Greg Burnham

I would appreciate it if the contributors to this thread would consider the thrust of my presentation before posting.

In that presentation I submitted that we are playing into the hands of those who would obstruct justice when we, again, continue to rehash items of so-called "evidence," which more often than not is in conflict with other items of so-called "evidence." Researchers have, quite understandably, not given the same amount of weight to each item of so-called "evidence." Rather the value of each item is weighted according to the opinion of that researcher. And the opinion of each researcher is instructed, in part, by his or her education, critical thinking skills, personal bias and so forth.

And so round and round we go...again. Until we choose to stop.

Can we take a break from that exercise...just for now...just in this thread?

If we do, perhaps we will discover that there are items of equal or greater value to discuss other than the mountain of conflicting evidence that has been the subject of our effort for over a half century, but has led us nowhere.

Greg - bravo and thanks. I personally think Salandria and Shotz were right, as are you. Strange isn't it, that 51 years have passed and we still haven't figured out that the only thing that matters is whether we can ever put this world right and bring Peace. I know I feel hopeless about this, and I know that was the point of the '60's assassinations. To some, this desire and hope for peace is just foolish idealism, not realistic. The world has never known peace for any length of time. But like you I am convinced that JFK wanted peace on earth and was earnestly trying to move the world in that direction, and that it was this that led to his death at the hands of the Masters of War. If we really want to honor his life and avenge his death we should work towards his vision. It's a tall order.

Paul,

I appreciate your feedback.

I ask that anyone who feels this thing--or even who has felt this thing--to remember why they feel it. Do they shed a tear for JFK because he was a beloved leader? Because he was a charismatic and affable President? Do we feel anguish because we lost his wit and his charm? Do we cry for the loss of his sense of humor during news conferences? Do we miss his qualities of compassion? Do we mourn the passing of one so young who possibly saved the world from nuclear holocaust?

Or is it more than that?

I want to know why we let die that which he was leading us to accomplish? I want to know who will stand up and refuse to allow his vision to remain in the grave with him? I want to know how it is that we were fooled into believing that what he stood for was assassinated with him the day he died?

The answers to those questions are far more important to me than is the answer to the question: "Who done it?"

His mission was to empower all of us to a better way. That he was killed was the price he paid to leave us with that legacy. But it is the human legacy, not the Kennedy legacy, with which he gifted us.

When shall we embrace it if not now?

I'd like to thank David Lifton for edifying us by publishing an entire chapter from his upcoming book in this thread!

Seriously, though...

David: Imagining that any of the Cabinet members on the Tokyo flight had a "need to know" anything about the TOP SECRET Honolulu Conference and Vietnam Policy is ludicrous. The DRAFT of NSAM 273 is entirely and unequivocally about Vietnam Policy. Paragraph 4 is the ONLY paragraph that stands alone without any apparent context applying. IT MADE NO SENSE for the presumably still sitting President to instruct the Cabinet Members to refrain from ARGUING about the contents of the Honolulu Conference when they had NO KNOWLEDGE of it in the first place!

There are more factors at work here than the mere "mechanisms" utilized to transition power from one man to another. It is a very nuanced operation that is perhaps more real on the psychological level than it is on the political.

There was no need to tell the Cabinet to avoid the appearance or reality of recrimination of one part of the government against another in the context of TOP SECRET talks (to which the public was not even privy) regarding an area of Government Policy that was not related to any of the Cabinet members' roles within government who were aboard that flight. The Secretary of Agriculture? Puleeeez! It has absolutely no context.

Even if my interpretation is partially flawed, yours appears entirely irrelevant.

BTW: ". . . psychologically enslave the American people through the destruction of critical thinking. . ." -- is a Burnham quote. Not Salandria.

Another quite disappointing portion of your lengthy post, IMO, involves your lack of appreciation of some pertinent facts. One such fact is the reason that McNamara felt he had been lied to was because he had, in fact, been lied to (or misled) on the orders of JFK. The McNamara/Taylor Report was based on JFK's long standing opposition to our involvement in Indochina that dated back to 1951, when he first gave a speech to that effect as a Congressman. He gave an even stronger speech in opposition to our involvement in Indochina while he was a member of the Senate in 1954.

