Jeff Carter

Your logic fails because it leaves the author asserting that Stalin was in Cairo, which he clearly was not. It also fails through its narrow focus on a single sentence, without reference to the further contextual data points, such as the Reuters piece announcing the meeting and the research paper outlining the diplomatic discussions ahead of the Conferences. In your last post you claimed the latter was “gibberish”. Prouty said there was only one single official confirmation that Chiang Kai-shek attended, in some capacity, the Teheran Conference. He was correct in saying that, and he also accurately identified the source. You have put up a ridiculous fight over this very simple matter, and that stems entirely from the fact that you have started from your conclusion and have been working back from there. The problem with that method is that with every glitch in the veracity of your pronouncements, the map you have followed looks increasingly like a road to nowhere.

Yes, and the diplomatic discussions detailed in the scholarly paper establishes that a desire for secrecy imposed on such meeting was a specific negotiating point for the Soviets, and for specified reasons.

It is my understanding that the production of “official history” by Library of Congress researchers for government departments is a task taken with seriousness and attention to factual detail. In this case, a contrary opinion has been expressed holding that the author of one of these histories made not just one but two massive errors in a single sentence, and it somehow got past the proofreading and into print. This doesn't rise above the mere expression of opinion, as there is no corresponding evidence of previous sloppiness on behalf of the author or of general poor attention to detail in these works. Also, as has been shown, a meeting between Chiang Kai-Shek and Stalin in Teheran was announced in a contemporaneous newspaper article, and the diplomatic discussions in preparation of such meeting are detailed in a more recent scholarly paper. It is quite a remarkable coincidence that Prouty’s supposed “deranged fantasy” (as portrayed) is supported by such disparate sources.

Quote on - At the Teheran Conference in 1943, Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek both approved Roosevelt’s proposal for a trusteeship for Indochina, but Churchill was vehemently against the idea. - quote off You haven’t proven or refuted anything on this topic. The person you insisted was making it all up, also correctly pointed out the above information did not appear in any other volume - which is exactly all you have confirmed here. M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. O: It is NOT!

Buried? It appears on the first page of the first chapter, rather obvious in a brief paragraph. The volume in question is an authoritative official history assembled for a US Congressional Subcommittee by a researcher from the Library of Congress. The factual assertion in question is backed up by multiple sources both contemporaneous to 1943 and current to the present day. You dismiss it only because it undermined your expressed opinion. Your expressed opinion not only denied the authoritative history existed in the first place, but asserted that the person who had provided the correct information regarding the source had instead made it all up. Its the Education Forum equivalent of Monty Python’s “Argument Sketch”: M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. O: No it isn't! M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction. O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position! M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'. O: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! O: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! O: Yes it is! M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. O: It is NOT! M: It is! O: Not at all! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

Some good points. What I am seeing is a private letter addressing the topic of the covert Indonesian campaign of 1958. Prouty concludes the letter with a brief aside. Mr Campbell freaks out over the aside, and expends approximately 20 times the equivalent energy and verbiage attacking the intellectual foundations of this brief aside which, in context, appears in a private letter written 34 years ago. He could have saved himself a tremendous amount of personal energies by simply cutting and pasting “Proutyism #5” from John Mcadams’ rather infamous compendium of anti-Prouty talking points, because that is the whole content of his complaints. I think a far more relevant observation is: why are people coming to the Education Forum and promoting the concepts of persons such as John McAdams? Paul, you earlier asked a question of Prouty’s military career which brings up a bit too much information to make a response at all appealing. All I will say is that his long interview with David Ratcliffe - Understanding Special Operations - appears on the ratical.org website and basically covers what you are interested in. The discussion is focussed on legal, practical and historical implications related to the codification of covert activities during the Eisenhower administration, which is one of the more important topics of which Prouty possessed actual expertise which remains of value.

