Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lone Gunman podcast: L. Fletcher Prouty a xxxx?


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Let's hear Krulack saying the Prouty -Lansdale in Dealey Plaza - theory was kooky.

If you can't link the actual tape, how about a complete transcript of the interview, so we can see the full context of it and Krulak's statements.

Prouty infers that Krulak also saw a strong Lansdale resemblance to the Dealey Plaza man after seeing the 3 tramp walk-bye photo Prouty sent to him?

Prouty made this Krulak reaction up?

So, the point here I assume is that Prouty is about as credible as Judyth Vary Baker?

Embellishing and exaggerating and making things up as he goes along?

Prouty the kook?

Yes, and Rob Clark also, apparently, still believes that Prouty was not a briefing officer or the Joint Chiefs liaison to the CIA in 1963.

My two questions for Rob;

1)  Where's the documentation for his claims about Krulak?

2)  How can he claim that Prouty "contradicted everything he ever wrote," etc., if he (Rob Clark) has never even read Prouty's books?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank you KG for posting this Prouty video. I have viewed it a dozen times myself over the years.

Unless the letter sent to Prouty by General Victor Krulak in response to the 3 tramp/ walk-by man photo in front of the Texas School Book Depository is a forgery by Prouty, Krulak's Lansdale ID quote in this starkly contradicts the Krulak statement mentioned in R. Clarks post of calling Prouty's Lansdale theory "kooky."

Which Krulak quote of the two are we to believe?

If Krulak actually called Prouty's Lansdale theory kooky, and then seeing Krulak's Lansdale affirmation written words in his response letter back to Prouty regards the three tramp walk bye photo, one could rationally question Krulak's credibility as much as Prouty's imo.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 11:44 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Let's hear Krulack saying the Prouty -Lansdale in Dealey Plaza - theory was kooky.

If you can't link the actual tape, how about a complete transcript of the interview, so we can see the full context of it and Krulak's statements.

Prouty infers that Krulak also saw a strong Lansdale resemblance to the Dealey Plaza man after seeing the 3 tramp walk-bye photo Prouty sent to him?

Prouty made this Krulak reaction up?

So, the point here I assume is that Prouty is about as credible as Judyth Vary Baker?

Embellishing and exaggerating and making things up as he goes along?

Prouty the kook?

Email me at thelonegunmanpodcast@gmail.com  I'd be happy to send it you Joe.

And yes, the similarities between Baker and Prouty are striking...Judy just hasn't given up the goat yet like Prouty did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, how do you reconcile the stark contradiction quote of Krulak in his response letter to Prouty concerning the 3 tramp walk-by photo:

"As to photo number 1..."That is indeed Lansdale...the haircut,the stoop, the twisted left hand, the large class ring. It's Lansdale."

With your interview quote of him referring to Prouty's theory of Lansdale being the man in the photo as ... "Kooky?"

You see the Krulak quote in his letter back to Prouty correct?

What are we missing here?

Why should we believe your take on Krulak's take on Prouty and his Lansdale in Dealey Plaza theory as kooky more than the Krulak Lansdale affirmation quote in the letter Krulak sent back to Prouty?

The credibility question is valid and logical if the Krulak letter to Prouty is real imo.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Rob, how do you reconcile the stark contradiction quote of Krulak in his response letter to Prouty concerning the 3 tramp walk-bye photo:

"As to photo number 1..."That is indeed Lansdale...the haircut,stoop, the twisted" ... ( hand?)

With your interview quote of him referring to Prouty's theory of Lansdale being the man in the photo as ... "Kooky?"

You see the Krulak quote in his letter back to Prouty correct?

What are we missing here?

Why should we believe your take on Krulak's take on Prouty and his Lansdale in Dealey Plaza theory as kooky more than the Krulak Lansdale affirmation quote in the letter Krulak sent back to Prouty?

The credibility question is valid and logical if the Krulak letter to Prouty is real imo.

 

Welll, the letter was typed, crappy typed letterhead, signatures are easily faked...so why didn't Prouty turn his letter over to the ARRB? They were collecting documents.... The audio is very convincing...and again, who really thinks the recently retired General Ed Lansdale, would be in Dealey Plaza right after the assassination went down, and allow himself to be photographed? Do you realize how many newsmen and onlookers had video and film cameras that day? He'd have to be the dumbest General ever in the history of the United States.  If he planned or took part in this at all, he wouldn't be anywhere near Dealey Plaza, let alone dare being seen and photographed walking in front of the TSBD. Seriously...how hard is that to comprehend?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're actually inferring that the Krulak letter to Prouty ( and Krulak's stated affirmation that the suited walk-by man in the 3 tramp photo is Lansdale ) is a complete fabrication on Prouty's part?

If it is then I need to do a big time re-evaluation of my own gullibility.

Has there ever been one iota of evidence that Prouty did any other forging or creating of false documents in his entire life?

I have done a layman's search of Lansdale photographs myself and there are many out there.

