ARRB it was never his job to organize extra military protection for the President, then his trip shouldn't have seemed out of the ordinary. Sure the screenwriters took a little license on things, but they didn't pull them out of thin air. Surely Reich's name drop came from Prouty, and in Reich's 15 page interview with the ARRB he didn't even know who Prouty was, never spoke to the man, and wondered what he'd been smoking.

Even Stevie Wonder could see the gaping holes in the Presidential security that day, Prouty is not sharing some grand illumination with the world. Welding manhole covers down, nailing windows shut, and placing snipers on every rooftop were not routine practices prior to November 22,1963. The events of that day surely had an impact on a change in SS protection details. Bottom line is Kennedy wanted to be seen in Dallas that day by the people, given that situation, there's only so much the DPD and the SS could have done. Could they have done better? Sure...but that's a whole different discussion. Bottom line is that Prouty lied about his "role" and a plethora of other things. Please site your source for Landsdale giving him the instructions to go to Antarctica other than Prouty said so...thanks!

Rob,

      What's "routine" about Prouty being sent by Ed Lansdale on a field trip to Antarctica during JFK's assassination?

      Have you read Prouty's detailed accounts of his experiences during and after JFK's murder, and with Ed Lansdale in Southeast Asia and D.C.?

      The reason I ask is that, from what I have read on the subject, Prouty was subjected to a significant smear campaign (by McAdams, et.al.) after the publication of The Secret Team, and JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Assassination of President Kennedy.  The on-line disinfo about Prouty's career and writings seems to bear little or no relationship to his own detailed descriptions of events in the Kennedy administration that he witnessed personally.

      Among other things, Prouty has been labelled by CIA propagandists as a mere "chauffeur," etc., despite having served with General Victor Krulak as a White House briefing officer and Chief Liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA during JFK's presidency.

      Prouty also had a great deal to say about his co-authorship, with Krulak, of the September 1963 McNamara-Taylor Report that was integral to JFK's issuance of NSAM263 in October of 1963.

      Quite a talented chauffeur!  🤥

     

     

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

   What's "routine" about Prouty being sent by Ed Lansdale on a field trip to Antarctica during JFK's assassination?

Prouty himself said it was routine...

Quote

Tape 1, Side 1; 24:15:      Prouty confirmed this trip. He escorted a group of scientists, businessmen, and Congressman Pete Abele (Ohio) to McMurdo station to observe a new power generator. This was not unusual, because Prouty had worked “at least as far back as 1959 with the organization that works underneath the White House on Antarctic projects... It was a duty I had to work Antarctica; of course not regularly, but when something came up.”

Tape 2, Side 1; 1:08:      Asked by Wray if he felt it was “sinister” that he had been sent to Antarctica: “Oh, no. I’d been working with them since 1959. It was so routine for them to call me, I didn’t give it a second thought... it’s the military custom to put an escort officer on board.”

Tape 2, Side 1; 1:52:      “And even afterwards, when I heard people extrapolating in that sense-- thinking that it wasn’t my job-- they didn’t know I’d already been working with Antarctica people since 1959.”

(Same link on page one)

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/CBARGER/WP-DOCS/PROUTY11.WPD.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

Exactly Mark! Thank you....he himself told the ARRB  it was routine.

 

13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Rob,

      What's "routine" about Prouty being sent by Ed Lansdale on a field trip to Antarctica during JFK's assassination?

      Have you read Prouty's detailed accounts of his experiences during and after JFK's murder, and with Ed Lansdale in Southeast Asia and D.C.?

 

Again, please cite the source for Lansdale sending Prouty to Antarctica other than Prouty saying so...

I don't care what Prouty says about Lansdale if it doesn't pertain to the Kennedy assassination. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2020 at 12:54 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Can't you see from the photo below that the bridge of the guy's nose blocks light from passing through the gap that you insist is creating the bright area we see on the "Landsdale" shadow? Even if the nose pads create a gap, it will be no larger than 1/8" wide or so. Compare that to the ~1/2" we see at the top of the bright area on the Landsdale shadow.

800px_COLOURBOX2190984.jpg

 

I looked through dozens of profiles of men wearing glasses and found only one that had any gap at all, and it is tiny.

 

business-man-glasses-profile-on-600w-531

 

I'd like to see a profile photo of you wearing glasses to see how light can possibly be passing through the bridge of your nose.

With work and the weather being overcast most days I just had a chance to take a few more pictures and can post them if you'd still like.

I think we just have a confusion regarding the glasses though.

I'm not referring to this area...

44-3630-u-1-1.jpg

As you mentioned, there is almost no area for the sunlight to travel through in this area. While some shadow/light could be cast from this area, it would be difficult and it wouldn't create the shadow we see in the tramp photo.

I'm referring to this area...

44-3630-u-2-2.jpg

This is the area the light is traveling through and the area which is creating the shadows and the patch of sunlight.

Three-Tramps-glasses-crop-ann.jpg

The patch of light in this photo where it says "sun not through lens" is light traveling through this gap (circled in the greeen circle) and is not traveling through the lens. The lens/frame is the shadow with is called out by that annotation.

With how glasses are designed/sit on the face, this area at the hinge creates a large gap. In the current pair I have on, I can stick two fingers in the gap. This is even highlighted in the "shutterstock" photo in your quoted post above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

I'm referring to this area...

44-3630-u-2-2.jpg

This is the area the light is traveling through and the area which is creating the shadows and the patch of sunlight.

Three-Tramps-glasses-crop-ann.jpg

The patch of light in this photo where it says "sun not through lens" is light traveling through this gap (circled in the greeen circle) and is not traveling through the lens.

 

Your green circle has three places where light can shine through: 1) Through the lens; 2) Above the arm; and 3) Below the arm. I am sure you are referring to #3, below the arm.

