Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Ed Lansdale lookalike In the 3 tramps pic


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Duncan MacRae

The 3 tramps Lansdale?

I'm also wondering if that could be Lee Bowers on the right hand side of the photograph. Did he leave the tower shortly after the shooting?

Duncan

Lansdale2.jpg

Edited by Duncan MacRae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is there any consensus on whether Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on this day? Is there any confirmation that he did, indeed, give a deathbed confession to being in DP?

Is this just one giant red herring? What would someone of such high a rank as Ed Lansdale have to gain by risking such exposure? Or is that the point, was he meant to be noticed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any consensus on whether Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on this day? Is there any confirmation that he did, indeed, give a deathbed confession to being in DP?

Is this just one giant red herring? What would someone of such high a rank as Ed Lansdale have to gain by risking such exposure? Or is that the point, was he meant to be noticed?

John Newman was researching Lansdale for a bio that I don't think he ever did. But when I asked him about it, he said he tracked Lansdale down to the Fort Worth hotel where JFK stayed on his last night, so it seems that he was in the neighborhood.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any consensus on whether Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on this day? Is there any confirmation that he did, indeed, give a deathbed confession to being in DP?

Is this just one giant red herring? What would someone of such high a rank as Ed Lansdale have to gain by risking such exposure? Or is that the point, was he meant to be noticed?

Lansdale, Conein, Hunt, Barnes, Robertson and others were there to see their mission accomplished.

They were SECRET agents, so why would they risk exposure?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit that there is a strong resemblance, but why would they position themselves so close together for easy identification? How does "secret" behavior apply when these alleged agents positioned themselves along a heavily populated parade route, subject to the photos and videos of hundreds of passersby and newsmen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any consensus on whether Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on this day? Is there any confirmation that he did, indeed, give a deathbed confession to being in DP?

Is this just one giant red herring? What would someone of such high a rank as Ed Lansdale have to gain by risking such exposure? Or is that the point, was he meant to be noticed?

Lansdale, Conein, Hunt, Barnes, Robertson and others were there to see their mission accomplished.

They were SECRET agents, so why would they risk exposure?

Jack

Nobody knows, do we. Call it a gloat factor. Their faces were anonymous to virtually everyone, except

to JFK himself. Maybe they didn't care if he saw them, since he would be dead in a few seconds.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I think Bill Kelly and Jack White's comments are as clear and persuasive as anyone can reasonably expect, under the circumstances. The sort of thing you can either accept or dispute according to your own parallax. Just like whether you accept or reject the use of "enhanced" thermite, or nano-thermite, or military-grade thermite, so conspicuous in the three buildings at 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Lansdale was staying at the same hotel as was JFK the night before the assassination is not in question as per John Newman. As I understand it, the records from the hotel bear this out (if I'm not mistaken). That he was in Dealey Plaza the next day is not in question as he was positively identified by two senior DOD officials who knew him very well. One of the very compelling elements of this identification is that the second ID made by General Victor Krulak came in a PRIVATE letter to Colonel Prouty. Krulak was not intending to be quoted nor was he intending to publically identify Lansdale. However, the fact that Krulak was positive that it was indeed Lansdale, cannot be disputed.

Unless you knew Lansdale by sight as well as--and for as long as--these two witnesses did, or unless you believe they are lying or are incompetent, then I believe it is irresponsible to dismiss this evidence as "probably erroneous" or worse.

Neither Prouty nor Krulak speculated on the "why" of his presence beyond the obvious questions raised by it. But, there was never any question as to who it was pictured in the photograph.

I know we don't necessarily agree on that, Jim. However, I do agree with Prouty that the identification of the tramps was not important. They were just background noise.

Moreover, Prouty was very familiar with Hunt. It would have been uncharacteristic of Prouty to fail to make the ID if it was, in fact, Hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not Conein, we know that today.

And unless you believe someone as questionable as Saint John Hunt, which only someone like Carroll would, it was not Hunt either.

The idea that Tracy Barnes would be there defies logic and rules of tradecraft. Its as bad as saying Johannides was at the Ambassador. Which he was not. Desk guys at the top are not in on the operative level.

As per Lansdale, John Newman told me that he was passing through Fort Worth on his way to see relatives in, I think Denton. I do not recall him saying Lansdale stayed at the same hotel JFK was at. But the same problem applies with him as with Barnes. You don't put people who many would recognize out in the open like that.

