Michael Griffith

Okay, so you're another ultra-liberal who is determined to believe Prouty no matter what, even to the absurd point of comparing Liberty Lobby's radio show with Tucker Carlson's TV show, and even if it means ignoring the fact that Prouty's relationship with Liberty Lobby went far beyond mere casual/fleeting association. Now, I've watched Tucker's show for many years. He's never had anyone on his show who was as extreme and fringe as some of the people who were welcomed and lauded on Liberty Lobby's radio show. Tucker has had a few radical guests on his show, but he invited them in order to challenge/expose them, not because he agreed with them. It is just pathetic that you would compare Tucker's show with Liberty Lobby's show. You really need to stop with your phony "associative nonsense" argument. There is casual and fleeting association and there is close and prolonged association. Any honest adult understands the difference. Prouty's relationship with Liberty Lobby and the IHR was not only close and prolonged, but Prouty went beyond mere association. Prouty praised Carto and Marcellus. He said he was "proud" and "privileged" to have the Holocaust-denying IHR republish his book. He sat on one of Liberty Lobby's boards (despite his false denials to the contrary). He lined up to serve as a character witness for Carto when the IHR sued him for embezzlement (no honor among thieves, I guess). He recommended that people read Liberty Lobby's newspaper The Spotlight, which carried literally hundreds of articles that questioned the Holocaust, attacked Jews, placed all the blame for the Arab-Israeli conflict on Israel, minimized Hitler's crimes, peddled white supremacy, posited an international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, etc., etc. And he didn't just appear on Liberty Lobby's radio show once or twice but 10 times over a four-year period. And this is not to even mention Prouty's other bizarre and embarrassing claims, such as his slanderous nonsense about Lansdale (which even Oliver Stone has repudiated), his scurrilous defense of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, his nutty tale about JCS and intelligence involvement in the Jonestown mass suicide, his nutjob speculation about Princess Diana's death, his whacky speculation about Churchill poisoning FDR, his failure to produce his putatively historic notes when the ARRB asked for them, his bogus tale about a "stand down" call from the 112th MI Group, his curious claim that oil is not a fossil fuel but that oil companies want us to believe it is, his bogus suggestion that he was sent to the South Pole to help strip JFK of security (JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, pp. 283-285)--a claim that he back-peddled from with the ARRB, and his bogus claims about the F-16 vs. the MiG-25 (not what you'd expect from a competent intelligence officer), etc., etc.

Oh my heavens. The 9/11 Commission factually and logically explained this selling. Among other facts, the Commission noted that one of the major sellers of United Airlines stock on 9/6 also bought 115,000 shares of American Airlines stock on 9/10. So you're a 9/11 Truther. Well, why am I not surprised?

133-A, DeM, is significant because it is markedly clearer than 133-A, is even a bit clearer than 133-A, Stovall, is nearly twice as large as the other prints (except for 133-A, Stovall), and, oddly, was the only picture printed full negative, i.e., the only picture that was not cropped. The HSCA PEP chose to assume that 133-A, DeM, was a copy of the 133-A negative, but the DeM print is noticeably clearer than either version of 133-A. The PEP admitted that 133-A, DeM, was “probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens." This was an admission that the DeM print almost certainly was not developed and printed in the same place that 133-A, 133-B, and 133-C were, which raises all kinds of questions about the photos' provenance.

I think the case for alteration of the Zapruder film is powerful and compelling. There are events in the Zapruder film that could not have happened on this planet. I feel no need to respond to Groden because he is not a photographic expert. In any case, I wish Groden well. I hope he's in a good place. I met him in 2002/2003 when my wife and I visited Dealey Plaza to meet Jack White. Groden was selling his videos on a street corner in the plaza and did not look to be in good condition. He's done a lot for the JFK case, and I wish him all the best.

Yup. This is an unfortunate product of our severely polarized politics and our sharply polarized society. Criticism of a Republican is assumed to be coming from ardent Democrats, and criticism of a Democrat is assumed to be coming from ardent Republicans.

LOL! And you claim to be a centrist???!!! You just discredited your phony posturing. I guess you just couldn't help yourself because in your mind the Republican Party is the enemy of all that is good. I have my own issues with the GOP (I'm an Independent), but I am willing to acknowledge that they have some good ideas, just as I think the Democrats have some good ideas. Anyway, moving on from Niedurhut's partisan polemics, did anyone catch the news that NFL star quarterback Aaron Rodgers appears to have endorsed RFK Jr.? At the very least, Rodgers has given RFK Jr. some free favorable publicity. Rodgers reposted RFK Jr.’s interview with Aubrey Marcus on his Instagram story with muscle and heart emoji. Aaron Rodgers appears to endorse RFK Jr. for president | Fox News

"Blah, blah, blah" = you have no answer for the evidence I presented. And you surely must know that your question about Knapp is disingenuous. You're simply ignoring the points I made about the problems with Whaley's identification.

