Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was it Lansdale?


Guest Mark Valenti
 Share

Recommended Posts

We are asked to buy the theory that a prominent personage like Lansdale would futz around Dealey Plaza for two full hours, while newspaper reporters, photographers and tv news teams were converging like flies. Maybe Prouty thought the photos were taken right after the assassination?

EDIT: just answered my own question. In an interview Prouty thought the tramps were photographed five minutes after the shooting.

The only explanation I can think of is that "Lansdale" was somehow interacting with the "E. Howard Hunt" tramp by saying "Good job" or "Don't let them have that radio inside your bag," or something like that.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What's available on the internet isn't very good and never really mentions exactly when the pictures were taken. According to Reclaiming History, The sparse report says they were "taken off a boxcar in the railroad yards right after President

Kennedy was shot." I tend to agree with this - that it happened much closer to the shooting than 2:30. The whole question of whether or not the tramps are suspicious hinges on when they were taken into custody, IMO.

And Mark, you are right. The idea that Krulak independently identified Lansdale is often floated around, but the same video contradicts this. It can be clearly seen that Prouty makes reference to Lansdale in the letter he sent with the pictures and Krulak responds that it is indeed Lansdale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall someone doing some work on determining what time the three tramps were marched through Dealey Plaza. I believe they used the shadows being cast by prominent landmarks in the photos to determine a fairly precise time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Krulak independently identified Lansdale is often floated around, but the same video contradicts this. It can be clearly seen that Prouty makes reference to Lansdale in the letter he sent with the pictures and Krulak responds that it is indeed Lansdale.

This raises the question in my mind as to why Prouty would suggest it was Lansdale in a letter. I mean, if it was indeed Lansdale, wouldn't Prouty know good and well the answer to the question "What was he doing there?" It seems kind of dangerous or reckless for Prouty to write a letter that says, in effect, "Well, it looks like Lansdale managed the assassination." Of course he may have thought that no one would Krulak would ever read the letter, but still...

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

The idea that Krulak independently identified Lansdale is often floated around, but the same video contradicts this. It can be clearly seen that Prouty makes reference to Lansdale in the letter he sent with the pictures and Krulak responds that it is indeed Lansdale.

This raises the question in my mind as to why Prouty would suggest it was Lansdale in a letter. I mean, if it was indeed Lansdale, wouldn't Prouty know good and well the answer to the question "What was he doing there?" It seems kind of dangerous or reckless for Prouty to write a letter that says, in effect, "Well, it looks like Lansdale managed the assassination." Of course he may have thought that no one would Krulak would ever read the letter, but still...

I could see two old buddies trading theories back and forth via snail mail. And it's possible Prouty didn't anticipate how important the issue would later become. But my reluctant takeaway from this is that he misrepresented the truth in later interviews, and the Krulak "independent" ID of Lansdale wasn't so independent after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's Lansdale's post-military haircut for comparison to the tramps photo:

post-6253-0-41423300-1427730091_thumb.jpg

Nashel, in Edward Lansdale's Cold War, offers that if it is Lansdale in the photo, his appearance in Dealey is not proof of complicity. However, Prouty and Krulak had their reasons to suspect that his presence self-evidently boded ill. Is the evidence that EGL was in Texas the day before solid and inculpating?

Is there a reason to believe that Lansdale was recognized by Charles V. Harrelson, whom I believe is the only identifiable person in the photo? Would there be a military or intelligence connection between them? A quasi-Masonic hand sign flashed between strangers, as in JFK? How would this lowlife know Lansdale and smile when passing him - if indeed that was what happened?

These are myths that need to be deconstructed.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While not directly related to this question, I would recommend reading Prouty's lengthy interview with the ARRB and their related internal memoranda for some general context. If you happen to have Shadow Warfare, take a look at Lansdale's relationship with JFK who supported his appointment to Mongoose and then to a senior position in Vietnam - an appointment strongly opposed by both State and the CIA. - as well as some further detail about the nature and evolution of the special Joint Chiefs unit in which Lansdale and Prouty worked. There is a bit of background on that in one of my blog posts:

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/lansdale-oso-and-sacsa/

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Larry. That is good information.

I'm on the fence whether it is Lansdale or not in the photo. There are a lot of reasons to believe he was not involved. Below is a good and convincing summary of why he was not involved by John Simkin:

"There is no evidence that Lansdale was involved in the assassination of JFK. Nor did he have a motive. JFK was influenced by Lansdale’s views on Vietnam. That is why he would have pulled out the troops if he had won the 1964 election.

