Michael Griffith

Uh, well, the problem is that my statement is defensible based on Whaley's own WC testimony. I did not say that Whaley said that he chose Knapp. On the other hand, writing quickly and wanting to move on to the point about the pickup time in the timesheet, I did not explain the basis of my comment that Whaley chose Knapp. I should have explained that although Whaley said he chose Oswald he also repeatedly said that he chose the No. 2 man and that the No. 2 man was Knapp, not Oswald. I should have also explained that Whaley even specified that the man he chose was the third man to come out to the lineup, and that this was Knapp, not Oswald. And I should have added that Whaley even correctly noted that the men entered the lineup from left to right, which makes it even more puzzling that Whaley kept insisting that he chose the No. 2, and that he stuck to this even when confronted with the typed police statement that said he chose the No. 3 man. To address your rather dishonest nit-picking, I've edited that statement in my original reply to read as follows: To all but the willfully blind, it is obvious that Whaley had doubts, if not guilt, about his "identification" of Oswald in the lineup and was dropping fairly obvious hints that there was something wrong with his "identification." The real crux of the matter is that Whaley's "identification" of Oswald in the police lineup was hardly "positive" when considered in light of Whaley's WC testimony and the irregularities in the police statements taken from Whaley. This, in turn, takes us back to the crucial 12:30 pickup time noted in Whaley's timesheet, which categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger.

Paul, come on. How close and how long of an association with Holocaust deniers, white supremacists, and anti-Semites is acceptable to you? We're not talking about a casual, brief association. We're talking a close and prolonged association that included Prouty having a book republished by the IHR (as I just proved), Prouty appearing on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in a four-year period (documented by the ADL), Prouty expressing his pride and gratitude for the IHR's willingness to republish his book (documented by anti-fascist, ultra-liberal journalist Chip Berlet), Prouty recommending that people read The Spotlight (as proudly confirmed by The Spotlight itself), Prouty's evasive answer when asked about Carto's Holocaust denial (also documented by Berlet), etc., etc. If a conservative lone-gunman theorist did half of these things, every WC critic in this forum would justifiably condemn him, and no sane conservative WC apologist would dare cite his work.

Thank goodness for the Internet Archive website. Thanks to the website, I was able to find "friendly" proof that Fletcher Prouty had his book The Secret Team republished by the IHR's Noontide Press. I found this proof in a book that ardently defends Holocaust denial, white supremacy, the IHR, and Liberty Lobby and its newspaper The Spotlight. The book was written by radical right-winger and Holocaust denier Michael Collin Piper and is titled Coup d’Etat: The Bizarre Inside Story of How an Intelligence Operative Tied to the CIA and Israel’s Mossad Orchestrated the Take-Over of the Institute for Historical Review And Set in Motion the Ultimate Destruction of Liberty Lobby. I might add that the IHR, via its Noontide Press, also published The Spotlight. The book's appendix lists books and publications that were published or republished by the IHR's Noontide Press. The list includes Prouty's book The Secret Team (LINK). Here are some other splendid titles published or republished by Noontide Press: White America, by Earnest Sevier Cox. In case you didn't already guess, Cox was an ardent white supremacist. Lincoln's Negro Policy, by Earnest Sevier Cox The Myth of the Six Million, by David Hoggan. This is a standard Holocaust denial text. Willis Carto was a contributor. Debunking the Genocide Myth: A Study of the National Socialist Concentration Camps and the Alleged Extermination of European Jewry, by Paul Rassinier. This is another popular book among Holocaust deniers. Our Nordic Race, by Richard Kelly Hoskins The Hoax of the 20th Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, by Dr. Arthur Butz Liberty Lobby Membership Cookbook Report From Iron Mountain, by Leonard Lewin Anne Frank's Diary: A Hoax, by Dietlieb Felderer Eugenics & Race, by Dr. Roger Pearson. Pearson was a purveyor of extreme racist and anti-Semitic views. In 1958, he founded the Northern League for North European Friendship, a group that promoted Pan-Germanism, anti-Semitic, and neo-N-azi racial ideology. Anti-Zion, by William Grimstad The Liberty Lobby Congressional Handbook Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?, by Robert Faurisson. (Yes, it is, but these nutjobs argued that it was faked.) The Zionist Factor, by Ivor Benson The Life of An American Jew in Racist, Marxist Israel, by Jack Bernstein Epic: The Story of the Waffen SS, by Leon Degrelle. Don't you know that Hitler was actually a swell guy, and that the SS were noble warriors? Behind Jonestown, by Ed Dieckmann. If you think Prouty's nutty theory about Jonestown is bad, Dieckmann makes Prouty's theory look respectable by comparison. While spinning a wild tale about Jonestown, Diechmann takes time to deny the Holocaust. Germany Reborn, by Herman Goering. For those who don't know, Goering was one of Hitler's henchmen and a leading figure in the Third Reich. The Auschwitz Myth, by Wilhelm Staglich. The How - Liberty Lobby's Record of Its Political Aims Spotlight on the Bilderbergers Inside the Bilderberg Group Coup D'Etat: The ADL Scheme to Seize Control of Latin America. ADL is the Anti-Defamation League The Six Million Reconsidered, by William Grimstad 100 Best of The SPOTLIGHT - two volumes 1986 and 1987 108 Astounding Stories by The SPOTLIGHT. (LINK)

