Larry Hancock

Well if Oswald had been told there was a false flag operation in play to stage an assassination attempt wit the goal of provoking military action against Cuba (what other goal would there be of a "failed" attempt to kill the President?) - the result of a successful fake attack would be clear - especially with Oswald himself being told to fire "missed" shots. I'm not seeing why Oswald would be picked or think he was being pick to take fake shots at JFK without it being related to Cuba given his recent activities and his media image? And even if he was given some deniability story about using a rifle not connected to him, if he had left his job and Dallas immediately after the shooting he would obviously be a prime suspect in some sort of conspiracy. Now interestingly in regard to Castro's remarks - the most recent public remarks he had made about the U.S. and JFK were to the effect that their had been attempts to assassinate him using Cuban exiles and JFK really needed to be concerned that those people were dangerous and out of control and might become a threat to the President if they became too frustrated - that would be sort of an out of the box spin on things. In regard to Ben's last point, it is interesting that in his later years, Martino appeared to have had some thoughts that those involved might have been told some things were going to happen which did not and there was some suspicion that they had been manipulated. The idea that those "above" simply wanted to get rid of JFK and certainly not start a war with Cuba or Russia for that matter and had a separate agenda than those in the tactical part of the attack has come up from a couple of sources.

Well speaking for the dartboard...grin.....I think there is no doubt Oswald was serous about Cuba. And he was not only up for adventure but could be impulsive and not at all risk adverse. So lets say he is up for an offer and whatever goes on with Marina fails to make him change his mind about taking that sort of offer. So back to the offer. If Oswald had no knowledge that he would be directly incriminated or even a suspect, he would still have to be cool and stay at work for longer for some time - likely under surveillance as a suspect given his background even if not directly implicated. If he heads out of town immediately, that day, that week, he will be a suspect. Of course if he knew he was going to be implicated and took the ride to Cuba immediately he would have to think his reception might be cool - the arrival of a young fellow who was even a suspect in an attempted attack on JFK would not be good for the Castro regime. Worse yet, if the False Flag actually succeeded, Oswald might have arrived during an American attack or invasion.... So what are the circumstances that make sense for such an offer (the nature of which would be pretty obvious if he is asked to fire a rifle, especially his rifle) - it seems he would have to be recruited to do something minor and not told about the attack. Maybe do something to just support a protest against US policies on Cuba, he might be up for that? This is an interesting dialog, Oswald's role as a false flag shooter has been talked about for ages as has a false flag attack - but I've never seen anyone dig into the details of making that sort of scenario work, especially with Oswald.

I checked with a friend who was in the Corps at the time and he said that it would have been expected that an active duty Marine you would wear one or the other but not both. That appears to have changed now and its more one ring per hand as a rule. Perhaps someone has some more Oswald ring history but having the wedding band on the dresser suggests that he did wear it at least some of the time....would be interesting if he had been wearing the band and suddenly switched to the Marine ring just that day.

I'm going to check with a couple of Marine friends but what I see with a quick search says regulations allow you to wear one ring per hand so the advice was if you want to wear both your military ring and wedding band just wear the military ring on your right hand. Not wearing the wedding band is pretty significant, especially if you weave it visible at home to your spouse and wear your Corps ring instead. It might suggest you are "moving on". On the other hand perhaps Oswald didn't routinely wear the wedding band? An interesting question, perhaps someone has something further on his history with the two rings?

Yes, you will find the January/Red Bird material in Tipping Point - to some extent at least. I worked with Matthew Smith for years on that, as well as people from the FAA and others including some nice folks at the Houston Air Center who were really friendly until they figured out where I was going with it...grin. But where you will really see that story develop is in the Red Bird Leads paper David Boylan and I am working on now - into Version 8 already. And to telegraph the punchline a bit, I do see it as potentially very significant in what his plans were for that Friday, and they did include leaving Dallas.

Actually I was thinking about his wedding band, which he left on a cup on the dresser when he left that day without saying goodby. That seemed fort of definite. On the Marine ring, I think Oswald was proud of it and of his service. Actually he never considered himself a communist per se, socialist would be more like it but at the core he never rejected the US...