Is it not the case that a great deal of information regarding the Cuban operations became officially declassified between 1992 and 1999, and that may be the difference between what he was at liberty to discuss at the C-SPAN event vs later questions?

hi Robert - I appreciate any and all contributions to an actual discussion, absent the partisan talking points and insults. It has often struck me that Prouty's at times open disdain for the CIA is that of a military man who viewed the ascension of the CIA in the 1950s to status as a "fourth force" within the services with some degree of condescension - a shared attitude within the military I assume. But I think he speaks as a military man rather than for some faction of the military. Prouty never signed a CIA non-disclosure agreement, saying his own agreement with the Air Force superseded the former. This gave him some latitude in what he could talk about. As to ARRB interview - the questioners tend to control these sessions, but he did drop a couple of things late in the session: Prouty: Have you ever had access to the files kept by Michael Mitchell? Gunn: Not that I know of. Prouty: He was the military personnel officer for the CIA for years. Have you had any access to the records kept by Larry Houston? (General Counsel CIA)

Mr Campbell - I properly and accurately cited the source of the quotation. Wray’s opinion is expressed in the following: “given the fact that it is so full of retractions, contradictions and disqualifications of his other statements”. Wray’s opinion has been carefully and fully dissected in my essay, in Jim’s essay, and in the work which Jim’s essay refers.

I’m sorry, but the correspondence between Prouty and Krulak exists. It is in Len’s archive and I have personally held the letters. The idea they are some kind of forgery is nothing more than the desperate grasping of persons unwilling to let go of their pet theories. Mr Krulak unambiguously identified Lansdale in a private correspondence with Prouty. Prouty never shared that information publicly, although confidentially informed some colleagues, apparently including Livingstone. For reasons of his own, Livingstone broke Prouty’s trust and put Krulak on the defensive. I have not personally seen any quotations by which Krulak specifically disavowed the identification itself, but if he did it would reflect that he was under some pressure as the original correspondence exists and says what it says.

Kirk - I assume you will concede that best journalistic practice - describing the Who What Where etc - should avoid the use of anonymous sources. It was once a firm rule at legacy institutions. With that established, and referring to Anson’s Esquire piece - who is the witness? Did you notice that? The description of the entire supposed showdown relies on the interpretation of events made by an unidentified “witness”. The reason this might be of some relevance is, first, the author’s easily perceived biases expressed liberally throughout the article in attacks on Stone and Garrison as well as Prouty. Second, the well-known precedent of hostile individuals ingratiating their way into Garrison’s circle at the time of the Clay Shaw trial, and using their access to spread unfounded rumours to compliant reporters. The subsequent identification of these people served to discredit a fair amount of the contemporaneous talking-points used by critics of Garrison. In light of the above, if the anonymous witness used by Anson turns out to be someone like Gus Russo - and I am not saying it is, although it could well be - then the entire context by which readers should approach the veracity of this reporting is seriously altered. Otherwise, you are of course welcome to view the Anson article in any light you wish, and articulate any assumptions you may have formed. I would say, in rebuttal, that Oliver Stone’s response published in the subsequent Esquire issue needs to be considered. And the fact that Prouty was invited to participate in a speaking tour in early 1992 where Stone addressed the controversies, and that Prouty was specifically introduced at those events, undercuts the notion that some kind of rift had occurred.

Mr Campbell - it was a hatchet job. The esteemed Malcolm Blunt used the exact same-phrase in margin notes of his copy of ARRB military panel memoranda. The phrase I left out via the ellipsis consisted of Wray’s questionable opinions regarding his own work. I felt including it within the body of this particular quote was redundant since the substance of his opinion was being dealt with in full detail. Also - as is plain to see - the quotation finishes with a footnote. The footnote contains a proper citation to the source. Any reader, then, can access the original. If I had not done that, then you might have reason to complain. But I did, the citation is accurate, and therefore it conforms to any and all academic standards that I am aware of.