Wow. Just wow. This is just so pathetic. Here's a radical right-wing defense of the IHR that lists Prouty's The Secret Team as being one of the books published by the IHR's Noontide Press: Full text of "Michael Collins Piper books" (archive.org) How about all the research on Prouty done by Chip Berlet, a card-carrying ultra-liberal with a stainless pro-civil rights and anti-fascist record? How about the ADL's research on Prouty? Let's read more of what Berlet has documented about Prouty, including the fact that Prouty had the IHR republish his book The Secret Team: The Liberty Lobby’s Spotlight newspaper superimposed Prouty’s original thesis on its own conspiracy theory regarding Jewish influence in U.S. foreign policy. Sometime in the 1980s, a number of critics of U.S. intelligence operations, including Prouty, began to drift toward a working alliance with Spotlight and Liberty Lobby. They began to feed information from their sources inside the government to publications and groups that circulate conspiracy theories alleging Jewish influence and control over world events, They also began feeding tips to CIA critics on the Left. . . . In his new preface to The Secret Team, recently republished by the Institute for Historical Review, Prouty writes of the “High Cabal” which coaches the “Secret Team” and controls the world. (LINK) At the Liberty Loby conference Fletcher Prouty released the new Institute for Historical Review’s Noontide Press edition of his book on CIA intrigue, The Secret Team. Prouty also moderated a panel where Bo Gritz wove a conspiracy theory which explained the U.S. confrontation with Iraq as a product of the same "Secret Team" outlined by Prouty. . . . Gritz agreed to run as the 1988 vice presidential candidate of the Populist Party on the ticket with presidential candidate David Duke. Duke’s past affiliations with the Ku Klux Klan and neo-N-azi movement are still reflected in Duke’s political ideology. Even Readers Digest called the Populist Party a haven for neo-National Socialists and ex-Klansmen. The Populist Party was originally founded by notorious anti-Semite and Hitler apologist Willis Carto who founded the Liberty Lobby. A photograph of Gritz shaking hands with David Duke at the nominating convention was published in Liberty Lobby’s Spotlight newspaper. (LINK) Again, are you really, really asking us to believe that Prouty had no clue about Liberty Lobby and the IHR, even after attending and speaking at the above-mentioned Liberty Lobby conference and appearing on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times over a four-year period? How many hours spent with the radio show's host, Tom Valentine, would it have taken any sane, halfway educated person to figure out that the show was a nutcase forum?

