Paul Brancato

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

No one is ignorant of this I think.

In fact, in my first book I talked about it a lot.  I quoted from Simpson.

But to accuse Prouty of what they are accusing him of, I mean its kind of offensive. To a guy who made some really valuable contributions to the case, and to Stone's milestone film.

Especially when there is a benign explanation.  Which Jeff has stated.  And Fletcher has talked about.

Do you think that Bloodstone is important and relevant? Are you referring to Destiny Betrayed? 

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty had no credible, believable benign explanation for the actions and statements that I have documented (much of the documentation coming from his own mouth). His "contributions" to Stone's milestone film ruined the film's credibility with virtually every member of the academic community and with most journalists. The film's inclusion of Prouty's obscene claims about Lansdale as a plotter and about the mythical plan to abandon South Vietnam after the election provided low-hanging fruit for critics to destroy.

Prouty made no valuable contributions to the JFK case, and in his ARRB interview, when he had the chance to affirm and defend his case under oath, he back-peddled on virtually every major claim he had been making up to that point. 

What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's writing a glowing letter to the editor of the Holocaust-denying IHR journal and praising the IHR's primary goals, which were and are to deny the Holocaust and bash the state of Israel? What is the "benign explanation" for his shameful attacks on the principled critics of Ron Hubbard and Scientology? What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's appearing on Liberty Lobby's nutcase radio show 10 times in four years? What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's speaking at an IHR conference and at a Liberty Lobby convention and publicly praising Carto and Marcellus? And on and on we could go. 

 

I don’t dismiss this info. It’s hard to find a benign explanation for his latter days associations. However, I don’t include your low hanging fruit about JFK withdrawal plans, or think his statements to Garrison useless. I don’t hold it as highly as some, since he did not name names. I recall him writing to General Krulak about seeing Lansdale in the Dealey Plaza pics, but did he ever claim that Lansdale was running the operation? If so I missed it. Please show me if you know better.
Please, can you focus in on what Robert is really asking? You’ve reiterated your points so many times. We’ve all heard it. Some won’t even consider this info, but you will not succeed in convincing them otherwise by repeating it over and over. I remain surprised that you choose to do this rather than examine Prouty’s official history while he was in the service. It would seem right up you alley. Even if you don’t intend to derail your repeated posts have that effect. 
I highly recommend John Loftus book ‘The Secret War Against the Jews’ if you want to gain a picture from an acknowledged expert of the US relations with Nazi Germany pre war. The policy of incorporation of Nazi operatives of all kinds after the war flowed from already existing relationships, mostly corporate. 

13 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jeff - I respect your contributions here, as you know. One question I have for you is whether you think ‘we’ doesn’t refer to himself and his superior officer. Maybe you are right that it’s generic. And then again maybe not. The other, more important question, is whether you think it’s worth examining the documents pertaining to Bloodstone? Are you of the ‘no big deal’ camp when it comes to the incorporation of Nazi soldiers and intelligence operatives into US special forces? Leave Prouty out for a second, as I asked others to do. Do you think the US military was involved, as Prouty himself later asserted? 

Can we look at Operation Bloodstone and all of its implications? Maybe Prouty was in a position to know about it later and communicate that to the author Christopher Simpson and his book Blowback, which I own and have read? Maybe he was active in the first place. What good does it do anyone to assert that Robert M misinterpreted the documents, while ignoring the bigger import of the documents? Why the reticence to look at the incorporation of Nazis and Eastern Europe [and western Europe also) fascists and WW 2 Nazi enablers into the US intelligence and military operations? Is that a rewriting of history, or setting the record straight? 
Are you all that ignorant of the military and CIA histories of some of our favorite suspects? Angleton in Italy liaisons with Italian fascists, Harvey, Morales, Shackley and others training in Berlin? 

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Robert - Prouty’s military records show him at Yale and New York City on academic assignments (course teaching and textbook writing) from 1946 through the beginning of 1951. How do you account for this in light of your hypothetical claims that Prouty was an “organizing military officer” for a massive covert program?