At the time of the signing of NSAM 263, JFK had effected an "end run" around both the SECDEF (McNamara) and the CJCS (Taylor) by dictating the content of the McNamara/Taylor Trip Report, which spawned NSAM 263, without their participation and without their knowledge while they were still in Vietnam. It was written BEFORE they returned and before they even had time to compile their notes from the trip. JFK knew that, at the very least, he needed the "stamp of approval" at the highest levels (CJCS and SECDEF) if he was to extricate us from Vietnam. In an otherwise brilliant--had it not proved so dangerous--move he went a step further: He made the Vietnam Withdrawal Policy THEIR idea (McNamara/Taylor Trip Report * ) so that it appeared that he was approving THEIR recommendation (NSAM 263), thus avoiding the politically suicidal label of "soft on Communism" from sticking to him before the beginning of an election year. Moreover, the "Vietnam progress reports" that came into the White House were carefully screened and selectively chosen so that only those that could be interpreted to mean that the war effort was succeeding and that the GOV of SVN no longer needed our presence to sustain themselves would be reviewed.

McNamara probably didn't sign off on the plot. I never said he did. He was a "company man" bred to run a big corporation, like say, FORD Motor Company. He got to be the President of that Company by being a "Yes man" up the chain of command. Once high enough he secured his power there. At some point during his tenure as SECDEF he appears to have reverted back to being to a Yes Man again.

You are correct that not all of those in Washington wanted JFK dead. Nobody said otherwise. Indeed, in order for JFK to have gotten even as far as he did in his withdrawal policy there was much help garnered from those of a like mind or who were loyal to their Commander-in-Chief.

Finally, as to the comments regarding the changed political "climate" in Vietnam as the result of the assassination of DIEM, the State Department Cable of November 13 sets out the purpose of the Honolulu Conference as per the Policy of the USGOV delineated in NSAM 263. It refers to discussing the implementation of the recommendations (approved by the President) from the McNamara/Taylor Trip Report. This is nearly two weeks FOLLOWING the assassination of Diem. There is no mention of reevaluating the current US Policy in light of the changed political landscape following the fall of the Diem Regime. The purpose of the Honolulu Conference was to begin the process of working out the logistics of a complete withdrawal from Vietnam within the timeframe of NSAM 263. That the State Department's: Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) documents are very sketchy as to the conference's discussions is suspect, but, even relying on the scant record, there is NO indication that any discussions took place that would have led to a conclusion that NSAM 263 was being reversed or even delayed. I have been unable to find a record of any official discussions from the Honolulu Conference that could have logically led to the DRAFT of NSAM 273 being signed on the evening of November 21, 1963.

-------------------

* The ONLY section of McNamara/Taylor Trip Report that JFK approved by signing NSAM 263:

[sECTION] 1: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

B. Recommendations.

We recommend that:

1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965. This review would consider the need for such changes as:

a. A further shift of military emphasis and strength to the Delta (IV Corps).
b. An increase in the military tempo in all corps areas, so that all combat troops are in the field an average of 20 days out of 30 and static missions are ended.
c. Emphasis on “clear and hold operations” instead of terrain sweeps which have little permanent value.
d. The expansion of personnel in combat units to full authorized strength.
e. The training and arming of hamlet militia to an accelerated rate, especially in the Delta.
f. A consolidation of the strategic hamlet program, especially in the Delta, and action to insure that future strategic hamlets are not built until they can be protected, and until civic action programs can be introduced.

2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

And off the track we go again.

What I hear are two clueless men.

Yes. And I am reading the post of another.

Where is the depth?

I was hoping that at least one person over the years would admit that either Hoover was in fact indicating that there was a shot from the front that was blocked by Connally, if we are to interpret his words literally. But that seems to easy. Too "in your face" to be true. The more likely scenario that I normally don't mention until I've allowed others to come to it for themselves is this:

J Edgar Hoover was "running the story by" the new President. You can hear it in his tone and in the tone of LBJ's responses. Some of the contrived story being proposed "plays better" than other parts. You can hear LBJ in the role of devil's advocate all along the way. Even he's not buying a lot of it.

I encourage researchers to listen to this recording again, for themselves, with this new possibility in mind. For the sake of this analysis listen with the assumption that LBJ is "playing Devil's advocate" as he listens to Hoover run a first pass of the FBI's Official Report by him. IMO: It's a perfect match.

As I wrote on my forum:

I think that it is a slippery slope for me to require any member to respond to my presentation as though they are filling out a template. That is certainly not my intent.

Thanks to all who responded to this thread.

Yet what I would like to discuss isn't so much a critique of my performance--good or bad--but rather the specifics of what makes the thrust of its content relevant, if anything.