This is total hogwash. Sheesh, how can you spew such trash? The fact that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic was obvious to any honest, rational person who spent 30 minutes studying the group's publications, leadership, and activities. The ADL identified Liberty Lobby as anti-Semitic. Hundreds of journalists and many newspapers, magazines, and journals identified Liberty Lobby as anti-Semitic. Two federal courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC, ruled that the evidence that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic was "compelling." For about the 20th time: Liberty Lobby regularly hosted events that included Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, and white supremacists. I personally attended one of them in Portland, Oregon, when I was in my early 20s. Liberty Lobby's radio program included multiple appearances by Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, and even neo-N-azis. Liberty Lobby's newspaper The Spotlight regularly included articles that favorably covered Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, and neo-N-azi groups. The paper also accepted ads from neo-N-azis. Liberty Lobby's founder was Willis Carto, who denied the Holocaust and constantly attacked Jews and the state of Israel. Liberty Lobby worked closely with the IHR, which published numerous books and articles that denied the Holocaust. Your continued refusal to acknowledge the plain truth about Liberty Lobby is disgraceful. Do you really, really believe that Prouty had no idea about Carto, Marcellus, Liberty Lobby, and the IHR, given all the time he spent with them? Are you asking us to believe that Prouty knew nothing about the numerous newspaper and magazine articles that discussed Liberty Lobby's anti-Semitism? He appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio program 10 times in four years, and you think by the fourth of fifth time he still had no clue about the kind of vile trash the program peddled, after spending so much time with its host, Tom Valentine?

Well, shoot, W., it looks like you've blown my deep cover. Who would have dreamed that my cover would be blown by someone who read my online "About the Author" page, which has been publicly available for about 20 years. Since you've blown my cover through cunning inference, I might as well admit that back in the 1990s, the Air Force Intelligence Agency (AIA) planted me in the research community because they suspected that the CIA had planted Prouty in the community to discredit the case for conspiracy and to tarnish all serious JFKA research. They wanted me to track Prouty's progress and effectiveness. Fast forward to a few weeks ago. I might as well confess that a few weeks ago, my AIA (now AFISRA) handlers assigned me the task of seeing how many researchers in this forum I could get to come to Prouty's defense even after I documented his close and prolonged ties with anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying groups and persons. Based on your previous posts in defense of the deranged claims made by the 9/11 Truthers, my handlers told me, "This guy W. Niederhut looks like a prime candidate to come to Prouty's defense. We assess that he will discredit and disgrace the case for conspiracy even more than Prouty did. Plus, we assess that two or three others in the forum, including one of the moderators, will likewise defend Prouty, even to the point of arguing that Liberty Lobby was not 'overtly' anti-Semitic." Frankly, I was skeptical. I told my handlers, "Surely no one in their right will come to Prouty's defense once I document his long-term relationship with Liberty Lobby and the IHR, especially since most of my material will come from Chip Berlet, a card-carrying ultra-liberal who has exposed right-wing groups for years and who has worked in support of the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, and even the Socialist Workers Party. When they read Berlet's research on Prouty, they will repudiate Prouty in a heartbeat." My handlers replied, "Our analysis shows that some WC critics will in fact repudiate Prouty when they see the evidence about his Liberty Lobby and IHR ties, but we also assess that W. Niederhut and a few others will stand by Prouty, even it means attacking Berlet and dancing around Prouty's anti-Semitic ties." I must confess that my handlers were right. They're always right. I should have known better than to question them. Now that my cover has been blown, I feel obliged to further confess that my real name is Allen Dulles Jr., and that Curtis LeMay was my godfather.

You're still evading the key issues and doing so in a disingenuous manner. Let's see if we can unpack the situation with Whaley with a series of factual observations. -- Whaley repeatedly told the WC that he picked the No. 2 man. The No. 2 man was Knapp. Whaley also specified that the man he chose was the third man to come out, which was Knapp, not Oswald. In so doing, Whaley correctly described how the police had the lineup members enter the lineup. -- Whaley said he identified Oswald as his passenger and said Oswald was bawling out the police over the unfairness of the lineup, but Whaley then kept insisting that he picked the No. 2 man, that the man he picked was the third man out, and revealed some serious irregularities about the statements that the police took from him (two handwritten and one typed). -- The first handwritten statement, the one written by Montgomery, says nothing about Whaley choosing the No. 3 man, i.e., Oswald. -- Whaley's account of Oswald's bawling out the police over the lineup has justifiably been cited for decades as proof that the lineups were unfair. -- Whaley recorded on his timesheet that he picked up his passenger at 12:30. This pickup time categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger. So, the WC floated the flimsy argument that Whaley erred by a whopping 17 minutes, and that Whaley recorded his pickup times in 15-minute increments, which was false. Then, the WC contradicted its own lame argument by saying that Whaley picked up Oswald at 12:47. They said 12:47 because they knew they couldn't get Oswald to Whaley's cab earlier than that. Yet, Whaley recorded that he picked up the passenger at 12:30, and his other entries showed no sign of a 15-minute-increment pattern. -- Whaley's description of the passenger's clothing contradicted the clothing that the WC said Oswald was wearing. -- An honest judge would have had, at a minimum, serious doubts about the validity of the lineup and the admissibility of Whaley's contradictory "identification."

