Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Actually for my money this one gives the most in depth insight into Prouty's own direct experiences and view into how SACSA and the Joint Chiefs actually supported special operations:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/353644280879?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A14MhaS4I4Q0OY8lprYDzvoQ65&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=353644280879&targetid=1262843335329&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9026216&poi=&campaignid=12519034798&mkgroupid=121028924334&rlsatarget=pla-1262843335329&abcId=9300518&merchantid=191373216&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3LTuw9v_8gIVCbjICh1EgwO2EAQYAiABEgKydvD_BwE

also:

http://www.prouty.org/ratville.html

A little pricey now its true, but I for one learned the most from it - and it was a bit cheaper when I first got it...grin.

Out of my pay grade in retirement.  Any chance of a synopsis?  

Thanks for the second link.  Just started reading the part about Prouty on Dulles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A synopsis is difficult since what I took from it largely has to do with the organization and logistics of support for covert operations which required either actual American military elements - transport aircraft and ships primarily, weapons and ammunition on those occasions when the surrogate forces being used in deniable actions could be supplied with American materials consistent with the weapons they could get locally.  The book deals with how Prouty helped set up the bookkeeping and tracking systems handled to source and track American supplies transferred to the CIA for covert ops....and where to store them, how to transport them etc.  It also gives some good insight into how that evolved under the Joint Chiefs staff, how it was organized there, who reported to whom etc - given that all services were involved on some occasions.

It was very helpful to me in researching and writing Shadow Warfare but also brought home that such support was relatively minor compared to the weapons and transport support that the CIA needed that could not come from the American military due to deniability issues. It also brought home the immense cost of deniable operations using American personnel and equipment.

In regard to this thread, it helps to understand why Prouty would know and be able to comment on from direct experience as compared to what he appears to simply suspected or speculated about.  Its really important to have a baseline to evaluate where one starts and the other begins and this was also very helpful to me in that regard since at that time I was reading everything Prouty related pretty much concurrently.   In reading Prouty on Dallas or even on Vietnam it is important to read Prouty on his own day job. Just as it is in regard to reading his remarks to the ARRB - and all their internal memorandum on how that came about and how they processed and responded to it.  In my view their military staff investigator was objective and extremely diligent and dogged - similar Horne on the medical area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

A synopsis is difficult since what I took from it largely has to do with the organization and logistics of support for covert operations which required either actual American military elements - transport aircraft and ships primarily, weapons and ammunition on those occasions when the surrogate forces being used in deniable actions could be supplied with American materials consistent with the weapons they could get locally.  The book deals with how Prouty helped set up the bookkeeping and tracking systems handled to source and track American supplies transferred to the CIA for covert ops....and where to store them, how to transport them etc.  It also gives some good insight into how that evolved under the Joint Chiefs staff, how it was organized there, who reported to whom etc - given that all services were involved on some occasions.

It was very helpful to me in researching and writing Shadow Warfare but also brought home that such support was relatively minor compared to the weapons and transport support that the CIA needed that could not come from the American military due to deniability issues. It also brought home the immense cost of deniable operations using American personnel and equipment.

In regard to this thread, it helps to understand why Prouty would know and be able to comment on from direct experience as compared to what he appears to simply suspected or speculated about.  Its really important to have a baseline to evaluate where one starts and the other begins and this was also very helpful to me in that regard since at that time I was reading everything Prouty related pretty much concurrently.   In reading Prouty on Dallas or even on Vietnam it is important to read Prouty on his own day job. Just as it is in regard to reading his remarks to the ARRB - and all their internal memorandum on how that came about and how they processed and responded to it.  In my view their military staff investigator was objective and extremely diligent and dogged - similar Horne on the medical area.

Sounds like you are giving Prouty great credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thanks Chuck, that's always good to hear and I think David and I are going to be coming up with something very interesting this Fall in regard to our Red Bird leads paper....its gone far deeper than I might have imagined and I hope that we can offer something new (and probably highly controversial) in regard to the manipulation of Lee Oswald as a Castro agent (yes that didn't play as planned but it doesn't mean it wasn't in the plan.

