Critics Still Attacking Oliver Stone's "JFK" Film With Same Old "Factual Deviancies" Crap.

[Jeff Carter]

14 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

As I've said before, I believe the movie JFK was monumentally important and basically accurate in its essential thrust. 

Stone's one major blunder in the movie was his implication that General Edward Lansdale was a key figure behind the assassination. Stone made this horrific gaffe because he relied on Fletcher Prouty.

Some due diligence would have quickly revealed that Prouty's claim was utter nonsense and slanderous garbage. Lansdale liked and admired JFK, grieved over his death, and opposed the introduction of large numbers of American troops in South Vietnam. Lansdale opposed most of the Taylor-Rostow recommendations on Vietnam. He opposed LBJ's escalation in 1965 and criticized U.S. military operations as misguided. By the way, Lansdale also opposed the Bay of Pigs invasion.

It is a red flag of Prouty's quackery that, of all people, he identified Edward Lansdale as one of the master plotters who wanted JFK dead in order to vastly escalate the war effort in Vietnam. 

 

Can you cite where Fletcher Prouty specifically identified Lansdale as a "master plotter" of the assassination?

Or how exactly the "JFK" film implied Lansdale was a "key figure behind the assassination"?

[Pamela Brown]

Stone himself said JFK was myth/countermyth to the WCR.  He has artistic license to create his own reality.  It is pointless to attack it...

Edited March 31, 2023 by Pamela Brown

[Michael Griffith]

7 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Can you cite where Fletcher Prouty specifically identified Lansdale as a "master plotter" of the assassination?

Or how exactly the "JFK" film implied Lansdale was a "key figure behind the assassination"?

Are you serious? Nobody but nobody denies that "General Y" was clearly intended to be Edward Lansdale. If you doubt this, you can Google it.

Critics exploited this reckless, baseless charge to impugn the validity of the entire movie. 

[Joe Bauer]

15 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I usually roll my eyes at a lot of these inconclusive DP photos, but I’ve gotta say, that guy really does look like a Hunt doppelgänger, at least from a distance. He’s wearing what looks like the exact same hat and tan jacket that Hunt was wearing in photos taken during Watergate, and if I recall he’s just causally strolling up to the GK alone with his hands in his pockets looking like a sketchball. Like you said, Hunt’s story about his whereabouts that day is bulls***, so who knows? 

So, Tom.

Your thoughts on the photo of the stiff bearing man walking by the three tramps in Dealey Plaza? You're certain that is not General Edward Lansdale?

Have you seen the Dealy Plaza "Rip Robertson" doppleganger photo?

[Tom Gram]

59 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

So, Tom.

Your thoughts on the photo of the stiff bearing man walking by the three tramps in Dealey Plaza? You're certain that is not General Edward Lansdale?

Have you seen the Dealy Plaza "Rip Robertson" doppleganger photo?

I’m not certain at all, I just think the photos are inconclusive and there’s not much we can do with them without more information.  I’ve seen the Rip Robertson photo and it definitely looks a lot like him but it’s the same kind of thing. 

I only mentioned the alleged Hunt photo because the first time I saw it my reaction was “I’ll be damned, that guy really does look suspiciously like E. Howard Hunt”. I had to look up photos of Hunt to compare. It’s not like that photo has any more or less probative value than the Robertson or Lansdale photos, I just had a different reaction to seeing it. 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Joe Bauer]

49 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I’m not certain at all, I just think the photos are inconclusive and there’s not much we can do with them without more information.  I’ve seen the Rip Robertson photo and it definitely looks a lot like him but it’s the same kind of thing. 

I only mentioned the alleged Hunt photo because the first time I saw it my reaction was “I’ll be damned, that guy really does look suspiciously like E. Howard Hunt”. I had to look up photos of Hunt to compare. It’s not like that photo has any more or less probative value than the Robertson or Lansdale photos, I just had a different reaction to seeing it. 

Ah, I see.

[Jeff Carter]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Are you serious? Nobody but nobody denies that "General Y" was clearly intended to be Edward Lansdale. If you doubt this, you can Google it.

Critics exploited this reckless, baseless charge to impugn the validity of the entire movie. 

“General Y” is obviously based on Lansdale but is not portrayed as a “master plotter” or a “key figure”. He is not, for example, in the smoky room of power brokers where the grievances against Kennedy are aired. General Y is seen receiving a phone call - presented as a speculation, as something that “maybe” happened. General Y is portrayed as an “agent” of higher powers, which is exactly how Prouty always characterized him.