A couple of thoughts/questions, given Oswald as a false flag, missed shot shooter knowing this all is to be blamed on Castro. Oswald does know he has been to Russia, he certainly knows he is associated with Castro and there has been considerable media coverage of that. Unless he has an outstanding alibi such as being seen by multiple people during the shooting he has to know he will be grilled...he would know he would be a suspect regardless so best have an iron clad alibi. Which of course is a trick if he is doing the shooting. Still, he would have to stay in place at work and look totally innocent and calm after the shooting even if its a false flag with nobody hit or injured. On that point note that he leaves well before he learned that the attack was real. Actually he leaves before anybody in the area is really clear on what just happened. Certainly a couple of things he appears to have done make it look like he was planning on leaving town that day - examples being the ring and money left with Marina being an example. How does it mesh with his not staying at work. Or having done something more obvious to show he has no plans to leave, like set up a visit to the Paines that weekend? And on a side note, who is briefing Oswald and giving him all those assurances...somebody he must have some connection to and really trust, someone who has given him assignments before and built up some level of confidence that things work as he promises?

In line with both Matt and Ben's comments it would probably be a good thing to factor in "consequences" in terms of recruitment. Certainly if nobody gets hurt, if you are not likely to be immediately picked up or become the focus of a global man hunt then its going to be an easier sell. I'm not sure I see money or "advancement" in the intelligence business as a major motive for Oswald - his primary frustration at the moment seems to have been around getting Marina to bring the girls and come live with him. Which leads back to the consequences and of course to the rifle and hulls. As part of the recruitment for a false flag is Oswald actually going to be firing multiple shots that miss, or just one shot that misses? Does he leave the rifle and hulls there knowing its a totally deniable weapons that cannot be traced to him and make sure he stays in the building or otherwise give himself an obvious alibi for not being the shooter - like be seen downstairs as quickly as possible by multiple people before and after to cloud his location? If so where do the deniable rifle and hulls go and who does the substitution? Or if he is shooting a weapon that can be traced directly back to him - what does he think is going to happen - I would say that would not be just a bad decision but out and out stupid even if nobody got killed. I'd like to see some more discussion of how a doable false flag attack would work out in general, as well as how Oswald would seem to be involved - as differentiated from a simply patsy scenario where its just a matter of planting a rifle and hulls and having somebody else up there in the window to draw attention to the area. With a shot fired from there or perhaps elsewhere ....also to be out of the box, does it have to be a shot or could it just be something to make a really loud noise and leave no trace.

Let's boil it down a bit more, when asked by the press he stated specifically that he was being made a patsy "because he had been in Russia". When you look at that and a list of his other last words complied by Mae Brussell you get an even fuller picture. https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html Unless you essentially make Lee Oswald a mental giant in terms of self control, I have a very hard time accepting his talking like that with full knowledge that a rifle which could be traced directly to him had been left laying upstairs in the TSBD and shells that he had fired were there with it (oh, and lets not talk about just one diversionary, missing false flag shot but rather three to match the hulls). In positing a false flag scenario you have to weigh in on his not just having him fired one or more "innocent" shots but also deal with the rifle....unless he believed he was using a completely sanitized weapon and ammo which could never be traced to him - otherwise he had to know he would be the object of a manhunt of massive proportions. If he had not fired a rifle or taken one to the TSBD that cannot be traced to him, and if he had been sold on a false flag which does actually injure the President, was he just paid to carry in the weapon? If so after finding out how badly he has been used and while in custody for two murders why in the world does he not move to protect himself - is he that much of a martyr and if so where is the evidence for that. He is concerned about shoes for his daughter but he's decided to knowingly leave her the legacy of her father as a heinous murderer?