Lansdale was not sacked by JFK (although he did not intervene in the matter). It was Maxwell Taylor who arranged for Lansdale to have “early retirement”. The two men clashed about what should be done in Vietnam. Taylor took the view, as did virtually all the military top brass, that the war could be won by military power. Taylor and the Joint Chief of Staffs told JFK in the summer of 1963 that 40,000 US troops could clean up the Viet Cong threat in Vietnam and another 120,000 would be sufficient to cope with any possible North Vietnamese or Chinese intervention.

His advice on Cuba was that the CIA should work closely with exiles, particularly those with middle-class professions, who had opposed Batista and had then become disillusioned with Castro because of his betrayal of the democratic process. Lansdale was also opposed to the Bay of Pigs operation because he knew that it would not trigger a popular uprising against Castro. Although JFK was highly suspicious of the CIA, as a result of the quality of Lansdale’s advice, he selected him to become project leader of Operation Mongoose.

Lansdale had spent years studying the way Mao had taken power in China. He often quoted Mao of telling his guerrillas: “Buy and sell fairly. Return everything borrowed. Indemnify everything damaged. Do not bathe in view of women. Do not rob personal belongings of captives.” The purpose of such rules, according to Mao, was to create a good relationship between the army and its people. This was a strategy that had been adopted by the NLF. Lansdale believed that the US Army should adopt a similar approach. As Cecil B. Currey, the author of “Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American” pointed out: “Lansdale was a dedicated anticommunist, conservative in his thoughts. Many people of like persuasion were neither as willing to study their enemy nor as open to adopting communist ideas to use a countervailing force. If for no other reason, the fact makes Lansdale stand out in bold relief to the majority of fellow military men who struggled on behalf of America in those intense years of the cold war.”

He argued against the overthrow of Diem. He told Robert McNamara that: “There’s a constitution in place… Please don’t destroy that when you’re trying to change the government. Remember there’s a vice president (Nguyen Ngoc Tho) who’s been elected and is now holding office. If anything happens to the president, he should replace him. Try to keep something sustained.” It was these views that got him removed from office. The pressure to remove Lansdale came from General Curtis LeMay and General Victor Krulak and other senior members of the military. As a result it was decided to abolish his post as assistant to the secretary of defence. He was not too upset because for some time McNamara had not been listening to Lansdale’s advice. His approach to foreign policy at once appealed to Kennedy and horrified the Joint Chiefs of Staff and politicians such as Dean Rusk.

It is true that Lansdale was strongly anti-communist, but he was not a right-winger. In fact, although he was a conservative on some issues, he was liberal on others. Unlike most of the military leaders in Vietnam, he was not a racist. He had a deep respect for the Vietnamese culture and realised that you could not win by imposing American rule on the country. His second wife, Patrocinio Yapcinco, was from the Philippines.

Out of office he continued to argue against LBJ’s decision to try and use military power to win the Vietnam War. When General William Westmoreland argued that: “We’re going to out-guerrilla the guerrilla and out-ambush the ambush… because we’re smarter, we have greater mobility and fire-power, we have more endurance and more to fight for… And we’ve got more guts.” Lansdale replied: “All actions in the war should be devised to attract and then make firm the allegiance of the people.” He added “we label our fight as helping the Vietnamese maintain their freedom” but when “we bomb their villages, with horrendous collateral damage in terms of both civilian property and lives… it might well provoke a man of good will to ask, just what freedom of what Vietnamese are we helping to maintain?”

Lansdale quoted Robert Taber (The War of the Flea): “There is only one means of defeating an insurgent people who will not surrender, and that is extermination. There is only one way to control a territory that harbours resistance, and that is to turn it into a desert. Where these means cannot, for whatever reason, be used, the war is lost.” Lansdale thought this was the situation in Vietnam and wrote to a friend that if the solution was to “kill every last person in the enemy ranks” then he was “not only morally opposed” to this strategy but knew it was “humanly impossible”.

Lansdale added “No idea can be bombed or beaten to death. Military action alone is never enough.” He pointed out that since 1945 the Viet Minh had been willing to fight against the strength of both France and the United States in order to ensure success of their own. “Without a better idea, rebels will eventually win, for ideas are defeated only by better ideas.”