This is just pitiful. This awful argument smacks of evasion. Of course Liberty Lobby would not admit they were anti-Semitic! Are you kidding me? But this does not change the fact that they were anti-Semitic and denied the Holocaust. That's one of the main reasons that both the DC District Court and the DC U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against them when they sued newspapers and journalists who identified them as anti-Semitic. I just provided a long extract from the Court of Appeals' decision that noted the fact that the evidence clearly showed that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic. You could also argue, "Gee, the IHR claims they do not deny the Holocaust, so they are not 'overt' Holocaust deniers!" Uh-huh. They've published numerous articles and books that deny the Holocaust, and they've hosted conferences that included pro-N-azis and proud Holocaust deniers as guest speakers. See the links in my previous reply for more damning information on the IHR. Allow me to mention, again, that in the late 1970s, when I was in my early 20s, I personally attended a Liberty Lobby conference in Portland, Oregon, where the featured speaker argued that the Holocaust was a myth peddled by an alleged Zionist international conspiracy that was supposedly bent on ruling the world. This nutjob was paid by Liberty Lobby to go around the country giving this obscene presentation. Liberty Lobby's radio show included overt, unashamed Holocaust deniers, including one man (Fred Leuchter) who claimed that large numbers of Jews could not have been gassed at Auschwitz, and another man (Ernst Zundel) who was an open neo-N-azi, white supremacist, and Holocaust denier. It is just so pathetic that some of you won't face the ugly, documented truth about Liberty Lobby and the IHR because Fletcher Prouty closely associated with them for years, praised their leaders, and even had one of his books republished by their publishing arm. Rather than reconsider your support for Prouty based on these disturbing facts, you bend over backward to deny them.

It is worth noting that Prouty publicly praised both Willis Carto and Tom Marcellus of the Holocaust-denying IHR for having the "guts and good sense" to republish his book The Secret Team. Prouty even publicly stated that it was an "enormous privilege" to have the IHR republish his book. The IHR republished the book through its publishing arm, the Noontide Press. To get some idea of how sleazy and despicable the IHR is, here are a few links: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/institute-for-historical-review-ihr-31231/ EXCERPT: IHR's first annual conference in 1979 attracted deniers from around the world and helped to introduce some key American extremists to Holocaust denial. David Duke, the neo-National Socialist who was then the national leader of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, was so taken with the idea that he followed up the conference with a "Special Holocaust Edition" of his Crusader newspaper. In the same way, National Socialist Party of America leader Frank Collin enthusiastically embraced denial, saying, "There was no Holocaust, but they deserve one — and will get it." For years, IHR's yearly conferences were key events that offered networking opportunities for neo-National Socialists and anti-Semites from around the world. https://politicalresearch.org/1994/09/19/encountering-holocaust-denial EXCERPT: A January 1994 Gallup Poll found that approximately 4 percent of those it surveyed “have real doubts about the Holocaust; the others (19 percent) are just insecure about their historical knowledge or won’t believe anything they have not experienced themselves,” says Frank Newport, Editor of the Gallup Poll. Contrary to popular belief, Holocaust denial exists not only on the political right, but also among some individuals characterized as moderate or left, although it is the right that is most prominent in the effort to present “another side” to Holocaust history. Most obvious on the right are the predictable suspects: neo-National Socialists, skinheads, and members of the various Ku Klux Klans. The most prominent revisionist organizations are the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and the Liberty Lobby, publisher of Spotlight, a radical right-wing newspaper published in Washington, DC. . . . The chief organization promoting Holocaust denial is the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), a California organization founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, who also founded the extreme right-wing Liberty Lobby. IHR styles itself in fundraising letters as a “voice for historical truth” and a “champion of historical knowledge” because “we have the knowledge, and because we have the determination to see the truth prevail". . . . IHR first came to public attention in 1980, when it offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who could conclusively prove that Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz. Mel Mermelstein, a survivor, accepted the challenge and submitted voluminous proof, including his own personal testimony. When the evidence was ignored by IHR, Mermelstein sued IHR for the reward. During the trial, Mermelstein used the same evidence that had been submitted to IHR. The suit was finally settled in Mermelstein’s favor in July 1985, with IHR ordered by the Los Angeles Superior Court to pay the $50,000 reward plus an additional $40,000 for pain and suffering caused to Mermelstein. According to a member of the staff of the Auschwitz Study Foundation, founded by Mermelstein in Huntington Beach, California, IHR did, in fact, pay the judgment. . . . Often those who get involved with IHR are unaware of its historic connection to Liberty Lobby, a connection which IHR itself is slow to reveal, presumably for the sake of its credibility. Indeed, only Liberty Lobby publicizes the connection, often publishing Holocaust revisionism in Spotlight and even devoting entire issues of that newspaper to the “Holocaust hoax.” In addition, Noontide Press, a Carto/Liberty Lobby outfit, has been run in previous years by Tom Marcellus, current director of IHR. Fundraising letters for IHR have been printed on Noontide Press stationery; both organizations are usually based in the same California cities. If IHR moves, so does Noontide. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/holocaust/ihr/part2/ EXCERPT: Col. L. Fletcher Prouty has maintained a strong relationship with the Liberty Lobby for years. During the lengthy legal battles surrounding the Mermelstein lawsuits against the Liberty Lobby and Willis A. Carto, Prouty and fellow PAC advisory board member Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz were "prepared to testify as character witnesses on behalf of Liberty Lobby founder Willis A. Carto" (Spotlight, 10-7-91, 12). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/holocaust-denial/the-institute-for-historical-review/

