Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

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

Hi David,

Can you expand on whom you are alluding to with regard to suspects who were promoted instead of fired?

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

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

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

David,

That’s a 29 year old interview with John Newman.  I doubt that John still advocates the views of L Fletcher Prouty today.  Did you see the link to the finds of the AARB in 1996 that I posted in response to W.Neiderhut?

Its pretty revealing.  
 

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Greg Kooyman said:

Hi David,

Can you expand on whom you are alluding to with regard to suspects who were promoted instead of fired?

Thanks!

Dulles - fired by Kennedy, elevated to the WC, maintained an eminence grise status at CIA until death.

Helms - Succeeded McCone as DCI

Phillips - Made Western Hemisphere chief

Hunt - made Chief of Covert Actions for Western Europe division, plus other duties before retiring and becoming Helms' man in the Nixon admin.

Morales  - on to Vietnam.

Harvey  - soldiered on through alcoholism, retirement and death.

Angleton - Kept his seat at the center of the molehunt web'

LBJ - Won the jackpot, for as long as he could keep it.

Surely I'm missing someone...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Greg Kooyman said:

David,

That’s a 29 year old interview with John Newman.  I doubt that John still advocates the views of L Fletcher Prouty today.  Did you see the link to the finds of the AARB in 1996 that I posted in response to W.Neiderhut?

Its pretty revealing.  
 

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

 

 

We've all pretty much seen that doc since the last time it was posted by some revisionist.  Jeremy Gunn and Doug Horne have revealed that the ARRB, for its merits, was not out to solve the JFKA, and dismissed the input of those who were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

We've all pretty much seen that doc since the last time it was posted by some revisionist.  Jeremy Gunn and Doug Horne have revealed that the ARRB, for its merits, was not out to solve the JFKA, and dismissed the input of those who were.

I agree that the ARRB could have done a lot more in the time they had to get records made public.  However, it was pretty clear that when they interviewed Prouty it was the purpose of determining if he had any documentation or files to back up his claims.  When it was determined that he had no actual documentation/evidence, they came to the conclusion that everything Prouty had published and including his statements to the ARRB could not be substantiated with any documentation whatsoever.  
That’s not revisionist, it’s merely conclusions based on the facts and the lack thereof by Prouty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greg Kooyman said:

I agree that the ARRB could have done a lot more in the time they had to get records made public.  However, it was pretty clear that when they interviewed Prouty it was the purpose of determining if he had any documentation or files to back up his claims.  When it was determined that he had no actual documentation/evidence, they came to the conclusion that everything Prouty had published and including his statements to the ARRB could not be substantiated with any documentation whatsoever.  
That’s not revisionist, it’s merely conclusions based on the facts and the lack thereof by Prouty.

Interesting Greg, 81 posts in 16 years.  You've not been really involved in the conversation.  Five of them in the last few hours about Prouty.  I still find him credible.  He was there and spoke truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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,

     One thing that I have observed is that Prouty's detractors are people who never read his book, The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK.  Have you read it?

     I'm not familiar with the details you mention about Lansdale's poor relationship with William Harvey and Richard Helms.  My impression, though, was that Lansdale was very popular with Allen Dulles after the stunningly successful Magsaysay coup.  Do you have a source I could study regarding Lansdale and Helms?

     The Lansdale/Dallas info from John Newman and David Lifton was posted recently by me on Jim Hargrove's thread about Dulles as the mastermind of the JFK assassination.

     As for Prouty's credibility and the ARRB interview, we've already discussed this at considerable length here on an Education Forum thread that ran to 24 pages last year -- with informative commentaries by Larry Hancock, James DiEugenio, Jeff Carter, and others on the forum.*

     In fact, I asked Larry Hancock on that thread about his opinion of Prouty's theories about Lansdale and the JFK assassination.  Larry did not have a definite opinion about Prouty's theories about Lansdale's possible involvement in the JFK assassination.

 

*

Larry Hancock

  • Larry Hancock Explorer
  • Members
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma USA

I don't know that I disagree at all about Lansdale's activities in that period, I actually thought I had said that earlier but maybe not....what I do find questionable are Prouty's remarks about presidential protection, about the activation of the 112th and its then being shut down etc...the points he appears to me to have recanted in his ARRB remarks.

That has little to nothing to do with his identification of Lansdale in Dallas or of his speculation about Lansdale and a conspiracy.  I'm ambivalent about that; if somebody can prove that it was Lansdale in Dallas (I did dabble in that for a time, fruitlessly) and in the photo that would be very interesting...but then you need to take that and work it into a full hypothesis on his role, his contacts, the larger picture of the conspiracy.

Which is why I don't really have anything to contribute beyond that point other than personal opinions...when I hit that point in a thread it seems a good time for me to move on.

