Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

I'll try to respond to both Ray and Benjamin in one post.

Yes Ray, Ed Martino thought it was extremely strange and certainly had never happened before.  Afterwards he had two thoughts, first off his Dad had made a couple of remarks beforehand that might have gotten undue attention if Ed had been at school, heard the news and made some unthinking remark about his Dad talking about that just yesterday....who knows, but if a classmate repeated that and for some reason it got to the FBI I suspect it would have been uncomfortable at best.   The second thought was that his Dad was already a little conflicted - and became much more so in later years, feeling he and some of his friends had been "used" to some extent, promised things that did not happen.  Sitting around watching TV for the news out of Texas might have been both tense, stressful and ....beats me.  I tend to think he realized he had said some things, even little things, that he didn't want repeated outside the house that day.

Benjamin, certainly that is a good take on the wording, by itself its simply suggestive, combined with having Ed stay home and the things that John apparently said to his wife its probably more.  However I would never have taken something this limited to corroborate Martino's remarks to his friends and their contacts with the HSCA.  The rest is in SWHT, this was just the best I could give you outside the book.  The Morales connections are much more extensive, and indicative of Martino having a role, not to mention his links to Ruby's associates via the Havana casino connections.

"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 attempt to address this in Tipping Point, by detailing the ways in which both the DRE and the CIA were using Oswald beginning in August.  However a much more specific take on that is upcoming in the Red Bird leads study from David and myself.  It offers a very precise scenario for who was creating an image for Oswald, who was in direct contact with him from New Orleans though Houston and on to Dallas and what was anticipated as the final step in controlling him on November 22 and setting an absolute Castro frame.  Neither David nor I will be able to swear that is what really happened but its a pretty tight scenario with names and dates to extent what is in Tipping Point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For those hypotheses referring to a lower level CIA plot….

 

How does a low level plot manage to get flag staff (and probably even JCS) officers into the autopsy room directing the operation?

 

How does a low level plot get the intelligence agencies to remove the flash warning on Oswald?

 

How does a low level plot have at least 1, but possibly 2-3 other similar plots involving different people and involve state department cover up help in the Chicago case?

 

How does a low level plot get the secret service to illegally take the Presidents body at gunpoint?

 

How does a low level plot get a civilian Dulles into a CIA facility that weekend doing god knows what?

 

There are many more of these types of things, but without veering too deep… if the “official” narrative of this case and the 3 others like it at the same timeframe is to lie about the circumstances 50+ years later, a logical supposition would be that the forces with the most control over public information flow would be in some way responsible. Considering those forces are also the same forces with access to the alphabet agencies, I see this discussion as possibly intriguing, but ultimately limited in usefulness. If we can never get access to the critical information that would definitively answer these questions, we can never 100% know where the plot started and ended. Even if we could track it concretely to Dulles, you will never know if David Rockefeller asked him to do it in some way or not. Does anyone think the Bilderbergers were upset about the murder? 
 

In terms of history, viewing the 60’s assassinations as separate events is a shallow analysis that misses a big forest that is too important in understanding the modern world. In my opinion of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

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.  

It does make absolute sense that the on the ground plotters wanted him dead, period. 
Would you call Oswald’s frame as the murderer iron clad? When one controls most media outlets, and the Oval Office is on board, it’s relatively easy to control the narrative. I don’t think a frame up of Oswald as a Castro agent would have been ironclad, but I feel certain they would have been successful. The groundwork was there, and once the narrative had been set in motion, such as ‘lone gunman’ was, and cautionary tales infused into public officials minds about the danger of nuclear conflict, as it likewise was, the media lines up behind the official story, as they did. 
I still think it at least a possibility that there was a hijacked operation, turned deadly by more radical plotters. It would help explain how so many people seemingly got on board, and why they kept their mouths shut afterwards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 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,

 I often do just that..scroll on by.  In this case, I saw people posting on things that were in my view long ago discredited and I decided to speak my mind. If people on this forum want to state a position about a pet theory, they should be prepared to back their position up with facts.  That’s what a healthy debate is all about. Or, would you prefer to dwell in the depths of an echo chamber?

Personally,  I would prefer that some here discuss what researchers like Larry Hancock, David Boylan,Bill Kelley,Bill Simpich, John Newman, Alan Dale, Jefferson Morley and others the merits and details of their latest works.  
 

