Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was it Lansdale?


Guest Mark Valenti
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hate to be repetitive but I'm curious to see if anyone posting on this has read the Prouty's ARRB interview and related ARRB memos as I suggested earlier. Or actually studied SACSA, where Prouty and

Lansdale worked and developed the timeline for how long the two men actually worked together, what their respective roles were, what their duties were and essentially established a context this

discussion? Or overlaid Lansdale's career during this period with Prouty's remarks from a chronological standpoint?

In other words, since its an education forum I was just wondering if anyone had done some homework they would be willing to share....

Larry, I read Prouty's ARRB interview years ago. I recall that it was quite a fiasco, and the ARRB concluded in a memo that he was not very credible. However, I don't recall the ARRB asking him anything about Lansdale.

With respect to Lansdale's career and Prouty's remarks from a chronological standpoint, Lansdale retired from the Air Force on November 1, 1963, and was supposed to be enroute by car to visit family in Arizona, and like George H.W. Bush was "somewhere in Texas" (Bush's best recollection when asked) at the time of the assassination. He is also known to have stayed in the same hotel JFK did in Fort Worth, though what exact date is unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am convinced and can prove that the tramps paraded thru DP were NOT the same three men released from jail 3 days later: Doyle, Abrahms and Gedney...

The tramps in these photos were all releases later that day...

It seems to me you are talking about a fantastic coincidence here. You say that the three men paraded through DP were not Doyle, Abrams, and Gedney, even though they look like them. Doyle, Abrams, and Gedney were three men released three days later. That gives us a total of six men who looked like Doyle, Abrams, and Gedney (three of them actually being Doyle, Abrams, and Gedney). Not a single one of this group of six bore no resemblance. Really?

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...This led to the discovery that the "tramps" had not even been booked in the Sheriff's office where they had been taken so conspicuously, and that there were no records of or by the police.

I think this must be taken in the context of the larger picture -- J. Edgar Hoover had announced before 3pm CST on 11/22/1963 that OSWALD was a "Lone Shooter" and that this must be the official US position for purposes of National Security (according to Dr. David Wrone, 1999).

LBJ liked this result -- on the very same day -- so the ball was set in motion. The FBI had instant orders to manipulate all evidence in the JFK murder so that one and only one shooter could be available to the American Public.

It was not a light or merely bureaucratic matter -- it was a matter of National Security -- of National survival. It was urgent, and it was the order of the Director of the FBI and of LBJ.

The FBI began that very afternoon to tamper with all evidence -- ballistics, medical, witness, documentary -- everything.

That means that the dozens of people who were taken into the Dallas Police station after the murder of JFK were to be let go -- lest the American Public become suspicious.

No records of the charges against them could see the light of day. They would all be let go -- J. Edgar Hoover had his "suspect."

The "Lone Shooter" decision of 3pm CST on the day of the JFK murder cogently and comprehensively explains every single instance of evidence tampering that can be clearly seen in retrospect in the pages of the Warren Commission volumes.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm convinced that it was Lansdale in Dallas that day -- but I'm unconvinced about his MOTIVE there.

If Lansdale was in Dallas but his motive was benign, why would he keep it a secret? Unless, of course, he was part of yet another failed abort team, in which case he would have some explaining to do.

Again, Ron, before the afternoon of 11/22/1963 was over in Dallas, orders came from the FBI Director as approved by the US President that all US Government offices would prevent all records of anybody but one, single "Lone Shooter" from becoming known to the American Public, for reasons of National Security.

So, E.G. Lansdale had no explaining to do whatsoever.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm convinced that it was Lansdale in Dallas that day -- but I'm unconvinced about his MOTIVE there.

If Lansdale was in Dallas but his motive was benign, why would he keep it a secret? Unless, of course, he was part of yet another failed abort team, in which case he would have some explaining to do.

Again, Ron, before the afternoon of 11/22/1963 was over in Dallas, orders came from the FBI Director as approved by the US President that all US Government offices would prevent all records of anybody but one, single "Lone Shooter" from becoming known to the American Public, for reasons of National Security.

So, E.G. Lansdale had no explaining to do whatsoever.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

My point was, if Lansdale was in Dallas, and had an innocent reason for being there, why did he keep it a secret? That is, what prevented him from simply saying, as a matter of natural interest, "I was in Dallas that day" ("on my way to Arizona" or whatever)? Hoover or a lone shooter has nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was, if Lansdale was in Dallas, and had an innocent reason for being there, why did he keep it a secret? That is, what prevented him from simply saying, as a matter of natural interest, "I was in Dallas that day" ("on my way to Arizona" or whatever)? Hoover or a lone shooter has nothing to do with it.

Well, Ron, my point was that if Lansdale was in Dallas, and if he had prepared to book three suspicious men claiming to be tramps and hobos in connection with the murder of JFK, and then was told by the offices of LBJ himself to keep all of his findings classified Top Secret in the interest of National Security -- then we can easily understand why he would deny even being in Dallas that day.

