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

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 10/12/2023 at 12:06 PM, Jeff Carter said:

Kirk - Anson's Esquire piece was discussed at length here:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/old-wine-in-new-bottles-fletcher-prouty-s-new-critics-recycle-the-past

There are many reasons why it can be fairly characterized as a "hatchet-job".

 

Ok Jeff, 

So to address what I've brought before you. Be clear. You're saying you know with certainty that such an argument involving these issues didn't happen between Stone, Prouty and Newman? and regretted mythic character hero of Stone film lore, supernal Colonel Prouty didn't get pouty?

 

heh heh   a joke

 

Let's be clear, the scene involving Donald Sutherland is the most popular scene of JFK. It's also the most essential. Without it, it's just a lot of loose plot weaver's skeins. Stone goes from Ferrie, to Bannister, to Dulles to LBJ to Clay Shaw, to Jimmy Hoffa  and who else?. The great majority of the people going to see the movie aren't hardcore JFKA freaks. That  scene ties everything together or no serious critic would waste his time on it. That scene reveals the entire whodunit  of the film!

 

After spending all the time and money on the film, and getting all the resistance Stone got for making the film, if Stone was to find out Prouty wasn't near as credible as he first thought. You really think he'd scream to the press about it? Of course not!

 

 

*****

 

We'll leave aside Prouty's  folding like an armchair before the ARRB  softball finals* as I realize he is somewhat of a Trumpian figure and his appeal is beyond any performance expectations for you,  but  regarding the continual denial about Prouty's extensive involvement with right wing organizations asserting that he in essence didn't know who he was with, or what W. and Jeff Carter now boast as the "original" Steve Scalise defense!

I mean that's about as believable as Jim Di telling us Jackie was the only one!

 

 

Heh heh

 

*I understand hard core pro Proutyist's  will scream "deep state!" and question if he should have been asked to testify at all, but that was a softball interview!

And Jeff that's a serious question I asked.

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

C'mon, Kirk.  Get a clue here already.

Who are the scammers who have convinced you that "Prouty isn't credible?"  John McAdams and Michael Griffith?

Have you read JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, or The Secret Team?

Obviously not.  Yet you, like Rob Clark, continue to lecture to us on the subject of Prouty's crucial witness testimony-- based solely on the bogus disinformation tropes promoted by John McAdams and his ilk on the internet since 1992.

It was a Kill-the-Messenger op directed at a man who tried to inform the public about the anti-democratic machinations of Allen Dulles and the Company.

You're the poster child on this subject for how repeated disinformation works.  It convinces poorly informed people that falsehoods are true.

Edited October 13, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Ok Jeff, 

So to address what I've brought before you. Be clear. You're saying you know with certainty that such an argument involving these issues didn't happen between Stone, Prouty and Newman? and regretted mythic character hero of Stone film lore, supernal Colonel Prouty didn't get pouty?

 

heh heh   a joke

 

Let's be clear, the scene involving Donald Sutherland is the most popular scene of JFK. It's also the most essential. Without it, it's just a lot of loose plot weaver's skeins. Stone goes from Ferrie, to Bannister, to Dulles to LBJ to Clay Shaw, to Jimmy Hoffa  and who else?. The great majority of the people going to see the movie aren't hardcore JFKA freaks. That  scene ties everything together or no serious critic would waste his time on it. That scene reveals the entire whodunit  of the film!

 

After spending all the time and money on the film, and getting all the resistance Stone got for making the film, if Stone was to find out Prouty wasn't near as credible as he first thought. You really think he'd scream to the press about it? Of course not!

 

 

*****

 

We'll leave aside Prouty's  folding like an armchair before the ARRB  softball finals* as I realize he is somewhat of a Trumpian figure and his appeal is beyond any performance expectations for you,  but  regarding the continual denial about Prouty's extensive involvement with right wing organizations asserting that he in essence didn't know who he was with, or what W. and Jeff Carter now boast as the "original" Steve Scalise defense!

I mean that's about as believable as Jim Di telling us Jackie was the only one!

 

 

Heh heh

 

*I understand hard core pro Proutyist's  will scream "deep state!" and question if he should have been asked to testify at all, but that was a softball interview!

And Jeff that's a serious question I asked.

 

 

 

Kirk - I have no idea what your post means or is getting at. Your signature snark at times overwhelms your message. If there is a message.

This may surprise you, but I don’t believe the ’96 interview is anything more than a blip or footnote. Clearly the ARRB team acted unprofessionally in voicing their prejudicial preconceptions in written memoranda ahead of the event, and were stupid to write up a sort of triumphalist Summary which did little else but reveal their own ignorance over the topics they themselves initiated. Seen in today’s light, every single one of their celebrated “gotcha” points is a major fail.  Even so, strangely, in recent times there’s been an effort to re-brand this non-event as some sort of major encounter, where Prouty “confessed to his lies”. Its all, in my opinion, very very stupid and inane, but like many other stupid and inane concepts related to the JFK topic which have gained momentum at one time or the other, sometimes its best to just pop the balloon if the opportunity arises.

