Jeff Carter

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Objective, reasonable grownups who have done any serious reading on the subject of WW II diplomacy and/or Chiang Kai-shek will look at Gibbons' single unsourced statement and will quickly and easily recognize that Gibbons simply conflated the Cairo Conference with the Tehran Conference. One obvious indication of this is found in Gibbons' very next sentence, where he recounts that FDR told Churchill that Chiang had told him that he did not want to control Indochina and did not want to administer a trusteeship in Indochina (p. 4). This is exactly what Chiang told FDR at the Cairo Conference. 

What Gibbons clearly intended to say is that Chiang and FDR discussed the Indochina trusteeship at the Cairo Conference and that Chiang approved the proposal, and that FDR then notified Stalin of this fact at the Tehran Conference and that Stalin agreed with the trusteeship idea. 

This is why every other government source and scholarly study on the Cairo and Tehran conferences and/or on Chiang says that Chiang only attended the Cairo Conference and then went home to China, and that only Stalin, FDR, and Churchill attended the Tehran Conference. In previous replies, I have cited and quoted some of the numerous sources that document these facts. 

The kind of error that Gibbons obviously made happens occasionally when authors make a passing comment about a subject that is not the topic of the book and is not even the topic of the paragraph. 

And it bears repeating that Prouty's other Tehran claim--that FDR persuaded Stalin to get Mao to stand down--is demonstrably bogus. As I have proved, the subject of Mao's operations was never even discussed at the Tehran Conference. 

I notice that the Prouty apologists in this thread have made no effort to defend Prouty's zany claim that Ibn Saud (the king of Saudi Arabia) attended the Cairo Conference.  Prouty was fond of just making up factoids to make himself look important and to give the illusion of appearing to have inside knowledge of important historical events. 

Finally, I would note that in Prouty's 1975 speech at Yale, the same speech in which he claimed that Ibn Saud attended the Cairo conference, Prouty repeated his false claim that he worked with the Secret Service on presidential protection. 

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.

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Now that you've reminded me of those things, I see that you are right. And the fact that most sources say that Chiang Kai-shek didn't attend is proof that the meeting was a tightly -- but not perfectly -- held secret.

If Mike can't see that, he's got a real problem with his reasoning.

 

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. 

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Maybe the whole thing can be explained this way:

Prouty flew Chiang Kai-shek's delegation to the Tehran conference. But he never saw Chiang Kai-shek himself.

Later he read that book (by Gibbons?) and saw that Chiang Kai-shek did indeed attend the conference. Having never heard that, Prouty figured it must have been a highly secretive meeting.

And so he would say so in his interviews.

But what he didn't know is that Gibbons (?) had made a mistake in writing his book and had conflated Tehran for Cairo.

That makes sense to me. Any problems with that from either side?

 

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!

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Jeff did provide info about the Tehran Conference and that was pages ago.

Uh, I soundly refuted that "info." The "info" was a single unsourced sentence buried in a paragraph about a different subject in a book about U.S. Government policy and the Vietnam War. The author clearly confused and conflated the Cairo Conference and the Tehran Conference.

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

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Maybe all this misses a point. We didn’t need Prouty’s mistaken evidence of a Bush connection to the Bay of Pigs. McBride’s discovery of the Hoover memo to ‘George Bush of the CIA was a far more important clue. Prouty’s revelation was a misdirection, intentional or not. But that doesn’t amount to a vindication of George Bush, whose explanation for the memo, discovered on the eve of his appointment to CIA director, doesn’t ring true. I realize this is a thread about Prouty, not Bush. 

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?

34 minutes ago, Robert Reeves said:

I get this. I am a long time listener to BOR. Col. Prouty is without doubt the most interesting and informative persona in the 'white hat' information volunteers. A real insider. But he had the chance to really go on record with the ARRB. That was a watershed moment. What I posted about Prouty not grassing Bush is a minor discretion, Obviously. If Prouty had gone on record with the ARRB and told them 'that was Lansdale in Dealy Plaza at approximately 1:30pm with the three tramps' it would have been on the record that he believed Lansdale was involved in the assassination of JFK. It would have given major credence to the CIA involvement. Now there is major doubt to the real position of Col. Prouty. Who did he represent? Which Pentagon faction?