From my untrained but commmon sense eye I do see a lot of similar body measurements, comparisons including head shape and haircut and postures between the real life Lansdale and the tall, suited man in the Dealey Plaza 3 tramp walk-by photo.

Would Lansdale take the risk of being on-site during the JFK event?

He was known for being a real "hands on" observer of covert actions he planned and created. A control type person.

There is another photo of an intriguing high level covert background person on-site in Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963 that has been speculated to be  "Rip Robertson."

This other photo is a full-on front facing facial one.

To me, compared to other full face photo's of Robertson, it is clearly him.

But the Robertson photo story has just not gotten any follow up research interest and probably never will. So, it's just idle JFK side conversation material to banter around once every few years to like-minded folks like me.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

You're actually inferring that the Krulak letter to Prouty ( and Krulak's stated affirmation that the suited walk-by man in the 3 tramp photo is Lansdale ) is a complete fabrication on Prouty's part?

If it is then I need to do a big time re-evaluation of my own gullibility.

Has there ever been one iota of evidence that Prouty did any other forging or creating of false documents in his entire life?

I have done a layman's search of Lansdale photographs myself and there are many out there.

From my untrained but commmon sense eye I do see a lot of similar body measurements, comparisons including head shape and haircut and postures between the real life Lansdale and the tall, suited man in the Dealey Plaza 3 tramp walk-by photo.

Would Lansdale take the risk of being on-site during the JFK event?

He was known for being a real "hands on" observer of covert actions he planned and created. A control type person.

There is another photo of an intriguing high level covert background person on-site in Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963 that has been speculated to be  "Rip Robertson."

This other photo is a full-on front facing facial one.

To me, compared to other full face photo's of Robertson, it is clearly him.

But the Robertson photo story has just not gotten any follow up research interest and probably never will. So, it's just idle JFK side conversation material to banter around once every few years to like-minded folks like me.

C'mon Joe....murdering the POTUS in broad daylight sitting next to his wife is a little different than covert ops in a foreign country. You'll never be able to convince anyone with backside photos. How may guys in 1963 wore dark suits? Lots of cops, newsmen, business men...I mean look at detectives, look at Altgens, look at Zapruder, look at Roy Truly...it was a different time. How many had the same hairstyle? A ton! Stance and gait mean nothing when a person is caught mid-stride...it's a split second in time of a lot of moving parts when a person is walking. As for Prouty, he wouldn't be the first person to "embellish" his close brush with history for his own benefit. He has provably provided false and disinformation, and admitted the truth to the ARRB. Yet in his books, talks, and Oliver Stone's ear he says something totally different. I wouldn't put it past him to falsify a letter if he felt it gave him credibility in what he was saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

You're actually inferring that the Krulak letter to Prouty ( and Krulak's stated affirmation that the suited walk-by man in the 3 tramp photo is Lansdale ) is a complete fabrication on Prouty's part?

If it is then I need to do a big time re-evaluation of my own gullibility.

Has there ever been one iota of evidence that Prouty did any other forging or creating of false documents in his entire life?

I have done a layman's search of Lansdale photographs myself and there are many out there.

From my untrained but commmon sense eye I do see a lot of similar body measurements, comparisons including head shape and haircut and postures between the real life Lansdale and the tall, suited man in the Dealey Plaza 3 tramp walk-by photo.

Would Lansdale take the risk of being on-site during the JFK event?

He was known for being a real "hands on" observer of covert actions he planned and created. A control type person.

There is another photo of an intriguing high level covert background person on-site in Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963 that has been speculated to be  "Rip Robertson."

This other photo is a full-on front facing facial one.

To me, compared to other full face photo's of Robertson, it is clearly him.

But the Robertson photo story has just not gotten any follow up research interest and probably never will. So, it's just idle JFK side conversation material to banter around once every few years to like-minded folks like me.

 

 

 

Joe are you one of those Bush and W were there in the crowd that day fellas? Do you swear those shoes look like the generals!   You are playing with a rabbit hole. There is no evidence.   Stick to the evidence.  Ask Cliff about evidence and he can explain.  

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Joe are you one of those Bush and W were there in the crowd that day fellas? Do you swear those shoes look like the generals!   You are playing with a rabbit hole. There is no evidence.   Stick to the evidence.  Ask Cliff about evidence and he can explain.  

So, do you think the Bush memo was talking about the other George Bush in a menial role in the CIA who swore an affidavit the memo wasn't addressed to him? Or do you think he was indeed a CIA operative long before being made head of the CIA? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

C'mon Joe....murdering the POTUS in broad daylight sitting next to his wife is a little different than covert ops in a foreign country. You'll never be able to convince anyone with backside photos. How may guys in 1963 wore dark suits? Lots of cops, newsmen, business men...I mean look at detectives, look at Altgens, look at Zapruder, look at Roy Truly...it was a different time. How many had the same hairstyle? A ton! Stance and gait mean nothing when a person is caught mid-stride...it's a split second in time of a lot of moving parts when a person is walking. As for Prouty, he wouldn't be the first person to "embellish" his close brush with history for his own benefit. He has provably provided false and disinformation, and admitted the truth to the ARRB. Yet in his books, talks, and Oliver Stone's ear he says something totally different. I wouldn't put it past him to falsify a letter if he felt it gave him credibility in what he was saying.