Lansdale was anti-communist because he really believed in democracy. Lansdale had been arguing since 1956 that the best way of dealing with the Viet Cong was to introduce free elections that included the rights of Chams, Khmers, Montagnards and other minorities to participate in voting. Lansdale said that he went into Vietnam as Tom Paine would have done. He was found of quoting Paine as saying: “Where liberty dwells not, there is my country.”

He also distanced himself from the Freedom Studies Center of the Institute for American Strategy when he discovered it was being run by the John Birch Society. He told a friend: “I refused to have anything more to do with it… That isn’t what our country is all about.” Lansdale considered himself a “conservative moderate” who was tolerant of all minorities.

Lansdale continued to advocate a non-military solution to Vietnam and in 1965, under orders from Lyndon Johnson, Henry Cabot Lodge, the new US ambassador in Saigon, put Lansdale in charge of the “pacification program” in the country. As Newsweek reported: “Lansdale is expected to push hard for a greater effort on the political and economic fronts of the war, while opposing the recent trend bombing and the burning of villages.”

One of those who served under him in this job was Daniel Ellsberg. The two men remained friends until the death of Lansdale. Ellsberg liked Lansdale because of his commitment to democracy. Ellsberg also agreed with Lansdale that the pacification program should be run by the Vietnamese. He argued that unless it was a Vietnam project it would never work. Lansdale knew that there was a deep xenophobia among Vietnamese. However, as he pointed out, he believed “Lyndon Johnson would have been just as xenophobic if Canadians or British or the French moved in force into the United States and took charge of his dreams for a great Society, told him what to do, and spread out by thousands throughout the nation to see that it got done.”

In February 1966 Lansdale was removed from his position in control of the pacification program. However, instead of giving the job to a Vietnamese, William Porter, was given the post. Lansdale was now appointed as a senior liaison officer, with no specific responsibilities.

Unlike most Americans in Vietnam, Lansdale believed it was essential for Vietnamese leaders to claim credit for any changes and reforms. His attitude aroused antagonism in the hearts of many within the U.S. bureaucracy who didn’t like the idea of allowing others to receive credit for successful programs – although they did not object to blaming Vietnamese leaders for projects that failed.

Most importantly, Lansdale thought that the military should be careful to avoid causing civilian casualties. As his biographer, Cecil Currey pointed out: “Lansdale was primarily concerned about the welfare of people. Such a stance made him anathema to those more concerned about search and destroy missions, agent orange, free fire zones, harassing and interdicting fires, and body counts.”

According to Lansdale “we lost the war at the Tet offensive”. The reason for this was that after this defeat American commanders lost the ability to discriminate between friend and foe. All Vietnamese were now “gooks”. Lansdale complained that commanders resorted more and more on artillery barrages that killed thousands of civilians.

He told a friend that: “I don’t believe this is a government that can win the hearts and minds of the people.” Lansdale resigned and returned to the United States in June 1968.

Lansdale argued that the current strategy in Vietnam was not working. “I’m afraid that we’re being taught some savage lessons about a type of warfare that the next generation or so of Americans will have to face up to on other continents as on this one.” This is why he was very critical of US involvement in El Salvador in the 1980s and if he had been alive today, would have opposed the invasion of Iraq and the sending of troops into Afghanistan."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, that is indeed an excellent synopsis. It seems to me that numerous folks have a very narrow view of Lansdale and if you really dig into his philosophy and world view you find something much

different. I suspect that if Lansdale had become point man across Latin America the story there might have been less tragic - instead, rather than Lansdale it was ultimately David Morales who took point for

the Joint Chiefs in South America and Morales's views and Phoenix experience served as precursors for the brutal Condor counter insurgencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Here's what Lansdale himself had to say about Prouty, according to Cecil B. Currey's The Unquiet American:

I continue to be surprised to find Fletcher Prouty quoted as an authority. He was my "cross to bear" before Dan Ellsberg came along. Fletch is the one who blandly told the London Times that I'd invented the Huk Rebellion, hired a few actors in Manila, bussed them out to Pampanga, and staged the whole thing as press agentry to get RM [Magsaysay] elected. He was a good pilot of prop-driven aircraft, but had such a heavy dose of paranoia about CIA when he was on my staff that I kicked him back to the Air Force. He was one of those who thought I was secretly running the Agency from the Pentagon, despite all the proof otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't trust anything Currey says in his book about Lansdale, especially when the forward was written by William Colby. Certainly looks like Currey was paid by the CIA to write a book and polish up Lansdale's reputation. Of course they waited until 1988 to put the book out, the year after Lansdale died..