Leslie, if someone is going to criticize Clarence and Ginni Thomas for accepting lavish vacations from a billionaire who collects Third Reich souvenirs, they should never quote or cite, much less praise, L. Fletcher Prouty. Prouty had a close and disturbing relationship with Liberty Lobby, an anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying group founded by the notorious Willis Carto. Prouty even volunteered to serve as a character witness for Carto in the IHR trial. As for Harlan Crow, it turns out that he also collects other historical souvenirs, including documents signed by George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower's helmet, French Foreign Legion gear, and statues of Communist leaders. Crow's mother was a survivor of a ship sunk by the Germans in WWII. Even Israeli newspapers have noted that Jews who know Crow insist that he is actually pro-Israeli and is not pro-N-A-Z-I in any way. (That being said, having been raised Jewish for a brief period in my childhood, having lived in Israel for a short time, and having Hebrew as my second language, I personally could not stomach having any Third Reich memorabilia in my home.)

Until yesterday, I assumed that everyone in this forum knew the basic facts about Liberty Lobby and their founder Willis Carto, with whom Prouty had a long-term relationship. Sadly and surprisingly, yesterday I discovered that this is not the case. I will now present more evidence that Liberty Lobby was guilty of Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, racism, and white supremacy. This evidence comes from the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC on Liberty Lobby's appeal of a district court's rejection on their libel lawsuit. Liberty Lobby sued the Wall Street Journal for calling them anti-Semitic, and they lost big time. The case was heard in the DC District Court. Liberty Lobby then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC, and lost there as well. Here are some damning and revealing excerpts from the Court of Appeals' decision: On July 10, 1986, the district court issued its memorandum opinion and order, granting appellees' motions and dismissing Liberty Lobby's complaint with prejudice. . . . The district court went on to hold that, to the extent the charge of anti-Semitism had any objectively verifiable factual content, the statement was substantially true. Relying upon the contents of a multivolume file Liberty Lobby kept on publications about Jews and upon the views expounded in Liberty Lobby's official organ, The Spotlight, the district court found that appellees' "evidence of Liberty Lobby's institutional anti-Semitism in its most malign sense" was "compelling." With only the bald denial of the affidavit of Willis Carto, Liberty Lobby's founder and chief executive officer, weighing against appellees' evidence, the district court concluded that no reasonable jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the ascription of anti-Semitism to Liberty Lobby was false. Id. at 1153. The district court also found that dismissal of Liberty Lobby's claims based on the Jaroslovsky article was mandated by the complete lack of evidence that any of the allegedly defamatory statements were published with actual malice. The court noted that Jaroslovsky had spent three months on intermittent research, had reviewed a large number of Liberty Lobby documents, and had consulted various articles about Liberty Lobby. Jaroslovsky had shown these materials to his editor, who concurred in his judgment that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic. The Journal's Washington bureau chief, who was familiar with Liberty Lobby's radio program and its official publication, The Spotlight, agreed. . . . We find, however, that these statements about Liberty Lobby's publishing activities [that Liberty Lobby had published Pearson's theories of racial supremacy and genetic selection, and that these publications were sold by an American National Socialist organization] are nonactionable as a matter of federal constitutional law for two reasons. First, we are convinced that no reasonable jury could find by a fair preponderance of the evidence that these statements are false. . . . It is undisputed that both Western Destiny and the Pearson books mentioned in the Jaroslovsky article were published by an unincorporated entity located in Torrance, California, doing business as The Noontide Press [the publishing arm of the Holocaust-denying IHR, one of Liberty Lobby's sister organizations]. See Affidavit of Robert P. LoBue, E.N. 57, p 85 (filed Dec. 16, 1985) [hereinafter "LoBue Aff."]. The record evidence that both Mr. Carto and Liberty Lobby exercise substantial financial and editorial control over the publishing activities of Noontide is, in our view, compelling. . . . Until a fire in 1984, Liberty Lobby and The Noontide Press shared office space in Torrance, California. See Carto Dep. at 474. During the 1960's, when the Pearson books were published, Mr. Carto was a board member of The Legion, the incorporated entity behind Noontide Press. See Carto Dep. at 300-03. Mr. Bruce Hollman, a Liberty Lobby director, also sat on The Legion's board at the time of the publications at issue. See id. at 301. At the same time, Mr. Robert Kuttner, listed as a contributing editor of Western Destiny, was also a member of Liberty Lobby's Board of Directors. Id. at 120. During this time, Roger Pearson was the editor of Western Destiny, and Mr. Carto, under the pseudonym "E.L. Anderson," was its sole associate editor. See Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, E.N. 9, at 15 (filed Feb. 28, 1985) (admitting that "E.L. Anderson" is a pseudonym for Mr. Carto). . . . Even if a reasonable jury could find that Jaroslovsky and his editors falsely exaggerated Liberty Lobby's role in the dissemination of the Pearson books and Western Destiny, no jury could find that they did so with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. After