Fletcher Prouty vs the ARRB

[Larry Hancock]

Ben,  first off to your question, I've seen no sign that the Secret Service contacted the CIA in regard to Dallas - most likely because the public threats and even the warnings for Dallas were all about the ultra right, not about the Cuban exile community as they were in Miami and to some extent Tampa. 

We can see the ultra right focus In regard to the preparations for Dallas if we look at several important points of context - first,  there were warnings about the right wing and a history of violent protest in Dallas from that quarter.  So special precautions were taken - almost entirely around the speech at the trade center where the most trouble was anticipated.  Special interviews and even photo recognition books were prepared with the help of the press and people who had observed the earlier violent protests.  The goal was to be preemptive at stopping the wrong people from getting into the Trade Center and to act against protests there - and arrests were being made even as the motorcade was on the way. Even the DPD officer in charge of security for Dallas was at the Trade Center, not participating in the motorcade.

I talked at some length with a former Dallas intelligence reserve officer activated for the day and he said that plain clothes officers were assigned to monitor several known "radicals", but Cubans were just not on the radar.  Right wingers,  civil rights protesters, etc were - protection was against known threats. 

The trip to Texas was also one of the biggest protective tasks the SS had faced, with multiple stops, cities, appearances etc all in a short space of time and all following a really hectic travel schedule on the conservation tour and then to the multiple stops in Florida - which is why the advance preparation in Dallas ended up being done by Lawson, as his first actual field experience in taking the lead.  I urge anyone seriously interested in this to read his extensive report on the preparations - which he did feel were extensive, rightly or wrongly.  

Certainly there was negligence in the preparations, but I would also offer that it involved negligence in the whole PRS system which was simply not built to translate threats from one location to another.  They seemed to totally lack he concept of mobile threats or of threats from groups - there is no sign they even translated the documented NSRP threat from San Antonio to Dallas. But then we don't really know all of what they did or didn't do because of the destruction of trip files early on in the ARRB inquiry.

I see extensive negligence (or more accurately inertia, with practices being driven strictly by past attacks on presidents), but I would also say it was on a systemic level not just in regard to Dallas. We can see that in the fact that Lawson appears not to have been briefed on either the IED or sniper threats which we know about now in Miami. 

I would also suggest that the "conspiracy" may well have had the opportunity to take a good look at the standard CIA security preparations for motorcades and car travel (as in Florida) and factored that into their plan - given both your and my suspicions about CIA asset involvement and the history of plans to attack Castro in Cuba in an ambush while he traveled by car, I'd say some of our persons of interest would have taken that as their best option.

 

 

[Rob Clark]

17 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

My question today about preferred crow entrees for Mr. Clark needs to be interpreted in the context of an older thread on this forum in which Mr. Clark posted some derisive, defamatory claims about the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty-- quite similar to those published in the past by the late John McAdams.

     Mr. DiEugenio's recent essay at Kennedys and King debunked some of the McAdams/Clark defamatory claims about Mr. Prouty.

     Hence, my question for Mr. Clark about his preferred crow recipes.

     Naturally, I regret any injury, real or imagined, that I may have inflicted upon Mr. Clark's tender feelings.

     

     

Just for the record, I am a CT and in no way like John McAdams.  I also don't say or post anything as fact that I can't back up in some form or fashion be it documents or testimony. If I'm ever speculating, I'll let you know. I just have a real low tolerance for those that muddy the waters with unsubstantiated claims and pure BS. What derisive and defamatory comments I posted or said about Prouty, came straight out of his own mouth to the ARRB.  Col. Reich called him a nutjob to the ARRB, and as I posted in the other Prouty thread, I have audio of an interview with Gen. Krulak denying his Landsdale in Dealey Plaza claims. Jim D's article debunked nothing about the Prouty claims, and in fact, didn't even address multiple others.   I'm not the one eating Crow here Niedernut, and trust me, my feelings don't get hurt on this forum. It wasn't me that complained about your post.

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

Just for the record, I am a CT and in no way like John McAdams.  I also don't say or post anything as fact that I can't back up in some form or fashion be it documents or testimony. If I'm ever speculating, I'll let you know. I just have a real low tolerance for those that muddy the waters with unsubstantiated claims and pure BS. What derisive and defamatory comments I posted or said about Prouty, came straight out of his own mouth to the ARRB.  Col. Reich called him a nutjob to the ARRB, and as I posted in the other Prouty thread, I have audio of an interview with Gen. Krulak denying his Landsdale in Dealey Plaza claims. Jim D's article debunked nothing about the Prouty claims, and in fact, didn't even address multiple others.   I'm not the one eating Crow here Niedernut, and trust me, my feelings don't get hurt on this forum. It wasn't me that complained about your post.

Rob,

    I'm re-posting some of your debunked claims about Prouty from a 2020 forum thread.  Enjoy.  🤥

[James DiEugenio]

I would hope that any objective reader would see, through the new information in the article, that the ARRB, unfortunately, was peopled with some employees who, to put it mildly, were decidedly biased in their stance on the Kennedy case.  But they were there through the auspices of the upper level people on the board.