This may also surprise you, returning to the 1989-93 period which saw Prouty’s presumed “extensive involvement with right wing organizations” - which I acknowledge, by the way, although believe its actual import or relevance is much less than that perceived in some circles. The reason I say that is because across that same exact time period it is just as easy - using cherry-picked reference to specific known “involvements” - to make the case for Prouty’s “extensive” links to left / radical left milieus - associations which were in fact far more up-close and personal than anything involving the Liberty Lobby. That sort of information doesn’t appear in the Esquire article for good reason - it was a hit piece. It doesn’t appear in Chip Berlet’s reports, because Berlet was operating according to his own limited agenda. This is what I’ve been saying - for whatever reason, Prouty’s critics are often only partially informed.

In my opinion, someone had to defend the guy, because the attacks on him were so pathetically stupid. That doesn’t mean there is some kind of “hard core pro-Prouty” cult -  although you are welcome to join. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 10/12/2023 at 11:21 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

The showdown took place in an Interior Department office that had been made over to appear like the Pentagon lair of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While technicians set lights for the next scene, Stone summoned Prouty and Newman and came right to the point. Prouty's association with Livingstone must immediately end. No more information was to be provided to him, and Prouty was to do his utmost to ensure that he would not publish anything that would discredit the film. Then Stone turned to Prouty's misreading of the critical NSAM. "What's the story, Fletch?" he asked.

Prouty began by saying that he had confused the four-page draft NSAM 273 with the one-paragraph NSAM 263. When Stone, who had seen both documents, appeared dubious, Prouty switched tactics, claiming that the draft NSAM was a forgery and that the source from which it had come -- namely, the Kennedy Library -- had been "infiltrated." At that, Newman tore into him. Prouty was wrong, he said: about Bundy, about "infiltration," about the NSAMs, about the entire case. Unaccustomed to being dressed down by a junior officer, Prouty erupted. "Fletcher really went into orbit," recalled a witness to the meeting. "He jumped up and went into this long tirade about his forty years and how he had done everything and written everything and briefed everybody and if that wasn't good enough for Oliver, he was quitting."

At length, Stone managed to pacify Prouty and the session ended in edgy detente. The incident, though, seemed to mark a turning point for Stone, not only in his unquestioning regard for Prouty, from whom he gently began to distance himself, but in his attitude about the assassination and his film. Never again would he wax quite so rhapsodic about Garrison, whose appalling blunders he had belatedly begun to appreciate. Among his staff, which had long been trying to wean him from the DA, there was hope that, in editing, Stone would loop in a line or two, making his new skepticism clear. Under the growing influence of more of the serious buffs, he was now even willing to admit doubt, not that there had been a conspiracy, or that Vietnam had been its ghastly consequence, but doubt in the certainty that he knew everything.

 

Jeff: Kirk - I have no idea what your post means or is getting at!

 

No it's perfectly clear in my  first and last sentence, at the top of this page!. Read it again. The story is above.

Now for the third time.

This story represents a breach of trust between Prouty and Stone.

 

First sentence: Kirk to Jeff:   So to address what I've brought before you. Be clear. You're saying you know with certainty that such an argument involving these issues didn't happen between Stone, Prouty and Newman?

Last sentence:   :Kirk to Jeff:     And Jeff that's a serious question I asked you.

Clear enough for ya. Jeff?
 

[Jeff Carter]

47 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff: Kirk - I have no idea what your post means or is getting at!

 

No it's perfectly clear in my  first and last sentence, at the top of this page!. Read it again. The story is above.

Now for the third time.

This story represents a breach of trust between Prouty and Stone.

 

First sentence: Kirk to Jeff:   So to address what I've brought before you. Be clear. You're saying you know with certainty that such an argument involving these issues didn't happen between Stone, Prouty and Newman?

Last sentence:   :Kirk to Jeff:     And Jeff that's a serious question I asked you.

Clear enough for ya. Jeff?
 

Kirk - the Anson article for many reasons can be considered a hatchet job. You are entitled, of course, to approach it entirely at face value if that is what you wish. As to the veracity of the described “argument”, I was at that time (1991) living on the west coast, almost 3000 miles from the event in question, and so was in no position to witness such. How is that even possibly a serious question?

Stone’s response to the article appeared in the following issue:

On the Anson article:

“…filled with numerous errors, omissions, out-of-context quotes, and misunderstandings.”

On Prouty:

“His revelations and his book The Secret Team have not been discredited in any intelligent way.”