over a year of discovery, Liberty Lobby has not been able to adduce a scintilla of evidence indicating that anyone involved in the preparation of the Pearson article entertained any doubt about its veracity. To the contrary, appellees' evidence reveals that Jaroslovsky thoroughly documented his story and relied upon wholly reputable sources in drawing the connection between Liberty Lobby and Noontide's publishing activities. Among Jaroslovsky's sources was a June 1980 issue of the Facts newsletter published by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith ("ADL"). See Deposition of Richard Jaroslovsky, E.N. 32 & 33, exh. 45 (filed Aug. 6, 1985) [hereinafter "Jaroslovsky Dep."]; The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, "The Spotlight: Liberty Lobby's Voice of Hate," Facts, vol. 26, No. 1 (June, 1980). Under the subtitle "Front for Anti-Semitism," the article states: "For almost a quarter century, Liberty Lobby has served as a front for Carto's seamier operations and activities. Among these have been ... Western Destiny, a magazine that published racist, National Socialist-tinged articles extolling the Nordic mystique; and Noontide Press, publisher of anti-Semitic, racist, and pro-National Socialist books...." We turn next to the charge of anti-Semitism, leveled against Liberty Lobby in the Jaroslovsky article and reported as the subject of a lawsuit in the Garment column. The district court suggested that the term "anti-Semitic" as used by Jaroslovsky is probably a constitutionally protected statement of opinion. The court went on to say that if "anti-Semitism" were regarded as an "objectively verifiable fact," it was amply proved against Liberty Lobby in this case. . . . Both Noontide Press and the Institute for Historical Review ("IHR") are trade names for an incorporated entity known as The Legion for the Survival of Freedom, Inc. ("The Legion"). In Mermelstein, the plaintiffs brought suit against Liberty Lobby, The Legion, Noontide, the IHR and Mr. Carto, among others. The suit was based upon the IHR's offer of a $50,000 reward to anyone who could prove that the Holocaust had actually occurred. The offer received extensive publicity in Liberty Lobby's publications. See LoBue Aff. paragraphs 218, 220. The Mermelstein plaintiffs evidently submitted such proof and claimed the reward. Upon the IHR's refusal to honor its offer, the plaintiffs instituted an action for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See LoBue Aff., exh. 14 (transcript of proceedings in Mermelstein v. Institute for Historical Review, No. C 356 542 (July 22, 1985). The case was settled with the defendants, including Liberty Lobby, agreeing to publish a formal apology and to pay the plaintiffs $150,000 in damages. See LoBue Aff., exh. 14, at 4-13. . . . Liberty Lobby has brought a number of libel suits against media defendants that have characterized it as racially prejudiced or anti-Semitic. . . . None of these suits has been successful and in no instance has Liberty Lobby been allowed to present its claims to a jury. (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/838/1287/281667/) I recommend reading the entire decision. Among other things, it takes note of the numerous falsehoods in Liberty Lobby's appeal. It also delves more deeply into Liberty Lobby's close relationship with the IHR, the Noontide Press, and white supremacists. Again, your beloved L. Fletcher Prouty lined up to be a character witness for Liberty Lobby founder Willis Carto, sat on one of Liberty Lobby's boards, spoke at one of their conferences, appeared numerous times on their radio show, blamed Israeli Jews for the high price of oil, and recommended that people read Liberty Lobby's newspaper The Spotlight. Finally, just this morning, I stumbled across the fact that Prouty claimed that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were involved with the Jonestown mass suicide. He claimed that the Joint Chiefs prepared air shipments of hundreds of body bags beforehand because they had advance knowledge of it, and he implied that U.S. inteligence was also involved. Think I'm kidding? Let me quote him: “The Joint Chiefs of Staff had prepared air shipments of hundreds of body bags. They didn’t normally keep that many in any one place. Within hours, they began to shuttle them down to Georgetown, the main city. They couldn’t possibly have done that without prior knowledge that it was going to happen. It shows that there was prior planning. . . . “We would provide the agency with the things they were requesting, without any questions. That’s the way the business works. . . . “The JCS wouldn’t have moved at all on their own. . . . They didn’t give a damn about Jonestown. . . . [These] are the kinds of earmarks that define the hand of American intelligence.” (https://www.freedommag.org/english/vol29i4/page10.htm)

So, in other words, it's no big deal that Prouty spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention (and blamed the Israelis for the high cost of oil in his speech), recommended Liberty Lobby's newspaper, sat on one of their boards, appeared as a guest on their radio show many times, and lined up to testify as a character witness for their Holocaust-denying racist founder. These things are no big deal? We shouldn't dismiss him as a source "just because" he did these things? Just as worse, or perhaps more so, now we have a couple of folks denying that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic, in spite of the literal mountain of evidence that it was, and that it denied the Holocaust. I provided a number of links on this evidence in a previous reply. Such links could be multiplied many times over. It is obscene and absurd to deny that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic and said the Holocaust was a myth. You people had better hope that nobody reports this forum to the ADL, the SPLC, Source Watch, or the DOJ. You are playing with fire. This is serious stuff.