If JFK, still functioning as the sitting President, could speak to us from the grave--what would he instruct us to do?

Do we already know what those instructions would be?

And, if we do know what he would instruct us to do by virtue of our understanding what he stood for, have we heeded those instructions?

If we have not, why not?

In my view JFK was entirely assassinated in order to prevent Global Peace from breaking out. Not just peace in Vietnam and elsewhere in the world during the Cold War, but to prevent Peace on Earth.

And off the track it goes.

So soon, Tommy?

The "details" be damned in this thread.

The "why" is everything. No matter "the how or the who."

What it means supersedes what it is...

I posted a YouTube of my presentation, Assassination of JFK: Assimilating the Anguish, on the EF the other day.

The silence is deafening.

It has received nearly 200 views. Yet, not a single peep.

From anyone. Not even from those who would normally criticize anything I offer if only out of spite.

Did it mean so little? Did it bring no value? Did it fail to strike a chord or hit a single nerve?

Did I miss the mark?

This is not an appeal for praise. It is not an appeal for recognition, kudos, a slap on the back or an "Atta-boy, Greg" --

It is an appeal for understanding.

Of human connection.

I awoke this morning with a "Gregorianism" twisting in my mind:

"When a man who labors under the false illusion that he is destined by fate to lead, nonetheless attracts not a single follower, he is doomed to forever run in circles pursuing the allusive relevance of his own tales."

I must revisit "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" for a tune-up. I'm overdue for mine by a hundred thousand miles or a hundred million words, whichever came first. I've apparently lost track.

The Warren Report 50 Years Later

A Critical Approach

In September of 2014 the JFK Historical Group hosted a conference outside of Washington, DC where select researchers were invited to evaluate the Warren Report on the 50th anniversary of its release. The presentations were filmed and are available on DVD (7 DVD's in all). They are of very high quality and can be ordered through the JFK Historical Group's website.

I wrote a short article on my website and have made my presentation available for viewing on YouTube. The DVD version does not have the counter running at the bottom and can be played on any DVD player.

Assassination of JFK: Assimilating the Anguish

Presented by Greg Burnham

September 27, 2014

Crowne Plaza Hotel

Alexandria, VA

You're welcome, Brad. And thank you very much for the kind words. I am humbled.

Hi Brad,

Yes, that is from a radio show during which Jim Fetzer interviewed me. Although there are some relatively minor errors and/or omissions during the introduction (none of which effect the subject), my description is as thorough as I can be.

I'd like to take the opportunity to comment briefly on my own standards as to how this evidence should be treated.

Because I cannot go into more specific details as to the circumstances of the viewing(s), I do not expect others to: "Take my word for it." Indeed, even if I could be more specific, many might remain skeptical for reasons that they feel are legitimate. I can accept that and I hope that others can accept it, too.

After all, I would, more likely than not, be among those who are "suspiciously guarded" --at best--if the shoe were on the other foot.

Therefore I personally believe very strongly that without the (alleged) "other film" being openly revealed for public scrutiny -- an extremely unlikely scenario -- the "other film" should not be improperly "admitted" into evidence. Under such conditions, it cannot be relied upon as "proof" and should rarely be relied upon as any type of corroborative "Cite to Authority." The very foundation--upon which any such reliance could be properly permitted--is absent; namely, its very existence has not been sufficiently established for those objecting.

Even in my own opinion, since it has not been "entered into evidence" due to its absence, its utility is narrowly limited. That I happen to be someone who claims to have seen this evidence does not mean that I have the luxury of adhering to a lower standard than I would require of others if the situation was reversed.

That there are several eyewitnesses to such a film's existence could be considered significant by some, depending partly on the credibility of those eyewitnesses. Others would find "credibility" irrelevant without "seeing the evidence" for themselves. Such judgments--regarding the credibility of a particular witness--are just as often made arbitrarily as others are made after being well thought out. Even though they are almost contradictory, I find merit in each approach--so long as it is made in good faith.

For even IF we were to assume its existence, and further stipulate to its more true recordation of the events of November 22, 1963 than the extant version and further assume it did get released to the public...what difference will that make?

Whether or not the films are admissible--both the extant Z-film AND the "other film"--is irrelevant to me.

I have sufficient evidence that the official account is false without needing the "other film" to prove it. Since discussion of the "other film" has itself become a source of divisiveness, it distracts rather than clarifies. At this point, it has become extraneous, as well.