Now in regard to Joe's remark, I might as well just be blunt and stop beating around the bush.  The following is strictly my personal assessment and not likely to change at this point.

1) As previously stated I find Prouty very credible when he talks about his day job, in that regard he is a very good source on how American military support for certain covert operations was organized and carried out from a logistics stand point. So...first hand experience, good stuff and very helpful.

2) After much research I found him not to be credible in regard to his remarks and purported insights in regard to the actual events in Dallas on November 22, which is one reason that I spent the time putting all the ARRB material (not just his interview) on a CD and making it available via JFK Lancer a long time ago.  And it was not just the ARRB, it was more work involving some of my own research on the 112th rumor.

3) Initially I bought in to a good amount of his general geopolitical observations - over time I became a lot less sanguine about that and feel many of them were pretty speculative. That's one of the reasons I referenced some other sources on this thread, particularly in regard to Vietnam.  But that is not a dig at him per se, we simply know a lot more about such things now than he did when he was giving commentary on them - not personal experience, commentary.

4) As to his JFK conspiracy hypothesis - its as good as a dozen others coming from people in D.C. over the years.  He was certainly not alone in being suspicious, or even seeing conspiracy in some of the directions he pointed out.  And he provided a few leads, names, groups to look at, etc.  So did others.  So his hypothesis passes the test of general credibility and actually of some consistency given others had the same suspicions.

But to be even blunter a hypothesis is only  "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."  Its very difficult to disprove a hypothesis which is essentially a suspicion.  So my problem is this - where is all the work on his hypothesis, who treated it seriously, researched it in detail and wrote about that research?  I asked once before, where is that body of work?  If you champion his hypothesis you have the task of examining it and attempting to develop it into something provable, at least a theory or scenario with as much additional detail as you can develop - at least take it to the theory level where it can be critiqued.

So in regard to a Prouty hypothesis....great....he registered it and gave you some leads,don't just endorse it,  run with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

First, thanks Chuck, that's always good to hear and I think David and I are going to be coming up with something very interesting this Fall in regard to our Red Bird leads paper....its gone far deeper than I might have imagined and I hope that we can offer something new (and probably highly controversial) in regard to the manipulation of Lee Oswald as a Castro agent (yes that didn't play as planned but it doesn't mean it wasn't in the plan.

Now in regard to Joe's remark, I might as well just be blunt and stop beating around the bush.  The following is strictly my personal assessment and not likely to change at this point.

1) As previously stated I find Prouty very credible when he talks about his day job, in that regard he is a very good source on how American military support for certain covert operations was organized and carried out from a logistics stand point. So...first hand experience, good stuff and very helpful.

2) After much research I found him not to be credible in regard to his remarks and purported insights in regard to the actual events in Dallas on November 22, which is one reason that I spent the time putting all the ARRB material (not just his interview) on a CD and making it available via JFK Lancer a long time ago.  And it was not just the ARRB, it was more work involving some of my own research on the 112th rumor.

3) Initially I bought in to a good amount of his general geopolitical observations - over time I became a lot less sanguine about that and feel many of them were pretty speculative. That's one of the reasons I referenced some other sources on this thread, particularly in regard to Vietnam.  But that is not a dig at him per se, we simply know a lot more about such things now than he did when he was giving commentary on them - not personal experience, commentary.

4) As to his JFK conspiracy hypothesis - its as good as a dozen others coming from people in D.C. over the years.  He was certainly not alone in being suspicious, or even seeing conspiracy in some of the directions he pointed out.  And he provided a few leads, names, groups to look at, etc.  So did others.  So his hypothesis passes the test of general credibility and actually of some consistency given others had the same suspicions.

But to be even blunter a hypothesis is only  "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."  Its very difficult to disprove a hypothesis which is essentially a suspicion.  So my problem is this - where is all the work on his hypothesis, who treated it seriously, researched it in detail and wrote about that research?  I asked once before, where is that body of work?  If you champion his hypothesis you have the task of examining it and attempting to develop it into something provable, at least a theory or scenario with as much additional detail as you can develop - at least take it to the theory level where it can be critiqued.