Your only sources are Prouty himself and Oliver Stone, yet Stone later repudiated Prouty's claims about Lansdale. Now, let's look at my sources: One of my key sources is investigative journalist Chip Berlet. One would think that you and Niederhut would listen to Berlet because he is an ultra-liberal whose pro-civil rights and anti-surveillance-state credentials are beyond dispute. Here's what Wikipedia says about Berlet: He was a senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks. Berlet, a paralegal, was a vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild. He has served on the advisory board of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University, and for over 20 years was on the board of the Defending Dissent Foundation. In 1982, he was a Mencken Awards finalist in the best news story category for "War on Drugs: The Strange Story of Lyndon LaRouche," which was published in High Times. He served on the advisory board of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution. . . . During the late 1970s, he became the Washington, D.C., bureau chief of High Times magazine, and in 1979, he helped to organize citizens' hearings on FBI surveillance practices. From then until 1982, he worked as a paralegal investigator at the Better Government Association in Chicago, conducting research for an American Civil Liberties Union case, involving police surveillance by the Chicago police (which became known as the "Chicago Red Squad" case).[8] He also worked on cases filed against the FBI or police on behalf of the Spanish Action Committee of Chicago (S.A.C.C.), the National Lawyers Guild, the American Indian Movement, Socialist Workers Party, the Christic Institute, and the American Friends Service Committee (a Quaker group). But, alas, because Berlet has documented what a fraud and flake Prouty was, you're even turning against Berlet, rather than just admit the truth about Prouty. One of my other sources is the Anti-Defamation League. Did you catch that? Yes, I said the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). So now you're going to dismiss the ADL rather than face the facts about Prouty? The ADL was the group that documented how many times Prouty appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio program (10 times in four years). The ADL also noted that Prouty was a "longtime Liberty Lobby associate." The ADL further listed all of the Holocaust deniers, white supremacists, and neo-N-azis who likewise appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show (Willis-Carto-Extremism-in-America.pdf (adl.org). The fact that Prouty peddled the Iron Mountain Report hoax and even claimed he spoke with a member of the non-existent study group is well documented (LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK). Another one of my sources is Prouty himself. In his interviews with Scientology's Freedom Magazine, Prouty declared that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. intelligence were behind the Jonestown massacre (LINK). Prouty peddled the Iron Mountain hoax during one of the appearances on Liberty Lobby's radio show. In his book JFK, Prouty said, All leaders of all nations know that, as stated in Report From Iron Mountain, "The organization of a society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer. It is ironic that this primary function of warfare has been generally recognized by historians only where it has been expressly acknowledged—in the pirate societies of the great conquerors." (LINK) Prouty's other bogus claims can be found in his writings and interviews, such as his claim that the "Secret Team" may have assassinated Princess Diana, that the F-16 was far inferior to the MiG-25, that Churchill may have had Stalin poisoned, that Lansdale hated JFK and wanted a huge escalation of the Vietnam War, that his trip to the South Pole on 11/22 was sinister and designed to ensure presidential protection was inadequate for the Dallas motorcade, that he had notes that he had taken during his alleged "stand down" phone call from the 112th MI Group, etc., etc., etc.