In this letter to Jim Garrison Prouty doesn't speak very highly of Currey's book:

March 6, 1990

Dear Jim,

It is amazing how things work, I am at home recuperating from a major back operation (to regain my ability to walk); so I was tossing around in bed last night...not too comfortable...and I began to think of Garrison. I thought, "I have got to write Jim a letter detailing how I believe the whole job was done."

By another coincidence I had received a fine set of twenty photos from the Sprague collection in Springfield, Mass. As the odds would have it, he is now living just around the corner here in Alexandria. Why not? Lansdale lived here, Fensterwald lives here, Ford used to live here. Quite a community.

I was studying those photos. One of them is the "Tramps" picture that appears in your book. It is glossy and clear. Lansdale is so clearly identifiable. Why, Lansdale in Dallas? The others don't matter, they are nothing but actors and not gunmen but they are interesting. Others who knew Lansdale as well as I did, have said the same thing, "That's him and what's he doing there?"

As I was reading the paper the Federal Express man came with a book from Jim, that unusual "Lansdale" book. A terrible biography. There could be a great biography about Lansdale. He's no angel; but he is worth a good biography. Currey, a paid hack, did the job. His employers ought to have let him do it right.

I had known Ed since 1952 in the Philippines. I used to fly there regularly with my MATS Heavy Transport Squadron. As a matter of fact, in those days we used to fly wounded men, who were recuperating, from hospitals in Japan to Saigon for R&R on the beaches of Cap St Jacque. That was 1952-1953. Saigon was the Paris of the Orient. And Lansdale was "King Maker" of the Philippines. We always went by way of Manila. I met his team.

He had arrived in Manila in Sept 1945, after the war was over, for a while. He had been sent back there in 1950 by the CIA(OPC) to create a new leader of the Philippines and to get rid of Querino. Sort of like the Marcos deal, or the Noriega operation. Lansdale did it better. I have overthrown a government but I didn't splash it all around like Reagan and Bush have done. Now, who sent him there?

Who sent him there in 1950 (Truman era) to do a job that was not done until 1953 (Ike era)? From 1950 to Feb. 1953 the Director of Central Intelligence was Eisenhower's old Chief of Staff, Gen Walter Bedell Smith. Smith had been Ambassador to Moscow from 1946 to 1949. The lesser guys in the CIA at the time were Allen Dulles, who was Deputy Director Central Intelligence from Aug. 1951 to Feb. 1953. Frank Wisner became the Deputy Director, Plans (Clandestine Activities) when Dulles became DDCI. Lansdale had to have received his orders from among these four men: Truman, Smith, Dulles, and Wisner. Of course the Sec State could have had some input...i.e. Acheson. Who wanted Querino out, that badly? Who wanted HUKS there?

In Jan 1953 Eisenhower arrived. John Foster Dulles was at State and Gen Smith his Deputy. Allen Dulles was the DCI and General Cabel his deputy. None of them changed Lansdale's prior orders to "get" Querino. Lansdale operated with abandon in the Philippines. The Ambassador and the CIA Station Chief, George Aurell, did not know what he was doing. They believed he was some sort of kook Air Force Officer there...a role Lansdale played to the hilt. Magsaysay became President, Dec 30, 1953.


With all of this on the record, and a lot more, this guy Currey comes out of the blue with this purported "Biography". I knew Ed well enough and long enough to know that he was a classic chameleon. He would tell the truth sparingly and he would fabricate a lot. Still, I can not believe that he told Currey the things Currey writes. Why would Lansdale want Currey to perpetuate such out and out bullxxxx about him? Can't be. This is a terribly fabricated book. It's not even true about me. I believe that this book was ordered and delineated by the CIA.

At least I know the truth about myself and about Gen. Krulak. Currey libels us terribly. In fact it may be Krulak who caused the book to be taken off the shelves. Krulak and his Copley Press cohorts have the power to get that done, and I encouraged them to do just that when it first came out. Krulak was mad!