It appears you set up a sort of “straw man” with the attributions of “master plotter” and “key figure” which you use to apply a dismissive term (“quack”) to your target (Prouty). The film doesn’t make those attributions and as far as I am aware neither did Prouty. So there is no “reckless baseless charge” in the first place other than those directed towards the film.

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

“General Y” is obviously based on Lansdale but is not portrayed as a “master plotter” or a “key figure”. He is not, for example, in the smoky room of power brokers where the grievances against Kennedy are aired. General Y is seen receiving a phone call - presented as a speculation, as something that “maybe” happened. General Y is portrayed as an “agent” of higher powers, which is exactly how Prouty always characterized him.

It appears you set up a sort of “straw man” with the attributions of “master plotter” and “key figure” which you use to apply a dismissive term (“quack”) to your target (Prouty). The film doesn’t make those attributions and as far as I am aware neither did Prouty. So there is no “reckless baseless charge” in the first place other than those directed towards the film.

Agree. 

Good clarifying points.

[Rob Clark]

13 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Or how exactly the "JFK" film implied Lansdale was a "key figure behind the assassination"?

Seems like a pretty pointed implication to me...

[Ron Bulman]

I can't get Rob's clip to play.  But I've never believed someone of Lansdale's level would have been walking around Dealy Plaza after the assassination.  Observing from a distance, maybe.  Like Morales.  Gone after the shots were fired. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 3/31/2023 at 11:59 AM, Jeff Carter said:

“General Y” is obviously based on Lansdale but is not portrayed as a “master plotter” or a “key figure”. He is not, for example, in the smoky room of power brokers where the grievances against Kennedy are aired. General Y is seen receiving a phone call - presented as a speculation, as something that “maybe” happened. General Y is portrayed as an “agent” of higher powers, which is exactly how Prouty always characterized him.

It appears you set up a sort of “straw man” with the attributions of “master plotter” and “key figure” which you use to apply a dismissive term (“quack”) to your target (Prouty). The film doesn’t make those attributions and as far as I am aware neither did Prouty. So there is no “reckless baseless charge” in the first place other than those directed towards the film.

As a matter of fact, it was a reckless, baseless charge to suggest that Lansdale played any role in JFK's murder, much less a clearly crucial role.

Now, okay, we can go back and forth about how we define "master plotter," but the film clearly portrays General Y as a key figure in the plot. I don't know how anyone can deny this. 

The film has General Y being contacted by someone who is obviously close to the top of the plot and who asks General Y to "come up with a plan." The film also has Mr. X claiming that General Y helped strip JFK of security by sending Mr. X on a supposedly unusual escort mission to the South Pole, and that General Y was even in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. 

Incidentally, the film also falsely accuses General Y/Lansdale of involvement in the murders of Lumumba in the Congo and Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. Says Mr. X in referring to General Y, "He's done it before. Other countries. Lumumba in the Congo, Trujillo, the Dominican Republic, he's working on Castro. No big deal." Lansdale had nothing to do with those murders.

By the way, the film briefly shows the name plate on General Y's desk. Part of it is blocked, but the visible part reads "M/GEN E.G. . . . U.S. Air. . . ." Lansdale's first two initials were E.G., and he was a general in the U.S. Air Force.

 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Jeff Carter]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

As a matter of fact, it was a reckless, baseless charge to suggest that Lansdale played any role in JFK's murder, much less a clearly crucial role.

Now, okay, we can go back and forth about how we define "master plotter," but the film clearly portrays General Y as a key figure in the plot. I don't know how anyone can deny this. 

The film has General Y being contacted by someone who is obviously close to the top of the plot and who asks General Y to "come up with a plan." The film also has Mr. X claiming that General Y helped strip JFK of security by sending Mr. X on a supposedly unusual escort mission to the South Pole, and that General Y was even in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. 

Incidentally, the film also falsely accuses General Y/Lansdale of involvement in the murders of Lumumba in the Congo and Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. Says Mr. X in referring to General Y, "He's done it before. Other countries. Lumumba in the Congo, Trujillo, the Dominican Republic, he's working on Castro. No big deal." Lansdale had nothing to do with those murders.

By the way, the film briefly shows the name plate on General Y's desk. Part of it is blocked, but the visible part reads "M/GEN E.G. . . . U.S. Air. . . ." Lansdale's first two initials were E.G., and he was a general in the U.S. Air Force.