Regarding the absurd argument that we can dismiss the evidence against Prouty because John McAdams repeated most of it, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) notes that Prouty appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show Radio Free America 10 times: The roster of guests, taken from promotional notices, who appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio programs "Radio Free America" or "Editor's Roundtable" in a six-year period, between 1990-1995, gives an idea of the variety and breadth of Carto's constituency. A sampling includes: . . . . Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, now-deceased conspiracy theorist and longtime Liberty Lobby associate; reported consultant on Oliver Stone's film "JFK." (7/6/91, 12/18/91, 1/10/92, 11/17/92, 6/24/93, 3/9/94, 3/12/94, 11/29/94, 4/13/95, 6/27/95) (Willis-Carto-Extremism-in-America.pdf (adl.org) Here are some of the other "guests" who appeared on the show, as listed in the ADL article: James Warner, organizer for George Lincoln Rockwell's American National Socialist Party in the 1960s and longtime Louisiana-based Identity leader. (11/13/91) Fred Leuchter, who claimed that the Auschwitz gas chambers were postwar hoaxes; his findings have become a standard text in the Holocaust-denial movement. (2/15/91, 12/23/91) Deirdre Fields, wife of California neo-National Socialist Joe Fields and champion of South African apartheid (she is a South African native), focused on the "Jewish influence" in South Africa. (10/28/91, 2/20/92, 3/19/92, 4/20/93, 12/10/93) Ernst Zundel, one of the leading Holocaust deniers and a major distributor of National Socialist and neo-National Socialist propaganda and memorabilia. (4/18/91, 9/9/92) Are you kidding me? I repeat, yet again, that Fletcher Prouty spoke at a Liberty Lobby conference, recommended their newspaper, sat on one of their boards, appeared on their radio show many times, and lined up to testify as a character witness for Carto in the IHR trial. I might add that when Prouty spoke at the Liberty Lobby convention, he presented a seminar titled "Who Is the Enemy" that blamed the high price of oil on the High Cabal's plot to shut down oil pipelines deliberately in the Middle East. "Why?" he asked. He then gave the answer: "Because of the Israelis. That is their business on behalf of the oil companies. That’s why they get $3 billion a year from the U.S. taxpayer." This is NUTS. Are you just going to ignore the evidence I've presented about the group? Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic from top to bottom. The ADL identified them as anti-Semitic. Two courts of law found them to be anti-Semitic. They sponsored speakers who went around the country claiming that the Holocaust was a myth. They published a newspaper and ran a radio show that repeatedly denied the Holocaust and attacked Jews. And you're a moderator??? No honest, rational person can deny that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic once they've examined even just part of the evidence of this fact. Read and learn: Liberty Lobby - Wikipedia Willis Carto | Southern Poverty Law Center (splcenter.org) SHEDDING LIGHT ON LIBERTY LOBBY (greensboro.com) RIGHT-WOOS-LEFT-Berlet-Report.pdf (politicalresearch.org) Holocaust Denial: Key Dates | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org) (see the entry for Liberty Lobby) Knew Liberty Lobby Was Anti-Jewish, Richardson Says - The Washington Post ADL Reports That Liberty Lobby Escalates Anti-semitic Campaign - Jewish Telegraphic Agency (jta.org) Carto and the Liberty Lobby (hartford-hwp.com)