 

What is fascinating about Col. Prouty is his code. His loyalty to the machine (CIA). I  just find it fascinating he points his finger at Lansdale but, really, he does not put the knife in and really finish the guy off. This doesn't really move the truth seeking work any further down the line. It leaves unanswerable 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)

28 minutes ago, Doug Campbell said:

A "phrase"? 55 words across (2) sentences from (2) different paragraphs is your idea of a "phrase"?(!)

Conveniently, Wray's stated reasoning for insisting on the release of a full-interview transcript is included in this 55-word "phrase" excised by Mr. Carter. Also missing completely from the excised portion is any opinion whatsoever expressed by Wray regarding "Wray's own work." Read it again:

An "opinion" of "Wray's work" by Wray does NOT exist within the 55 words excised. 

PLEASE with the misdirectional nonsense.

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.

1 hour ago, Rob Clark said:

By the way @Jeff Carter, I have audio from an interview with Gen. Krulak done with Harrison Livingstone in the early 90's in which he denies ever telling Prouty that he thought it looked like Lansdale in the tramp photo. Real horse's mouth type stuff...not Prouty said this, and Prouty said that...

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

I've pointed this out as well and provided a link to the recording of the Livingstone-Krulak interview. Not only did Krulak not corroborate Prouty's nutty ID of Lansdale in the tramp photo, he said he had no reason to believe that Lansdale would have been involved in the assassination. 

Apparently Prouty or one of his followers forged the Krulak-to-Prouty letter in which Krulak endorses the Lansdale ID. A letter can be forged relatively easily, but a tape recording between two men whose voices can be checked is infinitely harder. Occam's Razor says the letter was forged.

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.

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I agree Doug, Jeff would scream "hatchet job" at a croquet match. And has always been screaming "hatchet job", in  that he and his entire country is being hatcheted everyday by the U.S. and if not deep state, the CIA.*

I mean, just look at their prosperity!    heh heh! 

And yet when ever asked friendly questions about his view of what's going on in his country, he is mute.

*****

 

Ok, Jeff I'll accept you've made your pro Prouty case.

 

OLIVER STONE: "he (Fletcher) always suspected Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza because there's a vague photograph-----  Fletcher always directed a LOT of venom toward Lansdale and I never understood why."

 

We can interpret that as Stone thinking Prouty can be irrational and seems to have an emotional vendetta against Lansdale, and is skeptical of his monstrous claims against Lansdale.

 

Now about the article:

 

Jeff: "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 "-

 

No, Quote from the story:     "Fletcher really went into orbit," recalled a witness to the meeting. No a direct witness, I guess because he's not a principal that's a second hand account? I appreciate you're at least not dismissing Esquire as CIA/ Operation Mockingbird! That's would be such a BS cop out!

 

 

With Stone opening the door of doubt about Prouty. Are the events depicted in the Esquire magazine article more likely to have happened or less?

 

Since it's much more likely. I like this excerpt about Prouty's reaction.

 

Prouty began by saying that he had confused the four-page draft NSAM 273 with the one-paragraph NSAM 263. When Stone, who had seen both documents, appeared dubious, Prouty switched tactics, claiming that the draft NSAM was a forgery and that the source from which it had come -- namely, the Kennedy Library -- had been "infiltrated."

 

I have seen this BS  used here  from time to time. A lot of it can be about the authenticity of photos or film, for example. Sort of a last ditch salvaging, by saying you can now believe in  nothing, because in this case , the Kennedy library has been "infiltrated" by the "deep state."

Not a good look!

 

Then this :

At that, Newman tore into him. Prouty was wrong, he said: about Bundy, about "infiltration," about the NSAMs, about the entire case. Unaccustomed to being dressed down by a junior officer, Prouty erupted. "Fletcher really went into orbit," recalled a witness to the meeting. "He jumped up and went into this long tirade about his forty years and how he had done everything and written everything and briefed everybody and if that wasn't good enough for Oliver, he was quitting."

 

He's really being dressed down about everything!, senses that Stone is probably at least largely in agreement with Newman, and that he is the "odd man out", and threatens to quit.

That's the most logical interpretation.

In other words, Prouty is pouty!

Again, not a good look!

 

 

 

 

* Who according to Jeff, handily overthrew Ukraine in 2015 as easily as they did Guatemala in 1953.