Oswald as an ongoing working for the CIA, frustrated after his series of seemingly unproductive missions which get him no recognition and apparently no advancement, then agreeing to take an intentional shot to miss is a bit out of the box and raises some interesting questions about exactly who was "running" him as far as Dallas, how they contacted him, what his instructions and mission were up to the point of getting a really good offer....and who made the final money offer that he would trust? Does the deal include leaving his rifle in the TSBD so he can be directly traced to the shooting....you can imagine that even with an intentional miss he would have to think that a live President would be focused enough to send the entire US government after him? If not how does the rifle get there. What is the back end of the deal, how is he extracted, his family extracted or does he know care about his daughters who will grow up under that shadow. Admittedly this is one scenario that would have to go with him being pulled into an apparent "false flag" that turned out to be turned real. It would be interesting to take it down a few levels of detail, is he the only dupe in the false flag? Is it truly a sanctioned "false flag" and who inside the CIA knows about it, anybody but the bad guys or is it just a cover to recruit Oswald? I've always been intrigued about a "false flag" that gets stolen - I proposed it as a cover to suck in Jack Ruby previously, how it could be used to suck in Oswald and convince him its worth the risk is certainly an interesting conversation.

There are a handful of questions involved - if you accept the body of information (regardless if its true or false) the WC collected you could paint Oswald as a communist influenced radical, assign a clear motive and have a serious piece of anti-communist propaganda showing the dangerous of communist influence at the height of the Cold War. Surely both Hoover and that old time rabid anti-Communist LBJ could hardly object to that. So why wasn't the story presented to the public in that form? Another question, was Oswald truly becoming radicalized to the extent of the WC information (some of which has to come from Oswald, for example his manuscript and his later letter to CPUSA) or was that picture being built around him without his full knowledge - and of course to what purpose. Suggestion - look at that picture of Oswald as of October, as he arrived in Dallas. Even with what was in various FBI and CIA files he looked pretty radical; this is at a time when teachers were routinely required to take loyalty oaths in some States. When FBI agents were dispatched to Mexico to monitor expats from Hollywood (see Heitman's autobiography). When any American visiting the Cuban embassy was put under surveillance. Then ask yourself, is this Russian defector, commie radical being cultivated for an assassination that is going to make everybody in the security community look like idiots? Or are they ignoring him because somebody has him "in play". What I'm calling for, in line with the thread title, is for some new and out of the box scenarios, not just the old ones we have tossed around forever....they might not be right but the question is how tightly are we tied to the way we have looked at this for so long (and to our preferred villains)?

In line with the topic of this thread and to encourage stepping outside of boxes, consider the following for a moment. I'll be blogging about this in a bit more detail so those who follow that will see it again. One of the world views we often use is that virtually nothing collected by the WC is trustworthy, not just the evidence but virtually everything. We also point out the fact that they took a virtual pass on motive or proving that he was violent enough to jump from radio interviews to murder in one fell swoop. That's especially interesting considering you can use what they collected to paint a picture of an increasingly radicalized Oswald - radicalization occurring over a fairly short period. Of course one problem in doing that might have exposed the possibility that Oswald was not himself becoming radicalized, but that someone or something was behind the creation of that image and that it might have been cultivated for purposes that neither the FBI nor the CIA would want explored (and no, not presidential assassination). So step outside the box and think a bit of what it implies if the following were true, beginning with the manuscript Oswald himself produced shortly after his return from Russia - in which he blasts the Soviet Union, and calls out its manipulation of communist parties including the Communist Party USA as being foreign tools of Russia and worthy only of disgust. And note that this occurs in the same general time frame he has assured the FBI that he is loyal and will certainly report anyone contacting him who appears to be suspicious or intending to use him in any way. So what follows - he approaches and begins protesting for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee before leaving Dallas, he orders a rifle and pistol (or somebody orders it for him), he poses with said rifle and piston and with newspapers which could only be construed as subversive or radical - especially when displayed with weapons. Then comes the Walker shooting, a note to provide for Marina if he is killed or captured in the act - pretty radical. Enough so that even if he doesn't do it his friend George gets the message - "Hunter of Fascists". That all feels pretty radical and then what comes next - on to New Orleans and a false flag approach to the DRE - which they are too skeptical to fall for but which certainly paints him as an activist. Media coverage, interviews, and a large scale propaganda push follows (we have documents showing the CIA was routinely trying to control and direct DRE propaganda and complaining they were out of control in propaganda work - but strangely no complaints about the Oswald propaganda in the summer of 1963.....then again we can't see the files that might contain that, them still being withheld and all). And next letters to the SWP and CPUSA including asking CPUSA (who he detested only months before) if he should go "underground". Then someone shows up in Mexico City and reportedly even carries CPUSA membership credentials - Oswald seems to have gotten seriously subversive and seriously radical. So...what if all those elements were true and not fictional, made up after the fact. Step into that box and revisit the Walker shooting, the photos, the letter and ask yourself, is this Oswald really becoming a radical, or is it all a process for building his value for intelligence purposes, either collections or propaganda? And if you pick one, think about what was supposed to happen next if it wasn't just Oswald becoming a radical - and why the WC didn't go full bore with painting the above picture for the public?