Ed told me many a time how he operated in the Philippines. He said, "All I had was a blank checkbook signed by the U.S. government". He made friends with many influential Filipinos. I have met Johnny Orendain and Col Valeriano, among others, in Manila with Lansdale. He became acquainted with the wealthiest Filipino of them all, Soriano. Currey never even mentions him. Soriano set up Philippine Airlines and owned the big San Miguel beer company, among other things. Key man in Asia.

Lansdale's greatest strategy was to create the "HUKS" as the enemy and to make Magsaysay the "Huk Killer." He would take Magsaysay's battalion out into a "Huk" infested area. He would use movies and "battlefield" sound systems, i.e. fireworks to scare the poor natives. Then one-half of Magsaysay's battalion, dressed as natives, would "attack" the village at night. They'd fire into the air and burn some shacks. In the morning the other half, in uniform, would attack and "capture" the "Huks". They would bind them up in front of the natives who crept back from the forests, and even have a "firing" squad "kill" some of them. Then they would have Magsaysay make a big speech to the people and the whole battalion would roll down the road to have breakfast together somewhere...ready for the next "show".

Ed would always see that someone had arranged to have newsmen and camera men there and Magsaysay soon became a national hero. This was a tough game and Ed bragged that a lot of people were killed; but in the end Magsaysay became the "elected" President and Querino was ousted "legally."

This formula endeared Ed to Allen Dulles. In 1954 Dulles established the Saigon Military Mission in Vietnam...counter to Eisenhower's orders. He had the French accept Lansdale as its chief. This mission was not in Saigon. It was not military, and its job was subversion in Vietnam. Its biggest job was that it got more than 1,100,000 northern Vietnamese to move south. 660,000 by U.S.Navy ships and the rest by CIA airline planes. These 1,100,000 north Vietnamese became the "subversive" element in South Vietnam and the principal cause of the warmaking. Lansdale and his cronies (Bohanon, Arundel, Phillips, Hand, Conein and many others) did all that using the same check book. I was with them many times during 1954. All Malthuseanism.

I have heard him brag about capturing random Vietnamese and putting them in a Helicopter. Then they would work on them to make them "confess" to being Viet Minh. When they would not, they would toss them out of the chopper, one after the other, until the last ones talked. This was Ed's idea of fun...as related to me many times. Then Dulles, Adm. Radford and Cardinal Spellman set up Ngo Dinh Diem. He and his brother, Nhu, became Lansdale proteges.

At about 1957 Lansdale was brought back to Washington and assigned to Air Force Headquarters in a Plans office near mine. He was a fish out of water. He didn't know Air Force people and Air Force ways. After about six months of that, Dulles got the Office of Special Operations under General Erskine to ask for Lansdale to work for the Secretary of Defense. Erskine was man enough to control him.

By 1960 Erskine had me head the Air Force shop there. He had an Army shop and a Navy shop and we were responsible for all CIA relationships as well as for the National Security Agency. Ed was still out of his element because he did not know the services; but the CIA sent work his way.

Then in the Fall of 1960 something happened that fired him up. Kennedy was elected over Nixon. Right away Lansdale figured out what he was going to do with the new President. Overnight he left for Saigon to see Diem and to set up a deal that would make him, Lansdale, Ambassador to Vietnam. He had me buy a "Father of his Country" gift for Diem...$700.00.

I can't repeat all of this but you should get a copy of the Gravel edition, 5 Vol.'s, of the Pentagon Papers and read it. The Lansdale accounts are quite good and reasonably accurate.

Ed came back just before the Inauguration and was brought into the White House for a long presentation to Kennedy about Vietnam. Kennedy was taken by it and promised he would have Lansdale back in Vietnam "in a high office". Ed told us in OSO he had the Ambassadorship sewed up. He lived for that job.

He had not reckoned with some of JFK's inner staff, George Ball, etc. Finally the whole thing turned around and month by month Lansdale's star sank over the horizon. Erskine retired and his whole shop was scattered. The Navy men went back to the navy as did the Army folks. Gen Wheeler in the JCS asked to have me assigned to the Joint Staff. This wiped out the whole Erskine (Office of Special Operations) office. It was comical. There was Lansdale up there all by himself with no office and no one else. He boiled and he blamed it on Kennedy for not giving him the "promised" Ambassadorship to let him "save" Vietnam.

