Lone Gunman podcast: L. Fletcher Prouty a xxxx?

[Norman T. Field]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

 

+1. My thoughts since the first page of this thread. 

[Jeff Carter]

The 1996 ARRB interview was conducted with the express purpose of identifying records and documents which would qualify as "assassination records". It was not conducted to get personal opinions "into the record" or set the record straight. What Prouty is clearly saying is that he handled Pentagon escorts to the South Pole since 1959, and 1963 was unusual in that it had been requested that he personally make that trip. There is no controversy, and the one which is being manufactured here is entirely irrelevant. 

[Mark Stevens]

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The 1996 ARRB interview was conducted with the express purpose of identifying records and documents which would qualify as "assassination records". It was not conducted to get personal opinions "into the record" or set the record straight. What Prouty is clearly saying is that he handled Pentagon escorts to the South Pole since 1959, and 1963 was unusual in that it had been requested that he personally make that trip. There is no controversy, and the one which is being manufactured here is entirely irrelevant. 

Noone said the purpose was to get opinions or set the records straight. Setting the record straight very much occurred though, numerous times. The point I was making is that instead of providing statements or any evidence whatsoever which supported what he was saying over the years, he said the exact opposite. That matters.

I'm curious to what exactly you read that gave you the impression he "clearly said it was unusual to be sent to Antartica.." His actual word are "it was routine" and "it was my job." How does routine = unusual?

 

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

So after speaking out for 30 years and even consulting on a movie which highlighted his claims, what made him fear the "CIA shotgun" was speaking to the ARRB...

Again, whatever he said in the book became a moot point when he later backtracked on the statements he made in the book. How are you not understanding that?

You keep telling me I need to read the book, but have you read the document on the link? He is being directly asked about the passage you quoted and he directly contradicts it. You then use it as evidence...

(red emphasis mine)

Quote

Allegation 1: Trip to Antarctica may have had sinister connotations.

Prouty went to Antarctica in November 1963 as the military escort for a group of VIP’s. This assignment was out of the ordinary or unusual in some way. [Source: JFK by Oliver Stone]

Previous statement:

. . . [T]his trip had nothing to do with my previous nine years of work, except that I had supported CIA activity in Antarctica over the years. . . . I have always wondered, deep in my own heart, whether that strange invitation that removed me so far from Washington and from the center of all things clandestine that I knew so well might have been connected to the events that followed. Were there things that I knew, or would have discovered, that made it wise to have me far from Washington. . . ?

[ Source: L. Fletcher Prouty, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, Introduction by Oliver Stone (New York: Citadel Press, 1992), p. 284.]

Statements to ARRB:

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.”

Result or conclusion by ARRB: The trip to Antarctica, ascribed sinister intent in the film JFK, was a routine duty for Col. Prouty, and was not particularly unusual. Since there was nothing unusual about the trip, nor is there any apparent connection to the assassination beyond Prouty’s having been on the trip at the time of the shooting, no further research is recommended by ARRB staff. No records relating to the assassination could be reasonably expected to be obtained. Prouty made no statements for the record to back up the suspicions he mentioned in the excerpt from his book cited above.

At the very least, when asked if it was "sinister" he could have said "well no not sinister per se, but I thought it was at least strange because....(fill in the blank)" When instead he said it was routine.

It's because he feared the "CIA shotgun" though...

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, Mark Stevens said:

So after speaking out for 30 years and even consulting on a movie which highlighted his claims, what made him fear the "CIA shotgun" was speaking to the ARRB...

Mark,

     Where did you get the notion that Prouty was "speaking out for 30 years" about his detailed personal knowledge of the secret history of the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy?

     On the contrary, Prouty waited for almost 30 years to finally tell the world what he knew about the Deep State events of late 1963. 

     Any thoughts about why he waited 30 years?

[Mark Stevens]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

I still think there's some confusion, and I'll try to better explain.

I'm not saying the sunlight is coming through at the angle you think I am.

The sun is hitting at a similar angle to this...

You can see only the left side of his face is illuminated by the sun and the sun ends just to the left of his noseline.

The "graphic" shows the direction the sun is hitting the man's face in the tramp photo (and basically in the photo above) as well as the area the sun hits and the only area of glasses I am referring to. Due to the angle of the man's head, the sun does not travel through the right portion just as it does not in the photo above.

 

Here is the same "graphic" highlighting the angle of the sun on the glasses in the tramp photo

The sun is only traveling through the left hand portion of the glasses. You can get a pair of glasses and a lamp/flashlight and recreate this all yourself.

