Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

    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?”

   
 

Mr. Neiderhut, by your comments  highlighted by me above; are you seriously implying that the Ghost of George Joannides was actually in the room quietly intimidating poor Fletcher Prouty into holding back his evidence to support his wild claims?  Seriously?😂

Apparently you either believe in the supernatural, or are completely oblivious to the fact that George Joannides was long since dead by the time Prouty was interviewed by the ARRB having Died in 1990.

   (By the way, you have gone strangely silent since I have sent you the documents you asked for.)   
 

But please, explain away about how Lansdale could have possibly planned  and executed an assassination plot without the full support and contacts of the CIA? 
 

Question for you.. have you listened to researcher Harrison Livingstone’s phone interview with General Krulak in 1990?  I have.  Let’s just say that General’s own words do not back up Prouty’s claims of the supposed Lansdale photo in Dallas.

Simple common sense dictates that Prouty’s allegations in his letter to Garrison cannot be supported by the facts.  If you have any facts that refute my assertion, by all means please enlighten me.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Greg Kooyman said:
13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

    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?”

   
 

Mr. Neiderhut, by your comments  highlighted by me above; are you seriously implying that the Ghost of George Joannides was actually in the room quietly intimidating poor Fletcher Prouty into holding back his evidence to support his wild claims?  Seriously?😂

Apparently you either believe in the supernatural, or are completely oblivious to the fact that George Joannides was long since dead by the time Prouty was interviewed by the ARRB having Died in 1990.

   (By the way, you have gone strangely silent since I have sent you the documents you asked for.)   
 

But please, explain away about how Lansdale could have possibly planned  and executed an assassination plot without the full support and contacts of the CIA? 
 

Question for you.. have you listened to researcher Harrison Livingstone’s phone interview with General Krulak in 1990?  I have.  Let’s just say that General’s own words do not back up Prouty’s claims of the supposed Lansdale photo in Dallas.

Simple common sense dictates that Prouty’s allegations in his letter to Garrison cannot be supported by the facts.  If you have any facts that refute my assertion, by all means please enlighten me.    

 

Greg,

     FYI.  I'm Dr. Niederhut, a graduate of Harvard Medical School (Class of '83.)  Mr. Niederhut was my late father.

    Have you ever read Prouty's books-- The Secret Team and The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK?

    You never answered that question, (above) but, judging from your several erroneous comments about Prouty and his work, I'm assuming that the answer is, "no."  Correct? 

    So, to begin, it's somewhat useless to discuss Prouty's work and his theories with someone who has never even read them.   (As for the George Johannides/Prouty incident, someone mentioned it on an older thread, and I must have misunderstood the context.)

     You say that I have gone strangely silent?  Huh?  Did you read my lengthy comment to Larry Hancock from last night (above?)

     What is your understanding of Prouty's analysis of the "secret team," and of Ed Lansdale's work with the CIA and Saigon Station?  Are you suggesting that Lansdale did not work with Allen Dulles and the CIA during his storied career?  🤣

    As for General Krulak's comments to Livingstone in 1990, has it occurred to you that Krulak may have been reluctant to stick his neck out as a whistleblower on the CIA assassination op in Dallas?

    My take is that Prouty and Krulak agreed on the photo identification of their colleague Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, but Krulak didn't want to be targeted for assassination by blowing the whistle.

    Meanwhile, as I requested after your original comments on this thread, please let us know which details of Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis" are inaccurate.

    Your answer could go here this time: _____________________________________________________________________.

   Thanks, in advance, for finally answering my questions.

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

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Greg,

     FYI.  I'm Dr. Niederhut, a graduate of Harvard Medical School (Class of '83.)  Mr. Niederhut was my late father.

    Have you ever read Prouty's books-- The Secret Team and The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK?

    You never answered that question, (above) but, judging from your several erroneous comments about Prouty and his work, I'm assuming that the answer is, "no."  Correct? 

