Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is the "Lansdale Hypothesis" of the JFK Assassination the Real Deal?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It's a stretch, but I don't think too much of a stretch, to see Lansdale creating a false flag op in Dealey, and then that op being co-opted by actual assassins, whether directed by himself or others.  Prouty wrote to Garrison that Lansdale came back to the Pentagon elated when JFK promised to send him back to Vietnam "in high office," but competing advisers on Vietnam eroded Kennedy's support for Lansdale.  There's enough anecdotal evidence of shady, unidentifiable characters literally at the unsecured edges of Dealey to suggest multiple crews with different purposes.

If Lansdale created a false flag op and it went south on him, that would be one reason for him to rush to Dealey from Ft. Worth and be photographed there - if indeed that happened.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Curious what Lansdale thought of General Edwin Walker...if anything.

And Robert Kennedy's action to commit Walker to a nut ward over Walker's inciting ringleader actions at Ole Miss at Oxford?

Also, whether Dallas Mayor Earl Cabell might have known Lansdale through his brother Charles ( Dulles's right hand man?) well enough to have personally met him? 

And how about the most extreme right wing groups centered in Dallas at the time ( JBS, etc. ) and their world's most wealthy men funders like H.L. Hunt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Curious what Lansdale thought of General Edwin Walker...if anything.

And Robert Kennedy's action to commit Walker to a nut ward over Walker's inciting ringleader actions at Ole Miss at Oxford?

Also, whether Dallas Mayor Earl Cabell might have known Lansdale through his brother Charles ( Dulles's right hand man?) well enough to have personally met him? 

And how about the most extreme right wing groups centered in Dallas at the time ( JBS, etc. ) and their world's most wealthy men funders like H.L. Hunt?

Joe,

    I just discovered a very interesting, lengthy 2015 Education Forum thread about Lansdale, in which some data was posted about Lansdale's relationship with Charles Cabell.

   That thread had numerous detailed comments and references about Lansdale by Steven Gaal, Ron Ecker, Cliff Varnell, David Andrews, and others.   (I hadn't discovered this Forum at the time.)

    A very interesting read.

Was it Lansdale? - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Joe,

 Charles Cabell.

   That thread had numerous detailed comments and references about Lansdale by Steven Gaal, Ron Ecker, Cliff Varnell, David Andrews, and others.   (I hadn't discovered this Forum at the time.)

    A very interesting read.

Was it Lansdale? - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Yes, several here have seen and accessed that thread many times. It has a lot of information related to Lansdale through some very high level acquaintances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 5/3/2021 at 10:18 PM, W. Niederhut said:

        In light of the recent forum discussions about Ed Lansdale's relationship with Allen Dulles, and his "black ops" success in establishing the Magsaysay regime in the Philippines and the Diem regime in South Vietnam, should we review Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis" about the JFK assassination op in more detail?

        Mr. X's theories about the JFK assassination were an important scene in Oliver Stone's JFK film, and Mr. X (Prouty) outlined them in some detail in his March 6, 1990 letter to Jim Garrison.*  Did Prouty come closer than anyone to formulating an accurate theory about the organization of the JFK assassination op (and the related psy op in which Oswald was quickly labeled as the culprit in the mainstream media) with his "Lansdale Hypothesis?"   (I'm taking the liberty of labeling the last part of Prouty's March 6, 1990 Garrison letter, "The Lansdale Hypothesis" for the sake of argument.)

* Here's a Spartacus link to Prouty's letter to Garrison letter.  (Footnote #3)

https://spartacus-educational.com/COLDlansdale.htm

"...I have heard him (Lansdale) 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 Lansdale Hypothesis

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. I 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."

 

      

Re-posting this for Jim Hargrove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2021 at 4:48 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

i dont think people at the top would have conspired to kill a president.

My opinion is close to the opposite. There are almost always plots to assassinate leaders of state, very few succeed. The JFK plot clearly required "inside" covert help on a fairly significant level (secret service, car route, silencers, radios, transporting shooters, a patsy with pre-made backstory, penetration of DPD, FBI, etc...). That help only comes when the plot has been sanctioned at a higher level, not necessarily a higher level of "government. To me, the debate would be exactly what do we mean by "the top".  I imagine after the steel crisis, David Rockefeller must have had some angry conversations with Dulles that would have given Dulles the "read" of the higher level and their intentions/desires.  "...and he's screwing us in Vietnam, Cuba, Congo, Indonesia, Israel... between him and his damn brother...." They were potentially looking at more than 15 years of Kennedy political rule in this country, that would have likely destroyed the "Free market" globalized world plans that the Trade Mart/CFR types wanted (and now largely have obtained) so badly. The Democratic party would have likely been able to sustain itself as the New Deal party much longer and probably would have avoided the Clinton/WallStreet/NAFTA take down and disintegration of those remaining party elements. A statement as simple as "With RFK and Ted, we could be screwed for the next 20 years! That cannot happen!", from someone in the realm of a Rockefeller would likely have been enough to embolden the security/military people to assist a plot hatched at a lower level that they would have obviously been aware of with the anti-Castro people.