Just as an exercise in terminology I think it might be worthwhile to describe what I have and haven't done since I became involved with this subject - the first thing being to take Jim Marr's advice, to wit, by now we know there was more than one shooter firing a bolt action rifle in something like six seconds. Which means multiple shooters, which means a conspiracy. Over, done - move on. Following that advice I moved on to examine all the potential "villains" that Jim surfaced in Crossfire - plus a few combinations and iterations that he didn't delve into in that book. After about a decade doing that, working within several "boxes" and stepping out of them to the extent of tossing a couple of draft manuscript scenarios I finished Someone Would Have Talked which examined that "premise". It was primarily intended for researchers and simply put a lot of people and events into context. Beyond that it examined in some detail the indications that LBJ might have had some limited foreknowledge, and how that might have happened. Following the release of a host of ARRB documents - and the excellent work of its staff including not only Doug Horne but others - I came back with the 2010 version of SWHT which expanded on some areas but most importantly dug deeply into the hours and weeks following the attack itself, examining what might be best described as a "cover up" as it pertained to the FBI, the CIA and to some extent the DPD (in terms of covering up things they did not want exposed such as knowledge of and connections to Lee Oswald), damage control as it related to Johnson and his national security advisors (which meant aborting conspiracy investigations and selling a single, lone nut image of the attack) and finally historical manipulation as related to the Warren Commission. ....and yes that's why its a big book Acting on the premise that everything I had seen pointed to at least some involvement by CIA officers and surrogates I then asked myself how the CIA handled political assassination in the real world (we have considerable examples and actual data on that) I put that research into NEXUS along with an actual scenario as to how a presidential assassination could have developed inside the Agency. .....NEXUS is a very focused and much smaller book Ultimately, after having access to a lot more research and document data developed by folks like Bill Simpich, David Boylan, Stu Wexler - all of which gave me a much greater ability to examine and test sources I had become familiar with over the years (and having done the Wheaton Leads extensively detailed research) as well as having developed some new and relevant names, I decided to once again try to be focused and to tell the "story" (or lay out the "scenario" if you prefer) specifically as to the motive, evolution, timing, logistics and details of the attack in Dallas. That resulted in Tipping Point. To be clear, Tipping Point is not a theory, it is a scenario based in the sources I found to be credible and consistent over almost three decades of work. It does not encompass nearly all the aspects of the assassination nor explore many of the areas which SWHT does. .......which is why Tipping Point is a shorter paper/book At present I'm working with David and getting some advise from Gary Murr in regard to a final research paper on the Red Bird leads - which may offer some confirmation of elements in Tipping Point as well as an expanded scenario as to how Lee Oswald was being manipulated and more specifically set up to look like a radical revolutionary and positioned as to link the assassination to Castro and Cuba. That's it, I don't consider that I'm presenting a "theory", what I'm doing is trying to provide solid historical context, identify credible sources, and lay out a scenario that people can evaluate for themselves (and which satisfied me). ......just to be clear, and certainly not mysterious or sinister 😇

Not sure about cognitive bias but on occasion I think I run into internal cognitive dissonance😇...

No problem at all Matt, I didn't take it that way and actually it clears things up a bit since I had not repeated it and the thread had certainly gotten quite long. One of my points all along was that particular hypothesis is rather specific in several areas not to mention that it seems to put Lansdale in a seminal position for all parts of the conspiracy - that should seemingly make it easier for some hard nosed, practical and in depth research than a number of more general "suspicions" about groups and people that have been presented over the decades.

