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

[Kirk Gallaway]

 I was trying to find this. This was a quote of Oliver Stone  submitted by B.A. Copeland. It can found at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28739-critics-still-attacking-oliver-stones-jfk-film-with-same-old-factual-deviancies-crap/page/2/

 

Jeff, You were present on this thread when this was posted and you were notably silent about it. And now you're trying to push that there was no absolutely conflict between Stone and Prouty? Well if there wasn't, (which I highly doubt) there certainly became a credibility issue and you knew very well about it.

 

Prouty made very serious allegations about Lansdale, and Stone now kind of took away your Lansdale- at- Dealey- Plaza voodoo doll, but I guess now you admit Prouty was full of sh-t about that, but a God about everything else?? Explain

 

I sometimes  wonder about this. Can anybody say anything that will damage their credibility?

 

Interesting this was in Quebec. Wasn't Jim Di with Stone when he said this? He's been silent here  too.

 

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 I was trying to find this. This was a quote of Oliver Stone  submitted by B.A. Copeland. It can found at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28739-critics-still-attacking-oliver-stones-jfk-film-with-same-old-factual-deviancies-crap/page/2/

 

Jeff, You were present on this thread when this was posted and you were notably silent about it. And now you're trying to push that there was no absolutely conflict between Stone and Prouty? Well if there wasn't, (which I highly doubt) there certainly became a credibility issue and you knew very well about it.

 

Prouty made very serious allegations about Lansdale, and Stone now kind of took away your Lansdale- at- Dealey- Plaza voodoo doll, but I guess now you admit Prouty was full of sh-t about that, but a God about everything else?? Explain

 

I sometimes  wonder about this. Can anybody say anything that will damage their credibility?

 

Interesting this was in Quebec. Wasn't Jim Di with Stone when he said this? He's been silent here  too.

 

What is there to respond to? Stone is expressing a difference of opinion on Lansdale’s possible or potential role in the assassination, based on what he sees as a divergence of interests between Lansdale and the CIA  during the MONGOOSE operation. So what? People disagree or have conflicting opinions all the time on this case. Rarely are such disagreements or differing opinions framed as “repudiations” or a collapse of “credibility”. If you could explain what it is exactly, about this particular expression, which catapults it into “repudiation” territory - then you should do that as it is otherwise much ado about nothing.

Established facts about this controversy:

Lansdale can be placed in Dallas suburb Denton Texas on the evening of November 21, 1963. That information was discovered amongst Lansdale’s papers.

Numerous data points found in military files, Agency files, HSCA files, et al establish Lansdale as “heavily into CIA, not just a military figure.” (Blunt The Devil Is In the Details p86-87)

Prouty’s identification of Lansdale in the “Tramp” photo was corroborated by General Krulak.

 

(The third point remains controversial as these are “subjective” identifications, based on the individual’s personal experiences and contact with Lansdale, and are not independently verifiable. However, Krulak’s corroboration largely undercuts suggestion that the ID was merely a product of Prouty’s overheated imagination. Personally, I believe the ID is very interesting, particularly with Lansdale in proximity on the day, but cannot have status as “verified”. )

[W. Niederhut]

I've given up on trying to converse with Kirk Gallaway about Prouty's writings, because Kirk is determined to avoid reading them.

Prouty's direct observations about his career work with Lansdale in Vietnam is quite interesting and detailed.

His shock at seeing Lansdale in the Dealey Plaza photos is similarly detailed.  His longtime colleague, General Victor Krulak, was also privately shocked to see Lansdale in the photos, but Krulak chose to avoid sticking his neck out publicly.

This is what Kirk glibly calls a "Voo Doo Doll."

Yet, we now know that Lansdale was, in fact, in Texas in November of 1963, after his "retirement" from his CIA career as one of Allen Dulles' favorite black ops experts.

Lansdale told Prouty prior to November that he was planning to focus on some "fun and games" after retiring in October of 1963.

Much of this history was discussed on the forum's "Lansdale Hypothesis" thread.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jeff,  I think I may have been the only  one who complemented you about the effort you made on this piece. I'm not an expert and I found it very informative in parts.

 

The problem I have  is that if you actually suspected that Prouty's charges about Lansdale being at Dealey Plaza were bullsh-t. How could you spend all these hours writing this piece solely defending Prouty?. When you know about this and omit it, IMO, you're really bs'ing us.