    So, to begin, it's somewhat useless to discuss Prouty's work and his theories with someone who has never even read them.   (As for the George Johannides/Prouty incident, someone mentioned it on an older thread, and I must have misunderstood the context.)

     You say that I have gone strangely silent?  Huh?  Did you read my lengthy comment to Larry Hancock from last night (above?)

     What is your understanding of Prouty's analysis of the "secret team," and of Ed Lansdale's work with the CIA and Saigon Station?  Are you suggesting that Lansdale did not work with Allen Dulles and the CIA during his storied career?  🤣

    As for General Krulak's comments to Livingstone in 1990, has it occurred to you that Krulak may have been reluctant to stick his neck out as a whistleblower on the CIA assassination op in Dallas?

    My take is that Prouty and Krulak agreed on the photo identification of their colleague Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, but Krulak didn't want to be targeted for assassination by blowing the whistle.

    Meanwhile, as I requested after your original comments on this thread, please let us know which details of Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis" are inaccurate.

    Your answer could go here this time: _Answer: All of them.____________________________________________________________________.

   Thanks, in advance, for finally answering my questions.

Dr. Neiderhut,

I addressed you as “Mr. Neiderhut” simply because your moniker on this board does not reveal your first name. You graduated from Harvard Medical School? Congratulations 🎊🍾🎈 

I mean that sincerely.  However; it literally adds nothing to this discussion here unless by doing so you are implying that your education bonafides somehow make you an authority on the assassination. 
 

My comment about your silence was regarding your non response to my last post after I had sent you documents proving that Lansdale did NOT have the confidence of senior CIA officers in 1962.   I was well aware of your posts to Larry, but I was wondering why you had as yet responded to me.   That was it.

Frankly, I find it hilarious that you say it’s somewhat useless to engage me in a discussion if I haven’t read Prouty’s works, and then dive right in and do exactly that..(sigh)

So, in the spirit of cooperation here are my answers to your questions:

    Have you ever read Prouty's books-- The Secret Team and The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK?

No.  But that doesn’t mean I haven’t read about Prouty and his views.  I just  never got around to buying and reading any of his books.  To be honest, when I first found out about him being Stone’s Mr. X, I was intrigued.   I did some online reading about his theories.  It’s just that after doing my own research, I have come to disagree with his allegations especially as they relate to Ed Lansdale.

What is your understanding of Prouty's analysis of the "secret team," and of Ed Lansdale's work with the CIA and Saigon Station?  Are you suggesting that Lansdale did not work with Allen Dulles and the CIAduring his storied career?  🤣
 

I think I answered what I think of Prouty’s analysis of the “secret team”, but to clarify.. I don’t buy it.  
Now, for Ed Lansdale’s work for the CIA I am assuming you mean what he did in the Philippines and in Vietnam?

Yes. I believe he was there and it is well documented what he did over there by sources other than that of Fletcher Prouty.  

Do I believe that Ed Lansdale worked for Allen Dulles and the CIA during his storied career? Yes.  I am not suggesting that at all.  I believe he did contract work on assignment for the CIA in the Philippines and in Vietnam.

You do know who put Ed Lansdale in charge of Operation Mongoose, don’t you? 🤫 Hint: It wasn’t Allen Dulles 

It was John and Robert Kennedy.  
 

You do know what the CIA’s true feelings were about some of the hair brained schemes that Ed Lansdale came up with during his 1 year reign over Mongoose was don’t you?

Hint: It wasn’t good.  let’s just say that guys like Richard Helms, William K. Harvey, and Sam Halpern all pretty much treated Lansdale for the political appointee that he was and tried not to let Lansdale get in their way of doing things when it came to Cuba and Castro. 
 

So, my humble view remains that if Lansdale didn’t command the respect of William K.Harvey, then I firmly believe that he could not have been a part of any assassination plot involving CIA assets and officers.  I do put William Harvey on my suspect list. Ed Lansdale is not on that short list..