Matt, I was responding to what was posted as his hypothesis as it was posted to open this thread - back on Page 1 in red: The Lansdale Hypothesis The U.S. Army has a think-tank at American University. It was called "Operation Camelot". This is where the "Camelot" concept came from. It was anti-JFK's Vietnam strategy. The men running it were Lansdale types, Special Forces background. "Camelot" was King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table: not JFK...then. Through 1962 and 1963 Mongoose and "Camelot" became strong and silent organizations dedicated to countering JFK. Mongoose had access to the CIA's best "hit men" in the business and a lot of "strike" capability. Lansdale had many old friends in the media business such as Joe Alsop, Henry Luce among others. With this background and with his poisoned motivation I am positive that he got collateral orders to manage the Dallas event under the guise of "getting" Castro. It is so simple at that level. A nod from the right place, source immaterial, and the job's done. The "hit" is the easy part. The "escape" must be quick and professional. The cover-up and the scenario are the big jobs. They more than anything else prove the Lansdale mastery. Lansdale was a master writer and planner. He was a great "scenario" guy. I still have a lot of his personally typed material in my files. I am certain that he was behind the elaborate plan and mostly the intricate and enduring cover-up. Given a little help from friends at PEPSICO he could easily have gotten Nixon into Dallas, for "orientation': and LBJ in the cavalcade at the same time, contrary to Secret Service policy. He knew the "Protection" units and the "Secret Service", who was needed and who wasn't. Those were routine calls for him, and they would have believed him. Cabell could handle the police. The "hit men" were from CIA overseas sources, for instance, from the "Camp near Athena, Greece. They are trained, stateless, and ready to go at any time. They ask no questions: speak to no one. They are simply told what to do, when and where. Then they are told how they will be removed and protected. After all, they work for the U.S. Government. The "Tramps" were actors doing the job of cover-up. The hit men are just pros. They do the job for the CIA anywhere. They are impersonal. They get paid. They get protected, and they have enough experience to "blackmail" anyone, if anyone ever turns on them...just like Drug agents. The job was clean, quick and neat. No ripples."

I think its time for me to close on this thread, I've given my best assessments and tried to be as open as possible. What I do need to say though - for the record - is that in almost thirty years, I have not myself found evidence of the grand conspiracy outlined in the Prouty hypothesis nor of Lansdale's personal role in driving either the attack and its tactical elements in Dallas, the manipulation and framing of Lee Oswald nor all the elements of the cover up (damage control in my parlance). Perhaps that exists, perhaps some good researcher/s could develop his suspicions into something concrete. Some of the supporters of Prouty's hypothesis should get on that and document what they find. To be fair I've also not found evidence of many of other purported conspiracies scenarios, including the Shackley S Force scenario, or the Mob or Johnson scenarios, the Beckham/Crisman contentions, the men on the sixth floor, and way too many others which I spent years pursuing). What I have found I've documented in detail (and repetitively) and I need to spend my time with some final elaboration of that (no not another book) and responding to those who choose to really engage in the detailed scenario I (with much help from others) have developed and published. Hopefully that's enough said here...

I do think its unfair to impugn all Prouty's information, especially as related to his work experience in supporting covert operations and with SACSA....I wish more folks had read that book I mentioned when it was a bit less expensive as I consider it valuable in regard to his direct, first hand knowledge of covert action. Its also unfair to toss his hypothesis simply because it did grew out of general concerns he had about dangerous people in the institutions where he worked - I'd be silly to do that myself since I pursue some of those same individuals as suspects in my own work. But to reiterate, Prouty was not the only highly placed figure that had suspicions about some of the people and groups he mentioned. What he did do is describe those suspicions on a broader scale and point to one individual as the point man in both the attack and the cover up (as I read the hypothesis that leads this thread). On the other hand, some of his commentary and personal remarks have tended to create some antagonism and push back, take a look at the Army Colonel who wanted to sue him for defamation or dereliction of duty, the Army had to stop him from doing so. That is described in the full ARRB Prouty related work files which were not referenced as a resource in this thread Admittedly I would count myself as being a critic of certain of his claims about events in Texas and Dallas - that has nothing to do with being a critic of his overall hypothesis since to me its really a collection of suspicions that has not been well enough researched and developed for me to have an opinion other than - maybe - once someone takes it to the point where that's possible, especially in regard to actually defining Lansdale's purported role and calling out specific activities that would support that view.