Better yet, it would be a welcome change to see a thread started about any one of the thousands of document releases from 2017/18 and have a discussion about what they entail and how they may fit or not fit on the overall case.  

To me, that’s what moves the football closer to the goal in my view.  
 

It’s what I hope the younger folks on this forum will endeavor to tackle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

It does make absolute sense that the on the ground plotters wanted him dead, period. 
Would you call Oswald’s frame as the murderer iron clad? When one controls most media outlets, and the Oval Office is on board, it’s relatively easy to control the narrative. I don’t think a frame up of Oswald as a Castro agent would have been ironclad, but I feel certain they would have been successful. The groundwork was there, and once the narrative had been set in motion, such as ‘lone gunman’ was, and cautionary tales infused into public officials minds about the danger of nuclear conflict, as it likewise was, the media lines up behind the official story, as they did. 
I still think it at least a possibility that there was a hijacked operation, turned deadly by more radical plotters. It would help explain how so many people seemingly got on board, and why they kept their mouths shut afterwards. 

My current view is that the Oswald segment was certainly hijacked, overlaid on CI and propaganda operations that started with the DRE and escalated with JMWAVE SAS personnel.  That is what is being covered up in withholding the Case Officer files.  Along side that I think several people, including Ruby, were brought in with the story of a false flag operation and were shocked by what really happened...and knew how much at risk they suddenly were.  Basically the idea of a false flag attack was a type of cover in and of itself for the plotters. 

More to come on a possible scenario for the Oswald frame in the upcoming Red Bird leads monograph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Greg Kooyman said:

Chris,

 I often do just that..scroll on by.  In this case, I saw people posting on things that were in my view long ago discredited and I decided to speak my mind. If people on this forum want to state a position about a pet theory, they should be prepared to back their position up with facts.  That’s what a healthy debate is all about. Or, would you prefer to dwell in the depths of an echo chamber?

Personally,  I would prefer that some here discuss what researchers like Larry Hancock, David Boylan,Bill Kelley,Bill Simpich, John Newman, Alan Dale, Jefferson Morley and others the merits and details of their latest works.  
 

Better yet, it would be a welcome change to see a thread started about any one of the thousands of document releases from 2017/18 and have a discussion about what they entail and how they may fit or not fit on the overall case.  

To me, that’s what moves the football closer to the goal in my view.  
 

It’s what I hope the younger folks on this forum will endeavor to tackle.

Try reading Prouty's books, Greg, before posting more erroneous opinions about the man.  You have, apparently, been drinking the McAdams internet kool aid targeting Prouty as a whistleblower.

Prouty's primary source historical observations about events happening with the Joint Chiefs, Vietnam, Lansdale, and the CIA in the 1950s and during JFK's administration haven't been "discredited" at all.

Nor has Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis."

I must have missed your imaginary refutation of Prouty's hypothesis.

The fact that Helms and Harvey had personality conflicts with Lansdale running Operation Mongoose doesn't prove that Lansdale was not involved in the Dallas op.   Does it?  You seem to be overlooking the fact that both Helms and Lansdale were favorites of their old Company boss, Allen Dulles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

I think that’s the big issue here, people haven’t read his stuff or listened to his audio. 
 

For whatever my opinion is worth in the psychology field, I agree, he seems absolutely credible and genuine, infinitely more so than many of the politicians that people here are voting for. 
 

The same destruction of reputation Garrison, Stone and Sprague started to experience, seems clearly applied to Prouty. The trouble is; that’s too wider conspiracy for many here, ie the media being involved, despite the CIA’s operation Mocking Bird and so on. 
 

There are few in a better position to have an opinion on these things, than Prouty. I believe he was honest. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

For those hypotheses referring to a lower level CIA plot….

 

How does a low level plot manage to get flag staff (and probably even JCS) officers into the autopsy room directing the operation?

 

How does a low level plot get the intelligence agencies to remove the flash warning on Oswald?

 

How does a low level plot have at least 1, but possibly 2-3 other similar plots involving different people and involve state department cover up help in the Chicago case?

 

How does a low level plot get the secret service to illegally take the Presidents body at gunpoint?

