Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lone Gunman podcast: L. Fletcher Prouty a xxxx?


Micah Mileto
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

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.

You've undoubtedly seen pictures of Trump from a backside perspective. Many have been taken of him in every activity. From leaving news briefings in a huff, to taking heavy body heaving golf swings at his courses.

Trump's enormous rump has a distinct elephant or hippo swing and shape as well.

In a second you know it's him. 

 

 

Joe stick to the evidence.  You are better then this.

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

One more thought, if you feel Prouty was so great at identifying people in pictures, did he identify Pres.  Bush as being there?   Why not put Ruby in Dealey too?   Oh wait some did and that did not go well did it?  

Link to comment
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

Btw none of the above which you cite  is “evidence” Pres.  Bush was in Dealey that morning, or his son for that matter.   Harvard must have odd requirements for evidence.   Strange only Republicans we’re having a convention in Dallas that day.  I guess LBJ would not have noticed lol.  

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Joe stick to the evidence.  You are better then this.

Cory. I just edited my post removing the saracastic comment about Trump.

I realized such things should be kept in the "56 years" thread.

Isn't the letter that Prouty released to the public that we see a copy of in Kirk G's earlier post evidence? The letter supposedly was written by General Victor Krulak and sent to Prouty in response to Prouty sending Krulak at least the photo we see in Kirk's link. The three tramp with man walking by in Dealey Plaza one.

Evidence of either Prouty forging Krulak's written response IDing the man in the photo as Lansdale and destroying Prouty's credibility, OR evidence that Krulak truly did write this letter and the affirmation of his belief that the suited man in the photo was Lansdale and actually enhancing Prouty's credibility.

And if Krulak truly did write the Lansdale ID affirmation letter to Prouty and yet is later quoted as calling Prouty's Lansdale in Dealy Plaza theory "Kooky" ...evidence that Krulak himself has credibility issues. Or at least disloyalty ones to old friends...like Prouty?

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prouty also claimed that he personaly knew the three IC-individuals which where responsible for the Powers hoax: The staged U-2 Crash on May 1st 1960 for the purpose to crash the Paris-summit and Ike's "Crusade for peace." He claimed he knew their names. But he never gave them.

KK

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Prouty also claimed that he personaly knew the three IC-individuals which where responsible for the Powers hoax: The staged U-2 Crash on May 1st 1960 for the purpose to crash the Paris-summit and Ike's "Crusade for peace." He claimed he knew their names. But he never gave it. 

KK

I recently viewed on You Tube a video of a JFK conference Prouty was a dais speaker at along with John Judge and about 3 other speakers along with one moderator. This was not too long after Oliver Stone's JFK film came out.

Prouty was continully bashed by one other speaker ( a journalist I believe who also bashed Oliver Stone's JFK film ) and another film critic lady who wasn't as sword slashing of Prouty as the male critic but still discounting of Prouty as well.

John Judge was all in supportive of Prouty.

Several things impressed me with Prouty in his presentation and responses back to his dais detractors. One, his never losing his cool at all and never attacking his attackers in anyway like they did him. 

And I listened closely to the points Prouty was making and the way he did so.

He was very "measured" and calm with thoughtful pauses in his speaking. Not mental lapse pauses, but rather cautious ones such as one would expect from a career military man who was often called on to share highly important information with high command others and to coordinate such meetings as a liason, even with the WH security councel I believe.

A practiced professional who had to keep his cool and know his stuff due to the importance of the information he was sharing and it's serious consequential action potential.

 

An audience member shouted a question to Prouty regarding Prouty earlier stating he knew the deeper background information of some key matter and/or the identities of a couple of person's involved in it.

Prouty, knowingly risking some credibility loss, still refused to divulge fully what he knew when pressed not just by the questioner but by his attacking detractor sitting next to him as well, because it was an area of intelligence that to that day he couldn't divulge. He kept his military secrets oath, at least in this particular question incident.

Prouty always kept his oath respect and military bearing imo. 

Prouty's answers and belief points were not unsure ones and when you listened closely to them, they were backed up with credible background facts. Prouty's detractors on the panel on the other hand actually looked and sounded less credible and knowledgable than Prouty the longer the presentation went on.

After all, the detractors were just film and political critics where as Prouty was the real deal military high command insider. Personally interacting with Allan Dulles, General Lansdale, general Victor Krulak and others etc. ... for years!

And John Judge really went after the two Prouty and Oliver Stone critics as well, and exposed their much more shallow knowledge of everything he and Prouty were positing.

Prouty just presented himself very professionally. He always did in interviews and conferences. A classy person in this way.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Btw none of the above which you cite  is “evidence” Pres.  Bush was in Dealey that morning, or his son for that matter.   Harvard must have odd requirements for evidence.   Strange only Republicans we’re having a convention in Dallas that day.  I guess LBJ would not have noticed lol.  

Cory,

     Thus far, you haven't succeeded in rebutting a single argument that I recently posted-- just a serious of inaccurate ad hominem slurs.