As to your question, there were a number of high level Admin figures that suspected conspiracy, perhaps even that level of conspiracy - I quote several of them in Tipping Point in terms of concerns and reasons to have them - some with specifics in regard to events they were personally involved in during 1963 that they felt might have related to a conspiracy. In later years they did express their thoughts, some to investigators, and investigations - although not in the public since that Prouty eventually came to do. I don't think I have repeated any slanderous remarks, the critiques I have made of smaller points have been documented for some time....I don't consider historical research slander. Certainly he was a whistle blower, no doubt about that....which is why I keep obsessively asking who has been doing the research on the details and scenario he put forth in his whistle blowing? I've offered my assessments, I've called for someone or some group to actually take up his cause - I'm following my own leads but surely his strongest proponents would be into fleshing out his hypothesis?

Actually I concluded with a comment on the "Lansdale Hypothesis", which you started the thread with - Prouty did provide some leads, he included some names, groups, references to "assets" and many things that could be researched and fleshed out. Its seems a pretty broad brush scenario, more so than "the the Mafia did it" or "LBJ and his lawyer did" it, than many hypotheses that have been expressed - it seems to have a very great many people were involved and either knowing the real goal or the cover story and had knowledge which they kept to themselves after the fact even it they had simply been fooled by the cover story of an provocation that would force action against Cuba . Overall it could be considered a model for the "grand conspiracy" view of the conspiracy. What it lacks is specifics on a chronology, who actually was involved in what role; it references Lansdale's skills but does not say much about how he actually used them - in other words how does everything from the attack to the cover up specifically tie back to him as prime mover. So to the question in this thread, that was specifically what I addressed in Point #4 above - "4) As to his JFK conspiracy hypothesis - its as good as a dozen others coming from people in D.C. over the years. He was certainly not alone in being suspicious, or even seeing conspiracy in some of the directions he pointed out. And he provided a few leads, names, groups to look at, etc. So did others. So his hypothesis passes the test of general credibility and actually of some consistency given others had the same suspicions. What more would you want as a comment on the general picture of a grand, institutional conspiracy driven by a single mastermind? It could be true....but just expressing it doesn't make it so. As to my thoughts on smearing his reputation, I do think a number of the claims he specifically made about Dallas, and later recanted - such as having specific training and personal experience with presidential protection - raised some general concerns, same on the stand down on the 112th. Beyond that his hypothesis is very far ranging, and as far as I know he didn't go on to devote years to fleshing it out (for whatever reason) so the phrase "put up or shut up comes to mind". Big claims used to demand big proof although that has gone out of style these days. But just because people challenged him doesn't make him either wrong or right. So now my question - where is the follow up to take his hypothesis and develop it with further research and facts and bring it all together for examination? Are you working on it, have you built a team, are you working on a research paper, a book, adding details and proofs? If not, do you plan to do that or is someone else taking point in developing his hypothesis?

Thank you David, I share exactly the same conclusions, just good to see you lay it out in your usual level of detail...and sourcing some FMJ Carcano ammo that Masen had not yet reloaded to soft points, a clip and even an rifle would not be that difficult I imagine.

