Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lone Gunman podcast: L. Fletcher Prouty a xxxx?


Recommended Posts

On 10/17/2020 at 10:18 AM, Jeff Carter said:

These complaints are much ado about nothing, IMO, and the “debunking” seems more aimed at portrayals within the JFK film rather than Prouty himself. This is obvious reading the ARRB document, which several times refers to “the segment dealing with ‘Mr. X’.”

Re: Antarctica. Rather than some sort of direct allegation of a sinister plotting, Prouty framed his suspicions (such as they were) as a surmise, based in part on the fact that it was Lansdale who recommended him for the Nov ’63 trip. (“I have always wondered…”). Even if the “JFK” screenwriters used self-acknowledged dramatic license in its portrayal or description of Prouty’s surmising, acknowledging such does not amount to a “debunking” of Prouty. Note that absolutely nothing of Garrison’s case -factually in New Orleans or as portrayed in the film - relied or hinged on Prouty’s Antarctica trip.

Christchurch Star - Again, this is more about the “JFK” film’s use of dramatic license than Prouty’s own descriptions of receiving word of the assassination while in New Zealand. Prouty had a unique experience in being so far away and thus hearing about the event in limited fashion rather than the encompassing saturation of developing information received stateside. While the Christchurch Star’s wire service report was not premature, Prouty’s remove enabled him to note - intuitively - that the extent of published information on a man who barely qualified as a suspect suggested what in tradecraft would be considered a cover story. Is his intuition wrong? I don’t think so. Someone had informed the major media outlets that Oswald was primary suspect re: the assassination although no supporting evidence would appear for another 24 hours. It remains one of the key mysteries: why and on what basis was Oswald fingered so early on? Prouty realized something was wrong in that regard only hours after the shooting,

Likewise, his intuition about the quality of motorcade security seems well placed. Was Dealey Plaza not a massive security breakdown? What exactly do you think you are “debunking” here? Prouty is not making absolute statements or claiming expertise or credentials outside of his personal opinion based on his own experiences, as the ARRB interviewers concede. I’m not sure that any serious scholarship on Secret Service/motorcade security relies on Prouty’s opinions, although I do seem to recall Vince Palamara mention on BOR once or twice that Prouty’s basic assumptions were correct. Similarly, his basic assumptions about Texas military intelligence units seem to be correct even if the detail of phone call to which he refers seems confused at the time of the ARRB interview. Even so, stating that “the content of the call and its implications are central to Prouty’s entire argument and allegations”, as the ARRB document does, is an overreach to say the least.

re: Lansdale. Obviously, since the man in the photograph is seen only from the rear, a positive ID will never be possible. However, Krulak did - apparently without prompting - follow Prouty in IDing the man as Lansdale. Prouty never claimed Lansdale to be the “mastermind” of the assassination, but rather pointed out that an important high-level operation would require experts in various capacities including the formation of cover stories and misdirections, and that Lansdale’s presence in Dallas could indicate both a specific task and point to a related operation. Are the debunkers arguing that there was no high-level plot in operation on that day?

Well stated, Jeff.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Disagree that a proven identification of the Dealey Plaza/Tramp Walk/ Lanky Man will never be known.

Does anyone know how technically advanced we are now in regards to individual identification?

A person's posture and gait is now used in this process.

There must be some photo's of Lansdale from the side and back and probably video of him walking?

Other body points of advanced ID technology include head size, shape, head stoop, hair type, color and cut, ear type and location, neck length, shoulder width and slope, arm swing and length, hand shape and carry, etc. etc.

Also whose surmises should carry more weight than Prouty's?

A highest level military/intelligence insider for 10 years ... or those of a researcher or debunker who had none of this kind of insider access?

The person sitting next to Prouty on that debate table kept trying to debunk Prouty by stating what Prouty was saying was "irresponsible, unethical, not based on real evidence" etc.

He also trashed Stone's film using the same argument.

Who was this guy?  Did he have some deep intelligence insider's knowledge of any aspect of the JFK event enough to know that Stone's JFK was complete bunk?

Or was he also "surmising?"

That guy seemed like a planted disinformation agent in my opinion. 

If Garrison was owned by Mafia Godfather Carlos Marcello, he sure didn't try to prevent Robert Kennedy from throwing Marcello's hide on a plane and dumping him into the jungles of Guatamala.

I do think that Garrison was aware of the power of Marcello and of the Mafia in general thoughout the entire U.S.A. in the 1950's and 1960's. Immense power and influence. I have written that the power and influence of organized crime in the country back than was 50X times greater than the average American citizen knew.