 But I digress.

 

 

 

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.

2 hours ago, Doug Campbell said:

The other 50% of the Prattling Podcasters here. Mr. Carter suggests that we were guilty of "failure to 'read the footnotes'", and that we effectively "misled the audience". Let's talk about footnotes and misleading your audience. Specifically, Mr. Carter's Footnote #6 from his recent article.

The document footnoted #6 in Mr. Carter's article is a memo written by ARRB staffer Tim Wray on October 23rd of 1996, following the deposition of Prouty. This memo has been misrepresented and lied about over & over, and Mr. Carter's article was no exception. Read the memo ~in it's entirety (NOT just the few lines Mr. Carter saw fit to include)~ at Page 70 at the following link: https://89e2ba32-c324-491e-a629-eacc27d8f25c.filesusr.com/ugd/325b1c_4ff67bdfd4c74303aeb70a9696d43d88.pdf

Mr. Carter~ in his zeal to tow the K&K/BOR Company Line~ used an age-old and simple device to completely excise every bit of the CONTEXT of Mr. Wray's memo from Mr. Wray's memo. That device?

                                                                                             " ... "

The "dot-dot-dot"-edit. 

Here's how this memo is represented in Mr. Carter's article:

See the " ... " between the words "fluff" and "There's"? So, what did Mr. Carter excise from the memo (so that his readers wouldn't read it)? Let's read it together. The excised portion is bracketed in green:

     

Mr. Carter~ and others writing recent defenses of Prouty~ try over and over again to portray this memo as Wray admitting a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, and expessing worry that if they only make available the Summary of the interview, that they'll somehow be found-out. "If we don't publish the whole interview transcript, then people will KNOW we ambushed this Truth-Teller!"

Completely misrepresentative, totally effin' WRONG, and disingenuous to say the least. 

When you read the approximately 55 words that Mr. Carter excised from the memo~ PLUS everything AFTER the phrase "hatchet-job"~ you suddenly understand, you suddenly realize, you suddenly GET exactly what Wray was conveying in the memo. 

Wray was NOT saying, "We should publish the entire interview or else folks are gonna know we did a hatchet-job on Prouty." No!

If Wray and the ARRB were trying to hide a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, why then would Wray *insist that the entire interview be published in transcript-form, word-for-word*? Yeah, that's how you hide stuff! With full and complete disclosure, right??

With the words excised by Mr. Carter RESTORED to the body of the memo, you realize what Wray is actually saying with the memo: "Prouty folded like a pair of dime-store socks, and unless we publish the entire interview, it's gonna LOOK like we were just picking on some crazy old guy." And Wray was 100% correct. 

Mr. Carter is fond of admonishing folks to "read the footnotes." After reading the entire memo on the air, Rob and myself took the opportunity to give our listeners a piece of advice that they should use moving forward:

"If you see a "dot-dot-dot" edit in an article, IMMEDIATELY read the entire piece being quoted, ESPECIALLY what's being excised, because~chances are~ it's important." 

The only "hatchet-job" around here is the one Mr. Carter performed on Tim Wray's memo. The very epitome of "cherry-picking".

 

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.

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

The problem I have  is that if you actually suspected that Prouty's charges about Lansdale being at Dealey Plaza were bullsh-t. How could you spend all these hours writing this piece solely defending Prouty?. When you know about this and omit it, IMO, you're really bs'ing us.

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.

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I say now, Fluff your f--k piece , or uh........well you know what I mean. It's so completely one sided!

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.

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Lansdale can be placed in Dallas suburb Denton Texas on the evening of November 21, 1963. That information was discovered amongst Lansdale’s papers.

Yeah, interesting  but so what?

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).

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 "Heavily into CIA " Jeff, cooll! Explain!. "The Devil is in the Details" Was that a life changing book for you Jeff? Anybody  can write a book. Are we suppose to attach any more to your response to the book than say, a young woman writing a book about how much she loves her cat?

Good one. Are you aware of who Malcolm Blunt is? Look him up. I trust you will regret this response.

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff: Prouty’s identification of Lansdale in the “Tramp” photo was corroborated by General Krulak.

But he won't get go on record about this right? But your answer to that is that he was threatened by the Deep state---Prove it!