That's okay. I needed no further proof of conspiracy.

I have more than enough.

The fact is, MOST of us have NEVER seen any footage showing Clint Hill slapping Jackie.

To cite that he did, you must also be ready to produce a source for that. Otherwise, it comes off as someone's fantasy.

Where was it seen? Who saw it? Is there a written source, or was this someone's verbal statement? CAN IT BE VERIFIED?

Rich Dellarosa told me about it. We talked about it a lot. I never heard he slapped her, as this individual said. The film shows everything we don't see in the Z film. Rich was in the air force and saw it twice in a theater on a college campus. Another time the "other" film showed up on a TV show in the background. They accidently showed the wrong film. Burnham said he saw it too.

I did NOT see Clint Hill "slap" Jackie in the "other film" and I never have said that I did.

Moreover, I can assure the members of this forum that Rich dellaRosa did not claim that the film he saw showed Clint Hill slap Jackie. He never wrote that anywhere and he never mentions it in any interview, including his 2009 Black Op Radio interview.

I cannot claim to know what Rich told Ms. Collins. However, based on her false claim above: "Burnham said he saw it too...." I advise caution.

-------------

Kathy, I think it best of we choose to steer clear of each other. I will not address you, talk behind your back, or in any way disrespect you. I would appreciate the same courtesy. I only responded this time because you brought my name up and I needed to set the record straight. Let's leave it at that.

The "other film" did not have a sound track.

For the record, I have no axe to grind with Ms. Collins and I wish her well. I do not consider her an "enemy" (bitter or otherwise) and I never have.

Something needs to be done now.

5 Minute Documentary

I stand corrected.

Do you believe that General Victor "Brute" Krulak, former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would identify the subject--in no uncertain terms--as Lansdale if he didn't feel certain about it? Seriously?

I don't have an opinion about Krulak's opinion.

I DO have an opinion about Prouty's claim that he didn't prompt Krulak whatsoever. He clearly did, so that part of his claim is untrue.

Note that in Prouty's letter of reply the name of E Howard Hunt comes up as Prouty mentions in passing: "Many have said one of the tramps was Howard Hunt. It looks like him." -- Yet even though Prouty was very familiar with Howard Hunt, and Hunt was a known CIA Operative, and the photo shows this "tramp's" full face -- Prouty's only, rather non-committal, comment is that "It looks like him." He doesn't say, "It's him." After all, a lot of people "look like" a lot of other people.

Didn't Prouty also suggest that Conein was also in Dealey Plaza that day?

I didn't ask for your "opinion of Krulak's opinion."

I asked if you really believe that Krulak would make the statement if he wasn't certain? Even Gerry Hemming, who had originally adamantly denied it was Lansdale, accepted it as a result of Krulak's certainty. Gerry knew Krulak well enough to know he would not make statements like that on a whim.

You keep bringing this back to Prouty. Why? I thought the subject of this thread that you started is: "Was it Lansdale?"

The topic isn't "Is Prouty honest?"

So I ask again, upon what basis do you reject General Victor Krulak's positive identification of Ed Lansdale in the photo?

These are great documents, Greg - Thanks for posting them. The May 26 letter back to Krulack has a lot of intriguing information and I have never seen it before.

It's interesting that he mentions the "Hunt as a tramp" topic. I know he worked closely with EHH for a time, and I have heard him mention Hunt in relation to many things in interviews, but never heard him say whenever he thought Hunt may have been involved...I'll infer from the letter that he thinks EHH would have the character to be part of the plot.

Another interesting thing is his mention of Lansdale's relationship with Nixon, which I had known about, but is worthy of more investigation. I think it's taken as a given for some researchers that Lansdale was strictly opposed to the overthrow/assassination of Diem, but I don't know if it's as cut-and-dry as that. Prouty alludes to this. It's even more curious given his close association with Conein, who was working in Vietnam under supervision of Nixon's running mate, HCL....and who's Hunt's first choice for CIA man in the plumbers? Conein. (Also, strangely, in Nixon's last phone conversation with Ehrlichman, he strongly denies ever knowing of Hunt prior to Colson hiring him - which is of course a lie - but specifically mentions knowing about Conein.)