Perhaps Garrison did hold back investigating Marcello more than a fearless Elliot Ness would and honestly, to keep himself alive? Even if this was true to a certain extent, Garrison's efforts in his JFK conpiracy case were still courageous to a heroic degree imo.

And don't forget, even the FBI wasn't backing up crusaders against the Mafia and Hoover wouldn't even acknowledge their existence for decades. Look what the FBI did with David Ferrie when Garrison sent Ferrie to them as a possible suspect in the Oswald connection affair?

Garrison knew they were working against him...not for him.

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, 

I cannot say one way or another about John's mother.  But I think when Stone checked out the story she did work where he said she did.  ANd I agree that if the story is true yes it does indicate a high level plot.

Gregg,

Abbie liked The Best and the Brightest?  Wow, that is kind of shocking to me.  I did a lot of work on that book and on Halberstam. He deliberately slanted the book in a way to make it seem that somehow JFK was responsible for the war.  He later admitted this in a not very often quoted interview.  When JFK came out, he said there was no military plot to escalate the war!  When in fact he had been a part of that plot with Jean Paul Vann.

https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/ken-burns-lynn-novick-the-vietnam-war-part-two

Very few people were more responsible for misleading Americans about that war and covering up the reversal that happened after Kennedy's death than Halberstam was, along with his buddy Sheehan.  And to think that Burns and Novick used Sheehan as a source is kind of sick.

The thing is the Trial of the Chicago Seven took place under Nixon's watch.  Nixon continued the war unnecessarily for four years, after he knew it was lost. He ended up dropping more bombs on Indochina than LBJ did. Nixon caused the fall of the Cambodian government, which eventually led to the rise of Khymer Rouge.

Halberstam either ignored or minimized all of this. IMO, that book was really an abomination of history.

 

PS:  Joe, Marcello lived in a different parish than the one Garrison governed.  But the taverns he owned or partly owned in New Orleans, Garrison did raid for B girl drinking. And he actually did a cross county raid to try and get the DA there to do something. It did not work, so you can guess what was really happening.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob Clark said:

Another allegation of Prouty, denied by Reich himself.

image.png.52962041f7ecfc32d4de23c082ab81b6.png

Rob,

    Do you know the source for Prouty's claim here?

    This reminds me of the story where Prouty was accused of "lying" for saying that E. Howard Hunt told him that Butterfield was working for the CIA in the Nixon White House.

      I happen to believe that Prouty was telling the truth about what Hunt told him-- which, obviously, doesn't mean that HUNT was telling the truth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I would concur easily detecting something fishy about Halberstam's slant, although I remember reading his Fifties book without many suspicions. Didn't know much about Vann. 

I was in kindergarten when JFK was assassinated but remember clearly the high regard he was held under until gradually books like Halberstam's and Seymour Hersch's started to pick away at his legacy (no such picking away at Johnson or Reagan, who are much easier targets). 

I confess I had a sweet tooth for reading Sherman Skolnik when he was alive (and corresponding with him). He had no trouble accusing the Chicago Seven of being provocateurs. I also remember Abbie Hoffman appearing on the McGlaughlin Group in his later years and wondered how things got so topsy turvy.

I have yet to figure out what Ken Burns is ultimately up to. His New York documentary was very compelling. As a musicologist, I found his Jazz documentary to be downright silly and sacrilegious (blame his reliance on Wynton Marsalis). Vietnam was noticeably watered down.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2020 at 1:11 PM, Chris Barnard said:

Maybe I should have given it longer if it got better but, my criticism of the question above was entirely valid. 

Oh for sure. Certainly all criticism encouraged and welcome in my book. I should also (and more accurately) state that Rob seems to consistently rely on evidence from the documentary record more than he does not and calls speculation what it is when it is indeed so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2020 at 11:42 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Anthony:

People like William Sullivan and Bill Bundy.  The committee itself was not secret, what they did was. It was called the inter agency VIetnam Coordinating Committee.

 

Ron:

Fletcher was wrong about that one in relation to the Bay of Pigs.  Bundy was obeying Kennedy's wishes about no D Day strikes from anywhere except on the island.

 

Jim, you made me go back and review this in JFK, The CIA , Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy.  On pages 129 - 135 Prouty is emphatic about JFK authorizing the pre dawn strike on the remaining 3 T-33's at 1:45 on Sunday the 16th.  That he fully understood the importance of this to the operation.

From page 134 "This quote is from the Taylor letter, paragraph 43.  "At about 9:30 P.M. on April 16, Mr. McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President telephoned General C. P. of the CIA to inform him the dawn air strikes the following morning should not be launched until they could be conducted from a strip within the beachhead."