Here is another scholarly review of Selverstone's The Kennedy Withdrawal. It was published in the New York Journal of Books and was written by Francis Sempa. Sempa is a professor of political science at Wilkes University, a former contributing editor to the journal American Diplomacy, and a widely respected authority on American foreign policy with articles published in Presidential Studies Quarterly, Strategic Review, Human Rights Review, and Joint Force Quarterly. Sempa's review is interesting because Sempa is a conservative: Ever since the political left in this country turned against the Vietnam War, partisan and scholarly debates have raged about whether President John F. Kennedy, assuming he had not been assassinated and won a second term, would have escalated U.S. military involvement in Vietnam like his successor Lyndon Johnson did. Marc J. Selverstone of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center begins his new book on this subject by calling this debate “The great ‘What If?’” Unfortunately, Selverstone’s The Kennedy Withdrawal does not definitively answer that question, but it does give us greater insight into the motives of Kennedy and his advisers in their efforts to “succeed” in Vietnam. And success was defined as preventing South Vietnam and the other Southeast Asian “dominoes” from falling into the hands of the communists. Selverstone depicts Kennedy and his national security team as believers in the “domino theory” that was first explicated by President Eisenhower in the 1950s. This theory held that if South Vietnam fell to the communists, other nations in the region would also fall like dominoes—one after the other. And in the “long twilight struggle” (Kennedy’s words) known as the Cold War, the fall of those Asian dominoes would undermine American credibility throughout the world. Selverstone challenges what he calls the “Camelot” view of the Kennedy withdrawal—the notion promoted by Kennedy court historians and partisans that Kennedy was determined to withdraw U.S. forces from Vietnam, thus avoiding the quagmire that President Johnson supposedly created in the wake of Kennedy’s assassination. Very little in history or politics, and very little about the machinations of the Kennedys, is that simple. As a Senator from Massachusetts, Kennedy, Selverstone notes, took public positions that “were sharply critical of the Truman administration--for its handling of the Chinese civil war . . . and for its handling of the Korean War.” Senator Kennedy was a foreign policy “hawk” who criticized Eisenhower for not spending enough on conventional defenses and for negligently allowing a “missile gap” to develop in favor of the Soviet Union. Kennedy ran to the “right” of Vice President Richard Nixon on foreign policy issues during the 1960 presidential campaign. As President, Kennedy in his inaugural address promised to “bear any burden” and “pay any price” to defend liberty, and he significantly increased the numbers of U.S. military forces in South Vietnam. Kennedy and some of his advisers characterized the defense of South Vietnam as a “vital” or “significant” U.S. interest. Selverstone identifies the considerations that shaped JFK’s approach to Vietnam as “modernization, foreign aid, counterinsurgency, . . . flexible response . . . [and] general concerns about credibility and falling dominoes.” Domestic politics was never too far away from Kennedy’s consideration on Vietnam or, for that matter, any other issue. And it was here that Kennedy and his advisers formulated plans for a symbolic withdrawal of 1000 troops for sometime in 1964 or 1965. But Kennedy did not want to be the president who “lost” Vietnam the way Truman “lost” China. Truman suffered politically both for the “loss” of China and the stalemate of the Korean War. Selverstone notes that the key national security document on U.S. policy toward Vietnam produced by Kennedy’s task force on Southeast Asia was NSAM 52, which “pledged the administration ‘to prevent Communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society; and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic, psychological and covert character designed to achieve this objective.’” Pursuant to this plan, the Kennedy administration sent U.S. servicemen “streaming into South Vietnam.” Selverstone criticizes the Kennedy team for their “reluctance to distinguish between peripheral and vital interests” and for developing a habit of using U.S. military forces to “send signals” of American resolve. Kennedy’s military “advisers,” Selverstone notes, were engaging in combat, regularly accompanying South Vietnamese forces into the field against the Viet Cong. Kennedy consistently portrayed his administration’s actions as helping South Vietnam “win its own fight.” Kennedy understood the political danger of over-committing American forces in a country most Americans knew little about. But he also understood the political minefields of the “falling dominoes” and another Korean War-like stalemate. Kennedy was nothing if not politically cautious. Selverstone provides plenty of evidence for a token Kennedy withdrawal of forces, but very little evidence—other than self-serving recollections of Kenneth O’Donnell, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and the egregious Robert McNamara--that Kennedy intended to withdraw U.S. military forces from Vietnam. The “Camelot” version of the Kennedy presidency is as fictitious as the English legend. The best Selverstone can do is to speculate about JFK’s real intentions in Vietnam. And he suggests that Kennedy and his national security team would probably have acted on the basis of the military situation on the ground as it evolved over the next several years. And it is worth remembering that most of the people advising Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam after Kennedy’s death were Kennedy’s people. “Rather than signal an eagerness to wind down the U.S. assistance effort,” Selverstone concludes, “the policy of withdrawal—the Kennedy withdrawal—allowed JFK to preserve the American commitment to Vietnam.” The rest, as they say, is history.