The people "at the top" are the ones with the most to gain/lose and have a history of involvement in such things. The Morgan plot on FDR being one example. I would also put Dag's assassination in this category too, that certainly had a ton of risk, but these groups view themselves as invincible due to their control of the secret services and media outlets. Just because the top of the conspirators food chain is rarely revealed, does not mean that the conspiracy stopped at those we can identify and we all know that covert operations are designed that way from the ground up as a function of their purpose. We still don't even know what domestic operation Clay Shaw was a part of (to my knowledge) and he was exposed! Obviously, no public official would commit their name to a domestic murder operation, but I see it as unwise analysis to think that those people never had anything to do with illegal domestic operations, its a provable falsehood actually. I think the MLK, RFK, Malcom, and JFK cases taken together prove (to me anyway) that these events could have ultimately only come from the top as they show clear continuity of purpose, namely to alter the political power within the country by eliminating the most powerful leaders. I mean, the next Democratic presidents were Vietnam war starters, Trilateral Commission members and CIA drug traffickers. The 1960's was a crossroads for the world, but especially for America, whose course was dramatically and permanently shifted away from sovereign rule of law, to the rule of secret police forces and unaccountable covert operations/weaponry/banking. This shift could not have happened on the timeframe that it did without the majority of those assassinations in my opinion. They had too much public support to  attempt to smear them or use the other control/blackmail solutions often employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come to wonder if the tall tramp in the famous photo isn't smiling only because he's just seen that he's being photographed.  Perhaps the photograper(s) were especially demonstrative.

This does not disprove that the tall figure is Lansdale.  The figure seems to have been caught here (below) passing the TSBD before the famous pic.  When he passes the tall tramp, he may not even know him, or recognize him as a contractor.  Still, it could be Lansdale.

LansdaleTSBD3.gif

Can someone tell me how to properly embed posts with pics from other threads into new posts?  You can PM me - DA

 

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

My opinion is close to the opposite. There are almost always plots to assassinate leaders of state, very few succeed. The JFK plot clearly required "inside" covert help on a fairly significant level (secret service, car route, silencers, radios, transporting shooters, a patsy with pre-made backstory, penetration of DPD, FBI, etc...). That help only comes when the plot has been sanctioned at a higher level, not necessarily a higher level of "government. To me, the debate would be exactly what do we mean by "the top".  I imagine after the steel crisis, David Rockefeller must have had some angry conversations with Dulles that would have given Dulles the "read" of the higher level and their intentions/desires.  "...and he's screwing us in Vietnam, Cuba, Congo, Indonesia, Israel... between him and his damn brother...." They were potentially looking at more than 15 years of Kennedy political rule in this country, that would have likely destroyed the "Free market" globalized world plans that the Trade Mart/CFR types wanted (and now largely have obtained) so badly. The Democratic party would have likely been able to sustain itself as the New Deal party much longer and probably would have avoided the Clinton/WallStreet/NAFTA take down and disintegration of those remaining party elements. A statement as simple as "With RFK and Ted, we could be screwed for the next 20 years! That cannot happen!", from someone in the realm of a Rockefeller would likely have been enough to embolden the security/military people to assist a plot hatched at a lower level that they would have obviously been aware of with the anti-Castro people.

The people "at the top" are the ones with the most to gain/lose and have a history of involvement in such things. The Morgan plot on FDR being one example. I would also put Dag's assassination in this category too, that certainly had a ton of risk, but these groups view themselves as invincible due to their control of the secret services and media outlets. Just because the top of the conspirators food chain is rarely revealed, does not mean that the conspiracy stopped at those we can identify and we all know that covert operations are designed that way from the ground up as a function of their purpose. We still don't even know what domestic operation Clay Shaw was a part of (to my knowledge) and he was exposed! Obviously, no public official would commit their name to a domestic murder operation, but I see it as unwise analysis to think that those people never had anything to do with illegal domestic operations, its a provable falsehood actually. I think the MLK, RFK, Malcom, and JFK cases taken together prove (to me anyway) that these events could have ultimately only come from the top as they show clear continuity of purpose, namely to alter the political power within the country by eliminating the most powerful leaders. I mean, the next Democratic presidents were Vietnam war starters, Trilateral Commission members and CIA drug traffickers. The 1960's was a crossroads for the world, but especially for America, whose course was dramatically and permanently shifted away from sovereign rule of law, to the rule of secret police forces and unaccountable covert operations/weaponry/banking. This shift could not have happened on the timeframe that it did without the majority of those assassinations in my opinion. They had too much public support to  attempt to smear them or use the other control/blackmail solutions often employed.