What is the source of your information on Maj. Gen. Robert James "J.R." Smith? You have inferred he had long-standing operational interests aligned with Col. Prouty, beginning in 1943.

 

You are claiming that Prouty made “admissions” of his role during interviews in the 1980s. It appears your hypothesis is in no small part reliant on such admission.  Here is one quote you provide:

“But I've done a lot of thinking since then, especially since the publication of this book Blowback and others, that shows we exfiltrated thousands of ex-Nazis out of Germany for various reasons after WWII..."

Here’s a second:

"...The Eastern European and Russian émigré groups we had picked up from the Germans were the center of this; they were the personnel,” according to the retired colonel. “The CIA was to prepare these forces in peacetime; stockpile weapons, radios, and Jeeps for them to use; and keep them ready in the event of war. A lot of this equipment came from military surplus..."

You have added emphasis - namely you have underlined the word “we”. It appears you have determined that “we” is a direct reference to Prouty himself and the programs you hypothesize he was responsible for. I would venture that most readers, in context, would understand the word “we” as instead referring to the United States or the United States Military. Note in the first quote how the word “we” is contextualized in reference to information from the Simpson book “Blowback”. Surely Prouty didn’t learn of his own alleged nefarious role from a book published forty years later, but that’s how the sentence reads according to your interpretation.

 

It appears your hypothesis is about three weeks old. Yet you have stacked the thread with a torrent of names and connections outlining a major covert program extending over decades which, if true, upends decades of historic research and rewrites the postwar era. Can you discuss your research methods?

Jeff - I respect your contributions here, as you know. One question I have for you is whether you think ‘we’ doesn’t refer to himself and his superior officer. Maybe you are right that it’s generic. And then again maybe not. The other, more important question, is whether you think it’s worth examining the documents pertaining to Bloodstone? Are you of the ‘no big deal’ camp when it comes to the incorporation of Nazi soldiers and intelligence operatives into US special forces? Leave Prouty out for a second, as I asked others to do. Do you think the US military was involved, as Prouty himself later asserted? 

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Robert,

    What you said in your lead post on this thread is that you believed that Prouty knew who "the real murderers of President Kennedy were," and may have "taken that information to his grave" -- implying that Prouty was, at least, complicit in a cover up.  That's quite defamatory.

   But, if true, why would Prouty have gone to such lengths to debunk the WCR narrative (in his contacts with Garrison and Oliver Stone?)

   The theory makes no sense.

    

I don’t think it took guts to debunk the WC narrative. So many went before him. As I asked in an earlier post, what info did he give Garrison other than an overview of why, and the general nature of the conspiracy? I believe him. I dare say most of us do, and are grateful that someone articulated it, someone with military credibility. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a limited hangout. Why haven’t we at least considered that possibility?
But here we are, still trying to convince everyone that the WC was wrong, that Oswald was a Patsy. Aren’t you ready for something more? 
Can we talk about Operation Bloodstone? I may have heard of it before, but knew no details. Robert was astounded to see Prouty associated with it. The way I see it, for the sake of exploration, why don’t we forget Prouty for a moment and see if we can draw some links between Bloodstone and US Special forces. Were Nazis and some of their Allies in Europe, East or West, cleaned up, given new identities, and incorporated into our military structures? We accepted long ago that we did that for scientists, German and Japanese, and some pretty horrible ones too. But when it comes to our military operations, from Gladio stay behinds, to ZR projects, to just plain changing names and providing cover for SS, Gestapo agents, we seem to be unwilling to clearly look at the evidence. I’ve been fighting this nearly alone here for years. Robert comes along, zealously 24/7 deep diving into documents and books and putting things together in a new way, and you all attack his research, nearly every time. I’d like to see some cooperation. Get rid of your personal sacred cows and get on board. No one has to be right all the time. This isn’t a damned competition, says the idealist in me, but a chance to put our heads together. How many times have I been told, when mentioning Nazi connections, to move on? Why, in this particular case, do people roll their eyes? Maybe some of you think - hey, I know all that, but our CIA was in charge so who cares? Others think why look any further than the Cuban exiles for shooters? Nevermind that JMWAVE was staffed at top levels with operatives who cut their teeth in post war Germany working for, or at least with, Reinhardt Gehlen. Nevermind that Skorzeny, for one, appears in many more documents than I could discover, and I looked - for months. 
If Robert is onto something we have been ignorant of, or feel uncomfortable with, or think is a rabbit hole - whatever your objections - we will never know unless we give him a thorough listen. When your buttons get pushed, try to focus on the subject at hand. Shoot the messenger strategy doesn’t do anyone any good. 
I very much want to hear from Jim D and Larry Hancock in particular about their points of view, regardless of whether there is an intersection with events on the ground in Dallas, with CIA and military recruitment and yes, protection of Nazis and other far right Europeans who aided Germany beginning after the war. And I know there are many other document researchers among us here. I want to know what you think about this. 