And that's an inane and evasive argument, if not a shameful one. Just because Liberty Lobby did not admit they were anti-Semitic does not change the fact that they were obviously, clearly, self-evidently, and undeniably anti-Semitic. You could just as absurdly argue that N-azi Germany was not "overtly" engaged in genocide against the Jews. The N-azis denied this at every turn. During the war, the N-azis claimed that accounts of death camps and mass slaughter of Jews were Russian, British, and American propaganda. But who in their right mind would say, "Well, gee, the N-azis weren't 'overtly' genocidal"? To this day, there are neo-N-azi and anti-Semitic groups that adamantly deny the Holocaust, and Fletcher Prouty was in bed with two of them for many years. When Prouty was asked about Willis Carto's denial of the Holocaust, he replied with the disgraceful doge of "I'm no authority in that area." He also blamed high oil prices on the Israelis. We both know that everyone in this thread would roundly condemn any WC apologist who gave such a sleazy answer when asked about Holocaust denial, had a book published by the IHR, appeared 10 times in a four-year period on Liberty Lobby's radio show (the same show that hosted numerous Holocaust deniers, neo-N-azis, and white supremacists), recommended that people read The Spotlight, defended the Scientology cult and its founder and crook Ron Hubbard, peddled the Iron Mountain Report hoax and even claimed he spoke with a member of the non-existent Iron Mountain Special Study Group, speculated that the "Secret Team" may have assassinated Princess Diana, and entertained the nutty theory that Churchill had FDR poisoned, etc., etc. I am still astounded, just astonished, by the refusal of some here to face facts and deal honestly with the evidence about Prouty. It certainly doesn't help that a moderator is one of them. I don't think Prouty was just a peddler of bogus claims. I don't think he was merely dishonest and disreputable. I think he actually had some screws loose.

Holy cow! You just can't admit anything, can you? WHALEY told the WC that he chose the No. 2 man, and WHALEY said that that man was the third man to come out, and WHALEY wrote on his timesheet that he picked up the passenger at 12:30, and Montgomery's handwritten statement from Whaley did *not* say that Whaley chose No. 3. It is really simple. You keep ducking the real issues. And, no, I was not unaware that Whaley said that Oswald was bawling out the police over the lineup, but you were apparently unaware of the contradictions in Whaley's identification and you're still ducking them, or else you knew about them but chose to ignore them. Anyone not blinded by WC worship can see in Whaley's testimony that he was all over the place about his identification and was clearly trying to qualify it with all sorts of caveats and disclosures about the lineup, about the man he chose, and how his statements were taken. We'll just keep going around in circles because you will keep up the silly pretense that Whaley's "identification" was straightforward and definite and because you will keep ignoring the obvious problems with his identification and with the lineup, and the enormous problem of the 12:30 pickup time on his timesheet.