The little section of light at the end of "Sun not through lens" is sunlight traveling through gaps in the glasses and the mans face, it is not light traveling through the lens. For it to be light through the lens he'd have to be looking at the sun... Like I said, lamp/flashlight and a pair of glasses and you can see this for yourself.

[Mark Stevens]

31 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark,

     Where did you get the notion that Prouty was "speaking out for 30 years" about his detailed personal knowledge of the secret history of the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy?

     On the contrary, Prouty waited for almost 30 years to finally tell the world what he knew about the Deep State events of late 1963. 

     Any thoughts about why he waited 30 years?

What makes you think he waited 30 years?

July - 1971...

[W. Niederhut]

56 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

What makes you think he waited 30 years?

Prouty published his major, detailed opus on the subject of the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy, in 1992.

92-63= 29.

[Ron Bulman]

I can't dismiss all of Prouty's observations based on his ARRB "routine" comment.  He had worked on Antarctica since 1959, four years for the CIA "not regularly, when something came up."  

It's been 20 years or so since I read the book still on the top shelf.  I'd never heard of the ARRB then.  I can't remember any reference to a prior trip with business men and a congressman or any others by Prouty.  Had he ever actually been there before?  So the trip might be unusual in that respect?  Since he was sent there when the JFK assassination occurred given he was the JCS - CIA liaison, by Lansdale, Dulles/LeMay's appointed CIA Air Force General, does that not seem unusual? 

[Mark Stevens]

10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Prouty published his major, detailed opus on the subject of the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy, in 1992.

92-63= 29.

That's not waiting 30 years to speak out, that's waiting 30 year to write your book.

He's been speaking out in some degree since the late 60's. In the article I posted from 1971 he basically blames the CIA for JFK's death and says JFK's actions against the CIA created hatred in the agency which culminated in JFK's death.

 

[W. Niederhut]

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I can't dismiss all of Prouty's observations based on his ARRB "routine" comment.  He had worked on Antarctica since 1959, four years for the CIA "not regularly, when something came up."  

It's been 20 years or so since I read the book still on the top shelf.  I'd never heard of the ARRB then.  I can't remember any reference to a prior trip with business men and a congressman or any others by Prouty.  Had he ever actually been there before?  So the trip might be unusual in that respect?  Since he was sent there when the JFK assassination occurred given he was the JCS - CIA liaison, by Lansdale, Dulles/LeMay's appointed CIA Air Force General, does that not seem unusual? 

Bingo.  This lingo about "routine" is misleading.  Was the assignment, technically, within the scope of Prouty's official duties?  Yes.

But the November 1963 Antarctica assignment by Lansdale was unusual -- as Prouty points out in detail in his 1992 opus -- because, at the time, Prouty had been deeply involved, with General Krulak, in helping to document and frame JFK's NSAM263 Vietnam policy.  And the NSAM 263 policy was being discussed and reversed by McGeorge Bundy, et.al., in Honolulu the week JFK was murdered.

In fact, as I recall, the draft of NSAM 273 which LBJ signed on 11/25/63 was dated 11/21/63!

 

[Mark Stevens]

29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bingo.  This lingo about "routine" is misleading.  Was the assignment, technically, within the scope of Prouty's official duties?  Yes.

But the November 1963 Antarctica assignment by Lansdale was unusual -- as Prouty points out in detail in his 1992 opus -- because, at the time, Prouty had been deeply involved, with General Krulak, in helping to document and frame JFK's NSAM263 Vietnam policy.  And the NSAM 263 policy was being discussed and reversed by McGeorge Bundy, et.al., in Honolulu the week JFK was murdered.

In fact, as I recall, the draft of NSAM 273 which LBJ signed on 11/25/63 was dated 11/21/63!

 

The only thing misleading is Prouty.

It matters that when given the opportunity to support his claims he instead backtracked from them.

There is no shortage of people associated with the JFKA changing their stories over the years and no shortage of people taking them to task for it. Why does Prouty get a free pass? 

It's not "lingo" about routine..These are Prouty's own words. Why do you all ignore his own words which negate his past comments? This isn't some outside attack on his statements, this is him negating them with his own words. This is him refusing to defend his comments and not only refusing to defend them, but actually saying the opposite.

We aren't making this up. He really did it. You really don't care though. Why?

Personally, I think Prouty's role all along was to mislead. His position and background makes him the perfect candidate. Surely enough, 99% of the JFKA community has eaten everything he has ever said without taking into account his connections and who he actually is.