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

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Interesting Greg, 81 posts in 16 years.  You've not been really involved in the conversation.  Five of them in the last few hours about Prouty.  I still find him credible.  He was there and spoke truth.

Ron, what you say is true.  I have not been an active conversationalist here over the years.  On the other hand, I posted only when I felt strongly enough about something to voice my opinion.  Prouty was indeed there but I believe he embellished his story. To me, it seems pretty clear that the ARRB came to that same conclusion as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Greg Kooyman said:

Ron, what you say is true.  I have not been an active conversationalist here over the years.  On the other hand, I posted only when I felt strongly enough about something to voice my opinion.  Prouty was indeed there but I believe he embellished his story. To me, it seems pretty clear that the ARRB came to that same conclusion as well.  

Greg,

     To clarify, the issues discussed in the ARRB transcript are peripheral to Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis" (i.e., the above excerpt from Prouty's Garrison letter.)

     You haven't posted anything that refutes the Lansdale Hypothesis, although I am curious about your comment about Harvey and Helms disliking Lansdale.  Do you recall where you read that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Greg,

     One thing that I have observed is that Prouty's detractors are people who never read his book, The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK.  Have you read it?

     I'm not familiar with the details you mention about Lansdale's poor relationship with William Harvey and Richard Helms.  My impression, though, was that Lansdale was very popular with Allen Dulles after the stunningly successful Magsaysay coup.  Do you have a source I could study regarding Lansdale and Helms?

     The Lansdale/Dallas info from John Newman and David Lifton was posted recently by me on Jim Hargrove's thread about Dulles as the mastermind of the JFK assassination.

     As for Prouty's credibility and the ARRB interview, we've already discussed this at considerable length here on an Education Forum thread that ran to 24 pages last year -- with informative commentaries by Larry Hancock, James DiEugenio, Jeff Carter, and others on the forum.*

     In fact, I asked Larry Hancock on that thread about his opinion of Prouty's theories about Lansdale and the JFK assassination.  Larry did not have a definite opinion about Prouty's theories about Lansdale's possible involvement in the JFK assassination.

 

*

Larry Hancock

  • Larry Hancock Explorer
  • Members
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma USA

I don't know that I disagree at all about Lansdale's activities in that period, I actually thought I had said that earlier but maybe not....what I do find questionable are Prouty's remarks about presidential protection, about the activation of the 112th and its then being shut down etc...the points he appears to me to have recanted in his ARRB remarks.

That has little to nothing to do with his identification of Lansdale in Dallas or of his speculation about Lansdale and a conspiracy.  I'm ambivalent about that; if somebody can prove that it was Lansdale in Dallas (I did dabble in that for a time, fruitlessly) and in the photo that would be very interesting...but then you need to take that and work it into a full hypothesis on his role, his contacts, the larger picture of the conspiracy.

Which is why I don't really have anything to contribute beyond that point other than personal opinions...when I hit that point in a thread it seems a good time for me to move on.

You asked me for some documentation on Lansdale’s relationship with senior members of the CIA so I will give you a couple to read…

here’s a link to a document on the MFF website: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16174#relPageId=1&search=Edward_lansdale

 

It’s dated 1975 from the Director of the Office of Security to the CIA Inspector General.

 

Below is a pdf of a Memo to Fritz Schwartz of the SSCIA from Paul Wallach who had recently interview former CIA employee George McManus regarding his time serving as special assistant to DDP Helms regarding Cuban affairs and in specific; Operation Mongoose.

 

 

 

mcmanus-helms-lansdale.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I should be clear as to my view since it was mentioned above.  At this point in time all I've really seen that would describe the Lansdale view of a conspiracy and the attack in Dallas is Lansdale's letter to Garrison.  I've not seen any researcher do a detailed paper or book exploring that hypothesis, citing sources, naming specific people and dates and relating in detail about how it all translated to the attack in Dallas and what followed. 

When I see that I would be able to evaluate it and probably offer an opinion.  As it stands his letter simply is not sufficient basis for me to even have an opinion - even though I spent an extended period of time years ago on Lansdale and found nothing "operational" myself.  Which just means I didn't find it so I would say those who accept his hypothesis should have been working for years now to flesh it out with details and publish that research in some form.

I've also seen the premise that Lansdale was running a false flag operation - so that would mean he was a good guy who got had, not a bad conspirator?   The thing is I have seen no detail on that either, so somebody needs to do some homework there and write up something that can be evaluated.  From my own perspective I can't see who would turn to Lansdale to run that sort of thing in the fall of 1963.  Who would trust his skills, where would he get the contacts, who was actually involved in the false flag operation, what is its chronology.