On the production:

“Aside from having two thirds of my quotations out of context…Because we could not afford twenty-five researchers and the exorbitant sums asked for their books, we made enemies. These enemies have done their utmost to destroy the film before it is seen and in doing so have helped those who want the ‘lie’ to continue.”

[Kirk Gallaway]

He certainly not denying it. Is he Jeff? I covered that too below.

California? I'm not sure how relevant that is. You haven't been to Tehran either. But I'm at least  glad to hear you've been out of Canada!.

Kirk: After spending all the time and money on the film, and getting all the resistance Stone got for making the film, if Stone was to find out Prouty wasn't near as credible as he first thought. You really think he'd scream to the press about it? Of course not!

[W. Niederhut]

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

He certainly not denying it. Is he Jeff? I covered that too below.

California? I'm not sure how relevant that is. You haven't been to Tehran either. But I'm at least  glad to hear you've been out of Canada!.

Kirk: After spending all the time and money on the film, and getting all the resistance Stone got for making the film, if Stone was to find out Prouty wasn't near as credible as he first thought. You really think he'd scream to the press about it? Of course not!

Huh?   "Finding out Prouty wasn't near as credible as he first thought?"

Where did you come up with that ungrammatical flamer, Kirk?

Geez... Some delusions simply can't be fixed.  🤥

Edited October 14, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

He certainly not denying it. Is he Jeff? I covered that too below.

California? I'm not sure how relevant that is. You haven't been to Tehran either. But I'm at least  glad to hear you've been out of Canada!.

Kirk: After spending all the time and money on the film, and getting all the resistance Stone got for making the film, if Stone was to find out Prouty wasn't near as credible as he first thought. You really think he'd scream to the press about it? Of course not!

Kirk - I am fairly certain Oliver Stone was well aware of who was pushing stories designed to disrupt his film, and the various motivations involved.

The Esquire author was not physically present for the alleged “confrontation”. What you are reading is a third-hand account. Stone responded to the article -  “…filled with numerous errors, omissions, out-of-context quotes, and misunderstandings.”

Oliver Stone did a speaking tour in early 1992 to address the controversies, with Prouty as an invited guest who was introduced at each event.

That said, you aren’t actually serious. You are presuming things based on innuendo.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jeff, Let me educate you in public speak, using your statements. Which I'm sure aren't the only statements.

Jeff reading a quote from Stone.“…filled with numerous errors, omissions, out-of-context quotes, and misunderstandings.”

How many times have I heard that exact litany of denials? That is complete PR. It's a bit of misdirection. Sort of alluding to making a well detailed list of the naysayers sins. But not denying such an event happened.                                             I

It's common, I wouldn't blame Stone at all! Let's break it down.

“…filled with numerous errors",- errors in what? You understand that implies a subject, Jeff?.

"omissions"- probably not but it is always an integral part of that litany.

"Out of context quotes"--You understand Jeff, that implies there was such a dialog to quote?

"Misunderstandings"-- a sort of 10 cent word, which could mean anything, but always sounds good!

Have I lost you yet Jeff?*

Now what would have been a complete refutation?  Let me make it simple for you.

Stone: The Esquire article is a complete fabrication.  There's absolutely no truth to any of it.

Isn't that easy Jeff? Why didn't Stone say that?

Because if he made an absolute denial , they might use alleged witnesses to contradict him and search  into it trying  discredit the film further. You can read from the fact that there wasn't a simple denial that there was such an incident. The magnitude of that incident is unclear.

Then you might ask, why don't  reporters just ask Stone  "what are the "errors" you cite in Esquire article?

Because they usually don't. Stone's under no obligation to go into the weeds about any arguments or disputes that may have happened during the filming.

 

 

*Go to top of the page. You notice how i asked you the question twice. The last sentence to you was.

"That's a serious question  I asked Jeff."

How did I know to write that a  second time?  It's because I knew you'd answer everything but the direct question, which is exactly what happened.

[Paul Brancato]

So - Kirk - you don’t think that Dulles and company killed JFK? Do you dismiss Talbot too? Can you not recognize ‘shoot the messenger’? Did the ARRB help us understand the truth of Nov 22? Or continue to cover up the truth? Are you a CIA rooter? A fan of the Joint Chiefs? Just where do you stand? 

[Jeff Carter]

42 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff, Let me educate you in public speak, using your statements. Which I'm sure aren't the only statements.

Jeff reading a quote from Stone.“…filled with numerous errors, omissions, out-of-context quotes, and misunderstandings.”

How many times have I heard that exact litany of denials? That is complete PR. It's a bit of misdirection. Sort of alluding to making a well detailed list of the naysayers sins. But not denying such an event happened.                                             I

It's common, I wouldn't blame Stone at all! Let's break it down.