I say now, Fluff your f--k piece , or uh........well you know what I mean. It's so completely one sided!

 

 

Let's deal with your established facts.

 

Jeff:Established facts about this controversy:

Lansdale can be placed in Dallas suburb Denton Texas on the evening of November 21, 1963. That information was discovered amongst Lansdale’s papers.

Yeah, interesting  but so what?

 

Jeff: Numerous data points found in military files, Agency files, HSCA files, et al establish Lansdale as “heavily into CIA, not just a military figure.” (Blunt The Devil Is In the Details p86-87)

 Numerous data points? Again stop bsing us,. Explain your data!  "Heavily into CIA " Jeff, cooll! Explain!. "The Devil is in the Details" Was that a life changing book for you Jeff? Anybody  can write a book. Are we suppose to attach any more to your response to the book than say, a young woman writing a book about how much she loves her cat?

 

Jeff: Prouty’s identification of Lansdale in the “Tramp” photo was corroborated by General Krulak.

But he won't get go on record about this right? But your answer to that is that he was threatened by the Deep state---Prove it!

 

Jeff,  Stop being evasive. It looks like Lansdale is very much on your mind here, and your hunkering down and just can't believe Lansdale wasn't part of the plot, and disputing Oliver Stone. What does Jeff Carter think?

 

Do you know your case is about as strong as the 61 cases that Trump brought before the courts claiming a 2020 stolen election and lost? Any impartial judge would look at you like you're some kind of strange animal!

 

  

You know I enclosed an interview with Lansdale Jeff. Did you bother to read it? Ok, that's cool! I didn't make any claims about it like you. He portrayed himself as a sort of maverick, which he was by other's accounts. He was rather complementary about the Kennedy's. He made a remark that when he first met RFK,  he seemed like a young kid, but he came to become very impressed with his  ability  to assimilate information and his thoroughness. His tone didn't come off patronizing but was very matter of fact. As I recall , JFK wanted to appoint him to the head position in Vietnam? But it  was overridden by the Joint Chiefs who didn't like him. Of course, Prouty claims Lansdale is a  "chameleon" which I assume means he's a con!. Ok, whatever you and Prouty say.

 

How did you become attracted to Prouty? I assume it was first through Stone's movie and you then immersed yourself in his books?

 

OLIVER STONE: he (Fletcher) always suspected L. was in Dealey Plaza because there's a vague photograph-----  Fletcher always directed a LOT of venom toward Lansdale and I never understood why.

 

Yes why? But I've got a suggestion Jeff. Maybe you can pull Jim away from his  essay which I believe is going to prove to us that JFK never had an affair with  MM, and  Jim can investigate this!

I've hear that Lansdale and Prouty lived very near each other and their wives knew each other! Do you think, maybe that Lansdale was playing around with Prouty's wife?

Anyway, just a suggestion. Sounds right up Jim's alley!

Why the animus is very unclear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/12/2023 at 3:06 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".

Oh, please. You guys claim that every criticism of Prouty is a "hatchet job," "a smear," "defamation," etc. You guys even claim that Prouty's ARRB interview was an "ambush," that poor ole Fletch was "set up" by the ARRB. 

You know, at some point you need to ask yourselves just how badly you're willing to damage the case for conspiracy in order to defend Prouty's bogus and nutty claims.

It should tell you something that even Oliver Stone has repudiated Prouty's obscene trash about Lansdale, yet you guys continue to peddle it.

[Jeff Carter]

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

The problem I have  is that if you actually suspected that Prouty's charges about Lansdale being at Dealey Plaza were bullsh-t. How could you spend all these hours writing this piece solely defending Prouty?. When you know about this and omit it, IMO, you're really bs'ing us.

Kirk - articulating the reasonable position that achieving a positive ID from a backside photo is usually not possible absent subjective reference points (I.e. stooped shoulder, ring, etc) - is not the same at all as calling “bullsh-t”. The proper descriptive is being “agnostic” - in the sense of noncommittal.

 

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I say now, Fluff your f--k piece , or uh........well you know what I mean. It's so completely one sided!

As for being “completely one-sided”: the debate premise “Fletcher Prouty is a fraud and a crackpot” is as absurd and easy to refute as a premise on the order of “the Single Bullet Theory is proven fact”. What appears as one-sided is actually just the inevitable refutation of a bad premise.