Then with the failure of the Bay of Pigs, caused by that phone call to cancel the air strikes by McGeorge Bundy, the military was given the job of reconstituting some sort of Anti-Castro operation. It was headed by an Army Colonel; but somehow Lansdale (most likely CIA influence) got put into the plans for Operation Mongoose...to get Castro...ostensibly.

The U.S. Army has a think-tank at American University. It was called "Operation Camelot". This is where the "Camelot" concept came from. It was anti-JFK's Vietnam strategy. The men running it were Lansdale types, Special Forces background. "Camelot" was King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table: not JFK...then.

Through 1962 and 1963 Mongoose and "Camelot" became strong and silent organizations dedicated to countering JFK. Mongoose had access to the CIA's best "hit men" in the business and a lot of "strike" capability. Lansdale had many old friends in the media business such as Joe Alsop, Henry Luce among others. With this background and with his poisoned motivation I am positive that he got collateral orders to manage the Dallas event under the guise of "getting" Castro. It is so simple at that level. A nod from the right place, source immaterial, and the job's done.

The "hit" is the easy part. The "escape" must be quick and professional. The cover-up and the scenario are the big jobs. They more than anything else prove the Lansdale mastery.

Lansdale was a master writer and planner. He was a great "scenario" guy. It still have a lot of his personally typed material in my files. I am certain that he was behind the elaborate plan and mostly the intricate and enduring cover-up. Given a little help from friends at PEPSICO he could easily have gotten Nixon into Dallas, for "orientation': and LBJ in the cavalcade at the same time, contrary to Secret Service policy.

He knew the "Protection" units and the "Secret Service", who was needed and who wasn't. Those were routine calls for him, and they would have believed him. Cabell could handle the police.

The "hit men" were from CIA overseas sources, for instance, from the "Camp near Athena, Greece. They are trained, stateless, and ready to go at any time. They ask no questions: speak to no one. They are simply told what to do, when and where. Then they are told how they will be removed and protected. After all, they work for the U.S. Government. The "Tramps" were actors doing the job of cover-up. The hit men are just pros. They do the job for the CIA anywhere. They are impersonal. They get paid. They get protected, and they have enough experience to "blackmail" anyone, if anyone ever turns on them...just like Drug agents. The job was clean, quick and neat. No ripples.

The whole story of the POWER of the Cover-up comes down to a few points. There has never been a Grand Jury and trial in Texas. Without a trial there can be nothing. Without a trial it does no good for researchers to dig up data. It has no place to go and what the researchers reveal just helps make the cover-up tighter, or they eliminate that evidence and the researcher.

The first man LBJ met with on Nov 29th, after he had cleared the foreign dignitaries out of Washington was Waggoner Carr, Atty Gen'l, Texas to tell him, "No trial in Texas...ever."

The next man he met, also on Nov 29th, was J. Edgar Hoover. The first question LBJ asked his old "19 year" neighbor in DC was "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ thought that THEY had been shooting at him also as they shot at his friend John Connally. Note that he asked, "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ knew there were several hitmen. That's the ultimate clue...THEY.

The Connallys said the same thing...THEY. Not Oswald.

Then came the heavily loaded press releases about Oswald all written before the deal and released actually before LHO had ever been charged with the crime. I bought the first newspaper EXTRA on the streets of Christchurch, New Zealand with the whole LHO story in that first news...photos and columns of it before the police in Dallas had yet to charge him with that crime. All this canned material about LHO was flashed around the world.

Lansdale and his Time-Life and other media friends, with Valenti in Hollywood, have been doing that cover-up since Nov 1963. Even the deMorenschildt story enhances all of this. In deM's personal telephone/address notebook he had the name of an Air Force Colonel friend of mine, Howard Burrus. Burrus was always deep in intelligence. He had been in one of the most sensitive Attache spots in Europe...Switzerland. He was a close friend of another Air Force Colonel and Attache, Godfrey McHugh, who used to date Jackie Bouvier. DeM had Burrus listed under a DC telephone number and on that same telephone number he had "L.B.Johnson, Congressman." Quite a connection. Why...from the Fifties yet.?

Godfrey McHugh was the Air Force Attache in Paris. Another most important job. I knew him well, and I transferred his former Ass't Attache to my office in the Pentagon. This gave me access to a lot of information I wanted in the Fifties. This is how I learned that McHugh's long-time special "date" was the fair Jacqueline...yes, the same Jackie Bouvier. Sen. Kennedy met Jackie in Paris when he was on a trip. At that time JFK was dating a beautiful SAS Airline Stewardess who was the date of that Ass't Attache who came to my office. JFK dumped her and stole Jackie away from McHugh. Leaves McHugh happy????