Finally, I'd like to find out more about who his friends were in the CIA and who hated him (as Prouty mentions, "During this extended period of long association I learned that EGL was either liked or violently disliked. He was a great behind-the-scene, solo operator. He traveled quite a bit. My CIA friends used to tell me about how many CIA men, and especially French Intelligence men, would gladly have shot him). Definitely some points worthy of further research.

You're welcome, Brian. We must have cross posted there. Funny that you raised the reference to Howard Hunt at the same time I was also raising the reference, but for a different reason. Prouty is not certain--and neither is Krulak or he would have mentioned it--that the tramp is Hunt.

I think it is important to note that Krulak says (regarding Lansdale's presence): "What in the world was he doing there?"

Some have been critical of Krulak for asking that question. As if to say: Duh? I disagree. It was Krulak's spontaneous reaction to an outrageous circumstance. What kind of "coincidence" could possibly be responsible for such a presence? NONE. -- But Krulak's comment is vitally important for a different reason, too. When taken literally it means more than one thing.

The first: Krulak's response indicates his absolute belief that it is, in fact, Lansdale in the Plaza. For without Krulak's ABSOLUTE conviction that Lansdale is present in the photo, Krulak would never have raised the question as to the "Why was Lansdale there?" in the first place. The latter pre-supposes the former else it lacks logical context.

Second: I used the word "why" [above] but his literal question was: "What [in the world] was he doing there?" -- Where the phrase "in the world" was employed for affect, the remainder is the heart of the question. IOW: "What was he doing there?" The implication being, "Lansdale was doing something there, but what was it?" Victor Krulak and Fletcher Prouty both would recognize the egregious breach in Trade Craft that such a presence would represent if Lansdale was aware of the assassination before the fact.

I once asked Fletch: "Is it possible that Lansdale was unwittingly lured there?" Prouty: "Unlikely. But a very interesting consideration."

[EDIT] Sorry, Brian--I wrote the following for Mr. Valenti before you posted your reply. It wasn't meant for you. I'll reply to you next.

So back to the point:

Do you believe that General Victor "Brute" Krulak, former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would identify the subject--in no uncertain terms--as Lansdale if he didn't feel certain about it? Seriously?

Note that in Prouty's letter of reply the name of E Howard Hunt comes up as Prouty mentions in passing: "Many have said one of the tramps was Howard Hunt. It looks like him." -- Yet even though Prouty was very familiar with Howard Hunt, and Hunt was a known CIA Operative, and the photo shows this "tramp's" full face -- Prouty's only, rather non-committal, comment is that "It looks like him." He doesn't say, "It's him." After all, a lot of people "look like" a lot of other people.

The only persons who have consistently claimed that Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty was a nut are John McAdams and Gary Mack. This thread, as I suspected, was a hit piece against Fletcher Prouty from the start. Some took the bait. I took the hook, line, rod, reel, boat, trailer, and trailer hitch. Your theory don't float.

As of 1962 the top brass at the FAA didn't think that Colonel Prouty was a "nut" either.

May 26 1985

Victor H. Krulak

3665 Carleton Street

San Diego, CA

92106

Dear General,

Your good letter of 15 March 85 arrived while I was on a trip. This trip entailed a surge of work that has continued until now and, as I was working on this letter, I got another call and had to leave for a quick trip to Portland, OR. That led to more work. These interruptions certainly don't give an indication of my deep interest in your letter. As you can imagine, the information you provided is most important.

I shall look up "First to Fight' and "Organization for National Security" and read them as soon as I can. The brief review of your activities since we both left SACSA was most welcome; and your notes concerning the pictures I had sent to you are remarkable. I feel as though we have come across a barren bit of ground and that together we have found it to be more fertile than either of us, singly, had thought it would be. 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?

Somewhere I have the name of the photographer, and I'll get it. He was a regular commercial photographer who had run around and shot a lot of pictures that day. These pictures, this most unusual series, were - he thought - going to be important. Later, when few if any newspapers seemed interested in them, he wondered what had happened to the "tramps" whom those "policemen" had delivered to the Dallas County Sheriff's office.

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. 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.

To my knowledge no one has ever given any thought to the extra man, our friend. He has been accepted as a simple, uncomplicated pedestrian.

Not too long after the appearance of this set of pictures, they were referred to me on the chance I might recognize a CIA associate of some kind. I studied them carefully, concealing the fact that I was startled to see Ed Lansdale in the pictures. I had spotted him immediately.

This was years ago, in the Sixties, and I was much closer to EGL then. As a matter of fact I used to see him rather frequently during the Sixties. I was VP of a bank that was across the street from a CIA-leased building in Arlington, and he would pop up now and then from that building.