 

The logic of Mister X’s monologue establishes that the assembly of a sniper team,  the security stripping of the motorcade, and a subsequent cover-up were key to success of a plot, and there is no inference within the film that General Y was directly involved in these or was even elevated beyond a presumed compartmentalization of information. I would say at least 95% of the film’s audience have no idea who Lansdale was, nor come away from the film convinced that General Y was a “key figure”.  Oliver Stone has been consistent he applied dramatic licence to the Mister X sequence because it introduced a “higher level” to the movie. Much of the hysterical reaction, particularly in 1992-93, focussed on making literal small details within this sequence without allowing for the dramatic licence common within any dramatized production dealing with historic or documentary events.

Was the ID of Lansdale “reckless” or “baseless”? Prouty was part of a discussion group in the late ‘60s / early ‘70s, and a collection of “Tramp photos” was disseminated within this group. Close attention was paid to all the strange and enigmatic details within these photos. Through this process, Prouty made his observation based on his professional proximity to Lansdale extending over a decade. Having arrived at this hypothesis, Prouty - logically - sought to account for this presence and engaged in speculation but I am not aware of any formulation which concludes Lansdale was a “key figure” in an assassination plot.

 

There’s a very interesting and wide-ranging previous discussion of the many sides of Lansdale on this forum:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/13678-edward-lansdale/

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The logic of Mister X’s monologue establishes that the assembly of a sniper team,  the security stripping of the motorcade, and a subsequent cover-up were key to success of a plot, and there is no inference within the film that General Y was directly involved in these or was even elevated beyond a presumed compartmentalization of information. I would say at least 95% of the film’s audience have no idea who Lansdale was, nor come away from the film convinced that General Y was a “key figure”.  Oliver Stone has been consistent he applied dramatic licence to the Mister X sequence because it introduced a “higher level” to the movie. Much of the hysterical reaction, particularly in 1992-93, focussed on making literal small details within this sequence without allowing for the dramatic licence common within any dramatized production dealing with historic or documentary events.

Was the ID of Lansdale “reckless” or “baseless”? Prouty was part of a discussion group in the late ‘60s / early ‘70s, and a collection of “Tramp photos” was disseminated within this group. Close attention was paid to all the strange and enigmatic details within these photos. Through this process, Prouty made his observation based on his professional proximity to Lansdale extending over a decade. Having arrived at this hypothesis, Prouty - logically - sought to account for this presence and engaged in speculation but I am not aware of any formulation which concludes Lansdale was a “key figure” in an assassination plot.

First of all, Prouty was a crackpot and a fraud. I can't believe that anyone is still defending him after all we now know about him. He did great damage to the case for conspiracy.

Two, scholars very quickly realized that General Y was intended to portray Lansdale. Most average viewers probably did not realize this, but scholars certainly did, and they justifiably pounced on it as a reckless and sleazy charge. 

Three, once again, you can parse words about the definition of "key figure," but I think it's obvious that the film portrays him as exactly that. The film portrays General Y (1) as being tasked by the plotters to come up with a plan, (2) as playing a key role in stripping security from the motorcade by sending Mr. X on a supposedly unusual and needless mission to the South Pole. And yet you deny that he's portrayed as a key figure in the film?

In the director's cut, which was released many years ago, the film also has Mr. X saying that General Y was in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. 

All of these charges are bogus and absurd. Lansdale had retired by early November 1963 and did not send Prouty on any unusual or diversionary mission to the South Pole. When Prouty was interviewed by the ARRB, he admitted there was nothing unusual about his trip to the South Pole. In fact, he admitted the trip was routine and not sinister at all. 

I notice you said nothing about the film's false claim, via Mr. X again, that Lansdale was involved in the murders of Lumumba and Trujillo. 

Furthermore, the film has Mr. X saying that General Y had "no love for Kennedy." That is false. Lansdale admired and liked JFK and grieved over his death. 

In addition, the film portrays Mr. X/Prouty as "chief of special ops" with responsibilities related to the Secret Service and presidential protection. Prouty lied about all of this. He was never actually "chief of special ops" but a team head and a liaison officer between the USAF and the CIA, and his duties did not involve presidential protection or the Secret Service. In his ARRB interview, Prouty admitted he had nothing to do with presidential protection. 