Oh, no, no, buddy. You're not gonna wiggle out of this one with ducking and dodging and deflection. In response to my noting the indisputable fact that Liberty Lobby was an anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying group, and that Prouty spoke at one of their conferences, appeared several times on their radio show, recommended their weekly newspaper, and lined up to testify as a character witness for Carto, you dismissed it all as "junk" and then asked, "Incidentally, didn't the Liberty Lobby win a libel case brought by E. Howard Hunt after Hunt denied being in Dallas on 11/22/63?" One could logically infer that you were implying that Liberty Lobby wasn't all that bad since they defeated Hunt's libel suit against them. At the very least, you said nothing about Liberty Lobby's long record of nutty, obscene anti-Semitism, white supremacy, and Holocaust denial. You have done nothing but summarily dismiss the facts about Prouty's sleazy relationship with Liberty Lobby and Carto, not to mention his embarrassing defense of Scientology and Hubbard. I ask you again: Do you believe the Holocaust is a myth? Do you believe there's an international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world? Do you believe that Hitler really wasn't such a bad guy after all? I ask these questions because Liberty Lobby believed all of these things and Prouty had a long and extensive association with the group. It won't work to appeal to Mark Lane's ethnicity. Lane was in no sense a practicing Jew and was Jewish by birth only. If you know anything about Mark Lane, you should know this. Furthermore, he defended Liberty Lobby in court because that case had nothing to do with Liberty Lobby's undisputed record of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Lane made it clear that he found Liberty Lobby distasteful. So that won't work. Prouty, on the other hand, again, spoke at one of their conferences, recommended their newspaper, appeared on their radio show several times, served on one of their boards, and lined up to be a character witness for their founder in the IHR trial. If you are unwilling to repudiate Prouty in spite of these documented facts, then the question logically and naturally arises as to whether or not you harbor some sympathy for Liberty Lobby's views or whether you think Liberty Lobby wasn't really so bad. Imagine if Prouty had had with Hitler the same kind of relationship he had with Liberty Lobby, and imagine if someone dismissed this evidence as "junk" and then asked, "Incidentally, didn't Hitler win a libel case that was brought against him?" What would you think about that person?

The fact that you would suggest I'm far right shows your own extreme bias. No one who is "close to dead center" would say, as you recently did, that the Republican Party has no good ideas. What's interesting is that you said this in response to my statement that both parties have good ideas but that extremists in both parties make it hard to get anything done. No rational person who read my occasional political comments would conclude that I'm far right. Any test that grades you as a centrist cannot be valid, or else you were not candid in your answers. Anyone can read your previous comments on political issues and see that you are very liberal and that you view those who disagree with you as not just wrong but as the enemy.

Wow. Just wow. So now you're siding with Liberty Lobby? So, umm, do you believe the Holocaust is a myth? Do you believe there's an international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world? Do you believe that Hitler really wasn't such a bad guy after all? It's not "junk." Sheesh, how can you say this craziness? It happens to be FACT, DOCUMENTED FACT. BTW, two courts declared Liberty Lobby/The Spotlight to be anti-Semitic. And, FYI, McAdams was by no means the only person who has pointed out these facts about Prouty. For about the tenth time, most of these facts are documented in Prouty's own writings and speeches, and the remainder are a matter of record. Finally, I again repeat the fact that even Oliver Stone has repudiated Prouty's claims about Lansdale. Moderators, are you reading this stuff? Do you realize the implications of defending Liberty Lobby?

You are an ultra-liberal, and you know you are. You have made that crystal clear in virtually very comment you've made on political issues. I'm very liberal on a few issues, but you, based on your comments in various threads, appear to be very liberal on all issues.

One can dream. I think Rand Paul shares his father's views about the assassination, but he knows that most elected Republicans have no interest in pursuing the matter in any way. Truth be told, the majority of the people who were involved in the plot and/or in the cover-up were most likely Republicans.

You either don't know what you're talking about or you're so emotionally committed to believing Prouty that you can't bring yourself to face the facts about him. Every single one of your "factually incorrect" and "gross distortion" responses is wrong. Let's focus on three facts that are indisputable: 1. The fact that Prouty was willing to be a character witness for Willis Carto in the IHR trial. Just to refresh everyone's memory, Carto was a proud, unabashed Holocaust denier, anti-Semite, and white supremacist. He founded Liberty Lobby. Liberty Lobby, headed by Carto, sent speakers around the country who argued that the Holocaust never happened--I personally heard one of these bozos speak in Portland, Oregon, when I was in my early 20s. 2. The fact that Prouty spoke on Liberty Lobby's Radio Free America program numerous times. You know who else spoke on that radio show? People who questioned the Holocaust, bashed Israel, complained about "Jewish influence" in America, etc. You know who two of the other guests were? Fletcher Richman and Frank Flint. Google them. The radio show was finally shut down after vocal protests from Jewish groups and other civil rights groups. 3. The fact that Prouty was a "featured speaker" at a Liberty Lobby convention in 1990. Prouty urged people to read Liberty Lobby's anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying weekly newspaper The Spotlight: "If anybody really wants to know what's going on in the world today, he should be reading 'Spotlight'" (Spotlight, 10-8-90, p. 14, HOLOCAUST FAQ: Willis Carto & The Institute for Historical Review (2/2) (faqs.org). I invite you to read back issues of The Spotlight. You'll find a plethora of articles bashing Israel, bashing Jews, giving favorable coverage of neo-National Socialist groups in Germany, accusing Holocaust victims of fraud, disputing the Holocaust, etc. Guess who placed an ad in the publication? Timothy McVeigh. Now, I have just two questions for you: Do you agree that the Holocaust happened? If so, how on God's green Earth can you be caught dead defending a man who (1) served on a Liberty Lobby board, (2) spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention, (3) urged people to read The Spotlight, (4) spoke on Liberty Lobby's radio show numerous times, (5) had one of his books published by a publishing house that disputed the Holocaust, and (6) lined up to be a character witness for Willis Carto, an unashamed Holocaust denier, anti-Semite, and white supremacist?