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”.

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

OLIVER STONE:   Fletcher always directed a LOT of venom toward Lansdale and I never understood why.

 

Why the animus is very unclear.

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.

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

How did you become attracted to Prouty? I assume it was first through Stone's movie and you then immersed yourself in his books?

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.

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 I was trying to find this. This was a quote of Oliver Stone  submitted by B.A. Copeland. It can found at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28739-critics-still-attacking-oliver-stones-jfk-film-with-same-old-factual-deviancies-crap/page/2/

 

Jeff, You were present on this thread when this was posted and you were notably silent about it. And now you're trying to push that there was no absolutely conflict between Stone and Prouty? Well if there wasn't, (which I highly doubt) there certainly became a credibility issue and you knew very well about it.

 

Prouty made very serious allegations about Lansdale, and Stone now kind of took away your Lansdale- at- Dealey- Plaza voodoo doll, but I guess now you admit Prouty was full of sh-t about that, but a God about everything else?? Explain

 

I sometimes  wonder about this. Can anybody say anything that will damage their credibility?

 

Interesting this was in Quebec. Wasn't Jim Di with Stone when he said this? He's been silent here  too.

 

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”. )

35 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff: Otherwise your demand that some sort of direct refutation or response was “owed” at the time,

I didn't "demand 'anything.Jeff.  I'm trying to educate you on what was expected, and the world Stone had to live in at the time. It's really simple , you don't want to turn off the press with defiance because you'll need them again. I had the same thing with guests on my radio program.

Jeff, you complicate the situation to the point of complete paralysis.  Believe me if Stone could make a complete refutation and say that it was a complete fabrication, he would have, but he didn't.  If he was holding that hand, unlike you he wouldn't have acted proud and above the fray, because he realizes he's just going to encourage more press BS.

He would have used it. He's not a fool!

Paul, I was trying to have a substantive conversation. I'll deal with your accusations later.

 

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.

42 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff, Let me educate you in public speak, using your statements. Which I'm sure aren't the only statements.

Jeff reading a quote from Stone.“…filled with numerous errors, omissions, out-of-context quotes, and misunderstandings.”

How many times have I heard that exact litany of denials? That is complete PR. It's a bit of misdirection. Sort of alluding to making a well detailed list of the naysayers sins. But not denying such an event happened.                                             I

It's common, I wouldn't blame Stone at all! Let's break it down.

“…filled with numerous errors",- errors in what? You understand that implies a subject, Jeff?.

"omissions"- probably not but it is always an integral part of that litany.

"Out of context quotes"--You understand Jeff, that implies there was such a dialog to quote?

"Misunderstandings"-- a sort of 10 cent word, which could mean anything, but always sounds good!

Have I lost you yet Jeff?*

Now what would have been a complete refutation?  Let me make it simple for you.

Stone: The Esquire article is a complete fabrication.  There's absolutely no truth to any of it.

Isn't that easy Jeff? Why didn't Stone say that?

Because if he made an absolute denial , they might use alleged witnesses to contradict him and search  into it trying  discredit the film further. You can read from the fact that there wasn't a simple denial that there was such an incident. The magnitude of that incident is unclear.

Then you might ask, why don't  reporters just ask Stone  "what are the "errors" you cite in Esquire article?

Because they usually don't. Stone's under no obligation to go into the weeds about any arguments or disputes that may have happened during the filming.

 

 

*Go to top of the page. You notice how i asked you the question twice. The last sentence to you was.

"That's a serious question  I asked Jeff."

How did I know to write that a  second time?  It's because I knew you'd answer everything but the direct question, which is exactly what happened.

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.

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

He certainly not denying it. Is he Jeff? I covered that too below.

California? I'm not sure how relevant that is. You haven't been to Tehran either. But I'm at least  glad to hear you've been out of Canada!.

Kirk: After spending all the time and money on the film, and getting all the resistance Stone got for making the film, if Stone was to find out Prouty wasn't near as credible as he first thought. You really think he'd scream to the press about it? Of course not!

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.

47 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff: Kirk - I have no idea what your post means or is getting at!

 

No it's perfectly clear in my  first and last sentence, at the top of this page!. Read it again. The story is above.

Now for the third time.

This story represents a breach of trust between Prouty and Stone.

