Why Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's Critics Are Wrong

[Michael Griffith]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Funny if that's your response then your wasting my time now, lol

You can't refute it and that's why you just gave this very weak response hiding behind Flat Earth Theory of all things.. I would label that cognitive dissidence myself. 

If blaming Israelis for high oil prices is all you have that is what I and most people call grasping at straws. I don't think that trumps Prouty's military service or his time teaching at Princeton. Do you have anything that rises to maybe Kanye level otherwise I wouldn't label him anti semtic.   But Ron Paul posted this cartoon in 2018 and you haven't denied him or his racist cartoons so... https://www.salon.com/2018/07/02/internet-unleashes-fury-on-ron-paul-for-sharing-insanely-racist-cartoon_partner/

Uh, did you only read 10% of my reply? I have a lot more than just Prouty's odd conclusion that the Israelis were to blame for high oil prices. Did you miss the part about his prolonged, close associations with anti-Semites, appearing on their radio show numerous times, having a book republished by one of their publishing arms, praising anti-Semites for republishing his book, recommending an anti-Semitic newspaper, and giving a shockingly evasive answer when asked about Holocaust denial? Did you miss all that? 

I genuinely question the level of education and analytical abilities of anyone who gets on a public forum and not only defends 9/11 Truther nuttiness but acts like it's irrefutable. That is wingnut material. Maybe in your far-left echo chamber world such drivel passes for being credible, but in the real world it comes across as nutty and as indicative of a lack of education and critical thinking skills. 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

On 4/22/2023 at 8:13 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Michael,   

I could take you to the cleaners in a debate about the scientific and forensic 9/11 data.

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

No, you couldn't.

 

Yes, Michael, William would take you to the cleaners in a debate over 9/11. I know this because 1) you've accepted the official narrative without studying the problems in it, and 2) you've closed your mind to anything else.

In contrast to you. I have an open mind on the subject. I have a number of reasons to suspect foul play. What? One reason is that WTC 7 fell at near free-fall speed. As an engineer, I can tell you that it is a near impossibility for a building to fall that fast just from being on fire.

Another reason I question the official narrative is because one of the terrorist's passport is said to have survived the crash into the Pentagon. The crash that is said to have vaporized the plane.

If I  had the time or inclination, I would certainly study the facts of the case and determine how it is that seemingly impossible things occurred. In the meantime I will keep an open mind.

You do a disservice to the truth by proclaiming -- with little knowledge -- that the official story is factual,

 

[Sandy Larsen]

57 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I could post numerous scientific links that debunk the 9//11 Truther garbage....

 

And LNers could post numerous links that supposedly debunk JFKA conspiracy theories. It doesn't make either you  or them right.

 

[Matthew Koch]

4 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Uh, did you only read 10% of my reply? I have a lot more than just Prouty's odd conclusion that the Israelis were to blame for high oil prices. Did you miss the part about his prolonged, close associations with anti-Semites, appearing on their radio show numerous times, having a book republished by one of their publishing arms, praising anti-Semites for republishing his book, recommending an anti-Semitic newspaper, and giving a shockingly evasive answer when asked about Holocaust denial? Did you miss all that? 

I genuinely question the level of education and analytical abilities of anyone who gets on a public forum and not only defends 9/11 Truther nuttiness but acts like it's irrefutable. That is wingnut material. Maybe in your far-left echo chamber world such drivel passes for being credible, but in the real world it comes across as nutty and as indicative of a lack of education and critical thinking skills. 

 

 

We're talking science Michael.. and molten metal isn't scientifically possible given the resources. You know what's pretty nutty is that you believe that IS possible! Heres the video you didn't watch so others can to see you don't have much of a grasp on this subject just like the Prouty allegations.. https://rumble.com/v2e4uqg-the-great-thermate-debate.html

You know who in my far left echo chamber recently brought up building 7? Tucker Carlson, lol so you're going to have to find new cover than; far left flat earth's believe in it so I don't argument. Because facts don't care about your feelings, lol 

 

Only people who try to "cancel" people for what they say in the past are in echo chambers. You couldn't convince anyone here that what Prouty said rose to the level of being offensive and un-citable

[W. Niederhut]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, Michael, William would take you to the cleaners in a debate over 9/11. I know this because 1) you've accepted the official narrative without studying the problems in it, and 2) you've closed your mind to anything else.

In contrast to you. I have an open mind on the subject. I have a number of reasons to suspect foul play. What? One reason is that WTC 7 fell at near free-fall speed. As an engineer, I can tell you that it is a near impossibility for a building to fall that fast just from being on fire.