So in regard to a Prouty hypothesis....great....he registered it and gave you some leads,don't just endorse it,  run with it.

Excellent post Larry.  FWIW, I agree 1000%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

First, thanks Chuck, that's always good to hear and I think David and I are going to be coming up with something very interesting this Fall in regard to our Red Bird leads paper....its gone far deeper than I might have imagined and I hope that we can offer something new (and probably highly controversial) in regard to the manipulation of Lee Oswald as a Castro agent (yes that didn't play as planned but it doesn't mean it wasn't in the plan.

Now in regard to Joe's remark, I might as well just be blunt and stop beating around the bush.  The following is strictly my personal assessment and not likely to change at this point.

1) As previously stated I find Prouty very credible when he talks about his day job, in that regard he is a very good source on how American military support for certain covert operations was organized and carried out from a logistics stand point. So...first hand experience, good stuff and very helpful.

2) After much research I found him not to be credible in regard to his remarks and purported insights in regard to the actual events in Dallas on November 22, which is one reason that I spent the time putting all the ARRB material (not just his interview) on a CD and making it available via JFK Lancer a long time ago.  And it was not just the ARRB, it was more work involving some of my own research on the 112th rumor.

3) Initially I bought in to a good amount of his general geopolitical observations - over time I became a lot less sanguine about that and feel many of them were pretty speculative. That's one of the reasons I referenced some other sources on this thread, particularly in regard to Vietnam.  But that is not a dig at him per se, we simply know a lot more about such things now than he did when he was giving commentary on them - not personal experience, commentary.

4) As to his JFK conspiracy hypothesis - its as good as a dozen others coming from people in D.C. over the years.  He was certainly not alone in being suspicious, or even seeing conspiracy in some of the directions he pointed out.  And he provided a few leads, names, groups to look at, etc.  So did others.  So his hypothesis passes the test of general credibility and actually of some consistency given others had the same suspicions.

But to be even blunter a hypothesis is only  "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."  Its very difficult to disprove a hypothesis which is essentially a suspicion.  So my problem is this - where is all the work on his hypothesis, who treated it seriously, researched it in detail and wrote about that research?  I asked once before, where is that body of work?  If you champion his hypothesis you have the task of examining it and attempting to develop it into something provable, at least a theory or scenario with as much additional detail as you can develop - at least take it to the theory level where it can be critiqued.

So in regard to a Prouty hypothesis....great....he registered it and gave you some leads,don't just endorse it,  run with it.

Larry,

     You left out the central issue in your assessment of Prouty's theories about the CIA, Vietnam, and the JFK assassination. 

    To wit, Prouty was mainly interested in the issues relating to the drafting of JFK's NSAM 263, (a process that Prouty was directly involved in as a co-author of the McNamara/Taylor Report) and it's alteration in the 11/21/63 Honolulu draft of NSAM 273, which LBJ signed on 11/25/63, at the behest of McGeorge Bundy.  Motive.

    In fact, Prouty's speculations about the Dallas assassination logistics and the 112th were a minor, peripheral issue in his book about The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK.

     Prouty was also a high-level briefing officer in the Department of Defense in the early 60s and co-author of the Pentagon Papers and the McNamara/Taylor Report-- contrary to the claims by Ed Lansdale and the John McAdams propaganda insisting that Prouty was merely a pilot involved in arranging supplies for CIA special ops.

    Finally, you seem strangely silent about the orchestrated, lengthy smear campaign against Prouty-- at Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet.

    Any thoughts about why certain people have been so invested in impugning Prouty's reputation?

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

Actually I concluded with a comment on the "Lansdale Hypothesis", which you started the thread with - Prouty did provide some leads, he included some names, groups, references to "assets" and many things that could be researched and fleshed out.  Its seems a pretty broad brush scenario, more so than  "the the Mafia did it" or "LBJ and his lawyer did" it, than many hypotheses that have been expressed - it seems to have a very great many people were involved and either knowing the real goal or the cover story and had knowledge which they kept to themselves after the fact even it they had simply been fooled by the cover story of an provocation that would force action against Cuba .  Overall it could be considered a model for the "grand conspiracy" view of the conspiracy. 