 

[Rob Clark]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

But the November 1963 Antarctica assignment by Lansdale was unusual --

Third time I'm asking...what is the citation for Lansdale personally sending Prouty to Antarctica? Other than Prouty said so? Any documents or corraboration backing this claim up?

 

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

The only thing misleading is Prouty. 

It matters that when given the opportunity to support his claims he instead backtracked from them.

There is no shortage of people associated with the JFKA changing their stories over the years and no shortage of people taking them to task for it. Why does Prouty get a free pass? 

It's not "lingo" about routine..These are Prouty's own words. Why do you all ignore his own words which negate his past comments? This isn't some outside attack on his statements, this is him negating them with his own words. This is him refusing to defend his comments and not only refusing to defend them, but actually saying the opposite.

We aren't making this up. He really did it. You really don't care though. Why?

Personally, I think Prouty's role all along was to mislead. His position and background makes him the perfect candidate. Surely enough, 99% of the JFKA community has eaten everything he has ever said without taking into account his connections and who he actually is.

 

All accurate and true statements. I would add that Col Reich, whom Prouty specifically named, claimed it was all B.S. My guess would be, that being called to the carpet by an actual government backed investigation that had access to all the records and could interview key witnesses, he knew his gig was up and didn't even try to lie. Probably figured no one would ever know what he told the ARRB until after he was dead...which was true.

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

Third time I'm asking...what is the citation for Lansdale personally sending Prouty to Antarctica? Other than Prouty said so? Any documents or corraboration backing this claim up?

 

All accurate and true statements. I would add that Col Reich, whom Prouty specifically named, claimed it was all B.S. My guess would be, that being called to the carpet by an actual government backed investigation that had access to all the records and could interview key witnesses, he knew his gig was up and didn't even try to lie. Probably figured no one would ever know what he told the ARRB until after he was dead...which was true.

If Prouty made this all up...why would he do so?

The man had a stellar, high achievement, high rank, high assignment ( liason to the White House?)  full military career with so many commendations.

Why would he risk his entire outstanding military career legacy to do something like you are suggesting ... making up parts of his JFK conspiracy story?

IMO someone would have to be suffering from brain damage to do something so antithetical to their entire life's achievments and mental, moral and professional ethics.

And if Prouty did commit such an irresponsible and even unpatriotic act of making his claims up, why would someone of equally high military career stature like General Victor Krulak stand by Prouty until his own passing?

Today, we see many top former military generals and admirals as well as former highest position intelligence and state and foreign service members doing something unprecedented in expressing their concern for the country in condemning Donald Trump in the most public way. Television news show interviews, signing their names to official group proclamation letters, writing op-ed pieces published in newspapers and magazines. 

I believe Prouty sensed with all his being, that JFK was taken out by others in high positions of power. And he risked his entire military career standing in asking questions in interviews and books and assisting researchers and presenting incongruous actions he saw happen before and up to JFK in Dallas, and even going so far as to suspect some involvement by the super aggressive planner of government overthrows Lansdale.

A commitment and sacrifice very similar to Jim Garrison.

Even though they both knew some parts of their theories might be wrong in certain aspects imo.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[W. Niederhut]

43 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

If Prouty made this all up...why would he do so?

The man had a stellar, high achievement, high rank, high assignment ( liason to the White House?)  full career with so many commendations.

Why would he risk his entire outstanding military career legacy to do something like you are suggesting ... making up parts of his JFK conspiracy story?

IMO someone would have to be suffering from brain damage to do something so antithetical to their entire life's achievments and mental, moral and professional ethics.

And if Prouty did commit such an irresponsible and even unpatriotic act of making his claims up, why would someone of equally high military career stature like General Victor Krulak stand by Prouty until his own passing?

Today, we see many top former military generals and admirals as well as former highest position intelligence and state and foreign service members doing something unprecedented in expressing their concern for the country in condemning Donald Trump in the most public way. Television news show interviews, signing their names to official group proclamation letters, writing op-ed pieces published in newspapers and magazines. 

I believe Prouty sensed with all his being, that JFK was taken out by others in high positions of power. And he risked his entire military career standing to asking questions in interviews and books and assisting researchers, presenting incongruous actions he saw happen before and up to JFK in Dallas, and even going so far as to suspect some involvement by the super aggressive planner of government overthrows Lansdale.

A commitment and sacrifice very similar to Jim Garrison.

Even though they both knew some parts of their theories might be wrong in certain aspects imo.