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Lansdale can be placed in Dallas suburb Denton Texas on the evening of November 21, 1963. That information was discovered amongst Lansdale’s papers.

Yeah, interesting  but so what?

The obvious rejoinder is that Lansdale’s alleged presence in Dealey Plaza cannot be ruled out through establishing him elsewhere  (i.e. documents showing Lansdale to have been in Washington or Denver).

 

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 "Heavily into CIA " Jeff, cooll! Explain!. "The Devil is in the Details" Was that a life changing book for you Jeff? Anybody  can write a book. Are we suppose to attach any more to your response to the book than say, a young woman writing a book about how much she loves her cat?

Good one. Are you aware of who Malcolm Blunt is? Look him up. I trust you will regret this response.

 

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff: Prouty’s identification of Lansdale in the “Tramp” photo was corroborated by General Krulak.

But he won't get go on record about this right? But your answer to that is that he was threatened by the Deep state---Prove it!

Krulak went “on the record” in a private correspondence with Prouty. After making the ID, Krulak wrote “What was he doing there?” In his reply, Prouty made a series of speculations (which he also later shared with Garrison). In later interviews, Krulak disavowed Prouty’s speculations but not the Lansdale ID.

I have never mentioned anything about “threats from the Deep State”.

 

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

OLIVER STONE:   Fletcher always directed a LOT of venom toward Lansdale and I never understood why.

 

Why the animus is very unclear.

Prouty had various things to say about Lansdale over the years, including admiration for Lansdale’s considerable skills in psychological operations. If a certain animus later crept into his discourse, as observed by Oliver Stone, it may reflect Prouty’s dismay over Lansdale’s status in the 1980s as mentor to Oliver North and the Enterprise crowd, whose corrupt covert networks exemplified everything Prouty came to oppose in the military and intelligence services of the United States.

 

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

How did you become attracted to Prouty? I assume it was first through Stone's movie and you then immersed yourself in his books?

I have been a friend and colleague of Len Osanic for some years. Len, as most people know, befriended Fletcher Prouty in the 1990s and has hosted a web site with an extensive collection of Prouty’s work. Len also possesses an archive of papers, photos, and correspondence. As I have said, I have had reason for some immersion into this archive, which had been continuing when the Prouty debate exploded on this Forum about six months ago.

[Guest Doug Campbell]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:48 PM, Jeff Carter said:

The podcast in question was premised on a misunderstanding which had the effect of actively misleading the listening audience, and occurred due to a failure to “read the footnotes”  -which is its own sort of irony.

The ARRB panel’s critique was premised on a single non-definitive sentence from Prouty’s 1992 book, and is a very thin marker to deign absolutist terms such as “truth” and “lies”, particularly in light of multiple definitive statements to the contrary.

The other 50% of the Prattling Podcasters here. Mr. Carter suggests that we were guilty of "failure to 'read the footnotes'", and that we effectively "misled the audience". Let's talk about footnotes and misleading your audience. Specifically, Mr. Carter's Footnote #6 from his recent article.

The document footnoted #6 in Mr. Carter's article is a memo written by ARRB staffer Tim Wray on October 23rd of 1996, following the deposition of Prouty. This memo has been misrepresented and lied about over & over, and Mr. Carter's article was no exception. Read the memo ~in it's entirety (NOT just the few lines Mr. Carter saw fit to include)~ at Page 70 at the following link: https://89e2ba32-c324-491e-a629-eacc27d8f25c.filesusr.com/ugd/325b1c_4ff67bdfd4c74303aeb70a9696d43d88.pdf

Mr. Carter~ in his zeal to tow the K&K/BOR Company Line~ used an age-old and simple device to completely excise every bit of the CONTEXT of Mr. Wray's memo from Mr. Wray's memo. That device?

                                                                                             " ... "

The "dot-dot-dot"-edit. 

Here's how this memo is represented in Mr. Carter's article:

See the " ... " between the words "fluff" and "There's"? So, what did Mr. Carter excise from the memo (so that his readers wouldn't read it)? Let's read it together. The excised portion is bracketed in green:

     

Mr. Carter~ and others writing recent defenses of Prouty~ try over and over again to portray this memo as Wray admitting a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, and expessing worry that if they only make available the Summary of the interview, that they'll somehow be found-out. "If we don't publish the whole interview transcript, then people will KNOW we ambushed this Truth-Teller!"

Completely misrepresentative, totally effin' WRONG, and disingenuous to say the least. 