 

    As for General Krulak's comments to Livingstone in 1990, has it occurred to you that Krulak may have been reluctant to stick his neck out as a whistleblower on theCIA assassination op in Dallas?

    My take is that Prouty and Krulak agreed on the photo identification of their colleague Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, but Krulak didn't want to be targeted for assassination by blowing the whistle.
 

 

Answer: No.  That never occurred to me because I take Krulak’s actual words over what Fletcher Prouty claims Krulak told him.🤥

As for your assertion that Krulak kept quiet because he was afraid of being a target of an assassination is laughable.  Who’s the General afraid of getting hit by?  The ghost of Ed Lansdale?  (Yes, he too was already deceased by 1990)
Just so you know a tidbit about me, I am a combat veteran that served my country with distinction for 6 years active and 4 years inactive reserves.  I can tell you that in my view that I seriously doubt General Krulak held back for fear of his own life.. most if not all of us veterans are pretty good at defending ourselves and do not live our lives in fear of our own shadow.

Quid Pro Quo:  Now that you’ve gotten my answers, I am still waiting for your rebuttals to the 2 documents I sent you that underscore the fact that Lansdale was not well thought of within the ranks of the CIA by 1962.  (Allen Dulles notwithstanding of course)

I am ready to wait until hell freezes over if that’s what it takes…😁

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

     I just read your (above) documents, which I had never seen before.  Very interesting material, to say the least.

     The Mary Ferrell document, certainly, confirms that Ed Lansdale was a highly-esteemed, decorated CIA operative in Southeast Asia since 1949, following his OSS career in WWII.  It also confirms that he was a high-level Defense Department official from 1957-62 involved with CIA special ops (as was Prouty.)

      All of that is entirely consistent with Prouty's writings about Lansdale, Saigon Station, and the years leading up to JFK's assassination.

     But things seem to get murky in 1962.  According to your 1962 McManus document, Lansdale was put in charge of Operation Mongoose by the Kennedy brothers, but was viewed as a "kooky" outsider by CIA men like Helms and Harvey.

     And it's not clear from your two documents what exactly transpired between Lansdale and Helms after the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962.  We know that JFK cracked down on covert CIA ops against Cuba after negotiating an end to the Cuban Missile Crisis with Khrushchev.

     By late 1963, the decorated CIA star of Southeast Asian ops in the 1950s was, apparently, viewed by Richard Helms as a "persona non grata," inimical to CIA interests!  What was that about?  Does it mean that Lansdale was, in fact, implementing the JFK directive to shut down anti-Castro Cuban ops, or doing the opposite?

     Wasn't Harvey relieved of his duties in the anti-Castro ops and transferred to Europe at this point?

     In his Garrison letter, Prouty stated that Lansdale was actively involved at the time with a "Camelot" group that was opposed to JFK's Vietnam policy.  And he theorized that Lansdale was, ultimately, involved in a plot to re-direct the anti-Castro assassination ops to Dallas and the POTUS.

     Of course, if Lansdale and Helms were, in fact, on the outs in 1963 it, certainly, raises questions about how Lansdale and CIA personnel like Helms and Harvey could have cooperated in Dallas.

     My question, where would Allen Dulles have fit into the Lansdale/Helms picture in 1963?

     I have more questions than answers.

    

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

39 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

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.

Well, I will have to go back and re-read the excellent Tipping Point again. For some reason I am dubious about Martino, but I forget why.

It may be because first he was a state asset trying to blame Castro for the JFKA, and then he partially revealed the "real" plan which did not involve anyone by name in the CIA. And no clear discussions about how the CIA and others played an obfuscating role post-JFKA----and this may be the most important point.  

In other words, perhaps Martino was always in PR for the CIA, and that's about it. 

People who say they played a tangential role in the still-mysterious JFKA are always off-putting on some level (think E Howard Hunt) or that they have super-duper secret inside info, but are keeping it locked away (Richard Nagell). 