I’d have to agree with you to a point. Too much coincidence in the ‘60’s Assassinations. With Dulles and Angleton you have direct links to the powerful private financial forces at the top. The perps may not have been ordered to carry out the killings, but it’s too fine a point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It never ceases to amaze me why so many people seriously contemplate  Fletcher Prouty’s fables about Edward Lansdale’s involvement with the JFK Assassination.  What year is this anyway?  1992?? Have any of you commenting on Ed Lansdale, Allen Dulles, General Walker et al. Read any of the research done by the likes of Larry Hancock, David Boylan or Bill Simpich?  Why do people constantly recycle old theories from 30 plus years ago instead of debating some of the latest research done by some in the community  based on the documents declassified and released since the JFK records act? Look,   I am grateful for Oliver Stone’s movie as it ignited a furor and forced Congress to act, but let’s be real folks.  Garrison and the 1st generation researchers had very little documentation to work from.  We should be way beyond these old speculations now.  What’s next?  Photo speculation of Badge man behind the fence on the grassy knoll?  🤦‍♂️ 

On 5/4/2021 at 11:58 AM, Chris Barnard said:

Thanks Chuck. I have always wondered if you cross referenced diaries and alibi’s with the dates of the Chicago & Miami alleged plots, if there is an incriminating pattern? DAP, Lansdale, Hunt, Sturgis and so on. What were the cubans doing too?! Was Dulles at the Farm on all occasions?! It’s interesting, someone must have had a go. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Greg Kooyman said:

It never ceases to amaze me why so many people seriously contemplate  Fletcher Prouty’s fables about Edward Lansdale’s involvement with the JFK Assassination.  What year is this anyway?  1992?? Have any of you commenting on Ed Lansdale, Allen Dulles, General Walker et al. Read any of the research done by the likes of Larry Hancock, David Boylan or Bill Simpich?  Why do people constantly recycle old theories from 30 plus years ago instead of debating some of the latest research done by some in the community  based on the documents declassified and released since the JFK records act? Look,   I am grateful for Oliver Stone’s movie as it ignited a furor and forced Congress to act, but let’s be real folks.  Garrison and the 1st generation researchers had very little documentation to work from.  We should be way beyond these old speculations now.  What’s next?  Photo speculation of Badge man behind the fence on the grassy knoll?  🤦‍♂️ 

 

 

Well, Greg, somehow everyone we've suspected got promoted and not fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Greg Kooyman said:

It never ceases to amaze me why so many people seriously contemplate  Fletcher Prouty’s fables about Edward Lansdale’s involvement with the JFK Assassination.  What year is this anyway?  1992?? Have any of you commenting on Ed Lansdale, Allen Dulles, General Walker et al. Read any of the research done by the likes of Larry Hancock, David Boylan or Bill Simpich?  Why do people constantly recycle old theories from 30 plus years ago instead of debating some of the latest research done by some in the community  based on the documents declassified and released since the JFK records act? Look,   I am grateful for Oliver Stone’s movie as it ignited a furor and forced Congress to act, but let’s be real folks.  Garrison and the 1st generation researchers had very little documentation to work from.  We should be way beyond these old speculations now.  What’s next?  Photo speculation of Badge man behind the fence on the grassy knoll?  🤦‍♂️ 

 

 

Newsflash, Greg.    Col. Fletcher Prouty was not a "first generation researcher" or a teller of "fables."  He was a primary source and "Deep State" insider in 1963-- the Chief Liaison of the Joint Chiefs to the CIA for Special Ops.

Your assertion that Prouty was a teller of fables sounds like re-cycled John McAdams propaganda.

If you have any valid information debunking Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis," (excerpted from his famous letter to Garrison) I'd love to see it.  Let us know.

On the conrary, JFKA "researchers" like John Newman and David Lifton have, apparently, found evidence supporting Prouty's primary source "Lansdale Hypothesis."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Barnard, I have not  cross referenced diaries and alibi’s with the dates of the Chicago & Miami alleged plots, to see if there is an incriminating pattern.  Basically, I have been reading books on the JFKA since the mid- 1970's and  try to keep up .   I think the researchers like Larry Hancock, David Boylan, Doug Horne, John Newman , Anthony Summers, Jim DiEugenio, Bill Kelly, Hank Albarelli , etc, have been doing a very good job of getting to the bottom of the JFKA.  And, I think we all owe something to the originals ( Mark Lane, Jim Marrs, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Garrison, Anthony Davis, Peter Dale Scott, Mae Brussell,etc.) And, I think a lot of the contributers to this  website are doing their part in seeking truth on this subject (JFKA).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Newsflash, Greg.    Col. Fletcher Prouty was not a "first generation researcher" or a teller of "fables."  He was a primary source and "Deep State" insider in 1963-- the Chief Liaison of the Joint Chiefs to the CIA for Special Ops.