First, thanks Chuck, that's always good to hear and I think David and I are going to be coming up with something very interesting this Fall in regard to our Red Bird leads paper....its gone far deeper than I might have imagined and I hope that we can offer something new (and probably highly controversial) in regard to the manipulation of Lee Oswald as a Castro agent (yes that didn't play as planned but it doesn't mean it wasn't in the plan. Now in regard to Joe's remark, I might as well just be blunt and stop beating around the bush. The following is strictly my personal assessment and not likely to change at this point. 1) As previously stated I find Prouty very credible when he talks about his day job, in that regard he is a very good source on how American military support for certain covert operations was organized and carried out from a logistics stand point. So...first hand experience, good stuff and very helpful. 2) After much research I found him not to be credible in regard to his remarks and purported insights in regard to the actual events in Dallas on November 22, which is one reason that I spent the time putting all the ARRB material (not just his interview) on a CD and making it available via JFK Lancer a long time ago. And it was not just the ARRB, it was more work involving some of my own research on the 112th rumor. 3) Initially I bought in to a good amount of his general geopolitical observations - over time I became a lot less sanguine about that and feel many of them were pretty speculative. That's one of the reasons I referenced some other sources on this thread, particularly in regard to Vietnam. But that is not a dig at him per se, we simply know a lot more about such things now than he did when he was giving commentary on them - not personal experience, commentary. 4) As to his JFK conspiracy hypothesis - its as good as a dozen others coming from people in D.C. over the years. He was certainly not alone in being suspicious, or even seeing conspiracy in some of the directions he pointed out. And he provided a few leads, names, groups to look at, etc. So did others. So his hypothesis passes the test of general credibility and actually of some consistency given others had the same suspicions. But to be even blunter a hypothesis is only "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." Its very difficult to disprove a hypothesis which is essentially a suspicion. So my problem is this - where is all the work on his hypothesis, who treated it seriously, researched it in detail and wrote about that research? I asked once before, where is that body of work? If you champion his hypothesis you have the task of examining it and attempting to develop it into something provable, at least a theory or scenario with as much additional detail as you can develop - at least take it to the theory level where it can be critiqued. So in regard to a Prouty hypothesis....great....he registered it and gave you some leads,don't just endorse it, run with it.

A synopsis is difficult since what I took from it largely has to do with the organization and logistics of support for covert operations which required either actual American military elements - transport aircraft and ships primarily, weapons and ammunition on those occasions when the surrogate forces being used in deniable actions could be supplied with American materials consistent with the weapons they could get locally. The book deals with how Prouty helped set up the bookkeeping and tracking systems handled to source and track American supplies transferred to the CIA for covert ops....and where to store them, how to transport them etc. It also gives some good insight into how that evolved under the Joint Chiefs staff, how it was organized there, who reported to whom etc - given that all services were involved on some occasions. It was very helpful to me in researching and writing Shadow Warfare but also brought home that such support was relatively minor compared to the weapons and transport support that the CIA needed that could not come from the American military due to deniability issues. It also brought home the immense cost of deniable operations using American personnel and equipment. In regard to this thread, it helps to understand why Prouty would know and be able to comment on from direct experience as compared to what he appears to simply suspected or speculated about. Its really important to have a baseline to evaluate where one starts and the other begins and this was also very helpful to me in that regard since at that time I was reading everything Prouty related pretty much concurrently. In reading Prouty on Dallas or even on Vietnam it is important to read Prouty on his own day job. Just as it is in regard to reading his remarks to the ARRB - and all their internal memorandum on how that came about and how they processed and responded to it. In my view their military staff investigator was objective and extremely diligent and dogged - similar Horne on the medical area.

Richard, do you or anyone else have any further comments on this...it seems particularly significant to me - part of the entire issue of why in the world Oswald would only have four rounds and where were the rest....and I've not seen it get that much attention. I'd be interested in more pro and con comments on this - seems to me it goes along with Alyea's point about the hulls being picked up and tossed back down...as if both the clip and hulls were indeed just planted.

Actually for my money this one gives the most in depth insight into Prouty's own direct experiences and view into how SACSA and the Joint Chiefs actually supported special operations: https://www.ebay.com/itm/353644280879?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A14MhaS4I4Q0OY8lprYDzvoQ65&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=353644280879&targetid=1262843335329&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9026216&poi=&campaignid=12519034798&mkgroupid=121028924334&rlsatarget=pla-1262843335329&abcId=9300518&merchantid=191373216&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3LTuw9v_8gIVCbjICh1EgwO2EAQYAiABEgKydvD_BwE also: http://www.prouty.org/ratville.html A little pricey now its true, but I for one learned the most from it - and it was a bit cheaper when I first got it...grin.