When you read the approximately 55 words that Mr. Carter excised from the memo~ PLUS everything AFTER the phrase "hatchet-job"~ you suddenly understand, you suddenly realize, you suddenly GET exactly what Wray was conveying in the memo. 

Wray was NOT saying, "We should publish the entire interview or else folks are gonna know we did a hatchet-job on Prouty." No!

If Wray and the ARRB were trying to hide a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, why then would Wray *insist that the entire interview be published in transcript-form, word-for-word*? Yeah, that's how you hide stuff! With full and complete disclosure, right??

With the words excised by Mr. Carter RESTORED to the body of the memo, you realize what Wray is actually saying with the memo: "Prouty folded like a pair of dime-store socks, and unless we publish the entire interview, it's gonna LOOK like we were just picking on some crazy old guy." And Wray was 100% correct. 

Mr. Carter is fond of admonishing folks to "read the footnotes." After reading the entire memo on the air, Rob and myself took the opportunity to give our listeners a piece of advice that they should use moving forward:

"If you see a "dot-dot-dot" edit in an article, IMMEDIATELY read the entire piece being quoted, ESPECIALLY what's being excised, because~chances are~ it's important." 

The only "hatchet-job" around here is the one Mr. Carter performed on Tim Wray's memo. The very epitome of "cherry-picking".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Doug Campbell

[Michael Griffith]

The transcript of John Newman and Gus Russo's 1992 workshop suggests that Prouty told Newman in no uncertain terms that he was sent to the South Pole for sinister reasons. The transcript is part of a collection of documents written or collected by W. Anthony Marsh, a veteran conspiracy theorist. Here's what Newman said:

        Fletcher Prouty insists that he was sent to the South Pole by Lansdale to get him out of the way so that he would not witness the events of 22 November 1963. Presumably because if Prouty had been there he would have put two and two together and understood what was going on. (LINK)

Yet, when Prouty was interviewed by the ARRB, he said there was nothing sinister about the trip and that it was so routine he did not think about it. And, of course, Landale did not send Prouty anywhere. 

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Kirk Gallaway]

58 minutes ago, Doug Campbell said:

The other 50% of the Prattling Podcasters here. Mr. Carter suggests that we were guilty of "failure to 'read the footnotes'", and that we effectively "misled the audience". Let's talk about footnotes and misleading your audience. Specifically, Mr. Carter's Footnote #6 from his recent article.

The document footnoted #6 in Mr. Carter's article is a memo written by ARRB staffer Tim Wray on October 23rd of 1996, following the deposition of Prouty. This memo has been misrepresented and lied about over & over, and Mr. Carter's article was no exception. Read the memo ~in it's entirety (NOT just the few lines Mr. Carter saw fit to include)~ at Page 70 at the following link: https://89e2ba32-c324-491e-a629-eacc27d8f25c.filesusr.com/ugd/325b1c_4ff67bdfd4c74303aeb70a9696d43d88.pdf

Mr. Carter~ in his zeal to tow the K&K/BOR Company Line~ used an age-old and simple device to completely excise every bit of the CONTEXT of Mr. Wray's memo from Mr. Wray's memo. That device?

                                                                                             " ... "

The "dot-dot-dot"-edit. 

Here's how this memo is represented in Mr. Carter's article:

See the " ... " between the words "fluff" and "There's"? So, what did Mr. Carter excise from the memo (so that his readers wouldn't read it)? Let's read it together. The excised portion is bracketed in green:

     

Mr. Carter~ and others writing recent defenses of Prouty~ try over and over again to portray this memo as Wray admitting a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, and expessing worry that if they only make available the Summary of the interview, that they'll somehow be found-out. "If we don't publish the whole interview transcript, then people will KNOW we ambushed this Truth-Teller!"

Completely misrepresentative, totally effin' WRONG, and disingenuous to say the least. 

When you read the approximately 55 words that Mr. Carter excised from the memo~ PLUS everything AFTER the phrase "hatchet-job"~ you suddenly understand, you suddenly realize, you suddenly GET exactly what Wray was conveying in the memo. 

Wray was NOT saying, "We should publish the entire interview or else folks are gonna know we did a hatchet-job on Prouty." No!

If Wray and the ARRB were trying to hide a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, why then would Wray *insist that the entire interview be published in transcript-form, word-for-word*? Yeah, that's how you hide stuff! With full and complete disclosure, right??