But that does not detract from the excellent and sustained work of Larry Hancock. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really appreciate this thread and the contributions herein.

Mr. Kooyman - I read your links from the ARRB and think they are very telling. It seems you think they prove that Lansdale did not have the confidence of Helms, Harvey and other CIA. How do you distinguish between truth and cover stories when you read testimony like that from McManus? I’m really glad you posted these. To me they imply a different interpretation than the one you stated. 
I am not particularly on the Prouty bandwagon, though as Mr. Niederhut points out he is a first hand witness to much. Nor am I carrying a torch for the Lansdale theory. I do find it intriguing and worth digging into. But I’m pretty good at sniffing out cya stories, and McManus smells bad. I would like to know why you find his testimony compelling? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benjamin, I'd have to refer you all the way back to SWHT talked for a detailed exposition on Martino, and why I take him seriously....including not only the two initially anonymous reports submitted to the HSCA by his close friends but alswo based on my own extensive inquiries with his son (you will find his story and observations on my web site).   That plus his key role instigating and actually participating in the TILT / Pawley mission into Cuba which was under the operational oversight of Robertson and Morales.

As to his coming forward, he certainly did not and never expected what little he did say to become public, nor did his wife or his family who had both kept certain of his actions suggesting foreknowledge even from the HSCA - until after his wife's death.

What I can say is that for me his credibility was enhanced by the fact that never even in private did he overplay his own role,  which he described strictly as a courier, having only been given some very general remarks in regard to Oswald being a patsy and not an active participant.

What I have resolved for myself is that the only contact he had within the CIA was David Morales, and that went as far back as his time in Cuba.  Otherwise he was angry with basically everyone he felt had abandoned him in Cuba, especially the American embassy staff there. In that regard we have extended insights into his own extreme anti-Castro views in both his book and his record.

As to his post-assassination efforts to blame a conspiracy on Castro, those were entirely in sync with what the DRE was doing as well as some of his associates such as Sturgis - basically all trying to put into play what had been in the plan to point towards Castro but which fell apart with Oswald's arrest.

But all that is superficial, just a part of what I go into in SWHT and really only refer to in Tipping Point.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Benjamin, I'd have to refer you all the way back to SWHT talked for a detailed exposition on Martino, and why I take him seriously....including not only the two initially anonymous reports submitted to the HSCA by his close friends but alswo based on my own extensive inquiries with his son (you will find his story and observations on my web site).   That plus his key role instigating and actually participating in the TILT / Pawley mission into Cuba which was under the operational oversight of Robertson and Morales.

As to his coming forward, he certainly did not and never expected what little he did say to become public, nor did his wife or his family who had both kept certain of his actions suggesting foreknowledge even from the HSCA - until after his wife's death.

What I can say is that for me his credibility was enhanced by the fact that never even in private did he overplay his own role,  which he described strictly as a courier, having only been given some very general remarks in regard to Oswald being a patsy and not an active participant.

What I have resolved for myself is that the only contact he had within the CIA was David Morales, and that went as far back as his time in Cuba.  Otherwise he was angry with basically everyone he felt had abandoned him in Cuba, especially the American embassy staff there. In that regard we have extended insights into his own extreme anti-Castro views in both his book and his record.

As to his post-assassination efforts to blame a conspiracy on Castro, those were entirely in sync with what the DRE was doing as well as some of his associates such as Sturgis - basically all trying to put into play what had been in the plan to point towards Castro but which fell apart with Oswald's arrest.

But all that is superficial, just a part of what I go into in SWHT and really only refer to in Tipping Point.

 

 

Larry - maybe I’ve asked you this before. I have certainly posted generally that I don’t think killing JFK was necessary if the aim of the conspiracy was to alter Cuba policy. Wouldn’t an attempted assassination by someone linked to Castro have been enough? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Larry - maybe I’ve asked you this before. I have certainly posted generally that I don’t think killing JFK was necessary if the aim of the conspiracy was to alter Cuba policy. Wouldn’t an attempted assassination by someone linked to Castro have been enough? 