I for one as so sick and tired of talking about these three tramps, that it gives me a headache.

Haven't we suffered enough with them? I mean, Frenchy, the Houston killer, Hunt, Sturgis, Harrelson and on and on and on.

And for what end? Why are they necessary to anything?

People make mistakes. Especially when they are examining a complex crime like this one. Garrison and Sprague were wrong. As were Weberman and Canfield. I mean, my God an earprint?

They most likely were who the LaFontaines identified them as.

Good riddance.

Maybe their role was to escort the cops(?) out of a particular "situation"? For example, maybe Officer Wise was a spotter? BTW, just what does that Hunt/Holt-lookalike older dude have in that brown paper bag, anyway? A radio perhaps? Hmmm... Regarding Lansdale, I gotta go with "Brute" Krulak. He was a personal friend of my Dad's (in La Jolla, California), and my Dad told me once that he was the most brilliant (and interesting) man he'd ever met, topping Jonas Salk, Jacob Bronowski, etc...

--Thomas :ph34r:

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not Conein, we know that today.

And unless you believe someone as questionable as Saint John Hunt, which only someone like Carroll would, it was not Hunt either.

The idea that Tracy Barnes would be there defies logic and rules of tradecraft. Its as bad as saying Johannides was at the Ambassador. Which he was not. Desk guys at the top are not in on the operative level.

As per Lansdale, John Newman told me that he was passing through Fort Worth on his way to see relatives in, I think Denton. I do not recall him saying Lansdale stayed at the same hotel JFK was at. But the same problem applies with him as with Barnes. You don't put people who many would recognize out in the open like that.

I for one as so sick and tired of talking about these three tramps, that it gives me a headache.

Haven't we suffered enough with them? I mean, Frenchy, the Houston killer, Hunt, Sturgis, Harrelson and on and on and on.

And for what end? Why are they necessary to anything?

People make mistakes. Especially when they are examining a complex crime like this one. Garrison and Sprague were wrong. As were Weberman and Canfield. I mean, my God an earprint?

They most likely were who the LaFontaines identified them as.

Good riddance.

Maybe their role was to escort the cops(?) out of a particular "situation"? For example, maybe Officer Wise was a spotter? BTW, just what does that Hunt/Holt-lookalike older dude have in that brown paper bag, anyway? A radio perhaps? Hmmm... Regarding Lansdale, I gotta go with "Brute" Krulak. He was a personal friend of my Dad's (in La Jolla, California), and my Dad told me once that he was the most brilliant (and interesting) man he'd ever met, topping Jonas Salk, Jacob Bronowski, etc...

--Thomas :ph34r:

Hey Thomas,

Krulak indeed generated a great deal of respect from everyone who knew him as far as I can tell.

Even Hemming rejected the idea that it was Lansdale, although Hemming didn't know Lansdale himself. But, he initially rejected the idea based on its having violated trade-craft if it was true. It was only after I sent Gerry a copy of the actual letter from Krulak to Prouty (that ID'd Lansdale) did Gerry then contact Krulak's family. According to Hemming, the family was not pleased that the letter had been made public, but that was enough for Hemming, too. He respected Krulak perhaps as much as anyone he'd ever known. Hemming was convinced from that day forward that it was indeed Lansdale based soley on Krulak having said it was so.

Just as a point of clarification for those who might be wondering: Prouty did not betray a confidence, since Krulak never requested confidentiality from Fletch regarding the content of the letter.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and I forgot about Chauncey Holt also.

Another poseur who was exposed by Ed Tatro.

I mean how many times does this have to blow up for people to get the message?

I guess several times.

If they serve no purpose to the plot then why are they significant in any way?

To me they are even a worse distraction than Braden. Braden at least you can connect with some power centers.

But these guys? Come on.

The research community sometimes makes mistakes. Oliver Stone admitted he made some errors in his film. THat is fine. Pre ARRB that is excusable. But post ARRB? WIth all the new compelling evidence that blows this case to kingdom come? Why bother with this kind of stuff?

Does everyone see what happened to Shane O'Sullivan? To his credit he admitted he was wrong. But he smudged up some good people, like Ed Lopez. Photo ID is one of the trickiest forms of detection that there is. We have seen too many of them lead us astray.