Kirk - articulating the reasonable position that achieving a positive ID from a backside photo is usually not possible absent subjective reference points (I.e. stooped shoulder, ring, etc) - is not the same at all as calling “bullsh-t”. The proper descriptive is being “agnostic” - in the sense of noncommittal. As for being “completely one-sided”: the debate premise “Fletcher Prouty is a fraud and a crackpot” is as absurd and easy to refute as a premise on the order of “the Single Bullet Theory is proven fact”. What appears as one-sided is actually just the inevitable refutation of a bad premise. The obvious rejoinder is that Lansdale’s alleged presence in Dealey Plaza cannot be ruled out through establishing him elsewhere (i.e. documents showing Lansdale to have been in Washington or Denver). Good one. Are you aware of who Malcolm Blunt is? Look him up. I trust you will regret this response. Krulak went “on the record” in a private correspondence with Prouty. After making the ID, Krulak wrote “What was he doing there?” In his reply, Prouty made a series of speculations (which he also later shared with Garrison). In later interviews, Krulak disavowed Prouty’s speculations but not the Lansdale ID. I have never mentioned anything about “threats from the Deep State”. Prouty had various things to say about Lansdale over the years, including admiration for Lansdale’s considerable skills in psychological operations. If a certain animus later crept into his discourse, as observed by Oliver Stone, it may reflect Prouty’s dismay over Lansdale’s status in the 1980s as mentor to Oliver North and the Enterprise crowd, whose corrupt covert networks exemplified everything Prouty came to oppose in the military and intelligence services of the United States. I have been a friend and colleague of Len Osanic for some years. Len, as most people know, befriended Fletcher Prouty in the 1990s and has hosted a web site with an extensive collection of Prouty’s work. Len also possesses an archive of papers, photos, and correspondence. As I have said, I have had reason for some immersion into this archive, which had been continuing when the Prouty debate exploded on this Forum about six months ago.

What is there to respond to? Stone is expressing a difference of opinion on Lansdale’s possible or potential role in the assassination, based on what he sees as a divergence of interests between Lansdale and the CIA during the MONGOOSE operation. So what? People disagree or have conflicting opinions all the time on this case. Rarely are such disagreements or differing opinions framed as “repudiations” or a collapse of “credibility”. If you could explain what it is exactly, about this particular expression, which catapults it into “repudiation” territory - then you should do that as it is otherwise much ado about nothing. Established facts about this controversy: Lansdale can be placed in Dallas suburb Denton Texas on the evening of November 21, 1963. That information was discovered amongst Lansdale’s papers. Numerous data points found in military files, Agency files, HSCA files, et al establish Lansdale as “heavily into CIA, not just a military figure.” (Blunt The Devil Is In the Details p86-87) Prouty’s identification of Lansdale in the “Tramp” photo was corroborated by General Krulak. (The third point remains controversial as these are “subjective” identifications, based on the individual’s personal experiences and contact with Lansdale, and are not independently verifiable. However, Krulak’s corroboration largely undercuts suggestion that the ID was merely a product of Prouty’s overheated imagination. Personally, I believe the ID is very interesting, particularly with Lansdale in proximity on the day, but cannot have status as “verified”. )

Expected by whom? There was no discernible groundswell of demand for an “explanation” of the alleged “confrontation” discussed third-hand in Esquire. The press was reacting “in defiance” regardless, based on outrage over the high-profile dissembling of the Warren Commission’s conclusions. That Stone included Prouty during his speaking tour addressing the controversies stoked by the film, and specifically introduced him at those events, basically answers your question.

Kirk - you have dredged up a thirty-two-year-old third-hand uncorroborated innuendo-laden report. If you want to traffiick in rumour, that is your prerogative. Otherwise your demand that some sort of direct refutation or response was “owed” at the time, or that your own innuendo - disguised as a “direct question” and expressed a full thirty-two years after it could have assumed any relevance - reflects anything approaching an imprimatur of seriousness or value related to the general discussion appears sadly misdirected. If you are striking up common cause that the JFK film was fatally compromised by its advisors then just say that.