At the JFK Inaugural Ball who should be there but the SAS stewardess, Jackie--of course, and Col Godfrey McHugh. JFK made McHugh a General and made him his "Military Advisor" in the White House where he was near Jackie while JFK was doing all that official travelling connected with his office AND other special interests. Who recommended McHugh for the job?

General McHugh was in Dallas and was on Air Force One, with Jackie, on the flight back to Washington..as was Jack Valenti. Why was LBJ's old cohort there at that time and why was he on Air Force One? He is now the Movie Czar. Why in Dallas?

See how carefully all of this is interwoven. Burrus is now a very wealthy man in Washington. I have lost track of McHugh. And Jackie is doing well. All in the Lansdale--deM shadows.

One of Lansdale's special "black" intelligence associates in the Pentagon was Dorothy Matlack of U.S. Army Intelligence. How does it happen that when deM. flew from Haiti to testify, he was met at the National Airport by Dorothy?

The Lansdale story is endless. What people do not do is study the entire environment of his strange career. For example: the most important part of my book, "The Secret Team", is not something that I wrote. It is Appendix III under the title, "Training Under The Mutual Security Program". This is a most important bit of material. It tells more about the period 1963 to 1990 than anything. I fought to have it included verbatim in the book. This material was the work of Lansdale and his crony General Dick Stillwell. Anyone interested in the "JFK Coup d'Etat" ought to know it by heart.

I believe this document tells why the Coup took place. It was to reverse the sudden JFK re-orientation of the U.S. Government from Asia to Europe, in keeping with plans made in 1943 at Cairo and Teheran by T.V. Soong and his Asian masterminds. Lansdale and Stillwell were long-time "Asia hands" as were Gen Erskine, Adm Radford, Cardinal Spellman, Henry Luce and so many others.

In October 1963, JFK had just signalled this reversal, to Europe, when he published National Security Action Memorandum #263 saying...among other things...that he was taking 1000 troops home from Vietnam by Christmas 1963 and ALL AMERICANS out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That cost him his life.

JFK came to that "Pro-Europe" conclusion in the Summer of 1963 and sent Gen Krulak to Vietnam for advance work. Kurlak and I (with others) wrote that long "Taylor-McNamara" Report of their "Visit to Vietnam" (obviously they did not write, illustrate and bind it as they traveled). Krulak got his information daily in the White House. We simply wrote it. That led to NSAM #263. This same Trip Report is Document #142 and appears on page 751 to 766 of Vol. II of the Gravel Edition of the Pentagon Papers. NSAM #263 appears on pages 769-770 (It makes the Report official). This major Report and NSAM indicated an enormous shift in the orientation of U.S. Foreign Policy from Asia back to Europe. JFK was much more Europe- oriented, as was his father, than pro-Asia. This position was anathema to the Asia-born Luces, etc.

There is the story from an insider. I sat in the same office with Lansdale, (OSO of OSD) for years. I listened to him in Manila and read his flurry of notes from 1952 to 1964. I know all this stuff, and much more. I could write ten books. I send this to you because I believe you are one of the most sincere of the "true researchers". You may do with it as you please. I know you will do it right. I may give copies of this to certain other people of our persuasion. (Years ago I told this to Mae Brussell on the promise she would hold it. She did.)

Now you can see why I have always said that identification of the "Tramps" was unnecessary, i.e. they are actors. The first time I saw that picture I saw the man I knew and I realized why he was there. He caused the political world to spin on its axis. Now, back to recuperating.

L. Fletcher Prouty

Edited by Roger DeLaria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowledge comes from facts. In the JFK/Dallas matter we dont have all the facts. Certain records have been suppressed/removed from the record. One experience in a non-JFK matter was that I found an article linking the private company Obama worked for after college, to Russia's economic shock therapy. That article is gone clean from the net. Bill Kelly found a whistle blower say there were 8 feet of ONI records regarding Oswald (said records per ONI ,"NEVER EXISTED"). It appears that a number of Division Five FBI documents were 'deep sixed'-suppressed. John Judge said in public and private,"The CIA has 30-40 years to rewrite their internal memos. We know that they (CIA) have faked a number of them."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Even the people who were so called inside players in the intelligence side did not have all the knowledge/facts.