JFK had authorized the strikes by the four Cuban piloted B-26's on the day before which destroyed Castro's other seven T-33's near Havana.  If he authorized these strikes, and at 1:45 on Sunday authorized the Monday morning strike on the last three, knowing the importance of their elimination to the operation, why would he change his mind by 9:30?  If, Bundy was really obeying his wishes.

Bundy did write the misleading 1979 NYT article titled "The Brigade's My Fault".  After the Taylor report finally became public.

If JFK authorized the Saturday strikes, and understood the necessity of destroying the remaining planes, authorizing such Sunday afternoon, why would he knowingly sabotage the operation by countermanding his own instructions?

Prouty details this in much more depth in the pages referenced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron:

I went over this at length and in depth in my book.  In fact I wrote a whole chapter about the Bay of Pigs.  

From Trumbull Higgins, until today, everyone understands that the longer JFK looked at the operation, the more he did not want it to seem like a WW 2 American attack.  So this is why he wanted the D Day air attack to come from the island.  I gave so many sources for this that I don't think its debatable any more. Kennedy even asked Bissell, "Do you really. have to have these air strikes?" (Kornbluh p. 296)

Peter Kornbluh says it on page 288 of his book Bay of Pigs Declassified.

The CIA admitted they understood this in their March 15th plan.  They mentioned it three times there. (DiEugenio, Second Edition, Destiny Betrayed, pp.45-46)

BIssell admitted this to one of the planners, Hawkins. (Ibid, p. 46)

In the Taylor Report, it says that Bundy told Cabell, the night before, that there would only be D Day strikes from a captured beachhead. (ibid, p. 46)

In a conversation with McNamara, the SecDef told Noel Twyman that the CIA came back to them about the D Day air strikes, they were not in the revised plan. (My phone conversation with Twyman in 1997)

When this came up on April 16th, with Rusk and Stevenson, Kennedy said this himself. (Schlesinger, A Thousand Days, p. 273)

Cabell and Bissell argued with Rusk about it.  He declined the request.  When he asked them if they wanted to talk to Kennedy they said no. (Ibid)

Cabell then tried again right before the operation landed.  This time he asked if the planes could fly off Burke's aircraft carrier. Rusk declined. (ibid)

In Howard Hunt's book he himself says, everyone at CIA was urging Cabell to launch the strike himself.  He did not. (Give Us this Day, by Hunt, p. 197)

I really don't see how one can dispute that many sources, its at least 6 high level ones. But also, if Bundy was acting on his own, why was he not called before the Board?  Why was he not then fired?  Why instead did Kennedy fire Cabell, Dulles and Bissell?

But further, what does this have to do with anything?  As Lyman Kirkpatrick said, what if the D Day attacks had occurred and were successful? What difference would it have made?  (DiEugenio, p. 45) You still had 1400 guys on a beach, with their ammo boat sunk, with no element of surprise, with no defections coming to their aid, facing state of the art Soviet mortar, artillery, and tanks. With thousands of Cuban regulars swarming to the front, and thousands more in reserve. (ibid, p. 40, p. 45)

This whole D day controversy I think, as I argue in my book, was created by Dulles and Hunt in order to cover the CIA's perfidy and mendacity in their presentation of the operation to Kennedy. (DiEugenio, p. 54)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2020 at 4:55 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Joe, 

I cannot say one way or another about John's mother.  But I think when Stone checked out the story she did work where he said she did.  ANd I agree that if the story is true yes it does indicate a high level plot.

Gregg,

Abbie liked The Best and the Brightest?  Wow, that is kind of shocking to me.  I did a lot of work on that book and on Halberstam. He deliberately slanted the book in a way to make it seem that somehow JFK was responsible for the war.  He later admitted this in a not very often quoted interview.  When JFK came out, he said there was no military plot to escalate the war!  When in fact he had been a part of that plot with Jean Paul Vann.

https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/ken-burns-lynn-novick-the-vietnam-war-part-two

Very few people were more responsible for misleading Americans about that war and covering up the reversal that happened after Kennedy's death than Halberstam was, along with his buddy Sheehan.  And to think that Burns and Novick used Sheehan as a source is kind of sick.

The thing is the Trial of the Chicago Seven took place under Nixon's watch.  Nixon continued the war unnecessarily for four years, after he knew it was lost. He ended up dropping more bombs on Indochina than LBJ did. Nixon caused the fall of the Cambodian government, which eventually led to the rise of Khymer Rouge.

Halberstam either ignored or minimized all of this. IMO, that book was really an abomination of history.