This is an unusual person. I used to fly into the Philippines during l952-1954 rather frequently. I would always stay at Clark where I had several friends. From time to time I'd hear stories about this "Air Force" officer who was working with Capt. Magsaysay. We flew to Saigon and Bangkok also on trips back and forth out of Tokyo. In 1953 I became Commander of that MATS outfit and my regular business included Clark-Saigon-Bangkok, among others... out of Tokyo. On several trips between Clark and Saigon I had groups of officials (USAFilipino6-CHINATS) who were with EGL. He had become a kingmaker by getting Ramon Magsaysay "elected" President of the Philippines.

After the fall of Dienbienphu, he was called back to the USA to discuss a similar "Robin Hood" operation in SVN. Allen Dulles dispatched him to Saigon as head of the Saigon Military Mission (a CIA cover) with orders to create a leader out of Ngo Dinh Diem. They became fast friends, and much of the early activity in SVN may be directly laid at his feet. He had full sway over the CIA there, and the CIA had operational control of the military as they were until the Marines landed in 1964. During this period, 1952-1954, I met EGL a few times there and got quite familiar with his Filipino and Vietnamese activities. For example: I flew a big Italian radar unit into Saigon for him in 1954.

I began my CIA-related work in Hq USAF in 1955 and was told to create an office for "The USAF support of the clandestine operations of the CIA". I wrote the procedures and got CofS:USAF (Gen. White) to approve it and then took it to Allen Dulles for his OK. Dulles sent me on a round-the-world trip to most of his overseas stations. That was my PhD.

Then EGL arrived in the Directorate of Plans on the Air Staff...a fish out of water. My office, "Team B" was there. We met again and we spent quite a bit of time together; but he could not get settled in with the Air Staff. Dulles and the "Big E" decided to help him; so in about 1959 he went to Erskine's office, the office of Special Operations: OSD. Shortly after he went down there I was ordered to that office where I reported in May 1960.

During this extended period of long association I learned that EGL was either liked or violently disliked. He was a great behind-the-scene, solo operator. He traveled quite a bit. My CIA friends used to tell me about how many CIA men, and especially French Intelligence men, would gladly have shot him.

Then in early 1960 be got rather close to Nixon and they got approval for the operation that became the "Bay of Pigs". He remained actively interested in Laos and SVN. He was somehow involved in Algeria. He wanted to be the Ambassador to Saigon and talked with me about this dream frequently. Achieving this depended on the election of Richard Nixon. The JFK victory jolted his plans, and he took off on a long trip to SVN right after the election - Nov 1960.

As he was planning this trip he had me go in town "to buy the grandest present I could find for Diem", I went to Callamer's and ordered the biggest desk set you ever saw. When it was delivered EGL liked it and told me to rush back in town to get a big brass plaque to put on it. He dictated the words "Ngo Dinh Diem: The Father of His Country". I was out over $700 and it was a long time before he got the paperwork arranged to pay me back. Diem died with that thing still on his desk.

EGL was disturbed when Erskine retired from OSD and McNamara abolished OSO/OSD. EGL had hoped to take over that job. That left him with a small, very nominal office by mid '61. At this time Earle Wheeler and McNamara called me in to tell me they were going to put my office in the JCS where I would cover all services and be placed within a new structure to be called: SACSA. There I had three bosses in quick succession: Craig (USA), Heintges (USA/CIA), Krulak (USMC).

During mid '63 was quite disturbed because of the worsening situation in Saigon and the growing disenchantment with Diem. Although he had always been a "Diem" supporter that does not mean he would have always been one to the end. I noted, in the behind-the-scenes action, it was a very close associate of his (Conien) who had been selected to be the contact man to the plotters against Diem, specifically to Big Minh. I do not know what EGL's role may have been then... if any. Of course you had been out there at that pivotal time, and you may have a much better idea of things than I. That was a crucial time for EGL because he lost Diem as leverage.

Then we all worked on the McNamara-Taylor Trip Report to JFK and that brought us up to the day of the loss of Diem and his brother. As I recall, the USA had provided air-travel for them to go to Europe, an Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting; but at the lest minute, unaccountably, both Diems backed away from the plane and returned to the Palace to find it empty. They ran through the tunnel to Cholon and were captured there.