Hi Paul,  I tried to develop the actual impetus plus the motives in much more detail than previously in Tipping Point,  the fundamental, immediate motive was to kill JFK before he began what was most likely to have been a quick and successful negotiation (at Castro's request) with Castro to oust the Russians and take Cuba neutral while restoring relations, especially economic relations with the United States. I cite multiple State Dept personnel involved in the outreach who reached that conclusion after the assassination.  Castro was so upset with the Russians and so committed to a restoration of economic relations that he offered the same deal to Johnson.

So, would an attempted assassination have done it, turned JFK quickly and aggressively against Castro...perhaps so if the frame was solid enough to convince JFK after what would have obviously been a very in depth investigation... but that would have required an iron clad frame pointing not just to a crazed Castro sympathizer but to Castro or his agents directly.  The risk of JFK being alive and not easily fooled would have been huge.

So, quickly sabotaging the pending negotiations -  which would likely have left the exiles in exile - was the impetus, and at one level the motive for the senior plotters, but for those directly involved it was fundamentally  revenge over yet one more betrayal.  Those people considered JFK a traitor and wanted him dead, policy and strategy were not the driving motives for them. 

Thinking about it I should add one more point, this is not me coming up with a hypothesis on the aims or motives (or plan for that matter),  what I've tried to do is consolidate the remarks from people that were involved or heard from them about the attack - so as far as to replicating their thought process or what was necessary and what not, that would be just speculation on my part.  I've tried to capture and describe motive, impetus and what happened from the sources I ultimately found credible - and consistent - and explore in detail, that's the closest I can get.  

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Benjamin, I'd have to refer you all the way back to SWHT talked for a detailed exposition on Martino, and why I take him seriously....including not only the two initially anonymous reports submitted to the HSCA by his close friends but alswo based on my own extensive inquiries with his son (you will find his story and observations on my web site).   That plus his key role instigating and actually participating in the TILT / Pawley mission into Cuba which was under the operational oversight of Robertson and Morales.

As to his coming forward, he certainly did not and never expected what little he did say to become public, nor did his wife or his family who had both kept certain of his actions suggesting foreknowledge even from the HSCA - until after his wife's death.

What I can say is that for me his credibility was enhanced by the fact that never even in private did he overplay his own role,  which he described strictly as a courier, having only been given some very general remarks in regard to Oswald being a patsy and not an active participant.

What I have resolved for myself is that the only contact he had within the CIA was David Morales, and that went as far back as his time in Cuba.  Otherwise he was angry with basically everyone he felt had abandoned him in Cuba, especially the American embassy staff there. In that regard we have extended insights into his own extreme anti-Castro views in both his book and his record.

As to his post-assassination efforts to blame a conspiracy on Castro, those were entirely in sync with what the DRE was doing as well as some of his associates such as Sturgis - basically all trying to put into play what had been in the plan to point towards Castro but which fell apart with Oswald's arrest.

But all that is superficial, just a part of what I go into in SWHT and really only refer to in Tipping Point.

 

 

LH-

I live overseas now and getting paper copies of books very difficult. But I will attempt to to re-read SWHT anyway, by hook or crook.

Thanks again for all the serious work you have done on the JFKA.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 11:33 PM, 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?  🤦‍♂️ 

 

 

- It’s an unsolved crime. Discussion is important, so much of the information gained is because many many people have talked through theories, some valid, some not. If you think the names you mention were not influenced in their thinking by others; then you’re mistaken. If you’re not bought into this theory, it shouldn’t irk or agitate you, just scroll on past, it’s as easy as that. 

- What were Prouty’s motivations for lying or misleading people? Book sales? Fame? 