“…filled with numerous errors",- errors in what? You understand that implies a subject, Jeff?.

"omissions"- probably not but it is always an integral part of that litany.

"Out of context quotes"--You understand Jeff, that implies there was such a dialog to quote?

"Misunderstandings"-- a sort of 10 cent word, which could mean anything, but always sounds good!

Have I lost you yet Jeff?*

Now what would have been a complete refutation?  Let me make it simple for you.

Stone: The Esquire article is a complete fabrication.  There's absolutely no truth to any of it.

Isn't that easy Jeff? Why didn't Stone say that?

Because if he made an absolute denial , they might use alleged witnesses to contradict him and search  into it trying  discredit the film further. You can read from the fact that there wasn't a simple denial that there was such an incident. The magnitude of that incident is unclear.

Then you might ask, why don't  reporters just ask Stone  "what are the "errors" you cite in Esquire article?

Because they usually don't. Stone's under no obligation to go into the weeds about any arguments or disputes that may have happened during the filming.

 

 

*Go to top of the page. You notice how i asked you the question twice. The last sentence to you was.

"That's a serious question  I asked Jeff."

How did I know to write that a  second time?  It's because I knew you'd answer everything but the direct question, which is exactly what happened.

Kirk - you have dredged up a thirty-two-year-old third-hand uncorroborated innuendo-laden report.  If you want to traffiick in rumour, that is your prerogative.

Otherwise your demand that some sort of direct refutation or response was “owed” at the time, or that your own innuendo - disguised as a “direct question” and expressed a full thirty-two years after it could have assumed any relevance - reflects anything approaching an imprimatur of seriousness or value related to the general discussion appears sadly misdirected.

If you are striking up common cause that the JFK film was fatally compromised by its advisors then just say that.

[Kirk Gallaway]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Kirk - you have dredged up a thirty-two-year-old third-hand uncorroborated innuendo-laden report.  If you want to traffiick in rumour, that is your prerogative.

or that your own innuendo - disguised as a “direct question” and expressed a full thirty-two years after it could have assumed any relevance - reflects anything approaching an imprimatur of seriousness or value related to the general discussion appears sadly misdirected.

If you are striking up common cause that the JFK film was fatally compromised by its advisors then just say that.

Jeff: Otherwise your demand that some sort of direct refutation or response was “owed” at the time,

I didn't "demand 'anything.Jeff.  I'm trying to educate you on what was expected, and the world Stone had to live in at the time. It's really simple , you don't want to turn off the press with defiance because you'll need them again. I had the same thing with guests on my radio program.

Jeff, you complicate the situation to the point of complete paralysis.  Believe me if Stone could make a complete refutation and say that it was a complete fabrication, he would have, but he didn't.  If he was holding that hand, unlike you he wouldn't have acted proud and above the fray, because he realizes he's just going to encourage more press BS.

He would have used it. He's not a fool!

Paul, I was trying to have a substantive conversation. I'll deal with your accusations later.

 

[W. Niederhut]

11 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Paul, I was trying to have a substantive conversation. I'll deal with your accusations later.

 

Yes, of course, let's have a "substantive conversation" with Kirk-- a guy who knows nothing about the "substance" of Prouty's first hand observations, based on his years of USAF liaison contact with Allen Dulles, Ed Lansdale, and the CIA.  Makes a lot of sense.

Let's substantively ignore the substance of Prouty's testimony as a historical witness, and focus on bogus articles published by CIA contract journalists in the M$M, after the film JFK began to raise public consciousness about CIA black ops, Vietnam, and the JFK assassination.

[Jeff Carter]

35 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff: Otherwise your demand that some sort of direct refutation or response was “owed” at the time,

I didn't "demand 'anything.Jeff.  I'm trying to educate you on what was expected, and the world Stone had to live in at the time. It's really simple , you don't want to turn off the press with defiance because you'll need them again. I had the same thing with guests on my radio program.

Jeff, you complicate the situation to the point of complete paralysis.  Believe me if Stone could make a complete refutation and say that it was a complete fabrication, he would have, but he didn't.  If he was holding that hand, unlike you he wouldn't have acted proud and above the fray, because he realizes he's just going to encourage more press BS.

He would have used it. He's not a fool!

Paul, I was trying to have a substantive conversation. I'll deal with your accusations later.

 

Expected by whom? There was no discernible groundswell of demand for an “explanation” of the alleged “confrontation” discussed third-hand in Esquire. The press was reacting “in defiance” regardless, based on outrage over the high-profile dissembling of the Warren Commission’s conclusions.

That Stone included Prouty during his speaking tour addressing the controversies stoked by the film, and specifically introduced him at those events, basically answers your question.

[Kirk Gallaway]

uhhhh, comment coming!