Your assertion that Prouty was a teller of fables sounds like re-cycled John McAdams propaganda.

If you have any valid information debunking Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis," (excerpted from his famous letter to Garrison) I'd love to see it.  Let us know.

On the conrary, JFKA "researchers" like John Newman and David Lifton have, apparently, found evidence supporting Prouty's primary source "Lansdale Hypothesis."

Oh boy. .. where do I start?  First, I never stated that Fletcher Prouty was a 1st generation researcher.  Please re-read what I wrote.   Do I believe that Fletcher Prouty worked as a liaison to facilitate Air Force assets for the CIA?  Yes I do.  Do I believe his theories about who was behind the Assassination?  Absolutely not.  All anyone needs to do is look at the historical facts with regard to Ed Lansdale. His short lived responsibilities for Operation Mongoose was an absolute failure.  His relationship with the CIA was extremely tempestuous.  William Harvey and Richard Helms detested Lansdale and that is putting it mildly.  If you think for a minute that Ed Lansdale could have put an Assassination plan together using CIA assets then you and I will need to agree to disagree.  You regard John Newman and David Lifton as researchers who have found primary evidence to support Prouty’s Lansdale Hypothesis.  I respect both of these gentlemen for their earlier published works.  I as yet have not read this evidence you claim they have uncovered.  Please direct me to their new work and I will be happy to read it with an open mind.  If I were a McAdams propagandist as you accuse me of, I certainly would not have posted that I support the works of Larry Hancock, and Bill Simpich.  Researchers who are clearly not aligned with McAdams and other Lone nut advocates.  You on the other hand, failed to acknowledge in your post the 3 researchers I cited and all three are members of this forum.   To be clear, my humble views align with the research and writings of Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich. 
Finally, you have asked me to come up with evidence that L. Fletcher Prouty’s theories have been debunked.  Maybe you can start here: 

https://ia601809.us.archive.org/8/items/wray-tim-and-jeremy-gunn-christopher-barger-joan-zimmerman.-interview-with-l.-fl/Wray%2C Tim%2C and Jeremy Gunn%2C Christopher Barger%2C Joan Zimmerman. Interview with L. Fletcher Prouty. Summary prepared by Christopher Barger on October 23%2C 1996. (Assassination Records Review Board%2C September 24%2C 1996).pdf

That is a pdf of the findings of the AARB.  Pretty self explanatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Greg Kooyman said:

Oh boy. .. where do I start?  First, I never stated that Fletcher Prouty was a 1st generation researcher.  Please re-read what I wrote.   Do I believe that Fletcher Prouty worked as a liaison to facilitate Air Force assets for the CIA?  Yes I do.  Do I believe his theories about who was behind the Assassination?  Absolutely not.  All anyone needs to do is look at the historical facts with regard to Ed Lansdale. His short lived responsibilities for Operation Mongoose was an absolute failure.  His relationship with the CIA was extremely tempestuous.  William Harvey and Richard Helms detested Lansdale and that is putting it mildly.  If you think for a minute that Ed Lansdale could have put an Assassination plan together using CIA assets then you and I will need to agree to disagree.  You regard John Newman and David Lifton as researchers who have found primary evidence to support Prouty’s Lansdale Hypothesis.  I respect both of these gentlemen for their earlier published works.  I as yet have not read this evidence you claim they have uncovered.  Please direct me to their new work and I will be happy to read it with an open mind.  If I were a McAdams propagandist as you accuse me of, I certainly would not have posted that I support the works of Larry Hancock, and Bill Simpich.  Researchers who are clearly not aligned with McAdams and other Lone nut advocates.  You on the other hand, failed to acknowledge in your post the 3 researchers I cited and all three are members of this forum.   To be clear, my humble views align with the research and writings of Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich. 
Finally, you have asked me to come up with evidence that L. Fletcher Prouty’s theories have been debunked.  Maybe you can start here: 

https://ia601809.us.archive.org/8/items/wray-tim-and-jeremy-gunn-christopher-barger-joan-zimmerman.-interview-with-l.-fl/Wray%2C Tim%2C and Jeremy Gunn%2C Christopher Barger%2C Joan Zimmerman. Interview with L. Fletcher Prouty. Summary prepared by Christopher Barger on October 23%2C 1996. (Assassination Records Review Board%2C September 24%2C 1996).pdf

That is a pdf of the findings of the AARB.  Pretty self explanatory.

Greg, this presentation on Prouty and Lansdale was posted here the other day:

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/NMNRSSO.ASC

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...