What it lacks is specifics on a chronology, who actually was involved in what role; it references Lansdale's skills but does not say much about how he actually used them - in other words how does everything from the attack to the cover up specifically tie back to him as prime mover. 

So to the question in this thread, that was specifically what I addressed in Point #4 above - "4) As to his JFK conspiracy hypothesis - its as good as a dozen others coming from people in D.C. over the years.  He was certainly not alone in being suspicious, or even seeing conspiracy in some of the directions he pointed out.  And he provided a few leads, names, groups to look at, etc.  So did others.  So his hypothesis passes the test of general credibility and actually of some consistency given others had the same suspicions.

What more would you want as a comment on the general picture of a grand, institutional conspiracy driven by a single mastermind?  It could be true....but just expressing it doesn't make it so.

As to my thoughts on smearing his reputation, I do think a number of the claims he specifically made about Dallas, and later recanted - such as having specific training and personal experience with presidential protection - raised some general concerns, same on the stand down on the 112th.  Beyond that his hypothesis is very far ranging, and as far as I know he didn't go on to devote years to fleshing it out (for whatever reason) so the phrase "put up or shut up comes to mind".   Big claims used to demand big proof although that has gone out of style these days. But just because people challenged him doesn't make him either wrong or right.

So now my question -  where is the follow up to take his hypothesis and develop it with further research and facts and bring it all together for examination?  Are you working on it, have you built a team, are you working on a research paper, a book, adding details and proofs?  If not, do you plan to do that or is someone else taking point in developing his hypothesis?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Actually I concluded with a comment on the "Lansdale Hypothesis", which you started the thread with - Prouty did provide some leads, he included some names, groups, references to "assets" and many things that could be researched and fleshed out.  Its seems a pretty broad brush scenario, more so than  "the the Mafia did it" or "LBJ and his lawyer did" it, than many hypotheses that have been expressed - it seems to have a very great many people were involved and either knowing the real goal or the cover story and had knowledge which they kept to themselves after the fact even it they had simply been fooled by the cover story of an provocation that would force action against Cuba .  Overall it could be considered a model for the "grand conspiracy" view of the conspiracy. 

What it lacks is specifics on a chronology, who actually was involved in what role; it references Lansdale's skills but does not say much about how he actually used them - in other words how does everything from the attack to the cover up specifically tie back to him as prime mover. 

So to the question in this thread, that was specifically what I addressed in Point #4 above - "4) As to his JFK conspiracy hypothesis - its as good as a dozen others coming from people in D.C. over the years.  He was certainly not alone in being suspicious, or even seeing conspiracy in some of the directions he pointed out.  And he provided a few leads, names, groups to look at, etc.  So did others.  So his hypothesis passes the test of general credibility and actually of some consistency given others had the same suspicions.

What more would you want as a comment on the general picture of a grand, institutional conspiracy driven by a single mastermind?  It could be true....but just expressing it doesn't make it so.

As to my thoughts on smearing his reputation, I do think a number of the claims he specifically made about Dallas, and later recanted - such as having specific training and personal experience with presidential protection - raised some general concerns, same on the stand down on the 112th.  Beyond that his hypothesis is very far ranging, and as far as I know he didn't go on to devote years to fleshing it out (for whatever reason) so the phrase "put up or shut up comes to mind".   Big claims used to demand big proof although that has gone out of style these days. But just because people challenged him doesn't make him either wrong or right.

So now my question -  where is the follow up to take his hypothesis and develop it with further research and facts and bring it all together for examination?  Are you working on it, have you built a team, are you working on a research paper, a book, adding details and proofs?  If not, do you plan to do that or is someone else taking point in developing his hypothesis?

 

 

Larry,

     Your point about the the assassination logistics-- the "trees" -- is well taken. 

     But let's not overlook the forest for the trees. 