With the words excised by Mr. Carter RESTORED to the body of the memo, you realize what Wray is actually saying with the memo: "Prouty folded like a pair of dime-store socks, and unless we publish the entire interview, it's gonna LOOK like we were just picking on some crazy old guy." And Wray was 100% correct. 

Mr. Carter is fond of admonishing folks to "read the footnotes." After reading the entire memo on the air, Rob and myself took the opportunity to give our listeners a piece of advice that they should use moving forward:

"If you see a "dot-dot-dot" edit in an article, IMMEDIATELY read the entire piece being quoted, ESPECIALLY what's being excised, because~chances are~ it's important." 

The only "hatchet-job" around here is the one Mr. Carter performed on Tim Wray's memo. The very epitome of "cherry-picking".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree Doug, Jeff would scream "hatchet job" at a croquet match. And has always been screaming "hatchet job", in  that he and his entire country is being hatcheted everyday by the U.S. and if not deep state, the CIA.*

I mean, just look at their prosperity!    heh heh! 

And yet when ever asked friendly questions about his view of what's going on in his country, he is mute.

*****

 

Ok, Jeff I'll accept you've made your pro Prouty case.

 

OLIVER STONE: "he (Fletcher) always suspected Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza because there's a vague photograph-----  Fletcher always directed a LOT of venom toward Lansdale and I never understood why."

 

We can interpret that as Stone thinking Prouty can be irrational and seems to have an emotional vendetta against Lansdale, and is skeptical of his monstrous claims against Lansdale.

 

Now about the article:

 

Jeff: "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 "-

 

No, Quote from the story:     "Fletcher really went into orbit," recalled a witness to the meeting. No a direct witness, I guess because he's not a principal that's a second hand account? I appreciate you're at least not dismissing Esquire as CIA/ Operation Mockingbird! That's would be such a BS cop out!

 

 

With Stone opening the door of doubt about Prouty. Are the events depicted in the Esquire magazine article more likely to have happened or less?

 

Since it's much more likely. I like this excerpt about Prouty's reaction.

 

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."

 

I have seen this BS  used here  from time to time. A lot of it can be about the authenticity of photos or film, for example. Sort of a last ditch salvaging, by saying you can now believe in  nothing, because in this case , the Kennedy library has been "infiltrated" by the "deep state."

Not a good look!

 

Then this :

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."

 

He's really being dressed down about everything!, senses that Stone is probably at least largely in agreement with Newman, and that he is the "odd man out", and threatens to quit.

That's the most logical interpretation.

In other words, Prouty is pouty!

Again, not a good look!

 

 

 

 

* Who according to Jeff, handily overthrew Ukraine in 2015 as easily as they did Guatemala in 1953.

 But I digress.

 

 

 

[Rob Clark]

On 10/13/2023 at 3:07 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Rob,

    Your ignorance and dishonesty about Prouty's career and work is, frankly, embarrassing.

     I'm reminded of our last discussion on the subject, where it was obvious that you knew nothing about Prouty, and had never read either of his books.

     My advice is to limit your punditry to subjects that you properly understand.

     Also, if you really believe that Prouty's writings about Deep State history are comparable to Judyth Baker's, you need to do some serious remedial reading.

I don't care about, and have never addressed Prouty's career or work. I addressed his claims. Judyth Baker has written a couple of books as well...so what's your point? Again, just because someone wrote a book means nothing.  Real simple, Prouty claimed a lot over the years in various places...and walked it ALL back to the ARRB. That makes him a fraud, not smarter than the average bear. You wanna keep believing the fairy tales, go right ahead...I'll be over here concentrating on things that actually matter. By the way Neidernut, watch my Lancer presentation this year, you might learn something.

[Rob Clark]

16 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff: Prouty’s identification of Lansdale in the “Tramp” photo was corroborated by General Krulak.

But he won't get go on record about this right? But your answer to that is that he was threatened by the Deep state---Prove it!

By the way @Jeff Carter, I have audio from an interview with Gen. Krulak done with Harrison Livingstone in the early 90's in which he denies ever telling Prouty that he thought it looked like Lansdale in the tramp photo. Real horse's mouth type stuff...not Prouty said this, and Prouty said that...