Jimbo,

Do you believe police officer Wes Wise when he explains the "cotton" stuffed into his right ear on 11/22/63 as his way of dealing with an alleged ear ache?

--Thomas

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and I forgot about Chauncey Holt also.

Another poseur who was exposed by Ed Tatro.

I mean how many times does this have to blow up for people to get the message?

I guess several times.

If they serve no purpose to the plot then why are they significant in any way?

To me they are even a worse distraction than Braden. Braden at least you can connect with some power centers.

But these guys? Come on.

The research community sometimes makes mistakes. Oliver Stone admitted he made some errors in his film. THat is fine. Pre ARRB that is excusable. But post ARRB? WIth all the new compelling evidence that blows this case to kingdom come? Why bother with this kind of stuff?

Does everyone see what happened to Shane O'Sullivan? To his credit he admitted he was wrong. But he smudged up some good people, like Ed Lopez. Photo ID is one of the trickiest forms of detection that there is. We have seen too many of them lead us astray.

Jimbo,

Do you believe police officer Wes Wise when he explains the "cotton" stuffed into his right ear on 11/22/63 as his way of dealing with an alleged ear ache?

--Thomas

Yea Tom, you don't mean Wes Wise. He's a former radio and TV reporter and anchor and mayor of Dallas who knew Ruby and ran down the Carl Mather connection.

There was a Dallas cop named Wise, motorcycle maybe, but no relation to Wes.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and I forgot about Chauncey Holt also.

Another poseur who was exposed by Ed Tatro.

I mean how many times does this have to blow up for people to get the message?

I guess several times.

If they serve no purpose to the plot then why are they significant in any way?

To me they are even a worse distraction than Braden. Braden at least you can connect with some power centers.

But these guys? Come on.

The research community sometimes makes mistakes. Oliver Stone admitted he made some errors in his film. THat is fine. Pre ARRB that is excusable. But post ARRB? WIth all the new compelling evidence that blows this case to kingdom come? Why bother with this kind of stuff?

Does everyone see what happened to Shane O'Sullivan? To his credit he admitted he was wrong. But he smudged up some good people, like Ed Lopez. Photo ID is one of the trickiest forms of detection that there is. We have seen too many of them lead us astray.

Jimbo,

Do you believe police officer Wes Wise when he explains the "cotton" stuffed into his right ear on 11/22/63 as his way of dealing with an alleged ear ache?

--Thomas

Yea Tom, you don't mean Wes Wise. He's a former radio and TV reporter and anchor and mayor of Dallas who knew Ruby and ran down the Carl Mather connection.

There was a Dallas cop named Wise, motorcycle maybe, but no relation to Wes.

BK

TOM that would be Marvin Wise..........he was with the tramps...b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and I forgot about Chauncey Holt also.

Another poseur who was exposed by Ed Tatro.

I mean how many times does this have to blow up for people to get the message?

I guess several times.

If they serve no purpose to the plot then why are they significant in any way?

To me they are even a worse distraction than Braden. Braden at least you can connect with some power centers.

But these guys? Come on.

The research community sometimes makes mistakes. Oliver Stone admitted he made some errors in his film. THat is fine. Pre ARRB that is excusable. But post ARRB? WIth all the new compelling evidence that blows this case to kingdom come? Why bother with this kind of stuff?

Does everyone see what happened to Shane O'Sullivan? To his credit he admitted he was wrong. But he smudged up some good people, like Ed Lopez. Photo ID is one of the trickiest forms of detection that there is. We have seen too many of them lead us astray.

Jimbo,

Do you believe police officer Wes Wise when he explains the "cotton" stuffed into his right ear on 11/22/63 as his way of dealing with an alleged ear ache?

--Thomas

Yea Tom, you don't mean Wes Wise. He's a former radio and TV reporter and anchor and mayor of Dallas who knew Ruby and ran down the Carl Mather connection.

There was a Dallas cop named Wise, motorcycle maybe, but no relation to Wes.

BK

TOM that would be Marvin Wise..........he was with the tramps...b

Thanks BK and Bernice. That's what I get for being too lazy to re-"research" it and get my facts straight before I open my big mouth. I meant the other, younger, blond(?) policeman with something in his right ear which he later claimed was cotton because he had an ear ache. Perhaps Bernice will be kind enough to post a photo of the dude I'm talking about? Sorry for the boo-boo.

--Thomas :pop

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...