Jim - and others - why is it when researchers like Robert point directly to documents detailing someone’s (Prouty and others) duties and job titles inside the military hierarchy as they intersect with the well known and documented incorporation of Nazis and Eastern European fascists into our intelligence apparatus, you suddenly put up blinders? 
it is clear - I’m shocked you don’t all see this - that Prouty both told the truth and withheld the truth. That is a limited hangout. 
Jim - you have won my respect, Robert’s, and probably most others here. Jim - you and Stone have certainly used him as a source. You think highly of him. So let’s get down to nuts and bolts, something Leslie is trying to do on another thread, and which we rarely do here. No generalities, specifics. We know Oswald didn’t do it. But who did? Who is Prouty’s vaunted Secret Team? Anyone? William? What Robert and Leslie, to their credit, are trying to do is focus us in on who did it. What was the chain of command? Who shot the guns? How’d they get into and out of Dallas? Did Prouty name names? Did he claim that Lansdale ran the Dallas operation? Which oil men, which industrialists, were meeting and colluding? WHAT DID PROUTY ACTUALLY CONCLUDE? Maybe I missed something …. 

Perceptive reasoning Robert. I understood the concept of a limited hangout, but had not really considered the long range effect of those such as Prouty bequeathed on us. Limited hangouts can be very useful also to their targets, in this case the leftward intellectuals, as long as they are recognized for what they are and analyzed, rather than swallowing them whole. 
 

Robert - that is absolutely incredible research. 
Michael Griffith - it seems to me that both Robert and Leslie are buttressing your oft stated case against Prouty, whose latter day associations with Liberty Lobby etc fit perfectly with Prouty’s early military career. I’m not sure what your intention is here, but if it’s to derail this thread you certainly won’t succeed. If I read between the lines a bit it seems like you are dismissing Robert’s post by saying that anything Prouty said to Christopher Simpson is likely to be untrue. But you cannot argue with Prouty’s well placed career. He was in a perfect position to help establish fascist and Nazi incorporation into the US special forces framework. What say you?

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Thanks, Ron.

And of equal if not far more significance is that Hank had access to at least TWO pieces of correspondence from Lafitte to CI James Angleton related to the assassination.  

Also, this particular note should dispel theories that Cuban Nationals, exiled in the US, were tapped as shooters in Dealey.  The extent of their possible employment within the support teams, a.k.a. "swamp groups" referred to in Lafitte's Oct. 9 entry, leaves the door open that certain skill sets were just too good to pass up, i.e. Umbrella Man and Radio Guy as posited by Alan Kent.

Slowly, I believe, we are whittling down the list of those who fired at John Kennedy.  This particular argument also supports to the degree possible at this juncture, the forthcoming, long awaited, review of Roscoe White as well.

 

Hank was with the Office of Personnel throughout the Carter Administration, interviewing and investigating applicants. He told the story that at a photo-op, he and Carter commiserated over the pain caused by long distance running . They shared similar groin injuries as I recall and their graphic descriptions may have been caught on camera! 🙂 

(He was born in December of 1946.)

First sentence - what did Lafitte and Angleton correspond about and when? Did I miss this in Coup in Dallas? Do you have the documents? 

28 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said:

We discussed this in the past and I've read the book that some folks seem to be in love and remain unconvinced. When I have a source who produced gas and motel/ hotel receipts from Reno, Nevada to Dallas, Texas, just prior to the assassination who was a US special forces sniper a bunch of old Nazi's become too unlikely for me to find real.