[Michael Griffith]

10 minutes ago, Rob Clark said:

By the way @Jeff Carter, I have audio from an interview with Gen. Krulak done with Harrison Livingstone in the early 90's in which he denies ever telling Prouty that he thought it looked like Lansdale in the tramp photo. Real horse's mouth type stuff...not Prouty said this, and Prouty said that...

I've pointed this out as well and provided a link to the recording of the Livingstone-Krulak interview. Not only did Krulak not corroborate Prouty's nutty ID of Lansdale in the tramp photo, he said he had no reason to believe that Lansdale would have been involved in the assassination. 

Apparently Prouty or one of his followers forged the Krulak-to-Prouty letter in which Krulak endorses the Lansdale ID. A letter can be forged relatively easily, but a tape recording between two men whose voices can be checked is infinitely harder. Occam's Razor says the letter was forged.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Doug Campbell said:

The other 50% of the Prattling Podcasters here. Mr. Carter suggests that we were guilty of "failure to 'read the footnotes'", and that we effectively "misled the audience". Let's talk about footnotes and misleading your audience. Specifically, Mr. Carter's Footnote #6 from his recent article.

The document footnoted #6 in Mr. Carter's article is a memo written by ARRB staffer Tim Wray on October 23rd of 1996, following the deposition of Prouty. This memo has been misrepresented and lied about over & over, and Mr. Carter's article was no exception. Read the memo ~in it's entirety (NOT just the few lines Mr. Carter saw fit to include)~ at Page 70 at the following link: https://89e2ba32-c324-491e-a629-eacc27d8f25c.filesusr.com/ugd/325b1c_4ff67bdfd4c74303aeb70a9696d43d88.pdf

Mr. Carter~ in his zeal to tow the K&K/BOR Company Line~ used an age-old and simple device to completely excise every bit of the CONTEXT of Mr. Wray's memo from Mr. Wray's memo. That device?

                                                                                             " ... "

The "dot-dot-dot"-edit. 

Here's how this memo is represented in Mr. Carter's article:

See the " ... " between the words "fluff" and "There's"? So, what did Mr. Carter excise from the memo (so that his readers wouldn't read it)? Let's read it together. The excised portion is bracketed in green:

     

Mr. Carter~ and others writing recent defenses of Prouty~ try over and over again to portray this memo as Wray admitting a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, and expessing worry that if they only make available the Summary of the interview, that they'll somehow be found-out. "If we don't publish the whole interview transcript, then people will KNOW we ambushed this Truth-Teller!"

Completely misrepresentative, totally effin' WRONG, and disingenuous to say the least. 

When you read the approximately 55 words that Mr. Carter excised from the memo~ PLUS everything AFTER the phrase "hatchet-job"~ you suddenly understand, you suddenly realize, you suddenly GET exactly what Wray was conveying in the memo. 

Wray was NOT saying, "We should publish the entire interview or else folks are gonna know we did a hatchet-job on Prouty." No!

If Wray and the ARRB were trying to hide a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, why then would Wray *insist that the entire interview be published in transcript-form, word-for-word*? Yeah, that's how you hide stuff! With full and complete disclosure, right??

With the words excised by Mr. Carter RESTORED to the body of the memo, you realize what Wray is actually saying with the memo: "Prouty folded like a pair of dime-store socks, and unless we publish the entire interview, it's gonna LOOK like we were just picking on some crazy old guy." And Wray was 100% correct. 

Mr. Carter is fond of admonishing folks to "read the footnotes." After reading the entire memo on the air, Rob and myself took the opportunity to give our listeners a piece of advice that they should use moving forward:

"If you see a "dot-dot-dot" edit in an article, IMMEDIATELY read the entire piece being quoted, ESPECIALLY what's being excised, because~chances are~ it's important." 

The only "hatchet-job" around here is the one Mr. Carter performed on Tim Wray's memo. The very epitome of "cherry-picking".

 

Mr Campbell  - it was a hatchet job. The esteemed Malcolm Blunt used the exact same-phrase in margin notes of his copy of ARRB military panel memoranda.

The phrase I left out via the ellipsis consisted of Wray’s questionable opinions regarding his own work. I felt including it within the body of this particular quote was redundant since the substance of his opinion was being dealt with in full detail.

Also - as is plain to see - the quotation finishes with a footnote. The footnote contains a proper citation to the source. Any reader, then, can access the original. If I had not done that, then you might have reason to complain. But I did, the citation is accurate, and therefore it conforms to any and all academic standards that I am aware of.