IMO, they should have never been hired in the first place.  In fact, I don't think Marwell should have been hired either.  To never even have a painting or picture of Kennedy in the entire office suites, while you are working to try and declassify the final information about the controversial aspects of his death?  What would have been so bad about that?

Unlike a lot of other people, I always had reservations about the ARRB. And this was while they were in operation. I did not understand why Marwell had to say he  admired Posner's  book.  Or why the Board members had to make those public comments about the case, when in fact their own medical inquiry proved the opposite.

That is why I structured the story as I did.    The whole idea of the Board, its members and much  of its staff seemed to be:  See all this stuff is out there now and the WC was right.  Well, not all of it got out there. And much of  what did proved the WC wrong. I mean Mayor Cabell being a CIA asset is  deemed not relevant to the case?

And it seemed like they had an axe to grind with Oliver, as I noted with that BS reference to his film in the Final report. I mean why would Quinn wish to stop the medical inquiry?  Ambushing  Prouty was a part of that agenda.  If we take the ARRB mission at its word, what great cache of documents were found and released here? Where are they? If there were not, then what was the reason behind it?  If such was the case, then why did Gunn and Marwell let these guys run wild with it? And even though they had sources that contradicted their own thesis and backed Prouty--which Malcolm found--they were still intent on going through with this exercise.  

As per Reich, I can tell you right now he was blowing smoke.  I cannot reveal why, but I assure you he was. As per Johannides, Fletcher revealed this in a phone call with a third party which Len Osanic let me hear in preparation for the article. Fletcher did not want that out there for professional reasons. It was before Morley's work on the guy.  If you read the article carefully, Fletcher decided to play around with the ARRB, because he saw where they were coming from.  How could you not, considering what Wray was doing for weeks on end.  It is only through my relationship with Len that I had access to a lot of this material.  Its why I think his show is by far the best there is.  I do not  understand  the insistence of some people, in this day and age, to not really investigate these kinds of things, and to somehow assume the worst about certain people while accepting others as  being above suspicion. When, in fact, people in power--and with an agenda- were out  to get the former.

Edited June 9, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

Not to go off on a tangent here . . .  But when I first read of Lansdale in Dealy Plaza afterwards I though no way would he be seen there.  I still wonder.  But.  Here is Krulak's letter to Prouty.  It's pretty straightforward on the ID.   The picture is supposedly what made Prouty first question events.  "That is indeed a picture of Ed Lansdale . . . ".

Appendix D: Krulak Letter Re: Dealey Plaza Photos And Lansdale Identity, "Understanding Special Operations" (ratical.org)

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I mean Mayor Cabell being a CIA asset is  deemed not relevant to the case?

Washington Decoded: Bombshell or Dud? Earle Cabell’s CIA Connections

[James DiEugenio]

My understanding is that Krulak first agreed it was him, then switched his position.

When someone associated with the Pentagon does that, you have to suspect someone got to him.

 

[Joe Bauer]

15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Not to go off on a tangent here . . .  But when I first read of Lansdale in Dealy Plaza afterwards I though no way would he be seen there.  I still wonder.  But.  Here is Krulak's letter to Prouty.  It's pretty straightforward on the ID.   The picture is supposedly what made Prouty first question events.  "That is indeed a picture of Ed Lansdale . . . ".

Appendix D: Krulak Letter Re: Dealey Plaza Photos And Lansdale Identity, "Understanding Special Operations" (ratical.org)

 

I believe there is head, posture and leg and arm body moving gate computer generated technology now that would make a positive identity of Lansdale almost 100% possible.

I have read several articles on this technology being so advanced and reliable many countries now use it for many areas of surveillance security. I think the Chinese have got this down to a scary degree.

In regards to someone deceased and from many decades ago I believe that this technology is still viable if they have enough body movement videos and still shots of the particular individual.

I can't source this info to one or even two irrefutable reference points.

However, I am sure others here have also read about incredible advances in this human identity technology.

If I win the lotto, I promise to spend whatever it would take to have this technology used in a study of the Dealey Plaza lanky suited man/ 3 tramp perp walk photo.

[Joe Bauer]

On 6/8/2022 at 11:35 AM, Rob Clark said:

 I have audio of an interview with Gen. Krulak denying his Landsdale in Dealey Plaza claims. 

Did General Krulak "ever" say anything else about Prouty that in anyway impugned Prouty's character, honesty and health of mind or suggested anything close to ulterior motives on the part of Prouty and his books and statements regarding the JFK assassination?

I question Krulak pulling back what Prouty reported he stated about Lansdale in Dealey Plaza.

Even retired generals have character flaws and/or fears of repercussions when it comes to relating everything they may know about very sensitive secrets.

Maybe Krulak is the one being dishonest here. Prouty's record of military service is as exemplary and as high position placed as Krulak's.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/8/2022 at 12:35 PM, Rob Clark said:

I have audio of an interview with Gen. Krulak denying his Landsdale in Dealey Plaza claims.