This is really sad to see. You realize that Douglass is a 9/11 Truther, right? Right? Yet you're citing him on the Vietnam War??? And now you're citing Mike Swanson??? His book on the Vietnam War is pathetic. Leaving aside the problematic nature of his portrayal of the war, the limited number of sources he cites, and his apparent unawareness of the historic information revealed in released/translated North Vietnamese sources, he makes readers wonder about his level of education with the numerous grammatical and spelling errors in his book. You further discredit your competency to discuss the Vietnam War when you praise Fletcher Prouty's "insights" on the Vietnam War: His insights on Vietnam, which he wrote in the eighties, are simply remarkable. And if you have not read his articles from that period, you do not understand just how insightful he was. Prouty's "insights" were not "remarkable"; they were idiotic and loony. The man was a fraud and a genuine nutjob. He spent years cozying up with Willis Carto and other Holocaust deniers at Liberty Lobby and the IHR. He even had one of his books republished by the IHR. He also appeared numerous times on Liberty Lobby's radio program and recommended that people read the lobby's anti-Semitic newspaper The Spotlight. When he was asked about Carto's denial of the Holocaust, he would only say, "I'm no authority in that area." Among his many other nutty activities, such as defending Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, Prouty peddled the Iron Mountain Report hoax. Liberty Lobby reprinted thousands of copies of the report. Prouty even claimed that he interviewed one of the members of the secret Iron Mountain Special Study Group, an amazing scoop, given that the group did not exist! These are the kinds of fringe, unqualified authors you cite against Selverstone's book? You place yourself on the very fringe regarding the Vietnam War when you insist on accepting the belated, convenient stories by certain JFK loyalists that he told them he was going to abandon South Vietnam after the election no matter what, especially in the face of the evidence that Dr. Selverstone presents in his book. Even Dr. Ed Moise, who is decidedly liberal, rejects these tales, as I documented in an earlier reply. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to repeat his rejection: The contemporary records of the Kennedy administration give a pretty clear picture of planning for a withdrawal that was conditional on the war going well. By far the best evidence that Kennedy had made a decision to withdraw even if the war went badly--to abandon Vietnam-- as in the memories of a few of his associates, who said, years after his death, that they remembered his having told them that he had decided to abandon the war. This reviewer has never found these witnesses’ testimony convincing; it is too difficult to reconcile their memories of Kennedy’s thinking with the picture one gets from contemporary records. (H-Diplo Article Review No. 265c)

Oh, sheesh. Go read the Wikipedia article on Prouty: Prouty also sold the reprint rights for The Secret Team to the Noontide Press, the publishing arm for the Institute for Historical Review, a holocaust denial organization.[28][27]

Thank you for this, Greg. Yes, it is jaw dropping to see some people in this thread denying the ugly facts about Liberty Lobby and their newspaper The Spotlight and the IHR. I would just again repeat the fact that Prouty -- Appeared 10 times in a four-year period on Liberty Lobby's radio program (as the ADL noted) -- Allowed the IHR to republish his book The Secret Team via its publishing arm Noontide Press, which also published numerous Holocaust-denying books -- Praised Carto and Marcellus and said he was "proud" and "privileged" to have the IHR republish his book -- Lined up to be a character witness for Carto in his lawsuit with the IHR (IHR sued Carto for embezzlement and won) -- Recommended that people read Liberty Lobby's newspaper The Spotlight (the newspaper itself proudly advertised this fact) -- And when asked about Carto's denial of the Holocaust, would only say, "I'm no authority in that area." I've provided sources for every one of these points. It is especially disturbing to see a moderator chiming in and defending this garbage. Indeed, he just made the amazing statement that "I haven't seen anybody here denying that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic." Perhaps reading comprehension lessons are in order.

Uh, not, it's not.

LOL! This is beyond comical. So you consider a "knockout punch" to be a reply that relies on Prouty's denials?! Really?! In short, whatever Prouty said, you will gullibly and gladly gobble up, no matter how absurd and demonstrably false it was. I notice you did not address a single point I made in my previous reply, nor did Jeff Carter. Tell me: Do you believe Prouty when he said that he interviewed a member of the secret Iron Mountain Special Study Group? Hint: There was no such group, and the Iron Mountain Report, reprinted by Liberty Lobby, was later exposed as a hoax. What would you say if someone asked you, "What do you think of Willis Carto's claim that the Holocaust never happened?" Any normal, halfway educated person in the Western world would say, "that's absurd and obscene." But when Prouty was asked this question, he would only say, "I'm no authority in that area." A sickening and revealing dodge. Why didn't Prouty ever explain why he appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years? Why didn't he explain why he said he was "proud and privileged" to have the IHR republish his nutty book The Secret Team? Why didn't he explain why he praised Carto and Marcellus for having the courage and vision to republish his nutty book?

Here's my answer: Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?