- Do you have some issues with Lansdale being involved, or just it just seem far fetched? What are his credentials? Is he someone who might be useful in a coup d’etat? Or, someone who wouldn’t be of use? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benjamin, over the years we have been unable to cope with Amazon's rules about the Kindle version so even if one person objected to its quality they would take it down,  we might get it back up with a new version then the same thing would happen again....sorry, its been frustrating to say the least.

While I can't offer you the details and substantiation that is in the book about Martino's connections to Morales (which went on after the assassination) or some of the other points that are in the book, I can offer you this synopsis of what his son saw - which took some years to get him to put on paper,  saying it was all uncomfortable for him would be an understatement.  Perhaps it will help some:

http://www.larry-hancock.com/documents/chapter 01/Events59-63.pdf

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Larry. A very good insight of what was happening before and after the assassination. One little item sticks out from the rest. Why did Martello tell his son to take a sickie from school the very day JFK was assassinated? A very unusual thing for a dad to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

- It’s an unsolved crime. Discussion is important, so much of the information gained is because many many people have talked through theories, some valid, some not. If you think the names you mention were not influenced in their thinking by others; then you’re mistaken. If you’re not bought into this theory, it shouldn’t irk or agitate you, just scroll on past, it’s as easy as that. 

- What were Prouty’s motivations for lying or misleading people? Book sales? Fame? 

- Do you have some issues with Lansdale being involved, or just it just seem far fetched? What are his credentials? Is he someone who might be useful in a coup d’etat? Or, someone who wouldn’t be of use? 

Chris,

     It's important to note that Col. Fletcher Prouty has been subjected to a concerted smear campaign in the media-- in the same way that Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone have been smeared for trying to uncover the truth about the JFK assassination.  (Prouty consulted with both Garrison and Oliver Stone in his lifetime.)

    That is why it is important for people to study Prouty's own books and commentaries as primary source history, rather than relying on the CIA disinformation about Prouty on the internet.

    My "psychiatric" take on Prouty is that he was an honest, conscientious whistleblower who disclosed inside information about the CIA, Vietnam, and the JFK assassination out of genuine concern for his country and humanity.  IMO, his efforts to bring this information to light had nothing to do with money or fame.  In fact, he was sticking his neck out, and would have been more prudent to remain silent.

    Not surprisingly, Prouty was identified as a serious threat to the CIA, and was targeted as a whistleblower who needed to be smeared and discredited.

    As for General Krulak, I believe that he privately concurred with Prouty in identifying Lansdale in the Dealey Plaza photos, but did not want to be outed publicly as a whistleblower in the case.

    In other words, Prouty was telling the truth about Krulak and the Lansdale photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Benjamin, over the years we have been unable to cope with Amazon's rules about the Kindle version so even if one person objected to its quality they would take it down,  we might get it back up with a new version then the same thing would happen again....sorry, its been frustrating to say the least.

While I can't offer you the details and substantiation that is in the book about Martino's connections to Morales (which went on after the assassination) or some of the other points that are in the book, I can offer you this synopsis of what his son saw - which took some years to get him to put on paper,  saying it was all uncomfortable for him would be an understatement.  Perhaps it will help some:

http://www.larry-hancock.com/documents/chapter 01/Events59-63.pdf

 

 

Yes, I have now read the piece. Certainly interesting, although some expressions like "they are going to kill him" might just refer to politics, vicious op-eds and ads, hostile crowds, thrown eggs, that sort of thing. 

Actually, Morales playing a role in the JFKA fits with my idea that the JFKA was planned and executed on a lower level, even by CIA assets, but that the CIA and others had to spend the the next decades burying the truth, and that was "our own guys did it."   This also raises the unseemly specter that the CIA worked levers to have Ruby do what he did. 

One still has to explain the CIA biography build of LHO, and what LHO was doing in the TSBD. That is not something Morales could pull off.  And as I have said, to make LHO the patsy you have to make sure he is not down on the street waving hello at JFK.

I will send you a PM also. 

 

 

 

 

 

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...