Kirk - I am fairly certain Oliver Stone was well aware of who was pushing stories designed to disrupt his film, and the various motivations involved. The Esquire author was not physically present for the alleged “confrontation”. What you are reading is a third-hand account. Stone responded to the article - “…filled with numerous errors, omissions, out-of-context quotes, and misunderstandings.” Oliver Stone did a speaking tour in early 1992 to address the controversies, with Prouty as an invited guest who was introduced at each event. That said, you aren’t actually serious. You are presuming things based on innuendo.

Kirk - the Anson article for many reasons can be considered a hatchet job. You are entitled, of course, to approach it entirely at face value if that is what you wish. As to the veracity of the described “argument”, I was at that time (1991) living on the west coast, almost 3000 miles from the event in question, and so was in no position to witness such. How is that even possibly a serious question? Stone’s response to the article appeared in the following issue: On the Anson article: “…filled with numerous errors, omissions, out-of-context quotes, and misunderstandings.” On Prouty: “His revelations and his book The Secret Team have not been discredited in any intelligent way.” On the production: “Aside from having two thirds of my quotations out of context…Because we could not afford twenty-five researchers and the exorbitant sums asked for their books, we made enemies. These enemies have done their utmost to destroy the film before it is seen and in doing so have helped those who want the ‘lie’ to continue.”

Kirk - I have no idea what your post means or is getting at. Your signature snark at times overwhelms your message. If there is a message. This may surprise you, but I don’t believe the ’96 interview is anything more than a blip or footnote. Clearly the ARRB team acted unprofessionally in voicing their prejudicial preconceptions in written memoranda ahead of the event, and were stupid to write up a sort of triumphalist Summary which did little else but reveal their own ignorance over the topics they themselves initiated. Seen in today’s light, every single one of their celebrated “gotcha” points is a major fail. Even so, strangely, in recent times there’s been an effort to re-brand this non-event as some sort of major encounter, where Prouty “confessed to his lies”. Its all, in my opinion, very very stupid and inane, but like many other stupid and inane concepts related to the JFK topic which have gained momentum at one time or the other, sometimes its best to just pop the balloon if the opportunity arises. This may also surprise you, returning to the 1989-93 period which saw Prouty’s presumed “extensive involvement with right wing organizations” - which I acknowledge, by the way, although believe its actual import or relevance is much less than that perceived in some circles. The reason I say that is because across that same exact time period it is just as easy - using cherry-picked reference to specific known “involvements” - to make the case for Prouty’s “extensive” links to left / radical left milieus - associations which were in fact far more up-close and personal than anything involving the Liberty Lobby. That sort of information doesn’t appear in the Esquire article for good reason - it was a hit piece. It doesn’t appear in Chip Berlet’s reports, because Berlet was operating according to his own limited agenda. This is what I’ve been saying - for whatever reason, Prouty’s critics are often only partially informed. In my opinion, someone had to defend the guy, because the attacks on him were so pathetically stupid. That doesn’t mean there is some kind of “hard core pro-Prouty” cult - although you are welcome to join.

There is such thing as the English language and grammatical sentence structure. We’ve both quoted the specific sentence in question. Your analysis of the sentence’s syntax is extremely poor. Prouty never claimed to ”work on presidential protection.” You lie. Your reading comprehension skills range from middling to atrocious, trending toward the latter often in coordination with your expressed ulterior agendas. There is a developed body of scholarship which flatly contradicts your assertion. The notes exist. I’ve seen them myself. You are wrong. Basically, your entire argument concerning events related to the Cairo-Teheran Conferences amounts to an appeal to the demonstrably shallow limits of your own knowledge base, coupled with a generalized trashing of all other points-of-view so to bolster the requirements of your lame and often factually-challenged talking points. I am very confident that you know next to nothing about WW2 era flight suits, refuelling schedules, the composition of the Chinese delegation, security arrangements at Teheran, or proofreading protools at the Library of Congress. Yet you blather on incessantly about all these things, often presented within an invective-laden torrent of ill will. Your entire purpose here on this Forum is to cause disruption and distribute toxic energies.