Basically I've reached the point where I expect that tossing out a few names and floating a scenario needs to be followed up by some real research - which raises the question of why Lansdale himself didn't do that since he claimed to have some starting point facts?  

Obviously I have my own hypothesis on the conspiracy and participants, and at this point have "operationalized" it in considerable detail in Tipping Point - with sources, motive, means, people, movements, roles etc.  To reach an opinion on the Lansdale hypothesis I need to see comparable body of work - as I hope to see in the Newman hypothesis, the Alberelli hypothesis etc. 

For context though, for those who would like some counterpoint to Prouty's views about Diem and the American entry into Viet Nam, I would recommend some more contemporary works:   Cold War Mandarin by Seth Jacops is exceptional as is Michael Swanson's Why The Vietnam War.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I suppose I should be clear as to my view since it was mentioned above.  At this point in time all I've really seen that would describe the Lansdale view of a conspiracy and the attack in Dallas is Lansdale's letter to Garrison.  I've not seen any researcher do a detailed paper or book exploring that hypothesis, citing sources, naming specific people and dates and relating in detail about how it all translated to the attack in Dallas and what followed. 

When I see that I would be able to evaluate it and probably offer an opinion.  As it stands his letter simply is not sufficient basis for me to even have an opinion - even though I spent an extended period of time years ago on Lansdale and found nothing "operational" myself.  Which just means I didn't find it so I would say those who accept his hypothesis should have been working for years now to flesh it out with details and publish that research in some form.

 

    Understood, Larry.  But wouldn't we all agree, in the end, that Fletcher Prouty was, in fact, a rare, primary-source historical witness of Ed Lansdale's career, and of special ops involving the CIA and the U.S. military in the 50s and early 60s?  He wasn't on Allen Dulles' "Secret Team," but he worked with some of them, including Lansdale.

    Prouty was spot on in his description of the events leading up to JFK issuing NSAM263, and its puzzling reversal after 11/22/63.  He smelled the rat.

    Secondly, as I posted last year, Prouty appears to have been a highly credible, honest character-- the opposite of a sociopath.  For example, he was deeply troubled by JFK's assassination, and appropriately skeptical of the Warren Commission narrative.  That's why the McAdams type propaganda impugning Prouty's character and credibility rings so hollow.  It doesn't fit at all with the measure of the man that emerges from a careful reading his writings.

    Didn't someone also point out that Prouty's responses to the ARRB may have been influenced by the fact that he saw George Johannides in the room, and may have been concerned about the prospect of committing suicide with a CIA shotgun?

    In his books, Prouty describes details about Ed Lansdale and his associates that he witnessed firsthand-- e.g., Lansdale joking about throwing Vietnamese guys out of helicopters, and staging false flag ops in Vietnam and the Philippines.  Many of his observations of Lansdale don't fit with Lansdale's official biography.

    Finally, how many dark details about Ed Lansdale's black ops career are likely to be found in documents?  Surely, the man must have been careful to cover his tracks.   And, if there are insufficient documents, does that, necessarily, invalidate Prouty's firsthand observations and theories about Lansdale?

    It reminds me of an old saying that I learned in medical school years ago, "You don't treat the chart, you treat the patient."  It's  contrary to the legal view of medical practice that, "If it's not in the chart, it didn't happen."  My hunch is that much of what  Lansdale did during his career wasn't "in the charts"-- like throwing guys out of helicopters, or visiting Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

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

13 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I suppose I should be clear as to my view since it was mentioned above.  At this point in time all I've really seen that would describe the Lansdale view of a conspiracy and the attack in Dallas is Lansdale's letter to Garrison.  I've not seen any researcher do a detailed paper or book exploring that hypothesis, citing sources, naming specific people and dates and relating in detail about how it all translated to the attack in Dallas and what followed. 

When I see that I would be able to evaluate it and probably offer an opinion.  As it stands his letter simply is not sufficient basis for me to even have an opinion - even though I spent an extended period of time years ago on Lansdale and found nothing "operational" myself.  Which just means I didn't find it so I would say those who accept his hypothesis should have been working for years now to flesh it out with details and publish that research in some form.

I've also seen the premise that Lansdale was running a false flag operation - so that would mean he was a good guy who got had, not a bad conspirator?   The thing is I have seen no detail on that either, so somebody needs to do some homework there and write up something that can be evaluated.  From my own perspective I can't see who would turn to Lansdale to run that sort of thing in the fall of 1963.  Who would trust his skills, where would he get the contacts, who was actually involved in the false flag operation, what is its chronology.

Basically I've reached the point where I expect that tossing out a few names and floating a scenario needs to be followed up by some real research - which raises the question of why Lansdale himself didn't do that since he claimed to have some starting point facts?  