It was the order of LBJ (not just Hoover) that mandated his silence. This sounds plausible to me. It had everything to do with the "Lone Shooter' scenario which was to dominate the US Press for the next year.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was, if Lansdale was in Dallas, and had an innocent reason for being there, why did he keep it a secret? That is, what prevented him from simply saying, as a matter of natural interest, "I was in Dallas that day" ("on my way to Arizona" or whatever)? Hoover or a lone shooter has nothing to do with it.

Well, Ron, my point was that if Lansdale was in Dallas, and if he had prepared to book three suspicious men claiming to be tramps and hobos in connection with the murder of JFK, and then was told by the offices of LBJ himself to keep all of his findings classified Top Secret in the interest of National Security -- then we can easily understand why he would deny even being in Dallas that day.

It was the order of LBJ (not just Hoover) that mandated his silence. This sounds plausible to me. It had everything to do with the "Lone Shooter' scenario which was to dominate the US Press for the next year.

Well, point, counterpoint, I can't believe that Lansdale, being a suspect in the case, was there to round up suspects. If he made it a point to walk past the tramps, it was to communicate something probably non-verbally (he wouldn't care about just three real tramps), not to tell them, "You're in a heap of trouble."

Let me make my point this way: If Lansdale was in Dallas and remained silent about it, it was for a non-benign reason (ditto Hunt, Robertson, and anyone else of their profession who was there for the big event). And I'll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, my suggestions were strictly along the line of evaluating the context of the Prouty's remarks about Lansdale, as you note there was nothing specific in his ARRB dialog about his identification.....however since he himself offered his remarks to the ARRB and it was all about JFK, it seems strange that he did not bring up Lansdale if he felt the identification was solid. It would have been extremely relevant and extremely substantive in respect to the other things being discussed. In addition, I suggested a study of SACSA would be relevant to how long and how closely the men worked together and where their jobs crossed - or didn't.

I think that is as relevant as understanding the fairly close and positive personal relationship between he and JFK. JFK was actually about the only guy in Lansdale's court at that point in time, had tried to move him into a very senior position in Vietnam and been opposed by both CIA and State. It's my view that a lot of conspiracy speculation gets tossed about without a solid study of the context and background of what's being discussed - in my view broad speculation that Lansdale would be an enemy of JFK just because he had been detached to the CIA or because he was military or even because his Mongoose assignment was over is pretty uniformed. In regard to the latter, he had even been fired from Mongoose, the whole project had been shut down following the promises made and the general reset of all things Cuban after the missile crisis.

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, point, counterpoint, I can't believe that Lansdale, being a suspect in the case, was there to round up suspects. If he made it a point to walk past the tramps, it was to communicate something probably non-verbally (he wouldn't care about just three real tramps), not to tell them, "You're in a heap of trouble."

Let me make my point this way: If Lansdale was in Dallas and remained silent about it, it was for a non-benign reason (ditto Hunt, Robertson, and anyone else of their profession who was there for the big event). And I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough, Ron. So, let me ask you a question -- because your view is similar to mine more than a year ago when I engaged Larry Hancock in a similar debate about Lansdale.

Here's my question: if somebody could show clear photographic evidence that Borja Joannides and Ann Goodpasture were clearly in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963, what would be your opinion?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, my suggestions were strictly along the line of evaluating the context of the Prouty's remarks about Lansdale, as you note there was nothing specific in his ARRB dialog about his identification.....however since he himself offered his remarks to the ARRB and it was all about JFK, it seems strange that he did not bring up Lansdale if he felt the identification was solid. It would have been extremely relevant and extremely substantive in respect to the other things being discussed. In addition, I suggested a study of SACSA would be relevant to how long and how closely the men worked together and where their jobs crossed - or didn't.

I think that is as relevant as understanding the fairly close and positive personal relationship between he and JFK. JFK was actually about the only guy in Lansdale's court at that point in time, had tried to move him into a very senior position in Vietnam and been opposed by both CIA and State. It's my view that a lot of conspiracy speculation gets tossed about without a solid study of the context and background of what's being discussed - in my view broad speculation that Lansdale would be an enemy of JFK just because he had been detached to the CIA or because he was military or even because his Mongoose assignment was over is pretty uniformed in my view. In regard to the latter, he had even been fired from Mongoose, the whole project had been shut down following the promises made and the general reset of all things Cuban after the missile crisis.

Yes. I think a lot of theorists are dismissive or don't understand the context and assume that Lansdale was CIA or Mongoose so therefore he had motivation to kill Kennedy. A while back on this thread, I posted a good summary by John Simkin, putting Lansdale into context and creating a strong argument for why he would not have been involved.

Some points to suggest his complicity (some of which are tenuous and again come from Prouty) is his alliance with Nixon - according to Prouty, Lansdale was taken aback by Nixon's defeat in the election and it was then when he tried to influence JFK into giving him the role of ambassador to Vietnam (which he, of course, never got). He was also close to Henry Cabot Lodge, who according to Roger Stone had foreknowledge of the assassination. Lodge had "begged" for Lansdale to come to Vietnam before the Diem coup (of course, if you understand the context of this too, there's a lot more to it) but was denied by McCone. Also, there's Lansdale's close association with Conein. who oversaw the coup. According to most accounts, Lansdale was not in agreement with how Diem was handled, but was in close relation to the principals who oversaw the coup. It could be argued that this is reflective of the Kennedy killing. Perhaps Dulles ordered Lansdale, knowing how skilled he was, to carry it out and he was merely following orders (as was strongly implied in the movie JFK). Finally, there's his connection and access to all the players in Mongoose, which was a strange thing for him to be put in charge of. He was especially close to William Harvey, who many researchers believe to be directly involved.