Yes, Nagell was a very important witness. His credible story has far-reaching implications. I find it amazing that no federal body showed any interest in why Nagell's purple trunk in his locker in Arizona was found to be missing after he died, nor any interest in who ransacked his son's house after Dick Russell called him to inform him of Nagell's death.

Good for Ron Paul. He's always had the courage to express views that he knows are controversial. My wife and I and one of our sons worked as volunteers for Ron Paul's campaign in the 2012 GOP primary. My wife got to meet him at a campaign dinner in New Hampshire and was very impressed with him (she had taken a campaign bus from Virginia to work for his campaign in New Hampshire for a week). As the primary progressed, my wife and I became disappointed by some of Paul's statements. However, we would have voted for him if he had gotten the GOP nomination. We still hold a favorable opinion of him, although we don't agree with some of his views.

Below is an excerpt from military historian Marc Leepson's favorable review of Selverstone's The Kennedy Withdrawal. Leepson is a senior editor for the online magazine of the Vietnam Veterans of America. Leepson served in Vietnam in 1967. He holds a BA and an MA in history from George Washington University. After leaving the military, he served as a staff writer for the Congressional Quarterly. His articles have appeared in Smithsonian and Military History, and also in the Baltimore Sun and the Chicago Tribune. He has been interviewed on the BBC, CBC (Canada), MSNBC, Fox News, PBS, CBS, and CNN. Here's an excerpt from his review: Historians don’t like what-ifs. But historical what-ifs often are intriguing and can be instructive, and that is the case with at least four dealing with the long road that brought the United States into the Vietnam War. . . . Then there’s this other 1963 what-if: What would President John F. Kennedy have done in Vietnam if he had not been assassinated in 1963, just weeks after Diem was overthrown? . . . The latest and most complete examination of the JFK what-if is Marc J. Selverstone’s The Kennedy Withdrawal: Camelot and the American Commitment to Vietnam (Harvard University Press, 336 pp. $35). In this worthy book, Selverstone, who heads the Presidential Recordings Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, takes a deep dive into whether or not Kennedy would have greatly escalated the war as Johnson did within two years after assuming the presidency. Selverstone makes it clear that he is more interested in showing what happened before Kennedy’s death than in providing an answer to the what-if. As he puts it: The book “seeks to trace [JFK’s Vietnam War policy’s] history, focusing more on its meaning at the time than on whether Kennedy would have carried it out.” In setting out that history Selverstone hones in on how Kennedy’s Vietnam War planning began, “why it ended, and what it meant.” In doing so, he thoroughly analyzes the historical evidence (including the JFK and LBJ White House tapes) and comes to no definitive conclusion, saying that the answer is “ultimately unknowable.” That said, Selverstone decidedly leans toward the theory that JFK (and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara), having terminated withdrawing troops before Kennedy’s death, likely would have done something akin to LBJ’s escalation. JFK, Selverstone reminds us, “never relinquished his interest in brushfire wars, nor did he dampen his rhetoric about their necessity.” (The VVA Veteran, a publication of Vietnam Veterans of America)

You keep ignoring and twisting the facts about Prouty. -- Prouty wrote letters attacking Hubbard's critics. -- Prouty took money to appear as an "expert witness" to defend Scientology. -- Prouty sat on an advisory board of the anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying Liberty Lobby. -- Prouty had a book published by a Holocaust-denying publishing company. -- Incredibly, Prouty testified as a character witness for Willis Carto, an unashamed anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, and white supremacist, in the IHR trial. Carto founded Liberty Lobby. -- You're citing occult writer Peter Levenda as a source for the bogus claim that Hubbard worked "deep cover" for naval intelligence???!!! Let's look at some of the bizarre books that Levenda has written: Sinister Forces - The Nine: A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft (Sinister Forces) (2005) Gates of the Necronomicon (as Simon) (2006) Stairway to Heaven: Chinese Alchemists, Jewish Kabbalists, and the Art of Spiritual Transformation (2008) Tantric Temples: Eros and Magic in Java (2011) The Angel And The Sorcerer (2012) The Dark Lord: H. P. Lovecraft, Kenneth Grant, and the Typhonian Tradition in Magic (2013) The Tantric Alchemist: Thomas Vaughan and the Indian Tantric Tradition (2015) The Lovecraft Code (2016) Sekret [sic] Machines: Gods (with Tom DeLonge) (2017) Eee-gads! This is the kind of fringe writer you're citing in response to the evidence that Prouty had no clue about interpreting Hubbard's military records? And just never mind that Hubbard was a crook and an abject crackpot? Just never mind that fact? The attacks on Prouty, far from being "thinly sourced, out of context, and cherry picked," are abundantly documented in his own writings and interviews. Let's summarize some of what we now know beyond any doubt about him: -- He lied about his role in presidential protection. -- He lied about the sinister nature of his trip to the South Pole. -- When he was asked to produce the putatively historic notes that he had claimed in writing he had taken of his alleged 316th Det/112th MI Group "stand down" phone call, he lamely said they were "long gone" and offered no explanation for why he had failed to safeguard such supposedly historic notes (and, sadly, the ARRB interviewers were too polite to press him on this point). -- He made the slanderous claim that Lansdale was involved in the Lumumba and Trujillo murders. -- He made the slanderous claim that Lansdale hated JFK and wanted him dead. -- He made the bogus claim that Lansdale wanted to see a huge escalation in the American involvement in South Vietnam. -- Without a shred of supporting evidence, he claimed that Lansdale was involved in the assassination plot and was even in Dealey Plaza on the day it happened. -- He said that Princess Diana may have been assassinated by "the secret team." He said he "would not be surprised" to learn that the secret team had killed Diana. -- He approvingly quoted Stalin's nutty theory that Churchill poisoned FDR. -- He associated with known anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, and even appeared as a character witness for Willis Carto in the IHR trial. As mentioned, Carto founded Liberty Lobby and was an unabashed Holocaust denier, anti-Semite, and white supremacist. -- He repeatedly defended the crook and quack Ron Hubbard. He stridently attacked Russell Miller's excellent expose of Hubbard and Scientology Bare-Faced Messiah. -- He publicly praised the cult of Scientology. Moderators, please, please move any threads about Fletcher Prouty to another subforum so that the JFK case is not tainted by association with this fraud and nutjob.