Obviously I have my own hypothesis on the conspiracy and participants, and at this point have "operationalized" it in considerable detail in Tipping Point - with sources, motive, means, people, movements, roles etc.  To reach an opinion on the Lansdale hypothesis I need to see comparable body of work - as I hope to see in the Newman hypothesis, the Alberelli hypothesis etc. 

For context though, for those who would like some counterpoint to Prouty's views about Diem and the American entry into Viet Nam, I would recommend some more contemporary works:   Cold War Mandarin by Seth Jacops is exceptional as is Michael Swanson's Why The Vietnam War.

 

 

 

 

 

I have to agree with Larry H. here, and in a small way I have been guilty as charged.

My "plausible scenario" of a very small false flag op gone wrong mentions some real names---David Atlee Phillips, Eladio Del Valle and Hermininio Diaz---but I can prove nothing about them being in Dallas that day. (Witness Amos Lee Euins contemporarily ID'ed a gunman who looked like Eladio, in that he was bald, but that hardly cinches the deal. Antonio Veciana claimed to met LHO in the company of Phillips, and who knows if true?).

That is the problem with these speculative scenarios. They are all possible. Dulles, Lansdale, or LBJ, or Marcello, or lower-level Cubans. 

I worry that John Newman is going to do a version of looking for keys at night under the light pole, as many of us do. That is, Newman is researching in Operation Gladio or something like that and will see clues, and then add them up. 

But we do not see the clues we do not see. The keys may be in the dark somewhere. 

One thing seems true, and that is the CIA was biography-building on LHO.  That suggests CIA had an operational interest in LHO, and planned to use him somehow.  My guess is a false flag op,  Operation Northwoods style, to possibly trigger a war with Cuba. A false-flag but failed JFKA. 

But mine is just a guess. Lansdale? Maybe. Dulles? Maybe. LBJ? Maybe. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, in regard to an operational use of Oswald I present a "scenario" for that in Tipping Point --  in that scenario I propose that he was already being operationally used in at least two and very possibly three ways by CIA officers in SAS and at JMWAVE beginning by August.  Those have nothing to do with any earlier use by ONI,  CIA or FBI.  The reason he could be used in multiple ways at the same time is because he already had a public image created during the summer in New Orleans and that was sufficient for the propaganda operation which began at that time using both the DRE as an outlet and beginning an expansion of that using various aggressive anti-Castro right wing outlets such as INCA and others that I name in the book. You can even trace that via their news letters and the "Oswald recording/record" that was created for that purpose. 

Beyond propaganda SAS was integrating his identity into a counter intelligence operation targeting Cuban embassy staff both in Mexico City and New Orleans and we can come up with the names involved in that as well.  The operations themselves have been documented for some time, with probably the most detailed exposition by Bill Simpich.  

Following that It was easy enough for certain CIA officers and DRE military wing people to use Oswald's legend and identity in an action that was intended to trigger action against the Castro regime....the attack in Dallas.  We could actually call that a "false flag" operation that worked right up to the point that Oswald was taken into custody....just as Martino described.  And some of the likely people involved in trying to make that false flag happen were indeed in Dallas....the details for that scenario will be offered relatively soon in the Red Bird leads paper David Boylan and I are wrapping up now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regard to Prouty as a source,  I've always maintained that the information he provided based on first hand knowledge of government activities is very useful,  I learned a good deal from the book which covers his descriptions of the logistics network and practices used to provide American military equipment and weapons for covert operations and used that in Shadow Warfare.  Prouty also provided some descriptive context on how Joint Chiefs staff and SACSA worked that can be verified in other sources so that was good.  It is also possible to document some of his own work in those roles...and as I described in my post, that work was at least sometimes not that much appreciated by CIA personnel in covert operations, specifically in the Cuba project.

But other than anecdotes and speculation, I'm not sure what useful details he does provide us on Lansdale and the JFK conspiracy.  Lansdale's career is pretty well documented - as is his personality.  And Prouty's apparent tendency to exaggerate at least a bit is suggested by the details in his interview with the ARRB, where is most definitely does recant on certain of his JFK related statements - that makes he hesitant to take all of his personal comments literally.

But the point is, over the last several decades there has been ample time for Prouty himself or others - including Garrison - to try and follow up on the specifics that Prouty offered and I just don't see that.  I'm not saying that's easy,  I'm saying that nobody seems to have tackled it and we don't have a body of work extending it so we are left with mystery and speculation - while other leads have been worked in extensive detail.  We have names and groups and sources from other people that have and those I can evaluate and offer an opinion on (positively or negatively) because work has been done.

I just don't see that work being done on his hypothesis so either it has and I missed it or somebody should do it if they really feel the hypothesis has merit.

 

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...