When the ARRB pressed Prouty about his alleged phone call with an officer of the 316th INTC Detachment/112th INTC Group, in which the officer supposedly told him that the unit had been ordered to "stand down" on 11/22, Prouty back-peddled all over Kentucky. He admitted he didn't know who had called, or whom he had called, and didn't know if the person even actually belonged to the unit. At one point he seemed to admit, in the words of the ARRB interview summary, that the call was "probably not authentic."

Crucially, when the ARRB asked Prouty to produce the notes that he had repeatedly claimed he had taken of his alleged phone call with the 316th/112th, the notes that Prouty claimed in writing he had kept and quoted from ("I have kept the notes I made during that call and shall quote from them there"), he said they were "long gone." "Long gone"??? Yeah, uh-huh. He could not produce a single copy of these alleged historic, vitally important notes, nor did he explain why the notes were "long gone." How can any serious researcher believe anything this guy said?

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

First of all, Prouty was a crackpot and a fraud. I can't believe that anyone is still defending him after all we now know about him. He did great damage to the case for conspiracy.

How many times do we have to debunk this idiotic CIA/John McAdams trope about Col. Fletcher Prouty being a "crackpot" on the Education Forum?

Michael Griffin is merely the latest McAdams-esque pontificator repeating this bogus CIA propaganda trope here.

I'm guessing that Griffin, like Rob Clark, Mark Stephens, et.al., has never read Prouty's books on JFK, the CIA and Vietnam or The Secret Team.

How many times do we have to re-direct these McAdams guys to the true facts about Prouty's career as the Joint Chiefs liaison to the CIA in 1963, his co-authorship of the McNamara-Taylor Report, his long-term collaboration with Lansdale in Southeast Asia, and his evidence-based commentaries about Lansdale?  

There is a good reason why CIA propagandists like McAdams have repeatedly attacked a whistle blower like Prouty who worked directly with the CIA for years before sharing his observations with Oliver Stone and the general public in the early 1990s.

Perhaps Griffin can tell us where Lansdale was in November of 1963, and what he was up to.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Griffith]

38 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

How many times do we have to debunk this idiotic CIA/John McAdams trope about Col. Fletcher Prouty being a "crackpot" on the Education Forum?

Michael Griffin is merely the latest McAdams-esque pontificator repeating this bogus CIA propaganda trope here.

I'm guessing that Griffin, like Rob Clark, Mark Stephens, et.al., has never read Prouty's books on JFK, the CIA and Vietnam or The Secret Team.

How many times do we have to re-direct these McAdams guys to the true facts about Prouty's career as the Joint Chiefs liaison to the CIA in 1963, his co-authorship of the McNamara-Taylor Report, his long-term collaboration with Lansdale in Southeast Asia, and his evidence-based commentaries about Lansdale?  

There is a good reason why CIA propagandists like McAdams have repeatedly attacked a whistle blower like Prouty who worked directly with the CIA for years before sharing his observations with Oliver Stone and the general public in the early 1990s.

Perhaps Griffin can tell us where Lansdale was in November of 1963, and what he was up to.

This is downright crazy talk. It is people like you who make all conspiracy advocates look bad. So rather than face the facts about Prouty, you are actually accusing me of being another John McAdams and of peddling CIA propaganda??? Goodness gracious, that is beyond silly and absurd. How can you reach such a bizarre conclusion just because I'm pointing out the gaping holes in Prouty's claims and credibility? You should visit my JFK assassination site.

Yes, I've read all of Prouty's books and have viewed every video interview of him that I could find. I notice you said nothing about Prouty's false claims. 

Just try to think of the matter this way: Just think how much stronger and how much less vulnerable to criticism the movie JFK would have been if it had not repeated Prouty's nutty claims?

Think how much harder it would have been for critics to assail the movie if it had not repeated Prouty's absurd, discredited claims about Prouty's alleged role in presidential protection, Lansdale's allegedly sinister sending of Prouty on a supposedly diversionary trip to the South Pole, Lansdale's alleged role in stripping JFK of security in Dallas by sending Prouty to the South Pole, Lansdale's alleged hatred of JFK, Lansdale's alleged role in the murders of Lumumba and Trujillo, Prouty's alleged phone call with an officer of the 112th, and JFK's alleged intention to abandon South Vietnam after the election no matter what? 

If the movie had not included these false claims, just think how much harder it would have been for critics to dismiss it as "a crazy conspiracy theory film." 

I give Oliver Stone great credit for repudiating Prouty's claims about Lansdale. Are you going to accuse Stone of likewise peddling CIA propaganda?

Edited April 4, 2023 by Michael Griffith