Another reason I question the official narrative is because one of the terrorist's passport is said to have survived the crash into the Pentagon. The crash that is said to have vaporized the plane.

If I  had the time or inclination, I would certainly study the facts of the case and determine how it is that seemingly impossible things occurred. In the meantime I will keep an open mind.

You do a disservice to the truth by proclaiming -- with little knowledge -- that the official story is factual,

 

Sandy,

     Michael Griffith seems to be committed to tirelessly repeating false government narratives on the Education Forum-- about JFK's Vietnam policies, Fletcher Prouty, 9/11, etc.

      He is, obviously, a purveyor of disinformation.

      I could ask Michael a great many questions about the 9/11 data that he cannot answer with his false paradigm.

      For one thing, the serial explosions that demolished the Twin Towers are plainly visible (and audible) on film.

      Questions for Michael Griffith

1)  What is the melting point of steel-- the temperature at which solid steel becomes liquefied, as observed at Ground Zero?

2)  What is the maximum temperature of burning jet fuel?

3)  Where and when did the false M$M narrative that burning jet fuel demolished the Twin Towers originate?

4)  What explosively pulverized the WTC concrete into fine ash-- and high heat, pyroclastic flows over Manhattan?

5)   What abruptly demolished the steel substructures of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7-- enabling the virtual free fall, symmetrical collapses of those skyscrapers into their own footprints?

6)   Was a forensic arson investigation of the WTC ever conducted by the U.S. government, or by the private insurance consortium that paid Larry Silverstein $4.5 billion for the WTC demolitions?

7)   Larry Silverstein stated that he, "told them to pull it," before his WTC7 skyscraper abruptly collapsed in an expert free fall demolition on 9/11.  To whom was he referring as, "them?"  The NYFD denied any role in demolishing WTC7.

[Jeff Carter]

Griffith continues to assert that Prouty had a "close and prolonged association with anti-Semites",  a serious and reputationally damaging charge. "Close" means a particularly strong bond or connection, and "prolonged" refers to a “longer than usual” time span. Griffith’s repeated “evidence” (I.e. “ten times in four years”) fails to support his own conclusion, and therefore his repeated assertion is slanderous and libellous and serves no purpose in the development of an educational function to the discussion. We should encourage all points of view, but the repeated assertion described above needs to be addressed at a moderator level.

[Matthew Koch]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Griffith continues to assert that Prouty had a "close and prolonged association with anti-Semites",  a serious and reputationally damaging charge. "Close" means a particularly strong bond or connection, and "prolonged" refers to a “longer than usual” time span. 

The same thing could be said for the Dali Lama https://www.himalmag.com/dalai-lamas-friend-hitlers-champion/ 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

On 4/21/2023 at 11:41 PM, James DiEugenio said:

There were no troops in Vietnam  at the time of Kennedy's death.

They were classified as advisors.  And Kennedy was always asking questions about this. 

Now, two very important points about this which Selverstone missed.

After the debates of November 1961 which culminated in NSAM 111, Kennedy called a meeting of his most important advisors on the subject: Bundy, McNamara, Rusk and about five others.  Although he called the meeting, he was the last one to arrive, which tells you something about it since he was usually the first one there.  

Kennedy made it very clear this was not about small talk.  And he immediately took over the meeting, he was very upset that he had to fight so hard to thwart the Hawks .  He said quite forcefully words to the effect: Once policy is decided, those involved stand but or they get out!

He then waited for that to impact.  He then followed that with this:

Now who is going to be the man who implements my VIetnam policy.

McNamara said he would do it.

To leave that out of a book on Kennedy and Vietnam is simply inexcusable in every respect for any responsible historian.

Now, if that is not strong enough for you, there is this.

At the same time this was happening, Kennedy had sent Galbraith to Saigon. He said he wanted a report and it was directly to him. As JKG told his son: "Kennedy knew what he wanted and he knew I would deliver."

When JKG was in Washington in April Kennedy told him to deliver his report to McNamara. He did so.  Before he left he told Kennedy that McNamara got the message.

One month later McNamara told Harkins to stay after at a Sec Def Meeting.  With almost everyone one gone he said how long would it take to dismantle the American effort and turn it over to the ARVN.  

Harkins jaw about hit the table. He understood we were getting out and he was shocked.