   1)   Col. Fletcher Prouty was a rare, high-level Department of Defense official in 1963 who blew the whistle on a likely motive of people within the "military-industrial complex" for murdering President Kennedy-- i.e., to escalate the war on communism in Vietnam rather than ending it.   In addition to his own writings and commentaries on the subject, he consulted directly with Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone-- two major pillars of the JFKA Truth movement.

      Were there any other high-level officials from the JFK administration who stepped forward?

     And the accuracy of Prouty's suspicions about the drafting of NSAM 263 and it's reversal by LBJ on 11/25/63 has now been corroborated by historical scholars -- e.g., Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, James DiEugenio, et.al.

2)   Prouty has, obviously, been targeted for years by an orchestrated smear campaign.  Let's all acknowledge that fact, rather than simply repeating the slander.

      It seems pretty obvious that he has been targeted precisely because he was a DoD whistle blower-- a man who knew too much, and lived to tell the story.

   

    

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to your question, there were a number of high level Admin figures that suspected conspiracy, perhaps even that level of conspiracy - I quote several of them in Tipping Point in terms of concerns and reasons to have them - some with specifics in regard to events they were personally involved in during 1963 that they felt might have related to a conspiracy.  In later years they did express their thoughts, some to investigators, and investigations - although not in the public since that Prouty eventually came to do.

I don't think I have repeated any slanderous remarks, the critiques I have made of smaller points have been documented for some time....I don't consider historical research slander.

Certainly he was a whistle blower, no doubt about that....which is why I keep obsessively asking who has been doing the research on the details and scenario he put forth in his whistle blowing?  

I've offered my assessments, I've called for someone or some group to actually take up his cause - I'm following my own leads but surely his strongest  proponents would be into fleshing out his hypothesis?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

As to your question, there were a number of high level Admin figures that suspected conspiracy, perhaps even that level of conspiracy - I quote several of them in Tipping Point in terms of concerns and reasons to have them - some with specifics in regard to events they were personally involved in during 1963 that they felt might have related to a conspiracy.  In later years they did express their thoughts, some to investigators, and investigations - although not in the public since that Prouty eventually came to do.

I don't think I have repeated any slanderous remarks, the critiques I have made of smaller points have been documented for some time....I don't consider historical research slander.

Certainly he was a whistle blower, no doubt about that....which is why I keep obsessively asking who has been doing the research on the details and scenario he put forth in his whistle blowing?  

I've offered my assessments, I've called for someone or some group to actually take up his cause - I'm following my own leads but surely his strongest  proponents would be into fleshing out his hypothesis?

 

I think Larry Hancock takes the necessary, circumspect approach to the JFKA. 

We all desire an explanation of the JFKA, both detailed in operation, and larger, in terms of motives.

When I offer an explanation of the JFKA, I state it is speculative. Lower-level anti-Castro Cubans  piggybacked on a false-flag operation in Dallas. BTW, there were something like 2,000 guys being trained in the anti-Castro efforts in the early 1960s, and who felt crossed by JFK (due in part to post Bay of Pigs CIA narratives).  If literally only one in a thousand of those guys decided to go to Dallas with lethal intent....

In this forum we generally apply a very high bar to "proving" LHO's involvement in the JFKA.  He is treated as innocent until proven guilty, and then some. 

Then, depending on author, the bar is dropped to the floor on a Lansdale, a Dulles, an LBJ, an Angleton. Dulles went to a CIA Camp Perry facility on Nov. 22, so he is guilty. 

Prouty has interesting insights to the Deep State. But reading his account of "Lansdale" smirking with the tramps as he walks by based on a photo....leaves me uneasy. We see the back of someone's head in the photo. This begs the question of why Lansdale would be walking the streets near Dealey Plaza in the aftermath of a planned assassination he orchestrated....

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

As to your question, there were a number of high level Admin figures that suspected conspiracy, perhaps even that level of conspiracy - I quote several of them in Tipping Point in terms of concerns and reasons to have them - some with specifics in regard to events they were personally involved in during 1963 that they felt might have related to a conspiracy.  In later years they did express their thoughts, some to investigators, and investigations - although not in the public since that Prouty eventually came to do.

I don't think I have repeated any slanderous remarks, the critiques I have made of smaller points have been documented for some time....I don't consider historical research slander.