Since the views expressed in the McNamara-Taylor Report were those of JFK and his closest advisors, coming from them via your own participation, I am sure - had JFK lived - that further USA activity in SVN would have been reduced considerably. I fully expected to see us out of SVN as soon as JFK had been re-elected. The "home by Christmas" element of the JFK plan was simply the start, and a cue to where he was going. I believe he had confided this to Mike Mansfield.

With the McNamara-Taylor Report work done I began to prepare for the trip to New Zealand and Antarctica. As you knows by that time I had been in the Pentagon, close to key positions, for 9 years, consecutively. I had many good friends and many reliable and perceptive sources. It was my belief that things in the Pentagon and in the White House were growing tense about the time I left for the Pacific.

After my visit to Antarctica we returned to New Zealand. A Congressman, Pete Abele, R-Ohio, and I got a Navy car and were driven to the N.Z. Alps, Mt Cook. It is a beautiful resort in a place called the Hermitage.

As I came down to breakfast the morning after we had arrived, I took a table and sipped coffee waiting for Pete to come. Outside, through huge picture windows, I could see snow-capped Mt Cook, and I could see a small, ski-wheel equipped Cessna leaving an air-strip to deposit skiers, 5 at a time, on a shoulder of the mountain above us.

The PA system was announcing the air-lift schedule for skiers in groups of five. Then the voice stopped. It came back with: "Ladies and Gentlemen, the BBC have announced that President Kennedy has been shot, dead, in Dallas." Total silence followed.

At that moment, Pete reached the table. His face was ashen. "did you hear what I just heard?" There was not another word of news. All around us the hundreds of New Zealand natives put down their coffee cups. Ladies wiped tears from their eyes. Outside in the beautiful springtime sunlight there was a tall flag-pole with the Union Jack flying in the breeze. Instinctively the entire group moved out around the flagpole. They recognized us as Americans and I told some of them that Pete was a Congressman. They gathered around him. Then a man from the hotel came out, untied the flag cord and lowered the British emblem to half-mast. I understand that was the first time that had ever been done, for an American.

We cut short out stay, and left that morning. There still was no news and the car had no radio. We arrived in Christchurch that PM and saw our first newspaper. It carried a Reuters story that the President had been hit by "rapid fire from automatic weapons". It also carried lengthy items about Lee Harvey Oswald.

Pete and I talked about the event, I recall saying that I had been trained in "Protection" (I had gone to Mexico City with the Eisenhower party in 1956). I felt something must have gone wrong in the Secret Service and their customary Army "Protection" services. There is no way, under protection tactics, that a lone gunman could have had access to an open and unobserved Sixth Floor window directly over the cavalcade. No way! Furthermore, the "lone gunman" did not agree with the "automatic weapons" of the on the spot Reuters account. Also, how could a paper in distant Christchurch have had so much news on Oswald so quickly?

I am fully aware of instantaneous transmission; what I mean is who could have researched and have had that all written for immediate transmission around the world?

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.

When I got back to Washington four or five days later, I listened to and read all I could about this unusual event. I was convinced it could not have happened as the story was being told.

Someone, in power or with access to the inside of power near the top, had been able to create a security vacuum in Dallas. The usual Army organization that augments the Secret Service, the 113th Group, had been told they would not be needed in Dallas. The Secret Service had been told they were needed in Ft Worth but only those riding in the cavalcade would go to Dallas and those in the cavalcade did absolutely nothing. There were no Secret Service, in place, in the vicinity of Dealey Plaza; yet the book says whenever the cavalcade is moving less than 44 mph there must be ground coverage.

Then VP Johnson was placed in a car two cars behind JFK. Since the origin of the Secret Service in 1860 this has been one of their ironclad rules...that the President and VP do not show up together. 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.

These were all clever details. These two key men, LBJ and RMN, were trained indelibly by the sound and proximity of those shots. This tactic paid off in subsequent years.

It seems that the FBI were not in the scene either. Hoover met with LBJ shortly after Dallas and among other things, J. Edgar Hoover told LBJ:

a) Only three shots were fired: the first hit JFK, the second hit Connally, the third hit JFK. He added, "The President would have been hit three times except for the fact that Governor Connally turned after the first shot and was hit by the second."

b ) They were fired by one man in 3 seconds.

c) They were fired from the Fifth Floor.

As we know, these are all wrong. For the Director to be wrong on that date, Nov 29th (I have a copy of his letter) is strong evidence that he did not have people at the scene, and that his story was fabricated, even to LBJ. (He and LBJ had lived across the street from each other for 19 years.)