Couple of things Evan. Will you share your source, or at least flesh out this statement? One sniper or many? What else did he or they say to you? When? Why you, and why did they reveal this?
You must realize that if you know something no one else does, and you post this on a site where hundreds of people post, or read, those you see this will want to know what you’re talking about. It seems to me I’m the only one probing, and I’ve done so many times here. I don’t dismiss you lightly, but anyone - you are not the first - who posts here saying they know something we don’t but can’t share it, is going to be dismissed if they can’t come forward with what they know. 
One more observation - why are you so sure that US Special Forces and their military handlers had no links with Nazis? 

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

BTW - in support of Newman's contention (and a core feeling I have as well) that it was the Military and not the CIA which pulled the strings.

Conein was ACSI on loan to the CIA

That’s news to me and very interesting. How many operatives shared between Army Intelligence and CIA? Comes up all the time. So I’m thinking there is no line in the sand between the two, and when someone says the CIA did it, or the JCS did it, they are not mutually exclusive.

11 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I asked Googles AI where was Lucien Conine when JFK was assassinated.  It tells me:

There is no consensus on where Colonel Lucien Conine was when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Some sources claim that he was in Dallas, Texas, while others claim that he was in Washington, D.C. There is no definitive evidence to support either claim.

One source that claims that Conine was in Dallas is the book "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi cites a memo from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that states that Conine was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. However, the memo does not specify where Conine was in Dallas, or what he was doing there.

Another source that claims that Conine was in Dallas is the book "LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination" by Anthony Summers. Summers cites an interview with Conine's wife, who said that Conine was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. However, Summers's source is not reliable, and there is no other evidence to corroborate her claim.

Other sources claim that Conine was in Washington, D.C., on November 22, 1963. One source is the book "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Case for Conspiracy" by Bill Kelly. Kelly cites a CIA document that states that Conine was in Washington, D.C., on November 22, 1963. However, the document does not specify where Conine was in Washington, D.C., or what he was doing there.

Another source that claims that Conine was in Washington, D.C., is the book "The Secret Service: The History of an American Institution" by Richard Norton Smith. Smith cites a Secret Service report that states that Conine was in Washington, D.C., on November 22, 1963. However, the report does not specify where Conine was in Washington, D.C., or what he was doing there.

I then ask: Can you search for memo from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that states that Conine was in Dallas on November 22, 1963
 

Sure, I can help you with that.

I searched the CIA's online archives for any memos that mention Conine being in Dallas on November 22, 1963. I found one memo that mentions Conine, but it does not say where he was. The memo is dated November 23, 1963, and it is titled "Briefing of Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." The memo says that Conine was one of the people who briefed Bush on the assassination. However, the memo does not say where Conine was when he briefed Bush.

I also searched the Warren Commission's archives for any memos that mention Conine being in Dallas on November 22, 1963. I did not find any memos that mention Conine.

Based on my search, I cannot find any definitive evidence that Conine was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. The only memo that mentions Conine does not say where he was. I also did not find any memos from the Warren Commission that mention Conine.

 

Then I ask it "What URL can I see the memo?"

The memo I mentioned is available on the CIA's website. The URL is:

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP99-01448R000401580068-7.pdf

The memo is titled "Briefing of Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." It is dated November 23, 1963, and it is 2 pages long.

The memo does not say where Conine was when he briefed Bush. However, it does say that Conine was one of the people who briefed Bush on the assassination.

I did not see where Conine briefed Bush on the assassination in the document.

This is all very strange. Could you repeat the search using the correct spelling? 

9 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Nowhere in any of Pic's testimony does he say that the person in the photo was NOT his brother. He simply says he didn't recognize him, which is perfectly logical considering he hadn't seen him in person years.

Not that logical. And he is given every opportunity to say it looks like him but I’m not sure because I haven’t seen him in years. Imagine Pic coming in for that questioning without himself looking over his memories, or contacting other family members and comparing notes beforehand. That really doesn’t make sense. 