=

James Jesus Angleton (JJA) investigated Averell Harriman believing he might be a communist agent (even before Golitsin suggested that W. Averell Harriman had been a Soviet spy) twice. (for emphasis ,once in the 1950s and once in the 1960s). JJA didn't know Harriman was of the group that the CIA was created for and used.

=

Alan H. Belmont left as Head Division 5 FBI for the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace think tank. Belmont was introduced to the materials of Anthony Sutton's and started studying Skull And Bones. Belmont didn't understand a number of elite connections that moved matters in the USA and the world.

===========================================================================

To continue my 'tidbits' that I have picked/found up over the years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspect that a number of the JFK shooters never left the Dallas area and were buried in property owned by the Buckley family. David Ferrie could have contact with Director of Plans Helms (((for Ferrie had the CIA exchange for Helm's 2nd in command > (how high the phone number in the CIA reached , Ferrie probably didn't know))))

Financed by Japanese stolen gold and the power to help to appoint,Dulles had a private "CIA" of his own that in part consisted of : Casey,Taylor, Lansdale,Paines,Gatlin,De Mohrenschildt and

the head lawyers of the

Treasury Department from the 50s to past the assassination : Fred C. Scribner ,David A. Lindsay and Gaspard d'Andelot Belin (all General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury. ) I have posted before of the Dulles connections to Scribner and Belin and below I give some of my Lindsay research. If there are problems with the Secret Service ,you don't have to look farther than Dulles.

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Also SEE // Autobiography of a Spy by Mary Bancroft (Re: Dulles,BUNDY,Belin,JJA)

David A. Lindsay >> Skull & Bones 1944

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18657

Bush connections are.:

Tom Devine through his CIA affiliation, his meeting(s) with DeMohrenschildt and his Paris Review links via Francis Plimpton's son, George, and Devine's long association with Plimpton's Paris Review partner, John Train who is connected to the IRC and the WWF. Prince Sandrudden was Paris Review "publisher," IRC principal, and close friend of GHW Bush. WWF was led by Train's cousin, Russell, and his appointed manager, Curtis EU "Chip" Bohlen, covert CIA man and an usher, along with Devine, in the 1955 wedding of CIA's Albert Bradley Carter, Jr.

Twins John and David Lindsay were usher's in Nancy Bush's wedding. Their brother, George was hired by Francis Plimpton at his Plimpton Debevoise law firm in 1947, and became managing partner. Partner Eli Whitney Debevoise, a bonesman, was counsel to HICOG McCloy, and then deputy HICOG under McCloy. Both Leon Panetta and Ed Hooker's daughter, Susan's second husband (after she was divorced from Rionda Braga's son) Michael Ainslie, were employed in John Lindsay's NYC mayor's office.
========================================

Skull & Bones 1944

James Lane Buckley
Shehand Daniel Elebash

Alexander Ellis, Jr.
James Lord Ferguson
John Bannister Goodenough
William Cabell Grayson
John Morgan Holden
Townsend Walter Hoopes
W.C. Kelly II
David A. Lindsay
Stuart W. Little
Jeffrey Pond Walker
James Allen Whitmore, Jr.
Dean Witter, Jr.
Archibald J..Allen, Jr.

=================

A Nation Divided: The 1968 Presidential Campaign

Darcy G. Richardson - 2002 - ‎History
David A. Lindsay, Mayor John V. Lindsay's twin brother, was McCarthy's choice for ... Secretary of the Treasury; William Clay Ford, vice president and director of ...
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

So we have Prouty's not terribly complimentary view of Lansdale, and Lansdale's not terribly complimentary view of Prouty.

If there was so much animosity between them while they worked together, it's no wonder Lansdale sent Prouty to the Pole.

And then it's no surprise Prouty would finger Lansdale as being complicit in the assassination based on a single facing-away photograph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never read or heard anything about issues between the two, or that they didn't like each other. I'm suspicious that Lansdale actually said those things about Prouty, and wouldn't be surprised if they were fabricated, w/CIA influence, to taint Prouty's reputation after all the conspiracy articles Prouty had been writing about the assassination. Prouty had been writing about the assassination since the early seventies, at least. and I don't imagine the agency was none too happy.

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...