But, for the most part, I'm in agreement with you, Larry. I think a good parallel to Lansdale is the case of Godfrey McHugh, who strangely, was also fingered by Prouty as possibly being involved. On the surface, there are some curious pieces to suggest he might have been. He was close to Howard Burris, who was supposedly connected to George de Mohrenschildt. He dated Jackie before JFK stole her from him, and there's that tape of Kennedy berating him in July '63. He often rode in the presidential motorcade, but on 11/22 switched a few cars back. And finally, for all the body alterationists, he oversaw/protected the body on Air Force One and was present at the autopsy. In fact, I'm surprised more conspiracy theorists haven't accused him. But, upon closer research and understanding of the context, one would see that he wasn't who he appeared based only on those few facts. Pat Speer covers him a lot here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-21-things-that-make-me-say-hmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Lansdale...was also close to Henry Cabot Lodge, who...had "begged" for Lansdale to come to Vietnam before the Diem coup...but was denied by McCone. Also, there's Lansdale's close association with Conein, who oversaw the coup. According to most accounts, Lansdale was not in agreement with how Diem was handled, but was in close relation to the principals who oversaw the coup...

Well, Brian, this reminded me of the opportunity the USA lost to have JFK oversee the Vietnam War.

It seems to me that a Catholic in the White House would have been the best President to oversee Vietnam, because ultimately the stress in South Vietnam wasn't due to Communism, but to the Catholic/Buddhist conflict -- but the Communists were used as the scapegoat.

(Just as in the US South, the stress there wasn't due to Communism, but to the Segregation/Integration conflict -- but the Communists were used as the scapegoat.)

I think JFK saw this, and I would not be surprised to learn that JFK approved of the assassination of Diem, who was responsible for all those Buddhist priests lighting themselves on fire for the World Media. The Catholics in Vietnam were out of control -- and should have learned to get along with their Buddhist neighbors. JFK would have seen this, solved the real issues, and settled Vietnam far quicker and smoother than LBJ/Nixon.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my view that a lot of conspiracy speculation gets tossed about without a solid study of the context and background of what's being discussed - in my view broad speculation that Lansdale would be an enemy of JFK just because he had been detached to the CIA or because he was military or even because his Mongoose assignment was over is pretty uniformed. In regard to the latter, he had even been fired from Mongoose, the whole project had been shut down following the promises made and the general reset of all things Cuban after the missile crisis.

Larry, assuming that Lansdale was not an "enemy" of JFK, how do you think Landale would have felt about JFK's intent to withdraw from Vietnam? I think many believe that this intent was the main reason for the assassination (the hope of prompting an invasion of Cuba, by blaming Castro, being a fringe benefit). Some may have gone along with it, maybe even played leading roles, even though they liked the man. I've always found it interesting that Maxwell Taylor, according to his son's book about him, cried on a couple of occasions when the subject of the JFK assassination came up in conversation. Sort of strange behavior for a soldier of his rank.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my question: if somebody could show clear photographic evidence that Borja Joannides and Ann Goodpasture were clearly in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963, what would be your opinion?

It would be my opinion (based on other factors as well) that the CIA was deeply involved in the assassination, or at the very least or at a minimum these people knew it was going to happen and wanted to be there. I already feel that way about the guy who looks for all the world like Rip Robertson at the corner of Houston and Main (safely away from the crossfire).

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am convinced and can prove that the tramps paraded thru DP were NOT the same three men released from jail 3 days later: Doyle, Abrahms and Gedney...

The tramps in these photos were all releases later that day...

It seems to me you are talking about a fantastic coincidence here. You say that the three men paraded through DP were not Doyle, Abrams, and Gedney, even though they look like them. Doyle, Abrams, and Gedney were three men released three days later. That gives us a total of six men who looked like Doyle, Abrams, and Gedney (three of them actually being Doyle, Abrams, and Gedney). Not a single one of this group of six bore no resemblance. Really?

You have photos of Doyle, Abrahms and Gedney from that day Ron? I would like to see those. Can you provide a link...

From what I know, we have images of the three men who we have arrest records for - from many years later...

and who claims that they were the same men?

As I posted, Decker released all three of the men in the tramps photos the same day... at least that's what Wise says.

The arrest reports have Chambers and Beck on them.

Wise tells us the story of the tramps in these photos related to DECKER and the SHERIFFS Dept

Chamber's report has to do with Capt Jones and the DPD.

Still think they are the same 3 people? or two sets of 3 tramps?

Chambers%20on%20the%20tramps_zpskgv7mndl

tramps.jpg

Edited by David Josephs
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...