Yes I’ve wondered the same, and Steve and I in particular have gone over this, I believe starting with his thread about all the colonels. I still think it’s a valid question - regardless of the soundness of evidence regarding the 488th, there is a lot of Army Intelligence presence, current and retired, in the DPD and at Dealey Plaza. 

I don’t mind your posts at all, but let’s put it on another thread. I’ve always been struck by Pic not recognizing his brother. If you start a new thread and import these posts I won’t leave you hanging.

Or met with silence. I’ll bite, but not with vitriol. Could you summarize how this theory elucidates the assassination itself? Was one of the Oswalds a shooter, or a patsy? If either, what was the other one up to? 

16 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Unfortunately, the conversations with Sr.'s former campaign staffer eventually dissolved because I can't back down from what Albarelli uncovered which does not comport specifically with the staffer's understanding of the direction Bob Sr. had been led in his private investigation. I encouraged him to consider that the tragedy at The Ambassador ended Sr.'s quixotic journey in 1968; perhaps there was much more to uncover.

That’s really too bad. I am wondering what he told you about RFK’s private investigation. I’ve read about it, but this was someone inside. What can you share? 

William - we went back and forth about this 4 years ago. Like you I had to revisit everything, your current FBI report links included. The evidence that the Israelis were setting up to film the event is flimsy, whereas the evidence that they filmed and celebrated after it began is strong. They were clearly happy. The evidence of foreknowledge relies on one witness who says they were in place at 8am. Then there is the question of phone calls made to Jews who worked at the WTC. First, you’ve dropped your view on Al Franken admitting he got a warning call from Ed Koch, at least I hope so. That was definitely sarcasm. Can you imagine otherwise? He wrote that in his book. The developer Silverstein not being there because of a dentist appointment - hardly evidence. Jews who were called only cared about other Jews working there? We would have to do a careful study of all who showed up for work and all who didn’t, and literally question all those who didn’t. Otherwise it’s circumstantial, and very illogical. This effort to warn Jews on the morning of or night before needs to be thoroughly substantiated for it to have any validity, and it’s so darn farfetched and inherently anti-Semitic. Is there even agreement on how many Jews died? Have you gone through the list of names? 
 

56 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Just an FYI on a very interesting interview regarding the CIA and the JFKA. 

Asked about the CIA and the JFKA, RFK Jr. says yes, he suspects the CIA, but then conflates the Church Committee with the HSCA. This stumble is difficult to fathom.

RFK Jr. also says there have been "dozens of confessions" of people who were involved in the JFKA. 

He might mean suspects or witnesses admitted to certain actions, but if so, RFK Jr. used sloppy language. 

RFK goes on to give an accurate description about concerns attendant to the creation of a CIA and intel services.  He poses a very serious question on whether intel services are antithetical to an operating democracy (and a reminder to modern-day worshippers of the FBI and CIA). 

RFK Jr. also again suggests James Douglass' book, JFK and the Unspeakable. 

I am a fan of the book, but with deep reservations that Douglass cherry-picked witnesses, and was not sufficiently skeptical of certain witnesses. 

 

 

 

I’ve heard him make many mistakes. No other candidate in my memory puts themselves out there as long as he does without script, legal agreements beforehand, post production editing etc, so mistakes will happen, and there is nothing equivalent to compare with him. 

and editing, 

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Allen,

     Go back and study the references on this thread about the arrest and 70 day FBI detentions of the five Israelis.

     No one said they were dancing "on top" of vans.

     Witnesses in NJ called the police after seeing them filming and celebrating the WTC demolitions, before driving away in a white van.  They were later arrested, in the van, near Giants Stadium, and held in FBI custody for 70 days, before being released to Israel.

      They later appeared on Israeli television, and said that they were filming the WTC demolitions to "document the event."

      The five young men were working for a company in Weehawken, NJ called Urban Moving Systems. Their boss, Dominick Suter, allegedly a Mossad agent, fled to Israel after the five young men were arrested on 9/11.