PS JFK did not have a fling with Rometsch.  Peter Vea found the original FBI reports buried in piles at Jim Lesar's garage. Hoover could not find anything.  But he bluffed and gaslit the issue. Peter Vea was Malcolm Blunt before Malcolm.

PPSS Kennedy did not want the contents of NSAM 263 made public. So the idea it was for media effect is false. The guys who made it public were his enemies, the MAAG in Saigon.  

They were classified as advisors.  And Kennedy was always asking questions about this. 

My questions should not be construed as adversarial, but ignoring or skewing facts actually undermines Kennedy's overall contributions. The basic question is one of numbers: was he aware that a steady stream of thousands of American military under any guise continued to flow into VN? Following the November 1961 meeting, was he briefed on a weekly, bi-monthly, quarterly, bi-annual basis regarding the number of "advisers" sent to VN on his watch or was he misled?  It's about the numbers, pure and simple.

Rometsch scandal: Hersh's interviews with those who knew Rometsch confirm she had at least met and spent time with the president. Does anyone have photos? Apparently not. The appearance of a sexual liaison between the president and Rometsch was sufficient to incite fear and loathing of Kennedy among those sitting on the fence with the plot to permanently remove the president in Dallas — ergo the Rometsch angle of Project Lancelot.

Do you have copies of, or links to the original FBI reports Paul Vea found in Jim's garage? I've yet to find them online. Arguing Vea says there is nothing of substance in them about her and JFK falls short of the minimum standard.

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Michael Griffith]

I think we should revisit and remember Prouty's scurrilous defense of the Scientology fraud and its criminal founder, Ron Hubbard. No sensible, serious person would have done what Prouty did for Scientology and Hubbard.

Come to find out that Holocaust denier Tom Marcellus, whom Prouty praised for having the IHR republish one of his books, also belonged to the Scientology cult. Humm, could that be why Prouty so disgracefully defended both the cult and its founder?

Keep in mind that Prouty actually attacked principled researchers who were exposing the Scientology cult and its crooked founder. For example, he viciously attacked Russell Miller's excellent book Bare-Faced Messiah, which exposed Scientology's inner workings and revealed Hubbard's miserable military record and his criminal conduct. 

It is sad and disturbing that some people in this thread have attacked former Scientology member Tony Ortega for writing an expose on Prouty's sleazy attacks on critics of Scientology and on Prouty's bogus defense of Hubbard (see Ortega's article here).

Prouty made the embarrassing claim that Hubbard had worked in "deep cover" for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Prouty made this claim based on two silly blunders. Prouty erroneously believed--or said he believed--that the appearance of the number "16" in Hubbard's military records indicated that Hubbard had served in ONI, when in fact the number was merely an indicator of Navy reserve service. Apparently, Prouty didn't notice, or chose to ignore, the fact that the numeric explanation sheet in Hubbard's records identified "16" as the designation for a naval reserve officer (Hubbard was a naval reserve officer).

Prouty also mistakenly argued that the WWII-era "intelligence officer" orders contained in Hubbard's military records proved he worked for ONI, when in fact Navy Department records prove that those orders merely applied to officers who were temporarily tasked with censor duty, i.e., to monitor mail. During the war, some junior and mid-grade Navy officers were temporarily tasked to monitor mail and to teach basic classes in friendly and enemy ship recognition. In this role, they were on temporary "intelligence officer" orders. This had nothing to do with working "deep cover" for ONI. 

Simply put, Prouty had no clue what he was talking about. 

Finally, let's see what Wikipedia says about Scientology and then see what Prouty said about it:

          The movement has been the subject of a number of controversies, and the Church of Scientology has been described by government inquiries, international parliamentary bodies, scholars, law lords, and numerous superior court judgements as both a dangerous cult and a manipulative profit-making business. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology)

Now here's what Prouty said about the Church of Scientology:

          I have traveled far and wide throughout my professional life and see the peoples of Earth as incredibly diverse in character as well as needs. Oftentimes our efforts to understand and help them have been too narrow. In the many years I have worked with the Church of Scientology the one thing which has impressed me the most and which will characterize the Church far into future centuries is its ability to deal with humankind as a whole.