 

PS:  Joe, Marcello lived in a different parish than the one Garrison governed.  But the taverns he owned or partly owned in New Orleans, Garrison did raid for B girl drinking. And he actually did a cross county raid to try and get the DA there to do something. It did not work, so you can guess what was really happening.

"Nixon continued the war unnecessarily for four years, after he knew it was lost. "

 

Jim,

I've written before that I never believed that Oliver Stone got Nixon quite right - Stone was sure that Nixon's policy of governance (cards close to the vest, no leaks, don't use the regular government channels, such as the State Department, etc.) was a function of RMN's personality.

Stone even invented dialogue between Pat and Richard Nixon in which she wailed that he wouldn't let anyone in, not even her.

That is the conventional view to explain why Nixon was so secretive and "paranoid."

But that's not right, and Stone himself had some doubts about that explanation. In one of the best scenes in "Nixon", Stone has Nixon confess to a young female anti-war protestor at the Lincoln Memorial that he can't really stop the war, that he can "control it. Maybe not control it totally, but tame it enough to do some good."

https://youtu.be/TxCqOw5_4oE

 

I think that's much closer. 

Nixon, because of his long experience in government, especially his eight years as Eisenhower's VP, knew the "system" (The Deep State) very well. He knew, for example, the Eisenhower really wanted the May 1960 peace summit with Khrushchev to be a success, yet thanks to the CIA U-2 crash, the summit was wrecked and Ike's final few months were seen as a failure.

Nixon governed the way he did because he knew (and feared) the American Deep State.

I think he was mortally afraid of who he might provoke if he quit Vietnam too quickly. 

Unnecessary?

Sure, from our perspective, but Nixon saw the "system" up close. He wasn't stupid - he knew what had happened to President Kennedy. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

"Nixon continued the war unnecessarily for four years, after he knew it was lost. "

 

Jim,

I've written before that I never believed that Oliver Stone got Nixon quite right - Stone was sure that Nixon's policy of governance (cards close to the vest, no leaks, don't use the regular government channels, such as the State Department, etc.) was a function of RMN's personality.

Stone even invented dialogue between Pat and Richard Nixon in which she wailed that he wouldn't let anyone in, not even her.

That is the conventional view to explain why Nixon was so secretive and "paranoid."

But that's not right, and Stone himself had some doubts about that explanation. In one of the best scenes in "Nixon", Stone has Nixon confess to a young female anti-war protestor at the Lincoln Memorial that he can't really stop the war, that he can "control it. Maybe not control it totally, but tame it enough to do some good."

https://youtu.be/TxCqOw5_4oE

 

I think that's much closer. 

Nixon, because of his long experience in government, especially his eight years as Eisenhower's VP, knew the "system" (The Deep State) very well. He knew, for example, the Eisenhower really wanted the May 1960 peace summit with Khrushchev to be a success, yet thanks to the CIA U-2 crash, the summit was wrecked and Ike's final few months were seen as a failure.

Nixon governed the way he did because he knew (and feared) the American Deep State.

I think he was mortally afraid of who he might provoke if he quit Vietnam too quickly. 

Unnecessary?

Sure, from our perspective, but Nixon saw the "system" up close. He wasn't stupid - he knew what had happened to President Kennedy. 

 

 

     Speaking of Nixon's fear of the Deep State, I recall reading somewhere that Nixon once said that he had picked Agnew as his running mate as "insurance."

      Can't recall where I read that one.

      But, I think Russ Baker mentioned, in "Family of Secrets," that Prescott Bush-- Nixon's original promoter in the Wall Street GOP establishment-- had wanted his son, GHWB, on the 1968 ticket as Nixon's running mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

     Speaking of Nixon's fear of the Deep State, I recall reading somewhere that Nixon once said that he had picked Agnew as his running mate as "insurance."

      Can't recall where I read that one.

      But, I think Russ Baker mentioned, in "Family of Secrets," that Prescott Bush-- Nixon's original promoter in the Wall Street GOP establishment-- had wanted his son, GHWB, on the 1968 ticket as Nixon's running mate.

Agnew was owned by organized crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

     Speaking of Nixon's fear of the Deep State, I recall reading somewhere that Nixon once said that he had picked Agnew as his running mate as "insurance."

      Can't recall where I read that one.

      But, I think Russ Baker mentioned, in "Family of Secrets," that Prescott Bush-- Nixon's original promoter in the Wall Street GOP establishment-- had wanted his son, GHWB, on the 1968 ticket as Nixon's running mate.

Did he say 'insurance' or 'assassination insurance', it was either wit Dean or Colsson but, it was clear what he meant. 

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...