 

First sentence: Kirk to Jeff:   So to address what I've brought before you. Be clear. You're saying you know with certainty that such an argument involving these issues didn't happen between Stone, Prouty and Newman?

Last sentence:   :Kirk to Jeff:     And Jeff that's a serious question I asked you.

Clear enough for ya. Jeff?
 

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.”

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Ok Jeff, 

So to address what I've brought before you. Be clear. You're saying you know with certainty that such an argument involving these issues didn't happen between Stone, Prouty and Newman? and regretted mythic character hero of Stone film lore, supernal Colonel Prouty didn't get pouty?

 

heh heh   a joke

 

Let's be clear, the scene involving Donald Sutherland is the most popular scene of JFK. It's also the most essential. Without it, it's just a lot of loose plot weaver's skeins. Stone goes from Ferrie, to Bannister, to Dulles to LBJ to Clay Shaw, to Jimmy Hoffa  and who else?. The great majority of the people going to see the movie aren't hardcore JFKA freaks. That  scene ties everything together or no serious critic would waste his time on it. That scene reveals the entire whodunit  of the film!

 

After spending all the time and money on the film, and getting all the resistance Stone got for making the film, if Stone was to find out Prouty wasn't near as credible as he first thought. You really think he'd scream to the press about it? Of course not!

 

 

*****

 

We'll leave aside Prouty's  folding like an armchair before the ARRB  softball finals* as I realize he is somewhat of a Trumpian figure and his appeal is beyond any performance expectations for you,  but  regarding the continual denial about Prouty's extensive involvement with right wing organizations asserting that he in essence didn't know who he was with, or what W. and Jeff Carter now boast as the "original" Steve Scalise defense!

I mean that's about as believable as Jim Di telling us Jackie was the only one!

 

 

Heh heh

 

*I understand hard core pro Proutyist's  will scream "deep state!" and question if he should have been asked to testify at all, but that was a softball interview!

And Jeff that's a serious question I asked.

 

 

 

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. 

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Even when confronted with Prouty's own words, you ignore their clear meaning and implausibly spin them as innocently as you can. 

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.

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty clearly lied when he claimed for years that he worked on presidential protection. 

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.

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

And, no, there was no such thing as "military presidential protection units."

There is a developed body of scholarship which flatly contradicts your assertion.

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I notice you punted on Prouty's gibberish about the notes he supposedly took during his alleged phone call with the 112th MI Group and about the phone call itself. This was just more of his bunk.   

The notes exist. I’ve seen them myself. You are wrong.

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

this brings us to Prouty's wild tale that Chiang and his delegation attended the Tehran Conference, and that Prouty personally flew the delegation to Tehran.

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.

23 minutes ago, Rob Clark said:

Actually, the ARRB's critique was premised on the cumulative remarks of Prouty throughout the 70's, 80's & 90's, his articles and books, statements made to Stone for JFK, correspondence with other researchers, and conference speeches. People like Livingstone and Weisberg smelled a rat long before the ARRB exposed Prouty as a fraud.

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

43 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

This article is well worth the read. It reveals of the conflict Oliver Stone was faced with during the shooting of JFK, which eventually came to a boiling point between Stone, Prouty and John Newman.

https://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100whox.html

 

First Stone's initial reaction to the charges of Prouty's right wing connections, then the introduction of John Newman.

Stone -- whose father is Jewish, as it happens -- seemed unconcerned. After being assured by Prouty that he was neither a racist nor an anti-Semite ("I never met a Jew I didn't like," said Prouty) but merely a writer in need of a platform, he rejected advice to drop the colonel as a technical adviser and to rewrite Mr. X so that Prouty could not be identified. "I'm doing a film on the assassination of John Kennedy," said Stone, "not the life of Fletcher Prouty."

The bullheadedness had an element of calculation, because by then, Stone had recruited a Vietnam adviser with far more heft than Prouty, an active-duty US Army major named John Newman.