 

How does a low level plot get a civilian Dulles into a CIA facility that weekend doing god knows what?

 

There are many more of these types of things, but without veering too deep… if the “official” narrative of this case and the 3 others like it at the same timeframe is to lie about the circumstances 50+ years later, a logical supposition would be that the forces with the most control over public information flow would be in some way responsible. Considering those forces are also the same forces with access to the alphabet agencies, I see this discussion as possibly intriguing, but ultimately limited in usefulness. If we can never get access to the critical information that would definitively answer these questions, we can never 100% know where the plot started and ended. Even if we could track it concretely to Dulles, you will never know if David Rockefeller asked him to do it in some way or not. Does anyone think the Bilderbergers were upset about the murder? 
 

In terms of history, viewing the 60’s assassinations as separate events is a shallow analysis that misses a big forest that is too important in understanding the modern world. In my opinion of course.

Dennis B-

You ask tough questions.

My answer is, there was a lot of complicity but after the fact. 

The CIA simply could not have the true story revealed, that even low-level CIA assets had done the JFKA.

Or that the CIA set up a false flag op to conduct a fake but unsuccessful assassination of the President, that somehow became real. 

After the fact, the "we must avoid a nuclear war" meme took hold, as did "only lefty-loser-commies would defend LHO, or plant other stories" meme.  Mark Lane was treated like dirt, and could not even get his work published in the US. 

The FBI build the case, including fabricating evidence, against LHO "for the national good," and the WC tagged along. 

Everybody felt the pressure. Kenneth O'Donnell worked for JFK, was a JFK loyalist, and rode in the car behind JFK on No. 22. 

O'Donnell told the Warren Commission that the shooting had come from the rear. He later told his friend, Tip O'Neill, that he had been under pressure from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to say this. In fact, he believed that the gunfire had come from in front of the motorcade. O'Donnell commented: "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family." This story was backed up by David F. Powers, who was sitting next to O'Donnell in the motorcade.

I tend to favor JFKA explanations that involve a very limited number of participants, as in five or less.

Some explanations have pre-JFKA participation by dozens, across organizational lines, including Secret Service, Joint Chiefs, CIA, Army intel, Dallas Police Department, and FBI. 

This suggests that the world's premier spy agency (CIA) had involved itself in a plan with dozens of participants, in several "leaky" agencies, to assassinate the US President.  

Well, maybe. But the odds get longer and longer against such a plan, the more pre-JFKA participants are involved. 

Edited by Benjamin Cole
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

My current view is that the Oswald segment was certainly hijacked, overlaid on CI and propaganda operations that started with the DRE and escalated with JMWAVE SAS personnel.  That is what is being covered up in withholding the Case Officer files.  Along side that I think several people, including Ruby, were brought in with the story of a false flag operation and were shocked by what really happened...and knew how much at risk they suddenly were.  Basically the idea of a false flag attack was a type of cover in and of itself for the plotters. 

More to come on a possible scenario for the Oswald frame in the upcoming Red Bird leads monograph.

Thanks to your work and that of many others I've come to think Ruby was shocked by the actual assassination, e.g. Want to go watch the fireworks quickly turned into realization of the depth of his involvement in it.  He went down to watch the fireworks from afar at Commerce and Houston, heard them thinking the scare JFK into attacking Cuba plan had went off well.  Then was shocked when he soon learned the President had actually been shot and killed.  His getting sick at sister Eva's, throwing up I think, supports this idea.  But I also think he in particular was further shocked when given an offer he couldn't refuse in the aftermath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Greg Kooyman said:

Chris,

 I often do just that..scroll on by.  In this case, I saw people posting on things that were in my view long ago discredited and I decided to speak my mind. If people on this forum want to state a position about a pet theory, they should be prepared to back their position up with facts.  That’s what a healthy debate is all about. Or, would you prefer to dwell in the depths of an echo chamber?

Personally,  I would prefer that some here discuss what researchers like Larry Hancock, David Boylan,Bill Kelley,Bill Simpich, John Newman, Alan Dale, Jefferson Morley and others the merits and details of their latest works.  
 

Better yet, it would be a welcome change to see a thread started about any one of the thousands of document releases from 2017/18 and have a discussion about what they entail and how they may fit or not fit on the overall case.  