[Michael Griffith]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Mr Campbell  - it was a hatchet job. The esteemed Malcolm Blunt used the exact same-phrase in margin notes of his copy of ARRB military panel memoranda.

The phrase I left out via the ellipsis consisted of Wray’s questionable opinions regarding his own work. I felt including it within the body of this particular quote was redundant since the substance of his opinion was being dealt with in full detail.

Also - as is plain to see - the quotation finishes with a footnote. The footnote contains a proper citation to the source. Any reader, then, can access the original. If I had not done that, then you might have reason to complain. But I did, the citation is accurate, and therefore it conforms to any and all academic standards that I am aware of.

Huh? Standard academic standards would tell you to let the reader decide about Wray's supposedly "questionable opinions" instead of snipping them out and depriving the reader of important context. 

By the way, two months ago I saw Elvis. Really, I did. And if you question my account, my defenders will say "you are trying to deny Griffith his personal experiences." Of course, the point would be that my "personal experience" was bogus becaue I could not have seen Elvis.

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I agree Doug, Jeff would scream "hatchet job" at a croquet match. And has always been screaming "hatchet job", in  that he and his entire country is being hatcheted everyday by the U.S. and if not deep state, the CIA.*

I mean, just look at their prosperity!    heh heh! 

And yet when ever asked friendly questions about his view of what's going on in his country, he is mute.

*****

 

Ok, Jeff I'll accept you've made your pro Prouty case.

 

OLIVER STONE: "he (Fletcher) always suspected Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza because there's a vague photograph-----  Fletcher always directed a LOT of venom toward Lansdale and I never understood why."

 

We can interpret that as Stone thinking Prouty can be irrational and seems to have an emotional vendetta against Lansdale, and is skeptical of his monstrous claims against Lansdale.

 

Now about the article:

 

Jeff: "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 "-

 

No, Quote from the story:     "Fletcher really went into orbit," recalled a witness to the meeting. No a direct witness, I guess because he's not a principal that's a second hand account? I appreciate you're at least not dismissing Esquire as CIA/ Operation Mockingbird! That's would be such a BS cop out!

 

 

With Stone opening the door of doubt about Prouty. Are the events depicted in the Esquire magazine article more likely to have happened or less?

 

Since it's much more likely. I like this excerpt about Prouty's reaction.

 

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."

 

I have seen this BS  used here  from time to time. A lot of it can be about the authenticity of photos or film, for example. Sort of a last ditch salvaging, by saying you can now believe in  nothing, because in this case , the Kennedy library has been "infiltrated" by the "deep state."

Not a good look!

 

Then this :

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."

 

He's really being dressed down about everything!, senses that Stone is probably at least largely in agreement with Newman, and that he is the "odd man out", and threatens to quit.

That's the most logical interpretation.

In other words, Prouty is pouty!

Again, not a good look!

 

 

 

 

* Who according to Jeff, handily overthrew Ukraine in 2015 as easily as they did Guatemala in 1953.

 But I digress.

 

 

 

Kirk - I assume you will concede that best journalistic practice - describing the Who What Where etc - should avoid the use of anonymous sources. It was once a firm rule at legacy institutions.

With that established, and referring to Anson’s Esquire piece - who is the witness? Did you notice that? The description of the entire supposed showdown relies on the interpretation of events made by an unidentified “witness”.

The reason this might be of some relevance is, first, the author’s easily perceived biases expressed liberally throughout the article in attacks on Stone and Garrison as well as Prouty. Second, the well-known precedent of hostile individuals ingratiating their way into Garrison’s circle at the time of the Clay Shaw trial, and using their access to spread unfounded rumours to compliant reporters. The subsequent identification of these people served to discredit a fair amount of the contemporaneous talking-points used by critics of Garrison.

In light of the above, if the anonymous witness used by Anson turns out to be someone like Gus Russo - and I am not saying it is, although it could well be - then the entire context by which readers should approach the veracity of this reporting is seriously altered.

Otherwise, you are of course welcome to view the Anson article in any light you wish, and articulate any assumptions you may have formed. I would say, in rebuttal, that Oliver Stone’s response published in the subsequent Esquire issue needs to be considered. And the fact that Prouty was invited to participate in a speaking tour in early 1992 where Stone addressed the controversies, and that Prouty was specifically introduced at those events, undercuts the notion that some kind of rift had occurred.