I've already supplied all the evidence/sources that Jeff Carter requests. He just keeps ignoring them. I suggest he re-read my previous seven replies in this thread. His refusal to deal honestly with the facts about Prouty and Liberty Lobby/IHR/Spotlight is very sad, to say the least. Here are some additional sources on Prouty and his relationship with Liberty Lobby/IHR, ones that I haven't cited yet: RIGHT-WOOS-LEFT-Berlet-Report.pdf (politicalresearch.org) Toxic to Democracy Transcript: When 'Populism' Has a Right-Wing Agenda (radioproject.org) JFK Article-Print Version (edwardjayepstein.com) You make a good point about Prouty's attempt to explain why he spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention. He liked to mention that he also spoke at a Holocaust memorial conference, but it's clear that he did so only for money, and perhaps as cover for his anti-Semitic associations, because the speech he gave at the memorial conference was very different from the one he gave at the Liberty Lobby convention. Prouty conveniently failed to mention this. Prouty also failed to mention that he appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show, Radio Free America, 10 times over a four-year period. When Prouty was asked about serving on a Liberty Lobby board, he claimed he never actually attended. When he was advised that his name still appeared on the list of board members and was asked if he would ensure that his name was removed, he declined. Prouty also forgot to mention that he once blamed high oil prices on the Israelis. I haven't even talked about Prouty's comical use of the fictional Iron Mountain Report. He didn't realize the report was a complete hoax. Prouty even claimed he spoke with a member of the Iron Mountain Special Study Group! That's amazing, since the group never existed! Liberty Lobby distributed thousands of copies of the Iron Mountain Report. I'm guessing that Prouty learned of the report from Liberty Lobby. Finally, when Prouty was asked about Carto's belief that the Holocaust was a hoax, what did he say? Did he say, "Well, of course, I reject that. That's crazy"? Nope. Did he at least say, "If he believes that, he's wrong"? Nope. When asked about Carto's denial of the Holocaust, Prouty would only say, "I'm no authority in that area" (Item 02.pdf (hood.edu). ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This is just one of several statements that indicate Prouty shared the anti-Semitic views of his buddy Carto.

in reply to that evasive, juvenile argument, I'll just say "see my previous three replies."

I don't understand this logic. Lane worked as an attorney. Attorneys sometimes work for sleazy clients. Lane's legal work for Liberty Lobby hardly does him any favors in the credibility department, but he -- never recommended that people read The Spotlight -- never praised Carto and Marcellus -- never blamed high oil prices on the Israelis and associated them with a "High Cabal" bent on world domination -- never had a book published by the Holocaust-denying IHR and never said he was "proud" of having done so -- never sat on a Liberty Lobby board -- did not appear 10 times over a four-year period on Liberty Lobby's radio show that frequently hosted Holocaust deniers, neo-N-azis, and white supremacists. Lane's conduct as an attorney for Liberty Lobby in their libel lawsuits against journalists and publications was disreputable, as the DC U.S. Court of Appeals noted in its decision, but this is still far removed and much different from what Prouty did. To speak to a point that Kirk made, yes, I know it is hard for people to abandon major claims that they've made in film, books, and articles for years. I understand it is embarrassing and frustrating. But credibility and scholarly honesty demand that it be done. Better late than never, and the sooner, the better. It is just tragic that Oliver Stone got hoodwinked by Prouty and decided to run with his claims. Stone's film JFK would have been so much stronger and harder to attack if it had not included Prouty's claims.

I think you'd find Doug Horne and David Mantik's research on Z film alteration to be compelling. Here's my own humble offering on the subject: zfilmaltered.pdf - Google Drive

Glory hallelujah! Some sanity! Some rational thinking! Thank you. Let's put it this way: If Prouty had been a lone-gunman theorist, nobody in this thread would be offering lame excuses and vacuous denials for his close, long-term relationship with Carto, Marcellus, Liberty Lobby, and the IHR. I think if you look more closely into Scientology and Hubbard, you will conclude that Prouty's defense of them was almost as disgraceful as his relationship with the above-named Holocaust deniers. Oh, please, just stop. Just stop with the nutcase material. Is there no loony, bizarre theory you won't defend just because Prouty floated it? The JCS and the IC had nothing to do with the Jonestown tragedy.

That thought has never occurred to me. I've never thought about it. In theory, it's possible that she was there to film the shooting for the plotters, but I have no opinion on the matter. Whoever she was, I don't think she was Beverly Oliver. For one thing, she looks a bit heavy to be a young club dancer.

FYI, your link is to a National Review article, not to an article in Reason magazine.

I don't believe Beverly Oliver was the Babushka Lady. I just don't buy it.