     I notice that you have nothing of substance to say about;

1) GHWB's status as a CIA man who was briefed by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63 about the aborted FBI investigation of JFK's assassination.  Why Bush?

2) The fact that GHWB was in Dallas on 11/22/63.

3)  The fact that GHWB called the FBI shortly after the assassination to report alleged suspicions about one of his own campaign staffers (who was utterly bewildered when the FBI knocked on his door.)

4)  The fact that Lansdale was Allen Dulles's favorite black ops expert (who had, like GHWB, been involved in CIA anti-Castro ops.)

5)  The empirical evidence of the Dealey Plaza photos, themselves-- which are publicly available for our examination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours 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.  

I think Russ Baker covers it pretty adequately in his book, I have seen the Tyler Texas thing pulled apart in another JFK book. The memo does exist addressing its a George Bush of the CIA being debriefed and the only other CIA George Bush immediately went to a lawyer to swear an affidavit. If we sit and talk evidence, then you must decide what is credible and what isn't, which makes everything grey, not black and white. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cory,

     Thus far, you haven't succeeded in rebutting a single argument that I recently posted-- just a serious of inaccurate ad hominem slurs.

     I notice that you have nothing of substance to say about;

1) GHWB's status as a CIA man who was briefed by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63 about the aborted FBI investigation of JFK's assassination.  Why Bush?

2) The fact that GHWB was in Dallas on 11/22/63.

3)  The fact that GHWB called the FBI shortly after the assassination to report alleged suspicions about one of his own campaign staffers (who was utterly bewildered when the FBI knocked on his door.)

4)  The fact that Lansdale was Allen Dulles's favorite black ops expert (who had, like GHWB, been involved in CIA anti-Castro ops.)

5)  The empirical evidence of the Dealey Plaza photos, themselves-- which are publicly available for our examination.

The issue is whether there is evidence either the former President or his son, another President, were in Dealey on 11-22-63? 
just for example, you cite point one:

1) GHWB's status as a CIA man who was briefed by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63 about the aborted FBI investigation of JFK's assassination.  Why Bush?”

Even assuming you are correct, this point does not prove that either gentlemen were in Dealey.  As I go through your evidence the only thing you have which arguably could prove this issue is a set of photos which have been debunked several times.  Merely go back and research the issue here on this forum.     
The problem here is you either do not understand the concept of evidence or how to address an issue once it is framed. This is not a personal attack as you suggest.  Claiming that as a defense probably makes you feel better but there is no mal intent, I can assure you.   
So let’s stick to the evidence and admit what is legitimate and what is not.  I notice you do not see Cliff, Jim D or others jumping in here.   Because they know the photo argument is lacking.  Even with a look a like photo you still have to investigate and confirm the identity.   That is how it works.   Otherwise it is a rabbit hole.  A good example is alleged Ruby sightings in Dealey.  
 

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I think Russ Baker covers it pretty adequately in his book, I have seen the Tyler Texas thing pulled apart in another JFK book. The memo does exist addressing its a George Bush of the CIA being debriefed and the only other CIA George Bush immediately went to a lawyer to swear an affidavit. If we sit and talk evidence, then you must decide what is credible and what isn't, which makes everything grey, not black and white. 

But Chris while the memo is very interesting, it is not conclusive proof.   There is still the other side stating it was not him.  So, unless other evidence comes out confirming it either way one will not know for sure.   So yes, as you put it, I agree with you that one can look at it as a gray area until more evidence shows up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone here knows GHWB was CIA and from a relatively young age, certainly in November, 1963.

GHWB was born and bred into this dual life of high level business wealth and government intelligence and political office seeking life.

Like the Kennedy's, he was born into a wealthy politically powerful New England family life. Ivy league educated. War hero. His father Prescott Bush was a senator of great influence and power. His mother's Pierce family was wealthy as well.

Bush's super rapid and easy ascent into the highest levels of appointed and elective office positions just shouts connections and pre-determined placement.

Congressman, ambassador to the UN, head of the RNC, appointed head liason to China, involvement with the Bay of Pigs, VP under Reagan, head of the CIA, President. It was everything and all too easy imo.

All the while increasing his oil wealth and making great friends of Saudi Shieks.

Isn't it obvious that certain persons are chosen for future high level political placement and their path is cleared ahead of time for this by the real powers to be?

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

The issue is whether there is evidence either the former President or his son, another President, were in Dealey on 11-22-63? 
just for example, you cite point one:

1) GHWB's status as a CIA man who was briefed by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63 about the aborted FBI investigation of JFK's assassination.  Why Bush?”

Even assuming you are correct, this point does not prove that either gentlemen were in Dealey.  As I go through your evidence the only thing you have which arguably could prove this issue is a set of photos which have been debunked several times.  Merely go back and research the issue here on this forum.     
The problem here is you either do not understand the concept of evidence or how to address an issue once it is framed. This is not a personal attack as you suggest.  Claiming that as a defense probably makes you feel better but there is no mal intent, I can assure you.   
So let’s stick to the evidence and admit what is legitimate and what is not.  I notice you do not see Cliff, Jim D or others jumping in here.   Because they know the photo argument is lacking.  Even with a look a like photo you still have to investigate and confirm the identity.   That is how it works.   Otherwise it is a rabbit hole.  A good example is alleged Ruby sightings in Dealey.  
 