At the same time Rob, if you've ever worked in an office building for any length of time, you'd be able to identify most of your work colleagues from the back. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

So, do you think the Bush memo was talking about the other George Bush in a menial role in the CIA who swore an affidavit the memo wasn't addressed to him? Or do you think he was indeed a CIA operative long before being made head of the CIA? 

Very simple.  As I have said previously and what others should say, it does not matter what I or another think. What matters is what the evidence says and is.  If someone has evidence contrary to President Bush’s statements then feel free to present it.  If not I have no reason to doubt him.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Very simple.  As I have said previously and what others should say, it does not matter what I or another think. What matters is what the evidence says and is.  If someone has evidence contrary to President Bush’s statements then feel free to present it.  If not I have no reason to doubt him.  

Huh, Cory?  Evidence?  

As a guy who has studied science and research literature (at Harvard and elsewhere) for the past 50 years, I know something about "evidence."

Who says that unaltered photographs don't constitute valid "evidence?"  It's an absurd argument.

But claims about alleged Dealey Plaza photographs of Ed Lansdale, GHWB, or even George W. Bush also need to be assessed in the larger context of all of the available historical data about the vast jig-saw puzzle of JFK's assassination.

In Lansdale's case, we know that he was a long-time CIA black ops expert who was a favorite of Allen Dulles, the likely mastermind of the plot to kill JFK.  Prouty identifying his long-time associate, Ed Lansdale, in the Dealey Plaza photos is only one piece of a much larger picture of Lansdale's history and putative role in the assassination op.

In the case of GHWB, we also know (thanks to Joseph McBride) that he was a CIA agent of sufficient importance to have been personally briefed by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63 about the status of the FBI's aborted investigation of JFK's murder.

We also know that GHWB was in Dallas on 11/22/63, having stayed overnight at the Dallas Sheraton on 11/21/63.

Further "evidence"-- GHWB made a strange (alibi?) phone call to the FBI shortly after JFK's murder in which he claimed to be calling from Tyler, Texas to report suspicions about one of his own Senate campaign staffers as a possible suspect.

Barbara Bush's much later autobiographical account of 11/22/63 contains numerous oddities, as described in Russ Baker's analysis in Family of Secrets.

And GHWB also once claimed that he didn't remember where he was when JFK was killed!

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Joe are you one of those Bush and W were there in the crowd that day fellas? Do you swear those shoes look like the generals!   You are playing with a rabbit hole. There is no evidence.   Stick to the evidence.  Ask Cliff about evidence and he can explain.  

No.

And pictures can be evidence.

I too feel I could identify someone "I've known for years in close up ways" even from a backside view photo.

Especially if it's a "full body" shot and as close as 20, 30 or no more than 40 feet away from the photographer. And a clear shot in full sunlight to boot, like the one in question.

The type of clothes they are wearing, the way they fit, the shoes, shirt collar and hand shirt sleeve if showing, the head and neck size and shape, the hair cut, the ears, the stoop, the over-all build, the arm length and swing, leg bend, the hands and perhaps a certain size and type ring on a certain finger.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Huh, Cory?  Evidence?  

As a guy who has studied science and research literature (at Harvard and elsewhere) for the past 50 years, I know something about "evidence."

Who says that unaltered photographs don't constitute valid "evidence?"  It's an absurd argument.

But claims about alleged Dealey Plaza photographs of Ed Lansdale, GHWB, or even George W. Bush also need to be assessed in the larger context of all of the available historical data about the vast jig-saw puzzle of JFK's assassination.

In Lansdale's case, we know that he was a long-time CIA black ops expert who was a favorite of Allen Dulles, the likely mastermind of the plot to kill JFK.  Prouty identifying his long-time associate, Ed Lansdale, in the Dealey Plaza photos is only one piece of a much larger picture of Lansdale's history and putative role in the assassination op.

In the case of GHWB, we also know (thanks to Joseph McBride) that he was a CIA agent of sufficient importance to have been personally briefed by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63 about the status of the FBI's aborted investigation of JFK's murder.

We also know that GHWB was in Dallas on 11/22/63, having stayed overnight at the Dallas Sheraton on 11/21/63.

Further "evidence"-- GHWB made a strange (alibi?) phone call to the FBI shortly after JFK's murder in which he claimed to be calling from Tyler, Texas to report suspicions about one of his own Senate campaign staffers as a possible suspect.

Barbara Bush's much later autobiographical account of 11/22/63 contains numerous oddities, as described in Russ Baker's analysis in Family of Secrets.

And GHWB also once claimed that he didn't remember where he was when JFK was killed!

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

You studied at Harvard?   Oh we all should just accept whatever you say regardless of how ludicrous your photographic games are.   Please do try and get published with your above “evidence“ lol.  All of us non-Harvard morlocks will await the publication.  You have no evidence merely speculation at best.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...