          At the heart of Scientology’s activities is the betterment of all people no matter what creed, what race, what socioeconomic status to develop themselves spiritually and mentally so that each individual can improve his own life. Scientology’s far-reaching goals are designed to tend to each individual uniquely with compassionate concern and commitment. These rare attributes are essential in these times of trouble and uncertainty and most assuredly provide the Church with a platform for growth and strength in the years to come. (https://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part11/Chp34/pg0609-b.html)

How can anyone use Prouty as a source after his troubling conduct in defense of a scam and its criminal founder? I always wondered how or why Prouty even got involved with defending Scientology and Hubbard. When I learned that Prouty's anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying buddy Tom Marcellus was a Scientologist, this provided a plausible explanation for Prouty's embarrassing, baffling defense of Scientology and Hubbard.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Ron Ecker]

On 4/23/2023 at 1:16 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Another reason I question the official narrative is because one of the terrorist's passport is said to have survived the crash into the Pentagon. The crash that is said to have vaporized the plane.

 

That passport was found on the street at the WTC North Tower crash site, not at the Pentagon.

Two hijacker passports were found at the Pennsylania crash site. (A big hole in the ground.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

That passport was found on the street at the WTC North Tower crash site, not at the Pentagon.

 

Oh hi Ron. Good to see you!

Thanks for the correction. I wasn't paying close attention when a video showing the passport was playing. For some reason, I thought they said it was found at the Pentagon site.

Either way, it's amazing that the passport survived  Also amazing is that it was found.

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 4/23/2023 at 2:06 PM, Jeff Carter said:

Griffith continues to assert that Prouty had a "close and prolonged association with anti-Semites",  a serious and reputationally damaging charge. "Close" means a particularly strong bond or connection, and "prolonged" refers to a “longer than usual” time span. Griffith’s repeated “evidence” (I.e. “ten times in four years”) fails to support his own conclusion, and therefore his repeated assertion is slanderous and libellous and serves no purpose in the development of an educational function to the discussion. We should encourage all points of view, but the repeated assertion described above needs to be addressed at a moderator level.

Your refusal to face reality is troubling. So the fact that Prouty appeared on Liberty Lobby's anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying radio show 10 times over a four-year period doesn't count as close and prolonged? Four years isn't prolonged? Ten times doesn't indicate closeness? I bet that if any other researcher or witness appeared on such a radio show twice, you would be singing a very different tune. 

The fact that Prouty had one of his books republished by the anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying IHR doesn't constitute a close relationship? This is not to mention that Prouty publicly thanked Marcellus and Carto for republishing his book, and even recommended that people read Liberty Lobby's newspaper The Spotlight. How do all these things not constitute a close and prolonged association?

How did Prouty even know that the IHR existed and had a publishing arm? How would any normal person come to have a book published by such a small and extremist publishing company? 

If you were willing to be rational and honest, you would freely admit the self-evident fact that Prouty's association with Liberty Lobby and the IHR went far beyond brief and casual contact. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Ron Ecker]

Most of the research I’ve done on Prouty was related to the fact that at the time of the JFK assassination, almost the entire Cabinet was out of the country on an airplane bound for Tokyo, Japan. And what Prouty had to say about it doesn’t cast him in a very good light.

Here is an excerpt from my article “The Tokyo Flight”:

In his book (JFK) Prouty calls the Cabinet members' trip to Japan "unprecedented," and says, "No one has explained why the Kennedy cabinet was ordered to Japan at that time."  But in fact the explanation can be readily found in the official records of the JFK administration.

In June 1961 JFK met in Washington with Japanese Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda, and in a joint statement they announced an agreement "to establish a joint United States-Japan committee on trade and economic affairs at the cabinet level.” In a November 8, 1961 press conference, JFK commented on "the success and significance of the first meeting of the Joint United States-Japan Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs," which was held the week before in Japan, and which he described as a "joint Cabinet group.” (The acronym for this committee in State Department documents is the Joint ECONCOM.) The second annual meeting was held in Washington on December 3-5, 1962, and the third was to have taken place in Tokyo on November 25-27, 1963.

(End of excerpt.)

So either Prouty was just too lazy to find out the facts through his connections, or else he was lying (how many readers of his book would know it?) when he said that it was “unprecedented” and “no one has explained” it. And if he was just too lazy, he had no justification whatsoever for saying that was unprecedented and unexplained.

But wait, there’s more. Another excerpt:

(Secretary of State) Rusk and Defense Secretary McNamara attended a conference on Vietnam, with military officers and other officials, in Honolulu on November 20-21. The purpose of the meeting was to review the situation after the assassination of South Vietnam's President Diem earlier that month. The conference date and location were chosen to dovetail with Rusk's scheduled trip to Japan. But in his book Colonel Prouty asks with suspicion why all those Cabinet members who would be on the Tokyo flight had to attend the Honolulu Conference. Calling it "one of the strangest scenarios in recent history," Prouty asks "Why was the cabinet in Hawaii? Who ordered the cabinet members there?"