Certainly he was a whistle blower, no doubt about that....which is why I keep obsessively asking who has been doing the research on the details and scenario he put forth in his whistle blowing?  

I've offered my assessments, I've called for someone or some group to actually take up his cause - I'm following my own leads but surely his strongest  proponents would be into fleshing out his hypothesis?

 

 

Well, Larry, as the saying goes, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  Hopefully, researchers will eventually be able to clarify the merits of Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis."

His observations about JFK, Vietnam, NSAM 263, and NSAM 273 were, certainly, a grand slam by a DoD whistle blower who was not a historian, per se, but a part of history.

And I'm glad that you have acknowledged that Prouty's reputation has been unfairly impugned by those mysterious people on the internet who aggressively edit Wikipedia articles relating to Deep State ops.

Why?  Because some people, evidently, tend to think of you as an erstwhile Prouty detractor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think its unfair to impugn all Prouty's information, especially as related to his work experience in supporting covert operations and with SACSA....I wish more folks had read that book I mentioned when it was a bit less expensive as I consider it valuable in regard to his direct, first hand knowledge of covert action.

Its also unfair to toss his hypothesis simply because it did grew out of general concerns he had about dangerous people in the institutions where he worked - I'd be silly to do that myself since I pursue some of those same individuals as suspects in my own work. But to reiterate, Prouty  was not the only highly placed figure that had suspicions about some of the people and groups he mentioned. What he did do is describe those suspicions on a broader scale and point to one individual as the point man in both the attack and the cover up (as I read the hypothesis that leads this thread).

On the other hand, some of his commentary and personal remarks have tended to create some antagonism and push back, take a look at the Army Colonel who wanted to sue him for defamation or dereliction of duty,  the Army had to stop him from doing so.  That is described in the full ARRB Prouty related work files which were not referenced as a resource in this thread

Admittedly I would count myself as being a critic of certain of his claims about events in Texas and Dallas - that has nothing to do with being a critic of his overall hypothesis since to me its really a collection of suspicions that has not been well enough researched and developed for me to have an opinion other than - maybe - once someone takes it to the point where that's possible, especially in regard to actually defining Lansdale's purported role and calling out specific activities that would support that view.

 

 

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Out of my pay grade in retirement.  Any chance of a synopsis?  

Thanks for the second link.  Just started reading the part about Prouty on Dulles.

The ratville link Larry provided is deep.  This section on Dulles (not really dealt with in the 1st 1/3) does illustrate Prouty's knowledge and operation in upper levels of the Pentagon/JCS and CIA.  Maybe he inflates his role in operations, who knows for sure.  He was there.  I find the insight fascinating and overall reliable  given the detail.

Understanding Special Operations (prouty.org)

"Deception is an extremely important function (of intelligence operations), rarely talked about.  I don't know anyone who's ever written about it properly."

"In other words I'm not going to depend on Allan Dulles and the CIA . . . NSAM 55 was more important during the Kennedy administration than anything else than the assassination.  In fact it may have caused a major move toward that deadly decision."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its time for me to close on this thread, I've given my best assessments and tried to be as open as possible.  What I do need to say though - for the record - is that in almost thirty years, I have not myself found evidence of the grand conspiracy outlined in the Prouty hypothesis nor of Lansdale's personal role in driving either the attack and its tactical elements in Dallas, the manipulation and framing of Lee Oswald nor all the elements of the cover up (damage control in my parlance).  Perhaps that exists, perhaps some good researcher/s could develop his suspicions into something concrete.  Some of the supporters of Prouty's hypothesis should get on that and document what they find.

To be fair I've also not found evidence of many of other purported conspiracies scenarios, including the Shackley S Force scenario, or the Mob or Johnson scenarios, the Beckham/Crisman contentions, the men on the sixth floor, and way too many others which I spent years pursuing).  

What I have found I've documented in detail (and repetitively) and I need to spend my time with some final elaboration of that (no not another book) and responding to those who choose to really engage in the detailed scenario I  (with much help from others) have developed and published. 

Hopefully that's enough said here...

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...