Meticulous, low-key, methodical -- everything, in sum, Prouty was not -- Newman had been quietly working with Stone since the spring of 1991. He'd first learned of the film from a publishing friend who informed him that Stone had an assassination movie in the works, in which Vietnam would figure prominently. Stone's thesis, the friend had said, was that Kennedy, had he lived, would have withdrawn from Vietnam -- precisely the subject that Newman, a highly experienced intelligence specialist, had been privately researching for his Ph.D. thesis for nearly a decade. During that time, he had ferreted out fifteen thousand pages of documents -- three times the total of the Pentagon Papers -- and interviewed scores of top-ranking sources. The data, checked and rechecked, had led him, bit by bit, doubt by doubt, to an explosive conclusion: Not only had Kennedy put in motion the withdrawal just weeks before his death, but an intricate secret operation, involving the US Saigon command and certain US-based foreign-policy officials, had been systematically deceiving the White House about the disastrous course of the war.

*****

The showdown onset with Stone, Prouty and Newman.:

The showdown took place in an Interior Department office that had been made over to appear like the Pentagon lair of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While technicians set lights for the next scene, Stone summoned Prouty and Newman and came right to the point. Prouty's association with Livingstone must immediately end. No more information was to be provided to him, and Prouty was to do his utmost to ensure that he would not publish anything that would discredit the film. Then Stone turned to Prouty's misreading of the critical NSAM. "What's the story, Fletch?" he asked.

Prouty began by saying that he had confused the four-page draft NSAM 273 with the one-paragraph NSAM 263. When Stone, who had seen both documents, appeared dubious, Prouty switched tactics, claiming that the draft NSAM was a forgery and that the source from which it had come -- namely, the Kennedy Library -- had been "infiltrated." At that, Newman tore into him. Prouty was wrong, he said: about Bundy, about "infiltration," about the NSAMs, about the entire case. Unaccustomed to being dressed down by a junior officer, Prouty erupted. "Fletcher really went into orbit," recalled a witness to the meeting. "He jumped up and went into this long tirade about his forty years and how he had done everything and written everything and briefed everybody and if that wasn't good enough for Oliver, he was quitting."

At length, Stone managed to pacify Prouty and the session ended in edgy detente. The incident, though, seemed to mark a turning point for Stone, not only in his unquestioning regard for Prouty, from whom he gently began to distance himself, but in his attitude about the assassination and his film. Never again would he wax quite so rhapsodic about Garrison, whose appalling blunders he had belatedly begun to appreciate. Among his staff, which had long been trying to wean him from the DA, there was hope that, in editing, Stone would loop in a line or two, making his new skepticism clear. Under the growing influence of more of the serious buffs, he was now even willing to admit doubt, not that there had been a conspiracy, or that Vietnam had been its ghastly consequence, but doubt in the certainty that he knew everything.

 

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".

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

for many years Prouty led everyone to believe that he had been sent to the South Pole shortly before the assassination to prevent him from interfering in the Dallas security arrangements.

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”)

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

In his book JFK, Prouty said that he had always “wondered, deep in my own hear,” if he had been sent to the South Pole to keep him “far from Washington,” and that he had “observed and learned” many things that led him to believe that “such a question might be well founded” (p. 284).

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)

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Moreover, Prouty said that it “seemed strange” to him that he was ordered to go on the South Pole trip because the trip “had absolutely nothing to do with my previous nine years of work” (p. 284).

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.

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty convinced Oliver Stone to include the strange-sinister-South-Pole-trip claim in Stone’s 1991 movie JFK.

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.

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Yet, when Prouty was interviewed by the ARRB, he said nothing about his professed suspicions about why he was sent to the South Pole.

Because the "professed suspicions" do not exist.  Prouty simply reiterated what he had always said about the purpose of the trip.

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Following Prouty’s ARRB interview, critics pounced on his admission and used it to further attack Stone’s movie.

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.

1 hour ago, Rob Clark said:

One guy here, (Me) with a podcast that prattled on about this issue 2 years ago now, and for much more than 20 mins. I actually do know what I'm talking about, and your willful ignorance to get even the most basic of facts right is pathetic. The only reason you and Osanic "doth protest too much", is because you make money selling Prouty's lies and stories. 

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.

54 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Your replies are what smack of bad faith. I've already proved in this thread that Prouty clearly suggested, in writing, that he was sent to the South Pole to keep him from intervening in the Dallas security arrangements. Prouty repeated this tale to Oliver Stone when he acted a consultant for Stone's 1991 movie JFK. This is why Oliver Stone included the claim in the movie.

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.