Well said, Joe.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone who has carefully studied his work would impugn L. Fletcher Prouty's integrity.  He was a gem, and a rare, perceptive witness of important Deep State events during JFK's presidency who spilled the beans. 

He mentioned in one of his books, possibly The Secret Team, that he was one person involved in CIA Special Ops who never had to sign one of Allen Dulles's Non-Disclosure Agreements.

Two questions that I have for Mark and Rob.

1)  Have you read JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy?

2)  If Prouty was not concerned about being targeted by the CIA, why was he so careful about concealing his contact with Jim Garrison during the Garrison investigation?

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

If Prouty made this all up...why would he do so?

The man had a stellar, high achievement, high rank, high assignment ( liason to the White House?)  full career with so many commendations.

Why would he risk his entire outstanding military career legacy to do something like you are suggesting ... making up parts of his JFK conspiracy story?

IMO someone would have to be suffering from brain damage to do something so antithetical to their entire life's achievments and mental, moral and professional ethics.

And if Prouty did commit such an irresponsible and even unpatriotic act of making his claims up, why would someone of equally high military career stature like General Victor Krulak stand by Prouty until his own passing?

Today, we see many top former military generals and admirals as well as former highest position intelligence and state and foreign service members doing something unprecedented in expressing their concern for the country in condemning Donald Trump in the most public way. Television news show interviews, signing their names to official group proclamation letters, writing op-ed pieces published in newspapers and magazines. 

I believe Prouty sensed with all his being, that JFK was taken out by others in high positions of power. And he risked his entire military career standing to asking questions in interviews and books and assisting researchers, presenting incongruous actions he saw happen before and up to JFK in Dallas, and even going so far as to suspect some involvement by the super aggressive planner of government overthrows Lansdale.

A commitment and sacrifice very similar to Jim Garrison.

Even though they both knew some parts of their theories might be wrong in certain aspects imo.

This is an impossible question to answer. I can't tell you why he lied, but the fact that he did lie, or at the best mislead through his statements is evident.

Why did Files lie? Why did Rachel Dolezal pretend to be black? Why do people tell all the lies they do? There is no answer for those questions (actually their often are...money..mental illness..etc) but just because we can't fathom the "why" someone would do something doesn't mean they actually didn't do it. Maybe the psychiatrist can help us understand what motivates a person to lie or to embellish stories with facts that aren't....factual.

40 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well said, Joe.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone who has carefully studied his work would impugn L. Fletcher Prouty's integrity.  He was a gem, and a rare, perceptive witness of important Deep State events during JFK's presidency who spilled the beans. 

He mentioned in one of his books, possibly The Secret Team, that he was one person involved in CIA Special Ops who never had to sign one of Allen Dulles's Non-Disclosure Agreements.

Two questions that I have for Mark and Rob.

1)  Have you read JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy?

2)  If Prouty was not concerned about being targeted by the CIA, why was he so careful about concealing his contact with Jim Garrison during the Garrison investigation?

I'm surprised that more people do not view Prouty with suspicion and question his motivations for speaking to Garrison (as well as his subsequent claims) and why many don't wonder if he was part of an elaborate scheme to disinform.

I have read one Prouty book, but it was some time ago and I can't recall which it was. I think it was Secret Team. Reading a book he wrote in 1992 doesn't change the fact the he erased this book with his ARRB testimony.

Why do you keep referencing this book as if it is the end all be all? The value of the book is negated by his subsequent statements. What are you not understanding about this? 

As far as being targeted by the CIA, I guess it depends on how you look at it, which could be at least two different ways.

Scenario 1...he is being truthful...He would likely want to conceal his identity because he was still actively employed by the U.S. Government. I believe almost the second he retired he began speaking out against the CIA, Vietnam, JFK and other issues. I don't know off hand when he first made the "JFK" claims, but he did not wait 30 years to do so. He almost immediately began making the statements he made throughout his life as soon as he retired.

Scenario 2...he is part of a disinfo op...Him hiding his identity and being all "cloak and dagger" with Garrison...doesn't that make it all sweeter? The mystery? The flair? The danger? The bullxxxx?

Like I've said and shown to be true, he was not in fear of being targeted by the CIA for his statements because he immediately started saying those things when he retired. He repeated those claims in print and in tv and radio until 1996 when he backtracked, downplayed, and pretended he didn't understand why people like you were making "much ado about nothing."

Anyone who believes in Garrison believes he was sabotaged and infiltrated from the start. How would this not fit right into that? How much of Garrison's focus became tied to the claims of Prout...I mean Col. "X"?