The three shots are doubtful. There were most likely four, or more: i.e. 2 to JFK, 1 to Connally and one miss. This miss hit a curb about 1 1/2 blocks away and a fragment of the curb or bullet hit a man named Tague. Tague's picture with blood running down his face is undeniable evidence. That is four shots.

As for Connally interfering with the second shot, this is wrong because the gunman Hoover had in mind (Oswald) was behind JFK and Connally was in front of JFK. No way a shot from behind JFK could have hit Connally, blocking for JFK. Either that or Hover has a gunman in front of JFK.

Hoover is wrong on the 3 seconds interval and that a man can fire that rifle three times in three seconds, and aim it too. The interval was just over 6 seconds.

He is all mixed up about the Fifth Floor. The entire scenario as entered in the Warren Commission report says that Oswald was on the Sixth Floor.

The only point of all the above, herein, is to show that there was a void, as there ought not to have been, at Dealey Plaza in Dallas. Almost no police: auto-borne Secret Service only: no "Protection" Army: no FBI nearby.

This took some kind of control. Only someone in a high position could have had the calls made that would have created this void without stirring up action.

Then on the scene there were many bogus Secret Service. These were men with some sort of Secret Service identification but on whom there is actually no record. And we have the strange police that you saw in those pictures with EGL.

There are in the CIA's assets colonies of stateless experts with all kinds of identities ready for any hit. It is easy, with the right authority, or the appearance of the right authority to have a team go anywhere, to hit anyone provided enough money is put up and an escape is arranged and guaranteed. EGL had used such a deal many times in many operations and knew how to trigger it. He was there, no doubt, to assure the escape that those "Dallas Police" were arranging right at that time when they were inadvertently spotted by that busy commercial photographer.

A major part of the scheme would involve the continuing cover-up. Again this can be relatively uncomplicated as long as the person at the top remains high enough up and can remain anonymous. So far this fits the role of EGL.

Today, he and many of his long-time associates form the inner core of the Reagan insurgency program around the world. As we see, they are taking on the old Khrushchev role of supporting the wars of national liberation and coming out from under the traditional cloak.

I thank you again for your letter, for your observations concerning those photographs and for your collaboration on the identity of the figure in one of those pictures, I am certain that we are on the right track; but where does it lead?

So much for now. I trust all is well with you and that I shall hear from you at your convenience. We are off soon on a visit to New England and then on to the Gaspe and Prince Edward Island...the place of my wife's mother's birth. All this as a welcome break after a busy springtime.

Sincerely,

L. Fletcher Prouty

Colonel Prouty told me that he sent the "tramps" photographs to several people who were familiar with Lansdale, not just Krulak. However, he did not release those correspondences because he did not have permission and/or they were still living. He only supplied the Krulak response to the letter to Len Osanic for the CDROM because he was inadvertently under the false impression that the General had already passed away. My understanding is that Fletch simply asked the recipients to "see if you recognize anyone in the photographs that we know" -- or words to that effect. I am not certain because I don't have a copy of the original letter, but I will attempt to get it.

In any event, Victor "Brute" Krulak was not a man easily influenced by another man's mere suspicions. However, even if Colonel Prouty had included the name when he asked that question, Krulak was very certain the man pictured is Lansdale. There is no hint of equivocation in his ID.

Did you know Ed Lansdale? If so, did he ever tell you that he thought Colonel Prouty was a nut? If you didn't know Lansdale, then how do you know what he thought of Prouty? Beyond the content of a book whose true authorship is suspect, there is no evidence of your claim.

On the other hand, Colonel Prouty was a personal friend of mine. He told me what he thought of Ed Lansdale on numerous occasions. He never "judged" Lansdale one way or another. He simply reported the facts and allowed me to make up my own mind. I opted to follow in kind by suspending judgment. What I "think" of Lansdale is irrelevant, but it could cloud my judgement. I don not have that luxury. However, I strongly disapprove of the methods he often employed as a function of his job.

Obviously, General Lansdale did not think that Colonel Prouty was a "nut" or that he was "his cross to bear" as of the writing of the note below (1960). The documents attached to the note are rife with sensitive information that was only suitable for some to "know,", but not all. Lansdale left the choosing of the "list of those with a need to know" up to Colonel Prouty's discretion. Such a responsibility is hardly something he'd have left up to a "nut."