Can you post evidence of the alleged "debunking" of the Dealey Plaza photos?  Surely you're not referring to that idiotic photo-shopped profile image that someone juxtaposed to the original black-and-white GHWB photo at the TSBD, are you?

We discussed that photo here, at length, on an old thread.  It was never "debunked" by anyone.

Nor has Prouty's identification of his long-time colleague, Ed Lansdale, in the Dealey Plaza photos been "debunked" by anyone.

Secondly, most people on the forum were unfamiliar with the Dealey Plaza photo of young George W. Bush when I first started a thread here on the subject.  I recall discussing the subject of Dubya being in his senior year at Andover at the time, with Joseph McBride.

As for ancillary evidence, have you even read Russ Baker's analysis of GHWB and 11/22/63 in Family of Secrets?

You stated above that you choose to believe GHWB's statements about 11/22/63.

My question.  Which one-- the one where he said that he didn't recall where he was when JFK was shot, or the one where he said that he was speaking to the Kiwanis Club in Tyler?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear W. I remember when you first brought out that alleged photo of GWHB in Dealey Plaza and I'd disagree, I think a lot of us had seen that photo. It's sort of a standard low hanging fruit that many researches have seen. Everyone draws their own conclusions.

 

But photo evidence is often misleading.For example  I remember looking at a close up you I believe provided before and while the hairline does look very similar, I thought looking at the profile of the face, they were different people. Just to show you how people can look at the same photo differently.

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2020 at 11:02 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Can you post evidence of the alleged "debunking" of the Dealey Plaza photos?  Surely you're not referring to that idiotic photo-shopped profile image that someone juxtaposed to the original black-and-white GHWB photo at the TSBD, are you?

We discussed that photo here, at length, on an old thread.  It was never "debunked" by anyone.

Nor has Prouty's identification of his long-time colleague, Ed Lansdale, in the Dealey Plaza photos been "debunked" by anyone.

 

 

We now have anatomical structure, build and movement ( walking gait ) identity technology that is so advanced and proven it is used in surveillance in public areas.

We all already know about eye scan, hand print, voice identity and of course DNA technology etc. All advanced enough to successfully identify people beyond just fingerprints.

Yet, now, even a person's gait and other body movements can be analyzed against known computer generated data bases and scientifically measured to help single out a person's true identity.

Using such technology we could determine whether the 11,22,1963 Dealey Plaza 3 Tramp walk-by man is Lansdale or not. There are so many still photos of Lansdale ( front and backside views ) and I am assuming at least a few video's of him walking as well.

Ahh but as always who has the money to afford such a project? Certainly none of us forum members.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

To be clear W. I remember when you first brought out that alleged photo of GWHB in Dealey Plaza and I'd disagree, I think a lot of us had seen that photo. It's sort of a standard low hanging fruit that many researches have seen. Everyone draws their own conclusions.

 

But photo evidence is often misleading.For example  I remember looking at a close up you I believe provided before and while the hairline does look very similar, I thought looking at the profile of the face, they were different people. Just to show you how people can look at the same photo differently.

 

Kirk,

      I'm trying to find that old thread but, for some reason, it doesn't show up under a title search for "George Bush" or even, "Bush."   What does show up are an array of old Education Forum threads about George Bush, the CIA, and people looking for the photos.

      The only putative photos of GHWB and Dubya that I have ever posted are the three (above) on this thread.  I think these are, in fact, photos of young GHWB and Dubya.

      I have a brief, true story for you and Cory about my attitude toward empirical evidence.

      It's entitled, "Call 'Em the Way You See 'Em."

      I did a one month clerkship in Cardiology at Boston's Beth Israel Hospital during my fourth year in med school, in about 1982.

      I was evaluating and preparing a case that I was assigned to present to the Grand Poo Bah one afternoon on rounds -- the well known Chief of Cardiology.   

       I presented the case to the team's intern beforehand, noting that I observed left atrial enlargement on the patient's chest X-ray, and atrial fibrillation on the EKG-- no p waves.

        The intern said, "No.  That doesn't look like atrial enlargement, or atrial fibrillation."

         So, not trusting my judgment, I altered my presentation of the case to the Grand Poo Bah.

          But he studied the chest X-ray and said, "This is obvious left atrial enlargement."

          Then he studied the EKG and said, "This is obvious atrial fibrillation."

          I didn't say a word, because I didn't want to embarrass the intern, who had turned rather pale.

          So, I ended up looking like an idiot, but I learned a very important lesson that day about evaluating evidence -- "Call 'em the way you see 'em," regardless of what others say.

Edited by W. Niederhut
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...