The Antarctica "allegation" boils down to a single sentence published in 1992. The ARRB military panel - which was the sole body within the wider Board to specifically examine Prouty's work - clearly formed prejudicial conclusions before interviewing Prouty, were largely uninformed regarding his work, and made serious factual errors both during the interview and in the subsequent Summary. Individual panel members expressed strong endorsement for the Warren Commission's conclusions, and expressed firm opinion that nothing at all was amiss with the Secret Service's presidential protection actions on Nov 22, 1963. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-the-arrb

Kirk - Anson's Esquire piece was discussed at length here: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/old-wine-in-new-bottles-fletcher-prouty-s-new-critics-recycle-the-past There are many reasons why it can be fairly characterized as a "hatchet-job".

Absolutely incorrect. Prouty’s references to the trip, over the years, amount to exactly what he told the ARRB panel. I submitted a representative example yesterday. Here is another: "In November 1963, when I was Chief of Special Operations with the Joint Staff in the Pentagon, I was sent to Antarctica with a large group of VIPs, industrialists, newsmen, and others. We went there to witness a most important event. A small nuclear plant was going to be activated at the Navy Base of the shore of McMurdo Sound, Antarctica; and from that moment on all water, all heat, and all electricity for that huge scientific establishment was going to provided by that tiny, inconspicuous nuclear plant." (“Water”) This is an accurate quote, but Griffiths somehow misses the two most important qualifying words in the sentence: “wondered” and “might”. “I have always wondered, deep in my own heart, whether that strange invitation that removed me so far from Washington and from the center of all things clandestine that I knew so well might have been connected to the events that followed.” This sentence is the single basis for the ARRB panel’s “allegation”. Leaving aside the fact it was published in 1992, a full year or two after the JFK script had been written, one must ask how this sentence could be considered in any way definitive - as portrayed by the ARRB panel, Litwin and Griffiths? The words “wonder” and “might” establish this as a non-definitive thought experiment, and to jump on Prouty over it seems an exercise in denying the man his own thoughts, just as the criticism over Teheran involve an effort to deny Prouty his own personal experiences. Further, because these critics are largely unaware of Prouty’s wide body of work, they are blissfully ignorant that the original source of the “suspicions” over the Antarctic trip was actually Bud Fensterwald, as expressed at the time of the HSCA. Prouty: “Bud Fensterwald had selected me for no apparent reason to become a member of his CIA committee, we were having lunch together. He said...out of the blue... "Fletch did you ever wonder why you were selected to go to the South Pole?" (Mongoose Cycle 1961-62) But Prouty is correct - the overseeing of a small nuclear reactor at McMurdo had no relation to his previous assignments. This is confirmed in part by a letter of commendation for Prouty’s good work sent by James Mooney Antarctic Projects officer to General Thomas D. White July 2, 1959. Completely untrue, and I highly doubt Griffith has any personal knowledge of the discussions informing the JFK screenwriters. He has simply made this up. The “claim” was an acknowledged dramatic embellishment. Because the "professed suspicions" do not exist. Prouty simply reiterated what he had always said about the purpose of the trip. There was no "admission", and in truth, the critics did little more than reveal their own lack of knowledge over the topic, and their inability to understand the role of dramatic license in construction of the JFK screenplay. The continuing stubborn insistence that this moronic talking point is in any way convincing is merely an expression the obvious confusion and bad faith of this self-appointed star-chamber.

The podcast in question was premised on a misunderstanding which had the effect of actively misleading the listening audience, and occurred due to a failure to “read the footnotes” -which is its own sort of irony. The ARRB panel’s critique was premised on a single non-definitive sentence from Prouty’s 1992 book, and is a very thin marker to deign absolutist terms such as “truth” and “lies”, particularly in light of multiple definitive statements to the contrary.

This entire paragraph is absolutely false. You haven't "proven" anything other than the observable truth that you simply do not know what you are talking about.