    

And what do you make of this? A bunch of Mossad agents celebrating their organization’s success? Sure, they were arrested, and held for 70 days, then released. Unseemly behavior yes, guilty of something? Why do you think this arrest and later release is important? Do you have a theory in which this is a clue, along with other clues? I am the last person, as you know, who thinks criticizing Israel or Mossad is necessarily anti-Semitic. And I also think we haven’t been told the truth about the 9/11 attacks and subsequent apparent demolitions. But I cannot find a reason to use this particular story as an entry point into a conspiracy involving Mossad. So again, with all due respect, what is your theory? 

1 hour ago, Calvin Ye said:

The book Secret War Against Jews implied that the Jews blackmailed Angleton into becoming an Zionist

Reading it now. Haven’t gotten to that part, but when I do I’ll try to find your post and comment. Really interesting history book. 
I would appreciate knowing how ‘guest’ posts topics on the Forum. 

1 hour ago, David McLean said:

In support of RM’s revelatory research, and his rage at the implications,we as a community are entering into the grief process again and it hurts. JFK is dead we know that, but how, why and by whom? If Albarelli and Co are on the right track, many myself included are in a state almost of denial, RM is justifiably enraged, as was John Loftus, Peter Levenda, before him and Mae Brussell early on. And Phillip K Dick too.
But Kennedy? 
What sort of world do we live in, have we been dreaming, that the good guys won way back then?

 

Philip K Dick - love his books, but remind me - are you referring to The Man in the High Castle? Levenda’s books are unique contributions - I’ve read several, and wonder where he’s hiding out these days? Wish he would rejoin. I’m reading Loftus now - The Secret War against the Jews. The info in it about Kim Philby’s father, about Dulles and the US corporations he and his brother represented and their connections - really fascinating. And I have to wonder like you whether we are all sleepwalking through history. 

Good news - thanks to Leslie, Robert, and others the term Nazi can be used in its historical context, but not as a political bludgeon. Thanks to Mae Brussell for first opening this sordid history in possible connection to the JFK assassination. So many intrepid researchers have exposed these global Nazi and fascist connections, and other than by a smallish group of initiated citizens their labors remain unappreciated. The American people remain blissfully unaware of their own fascist history. I’m reading a book now by one of these researchers, John Loftus, called ‘The Secret War Against the Jews’. I had no idea that the notorious Kim Philby’s father was a notorious figure in the history of Ibn Saud and his Saudi Arabia kingdom. 
I was not aware of Francis Parker Yockey and his connections, or Julius Evola. 
tha task before us is to connect the dots between our CIA and Military Industrial Establishment and this fascist group, which clearly predates WW 2 and includes all manner of American Industrialists, and the assassination of JFK, not only ideologically - no doubt about that - but mechanically too. One of the key places to look is in our Cuban operations. Related closely to that is JMWAVE and yes, Madrid.

11 hours ago, Joseph Backes said:

Robert seems to think everyone needs to kiss his butt for some reason and or was part of sending him off this forum.  No, and no.

I've heard of Gehlen before.  I've heard of the National Socialist connection before.  

When you say you're posting something brand new that has never been posted before, and that's easily shown to not be true does he think no one is going to notice?

And when he tries to tell me how Archives II works? That's adorable. 

On a personal note I want to say that I appreciate your own document contributions to the Forum. There are many others too who contribute in that way, and I admit I am not among that august group of intrepid document researchers. It’s difficult time consuming work. The best possible outcome is for researchers to seek to complement the work of others, to refine the careful reading of documents, no easy task. 

Joseph and Robert - no need at all for tension. The way I see it Robert is complaining that all the info on N…s etc just sits without analysis. So he deserves credit for pulling it out and posting it. And I have to agree with one basic thing, and that is that the CIA/Gehlen org links, the cover names for former N…s, etc is rarely talked about by any of the major authors here. I don’t presume to know why that is. When Robert digs it up and posts it it sure seems like a discovery to me, even if it technically may not be. I’d rather discuss how much of a revelation docs like the WIROGUE ones might be, or what the significance or relation to other ops or operatives, than whether Robert deserves more or less credit for posting it. And since you Joseph are clearly a document hunter and well versed, what do you make of these documents?