To me, that’s what moves the football closer to the goal in my view.  
 

It’s what I hope the younger folks on this forum will endeavor to tackle.

Hi Greg, 

I think we're all here for debate or should be. If remarks are disparaging or discourteous, then we risk descending into the petty insults, as opposed to constructive debate. I think your tone in the reply to me is why you have so many replies. I am no shrinking violet or seeker of an echo chamber, as you'll see in other threads. I am perfectly prepared to have conviction about things on these topics that are not widely accepted by the herd. 

You are more than welcome to start a thread on the 2017/18 document releases and have discourse/debate on them. I am sure you'd receive some engagement. One of the problems with those releases is that the authorities have had 50+ years to cleanse the data, you'd be relying on incompetence to find anything useful. n fact, there may even be plants in those docs to influence us. It would be discourteous for me to say; it never ceases to amaze me how much store people put in classified record releases by the government, to be authentic and not highly screened, redacted and manipulated. 

 

I've read the AARB related critique of Prouty, is it a case that you can't look past that? Is it not important that he had a day to day working relationship with some of the people we are alleging as to have been involved? That he was a senior official? I can tell you, I could 100% ID my father, brother, best mates etc from a photo from the back, hairline, posture, etc. 
Where is the upside for Prouty to allege this stuff? He becomes a social pariah, could he lose pensions? His reputation at stake. The risk to his mortality in saying such things? For what, book sales and a bit of worship from assassination researchers? It's an illogical move in my opinion. 

Thanks

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Greg, 

I think we're all here for debate or should be. If remarks are disparaging or discourteous, then we risk descending into the petty insults, as opposed to constructive debate. I think your tone in the reply to me is why you have so many replies. I am no shrinking violet or seeker of an echo chamber, as you'll see in other threads. I am perfectly prepared to have conviction about things on these topics that are not widely accepted by the herd. 

You are more than welcome to start a thread on the 2017/18 document releases and have discourse/debate on them. I am sure you'd receive some engagement. One of the problems with those releases is that the authorities have had 50+ years to cleanse the data, you'd be relying on incompetence to find anything useful. n fact, there may even be plants in those docs to influence us. It would be discourteous for me to say; it never ceases to amaze me how much store people put in classified record releases by the government, to be authentic and not highly screened, redacted and manipulated. 

 

I've read the AARB related critique of Prouty, is it a case that you can't look past that? Is it not important that he had a day to day working relationship with some of the people we are alleging as to have been involved? That he was a senior official? I can tell you, I could 100% ID my father, brother, best mates etc from a photo from the back, hairline, posture, etc. 
Where is the upside for Prouty to allege this stuff? He becomes a social pariah, could he lose pensions? His reputation at stake. The risk to his mortality in saying such things? For what, book sales and a bit of worship from assassination researchers? It's an illogical move in my opinion. 

Thanks

Chris

I’m completely in agreement. Not to change the subject but to highlight one of your points about not blindly trusting document releases, it seems most people here accept the CIA’s latter day revelation that QJWIN was someone named Mankel, after blacking out his name for decades, this despite Hancock and others pointing to evidence suggesting it didn’t refer only to an individual, but to an operation with multiple locations. Well, maybe it is Jose Marie Andre Mankel, but I’d sure like to see some biographical info on him that comes from sources other than CIA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,  in that regard I would have to refer you to Newman's work in finding a very early document out of CIA a domestic office in California that refers to the use of the crypt.  I think he makes a pretty good case that it was used multiple times;  certainly it was used in Europe as well.  I would defer to his research on that - you should definitely take a look at it.  I've not followed it beyond that point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2021 at 10:18 PM, W. Niederhut said:

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?

Well, such a statement would reflect horribly on Prouty, seeing as Joannides died in 1990.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Well, such a statement would reflect horribly on Prouty, seeing as Joannides died in 1990.

Matt,

    That mistake about Joannides and the ARRB transcript was already pointed out by Greg What's-His-Face (above.)

    It's a straw man.

     Now, pray tell us what Prouty's ARRB transcript has to do with the "Lansdale Hypothesis" outlined in Prouty's letter to Jim Garrison.   I'd love to hear your thoughts about the actual subject of this thread.

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...