In fact Rusk was the only Tokyo-bound Cabinet member who attended the Honolulu Conference. According to (JFK press secretary) Salinger, the five members of the Cabinet who were to join Rusk and Salinger for the trip to Japan arrived in Hawaii, along with their wives, on the evening of November 21, when the Honolulu Conference was over and McNamara was already on a plane headed back to Washington.

http://www.ronaldecker.com/tokyo.html

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Most of the research I’ve done on Prouty was related to the fact that at the time of the JFK assassination, almost the entire Cabinet was out of the country on an airplane bound for Tokyo, Japan. And what Prouty had to say about it doesn’t cast him in a very good light.

Here is an excerpt from my article “The Tokyo Flight”:

In his book (JFK) Prouty calls the Cabinet members' trip to Japan "unprecedented," and says, "No one has explained why the Kennedy cabinet was ordered to Japan at that time."  But in fact the explanation can be readily found in the official records of the JFK administration.

In June 1961 JFK met in Washington with Japanese Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda, and in a joint statement they announced an agreement "to establish a joint United States-Japan committee on trade and economic affairs at the cabinet level.” In a November 8, 1961 press conference, JFK commented on "the success and significance of the first meeting of the Joint United States-Japan Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs," which was held the week before in Japan, and which he described as a "joint Cabinet group.” (The acronym for this committee in State Department documents is the Joint ECONCOM.) The second annual meeting was held in Washington on December 3-5, 1962, and the third was to have taken place in Tokyo on November 25-27, 1963.

(End of excerpt.)

So either Prouty was just too lazy to find out the facts through his connections, or else he was lying (how many readers of his book would know it?) when he said that it was “unprecedented” and “no one has explained” it. And if he was just too lazy, he had no justification whatsoever for saying that was unprecedented and unexplained.

But wait, there’s more. Another excerpt:

(Secretary of State) Rusk and Defense Secretary McNamara attended a conference on Vietnam, with military officers and other officials, in Honolulu on November 20-21. The purpose of the meeting was to review the situation after the assassination of South Vietnam's President Diem earlier that month. The conference date and location were chosen to dovetail with Rusk's scheduled trip to Japan. But in his book Colonel Prouty asks with suspicion why all those Cabinet members who would be on the Tokyo flight had to attend the Honolulu Conference. Calling it "one of the strangest scenarios in recent history," Prouty asks "Why was the cabinet in Hawaii? Who ordered the cabinet members there?"

In fact Rusk was the only Tokyo-bound Cabinet member who attended the Honolulu Conference. According to (JFK press secretary) Salinger, the five members of the Cabinet who were to join Rusk and Salinger for the trip to Japan arrived in Hawaii, along with their wives, on the evening of November 21, when the Honolulu Conference was over and McNamara was already on a plane headed back to Washington.

http://www.ronaldecker.com/tokyo.html

Good post and good information, Ron.

I can't think of anyone who has done more damage to the case for conspiracy than Prouty. Prouty's outlandish and baseless claims in Stone's JFK were demolished by critics and enabled critics to ignore the valid parts of the film. Even worse, not only did Prouty devote considerable time and energy to defending Scientology and its crooked founder, but he spent years palling around with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers in Liberty Lobby and the IHR. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

Mike, Fletcher's claims were not at all outlandish or baseless. That is pure myth.

Just read this and punch through to the links:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-the-arrb

I could not have written this article without the help of Doug Horne, who was there and described the perps to me.  Also Malcolm LBLunt who found the ARRB memos, and Len Osanic, who took the call from Prouty after the ambush. Len was also in contact with a relative of one of the men involved in the failed back up issue in Dallas.

Fletcher Prouty was correct on this.

The other issue Prouty gave advice on was the whole Vietnam angle.  Now, to give credit where it is due, people like Peter Scott, and O'Donnell and Powers, and the Mike Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers did early work on this.  But in about 1986, Prouty wrote a long essay that, in my view at that time was the best, most complete accounting of what  really happened.  IIRC, he even had the intel deception about us winning in that article.  It was a remarkable piece of work.

Now its true that after Prouty did his consulting, John Newman came in and did some extensive help also.  But what is so striking about Prouty's article is that it presaged  JFK and Vietnam pretty well.

These are facts.  What you are doing is siding with the smear artists, which included the military guys on the ARRB.

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by James DiEugenio