 

Okay, but this letter proves that Krulak earlier agreed with Prouty about Landsdale in Dealey Plaza, right? Quoting from the 15 March 1985 letter:

As to photo no. 1. That is indeed a picture of Ed Lansdale. The haircut, the stoop, the twisted left hand, the large class ring. It's Lansdale. What in the world was he doing there? Has anyone ever asked him and who was the photographer? Why did he take the pictures? What did he do with them?

 

[W. Niederhut]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay, but this letter proves that Krulak earlier agreed with Prouty about Landsdale in Dealey Plaza, right? Quoting from the 15 March 1985 letter:

As to photo no. 1. That is indeed a picture of Ed Lansdale. The haircut, the stoop, the twisted left hand, the large class ring. It's Lansdale. What in the world was he doing there? Has anyone ever asked him and who was the photographer? Why did he take the pictures? What did he do with them?

 

My hunch is that Krulak knew enough about CIA assassination ops to fear getting whacked.

He didn't want to publicize his positive identification of Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza.

[James DiEugenio]

That might be a little over dramatic, but I think its on point.

[Gene Kelly]

I've posted some of my thoughts previously in a related October 2020 thread on Fletcher Prouty.  But the new information in the Kennedys and King article about what Colonel Prouty shared with Len Osanic puts his testimony/remarks in a different perspective and makes reasonable sense.  In retrospect - given that Prouty was experienced in government "inquiries" like the Taylor Committee Investigation of the Bay of Pigs, the Rockefeller Commission, HSCA and ARRB - he was wise to temper his remarks and not play into what was being scripted.   This is very tricky territory for a government employee, and I've had similar experience with so-called blue-ribbon panels and task forces - all of which have unavoidable agendas, right or wrong, and biased members - which can turn out to be personally damaging. So, Fletcher was wise to be circumspect in his comments with ARRB.  

While the AARB's basic responsibility was to identify pertinent records (i.e., evidence), it wasn't just about documents ... they were attempting to 'substantiate' (read dispel or refute) Prouty's allegations. ARRB's use of the word "allegations" immediately caught my eye (i.e., red flag), as this has special implications to anyone who has worked in government (myself included). Prouty had made statements, in a variety of venues (not just Stone's JFK movie) and the AARB was tasked with running these down to substantiate the claims.  The stated purpose of his ARRB interview (in part) was:

Determine the extent to which his various allegations or statements regarding the assassination are based on his own personal knowledge or experience; and should he disavow factual knowledge from his own experience, to determine whether he is aware of other factual data that could tend to prove or disprove his allegations.

With all due respect to the more negative views expressed in this thread, I don't think this 1996 ARRB interview destroys Prouty's integrity or importance, nor should we dismiss what he has written and talked about. 

Gene 

[Paul Brancato]

Jim - your explanation for Prouty’s turnaround in his ARRB testimony is the presence of Joannides. Elsewhere you state that Prouty, being Air Force and not CIA, was more forthcoming than others in writing and talking about JFKA. Prouty had a chance to confront the government directly and yet chose in that moment not to do so. Was he afraid? Look at it this way. If he suspected he was going to be part of an investigation with a predetermined outcome, a script as Gene puts it, his testimony played right into that script. 

[James DiEugenio]

Paul,

This is what I wrote. And as anyone can see, the HSCA preceded the ARRB by about 17 years.

As he later revealed to Len Osanic, when Prouty then went into his pre-interview for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), he felt the same disappointment. He was probably the only man in the building who would recognize who former CIA officer George Joannides was and why he was really there. He only did the pre-interview and that was it for him. He recognized what was going on under the surface.

When I got to the ARRB interview, I wrote that it was the kind of questions that the Board was asking him that pricked up his ears and reminded him of what was going on before with the Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA. (Johannides had passed on before the ARRB convened.)

Is someone trying to spin this into something I did not write?

I also think you misconstrue what happened.  Fletcher was already on the record about these matters: that is the request by San Antonio and the military complement for protection. Anyone can see that by reading his works. He understood that the ARRB had arranged an ambush with selective sources and false information. These guys--particularly Tim Wray and Dennis Quinn-- were not interested in the facts or the truth, and anyone can see that by reading their memos. This was the third time this had happened to Fletcher.  At his age,  he just decided to play along. 

When he got home, that is when he told Len Osanic about what had happened.  And how he had protected his source.  This is how Len understood that what people like Litwin later wrote about this incident was utterly false. (Par for the course for Freddie Boy.) So when Malcolm Blunt found the secret ARRB documents,  and sent them to Len, Len sent them to me.  Malcolm also did a ten minute interview with Bart Kamp, about this matter.  And we made a transcript of that which we used as a source.

As for Gene's comments, Malcom's information, along with the other various sources I  credited, demonstrates that Fletcher was correct on the major tenets.  IMO, the fact that the ARRB hired Quinn and Wray is a black mark against them. And I think I showed why.  No one else had done so before, but Horne knew about this incident and their backgrounds. To use just one example: if you are going to find out about military supplements for presidential protection, the guy you go to is Vince P.  They did not.  And they ended up being wrong about this, plain and simple.

Edited October 2, 2022 by James DiEugenio