Sheesh, you are just totally full of yourself, aren't you? If someone disagrees with you, they're the enemy; they're evil; they're ignorant; they're haters; they're slandering you; etc., etc., etc. How dare anyone disagree with you! How dare they! The problem is that you are an extremely intolerant, closed-minded ultra-liberal. Not all ultra-liberals are intolerant and closed minded, just as not all ultra-conservatives are intolerant and closed minded. But you take partisanship and ideology to extreme levels and view anyone who disagrees with you as a dastardly enemy who hates all that is good and right.

Well, first of all, I note that you declined to address the WC's lame explanation for the pickup time of 12:30 recorded on Whaley's timesheet--obviously, that pickup time categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger. I also note that you declined to address Whaley's varying descriptions of his passenger's clothing. Anyway, back to Whaley's identification of Oswald in the police lineup. So you admit that Whaley did tell the WC that he chose the No. 2 man, and you concede that the No. 2 man was not Oswald. So it's not "nonsense." It's documented fact. But you argue, as did the WC, that Whaley simply erred regarding the number he chose because you're certain he chose No. 3. Yet, when Belin asked Whaley why his police affidavit had him saying that he chose No. 3, Whaley explained that he signed the statement before he saw the lineup! Mr. WHALEY. I signed that statement before they carried me down to see the lineup. I signed this statement, and then they carried me down to the lineup at 2:30 in the afternoon. (6 H 430) But then Whaley said the police wrote out a handwritten statement and in the middle of the statement, they stopped and took him down to view the lineup. Then, he said, when he came back, he signed a typed statement (6 H 430). However, as you should know, there were actually two handwritten statements supposedly taken from Whaley. What's more, as you should also know, Montgomery's handwritten version of the affidavit does not say that Whaley chose No. 3. And then there's the fact that the other handwritten statement is clearly in different handwriting. When Belin pressed Whaley about the confusion and about the typed affidavit's assertion that he chose the No. 3 man, Whaley said he wasn't sure he'd seen the handwritten statement, and then added that "I signed my name [on the typed statement] because they said that is what I said" (6 H 431). When Whaley told the WC that he identified the No. 2 man, he added that the man he picked "was the third one that came out" (6 H 430). This is important because the numbers on the lineup stage were numbered from left to right (7 H 249), which means that the No. 2 man would have been the third man to come out. (No. 4 would have been the first man to come out, No. 3 the second, No. 2 the third, and No. 1 the fourth.) Now, you can try to spin and minimize these problems until the Sun burns out, but these problems, if nothing else, show that Whaley's identification of Oswald would have been strongly challenged in a trial. Indeed, it's doubtful that a fair judge would have admitted the identification as evidence. Oh, yes, as you note, Whaley certainly did talk about Oswald's complaining about the lineup and about being placed among a bunch of teens, etc., etc., and Whaley did indeed say that a person could have picked out Oswald just based on his loud protests to the police. Yet, you spin these facts as nothing more than proof that Whaley identified Oswald. You miss the obvious point that an identification in such a grossly rigged lineup was virtually a foregone conclusion, that any honest judge would have ruled that the lineup was markedly unfair and would have thrown out the identification. Add to this the fact that the 12:30 pickup time rules out Oswald as the passenger, that Whaley said the man he picked in the lineup was the third man to come out (which would have been the man standing under No. 2), that Montgomery's handwritten affidavit says nothing about Whaley choosing No. 3, and that Whaley was all over the map about his passenger's clothing--add this all up and you have, at a bare minimum, a very questionable identification.