So you are saying that sunlight travels through the side of the glasses, behind the lens and below the arm. And I am saying "not so" because that light will hit the side of your nose and not exit the other side of nose. I don't know how you cannot see that.

 

Quote

With how glasses are designed/sit on the face, this area at the hinge creates a large gap. In the current pair I have on, I can stick two fingers in the gap.

 

Sure, you can fit a finger or two between the lens and eye. But your fingers cannot pass through your nose to the other side. Your nose will block them. Same thing with light.

 

thinking-young-man-profile-bw-portrait-p

 

BTW, I just realized that my use of the phrase "bridge of the nose" in my prior post would have been better described as "dorsum of the nose," or just plain "nose." This apparently caused some confusion. My apologies.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

Mark,

      I would encourage you and Rob to actually read Prouty's book, JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy.  It's a gold mine of detailed information about the history of the Vietnam War prior to 1964, and JFK's conflicts with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs-- written by an eyewitness who was responsible for creating the Special Operations Office of the Joint Chiefs to coordinate their liaison with the CIA.  (Contrary to on-line disinfo by McAdams, et.al., Prouty was far more than a CIA chauffeur.)

     From your comments here, I can tell that you don't really understand the context of Prouty's  November 1963 Antarctic trip, or the detailed back story of Prouty's involvement in writing the September 1963 McNamara/Taylor Report which led to JFK's October 1963 NSAM263.

     I had to dig up my old paperback copy of the book to find Prouty's detailed account of the incident.

     Herewith... (italics mine)

"By the fall of 1963, I knew perhaps as much as anyone about the detailed workings of this world of special operations.  I had written the formal directives on the subject that were used by the Joint Chiefs for all military services.

Therefore it seemed strange when I was approached after I had come back from a week spent reading intelligence papers in Admiral Felt's headquarters in Hawaii, during September 1963, and informed that I had been selected to be the military escort officer for a group of VIP civilian guests that had been invited to visit the naval station in Antarctica...

...Although the trip had absolutely nothing to do with my previous nine years of work, except that I had supported CIA activity in Antarctica over the years..."

JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy  (Skyhorse Publishing/ 2011, pg. 283-84)

    

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark,

      I would encourage you and Rob to actually read Prouty's book, JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy.  It's a gold mine of detailed information about the history of the Vietnam War prior to 1964, and JFK's conflicts with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs-- written by an eyewitness who was responsible for creating the Special Operations Office of the Joint Chiefs to coordinate their liaison with the CIA.  (Contrary to on-line disinfo by McAdams, et.al., Prouty was far more than a CIA chauffeur.)

     From your comments here, I can tell that you don't really understand the context of Prouty's  November 1963 Antarctic trip, or the detailed back story of Prouty's involvement in writing the September 1963 McNamara/Taylor Report which led to JFK's October 1963 NSAM263.

     I had to dig up my old paperback copy of the book to find Prouty's detailed account of the incident.

     Herewith... (italics mine)

"By the fall of 1963, I knew perhaps as much as anyone about the detailed workings of this world of special operations.  I had written the formal directives on the subject that were used by the Joint Chiefs for all military services.

Therefore it seemed strange when I was approached after I had come back from a week spent reading intelligence papers in Admiral Felt's headquarters in Hawaii, during September 1963, and informed that I had been selected to be the military escort officer for a group of VIP civilian guests that had been invited to visit the naval station in Antarctica...

...Although the trip had absolutely nothing to do with my previous nine years of work, except that I had supported CIA activity in Antarctica over the years..."

JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy  (Skyhorse Publishing/ 2011, pg. 283-84)

    

I don't believe I'm misunderstanding the context, I'm quite familiar with Prouty.

While his 1992 book may have the statements you quote above, in 1996 when given the opportunity to put this on the record he instead stated "It was so routine for them to call me, I didn’t give it a second thought"

Why didn't he tell them "it was strange, I should have been involved with protecting the President. Sending me to Antartica was an obvious (fill in the blank)?" Why did he say it was routine?  

He then goes on to state "And even afterwards, when I heard people extrapolating in that sense-- thinking that it wasn’t my job-- they didn’t know I’d already been working with Antarctica people since 1959.”

The irony being, people think this because of what Prouty himself has said. Statements like "Therefore it seemed strange when I was approached after I had come back from a week spent reading intelligence papers in Admiral Felt's headquarters in Hawaii, during September 1963, and informed that I had been selected to be the military escort officer for a group of VIP civilian guests that had been invited to visit the naval station in Antarctica." and "Although the trip had absolutely nothing to do with my previous nine years of work, except that I had supported CIA activity in Antarctica over the years..." are why people "extrapolating" in the manner they do.

The whole point being discussed here is that Prouty negated his comments in his book and elsewhere when he made his statements to the ARRB. You can continue to bring up all the things he stated throughout his life, but you should instead focus on how he downplayed those comments and backtracked from almost all of them when given the real opportunity to support them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

I don't believe I'm misunderstanding the context, I'm quite familiar with Prouty.

While his 1992 book may have the statements you quote above, in 1996 when given the opportunity to put this on the record he instead stated "It was so routine for them to call me, I didn’t give it a second thought"

Why didn't he tell them "it was strange, I should have been involved with protecting the President. Sending me to Antartica was an obvious (fill in the blank)?" Why did he say it was routine?  

 

Perhaps Prouty didn't want to end up committing "suicide" with a CIA shotgun.  He, obviously, understood full well what the CIA had done to other witnesses during the previous 30 years.

Read the book.  It also describes a number of details about Prouty's consultations with Oliver Stone on the landmark film, JFK.

 

Link to post
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...