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

[Guest Doug Campbell]

44 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.

A "phrase"? 55 words across (2) sentences from (2) different paragraphs is your idea of a "phrase"?(!)

Conveniently, Wray's stated reasoning for insisting on the release of a full-interview transcript is included in this 55-word "phrase" excised by Mr. Carter. Also missing completely from the excised portion is any opinion whatsoever expressed by Wray regarding "Wray's own work." Read it again:

An "opinion" of "Wray's work" by Wray does NOT exist within the 55 words excised. 

PLEASE with the misdirectional nonsense.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Doug Campbell

[James DiEugenio]

No, the term hatchet job, by Wray,  is all of 17 words later.

Wray is the guy who perused JFK and Vietnam and gave it back to Horne.

Wray is the guy who was going to use Secret Service sources to say there was not military intel in support of security. When , in fact, there were actual plentiful pictures of such for which he could have called Palamara for.

Wray is the guy who missed the source about the military intel support in Dallas even though it was online.

Prouty was the source for two major aspects of Stone's film:  the Vietnam withdrawal, and the attempt to support the Secret Service in Dallas that was not accepted.

He was correct on both issues.  Tim Wray did not like either. 

Horne took his job, and instead of trying to discredit Stone, he worked on uncovering vital evidence that showed a plot to kill Kennedy; he succeeded in doing so.

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour 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...

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

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.

I’m sorry, but the correspondence between Prouty and Krulak exists. It is in Len’s archive and I have personally held the letters. The idea they are some kind of forgery is nothing more than the desperate grasping of persons unwilling to let go of their pet theories.

Mr Krulak unambiguously identified Lansdale in a private correspondence with Prouty. Prouty never shared that information publicly, although confidentially informed some colleagues, apparently including Livingstone. For reasons of his own, Livingstone broke Prouty’s trust and put Krulak on the defensive.

I have not personally seen any quotations by which Krulak specifically disavowed the identification itself, but if he did it would reflect that he was under some pressure as the original correspondence exists and says what it says.

[Jeff Carter]

28 minutes ago, Doug Campbell said:

A "phrase"? 55 words across (2) sentences from (2) different paragraphs is your idea of a "phrase"?(!)

Conveniently, Wray's stated reasoning for insisting on the release of a full-interview transcript is included in this 55-word "phrase" excised by Mr. Carter. Also missing completely from the excised portion is any opinion whatsoever expressed by Wray regarding "Wray's own work." Read it again:

An "opinion" of "Wray's work" by Wray does NOT exist within the 55 words excised. 

PLEASE with the misdirectional nonsense.

Mr Campbell - I properly and accurately cited the source of the quotation.

Wray’s opinion is expressed in the following: “given the fact that it is so full of retractions, contradictions and disqualifications of his other statements”.  Wray’s opinion has been carefully and fully dissected in my essay, in Jim’s essay, and in the work which Jim’s essay refers.

[James DiEugenio]

Tim Wray should have never have been on the ARRB.

But when one reads the 15 pages Horne wrote about the culture of the ARRB one understands why he was.  Its pretty clear that not one of the Board was going to go against the official story in public, and this included the first director, Marwell.

It is also  clear that they were going to try and discredit Stone.  You can see that in their report, and the fact that its pretty transparent that --by trying to smear Prouty--they could get to Stone's film. Which was really the reason for their being.  In retrospect, its really kind of shocking to me that Gunn went along with this charade. 

Jeremy Gunn has a very mixed legacy today.

[Joe Bauer]

16 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Mr Krulak unambiguously identified Lansdale in a private correspondence with Prouty. Prouty never shared that information publicly, although confidentially informed some colleagues, apparently including Livingstone. For reasons of his own, Livingstone broke Prouty’s trust and put Krulak on the defensive.

Just because someone is a highest rank military officer with a chest full of medals for years of actual war time service doesn't mean they could never lie about anything.

If Krulak clearly threw Prouty under the bus by denying the possible Lansdale in Dealy Plaza photo quotes attributed to him by Prouty... one of them is lying.

One of them did wrong. Was it Prouty?

I could logically imagine that even a highest rank military officer who felt that something highly controversial attributed to him could seriously taint or compromise an incredible meritorious lifetime achievement career standing and legacy ... he or she could be tempted to pull back some statement that risked this loss.

Prouty's story about Krulak's affirmation of Prouty's suspicion regards the photo being Lansdale, if false, just seems too risky and even irrational on his part.

Personally, I just don't feel Prouty could be of that mentality.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Just because someone is a highest rank military officer with a chest full of medals for years of actual war time service doesn't mean they could never lie about anything.

If Krulak clearly threw Prouty under the bus by denying the possible Lansdale in Dealy Plaza photo quotes attributed to him by Prouty... one of them is lying.

One of them did wrong. Was it Prouty?

I could logically imagine that even a highest rank military officer who felt that something attributed to him could seriously taint or compromise an incredible meritorious lifetime achievement career standing and legacy ... he or she could be tempted to pull back some statement that risked this loss.

Prouty's story about Krulak's affirmation of Prouty's suspicion regards the photo being Lansdale, if false, just seems too risky and even irrational on his part.

Personally, I just don't feel Prouty could be of that mentality.

Joe,

    Prouty and Krulak's identification of their colleague, Ed Lansdale, in Dealey Plaza was huge.  It was, in essence, damning evidence that Allen Dulles and his Secret Team killed JFK. 

    Basically, with that identification of Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, the jig was up, because Ed Lansdale was one of Allen Dulles's black ops golden boys, subsequent to Lansdale's stunning black ops/psy ops success with Magsaysay in the Philippines.

    That success in the Philippines was why Dulles had Ed Lansdale running CIA ops at Saigon Station.

     IMO, this is why the CIA propagandists-- contract journalists in the M$M and internet bloggers like John McAdams, et.al.-- have been so focused for the past 30+ years on smearing and discrediting Prouty-- desperately trying to convince the public that Prouty was a crackpot and an unreliable witness of CIA history, with which he had been intimately involved as a highly-decorated, respected USAF liaison to Dulles's black ops people.

      As for Krulak, imagine what he must have thought after seeing the photo of Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza!

      He would have realized that JFK's murder was, in fact, a CIA black op, and that the cover up of JFK's murder-- and framing of Oswald in the M$M-- was a CIA psy op, involving C.D. Jackson, Mockingbird, et.al.  Like Prouty, Krulak also would have known that the CIA could readily murder key witnesses in the JFK murder case-- as they did, for years.

      Under the circumstances, Krulak would have been, understandably, terrified to be identified, publicly, as a witness of a well known CIA black ops man in Dealey Plaza.

    

Edited October 17, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

No, the term hatchet job, by Wray, is all of 17 words later.

Huh? I suggest you take another look at the document. I count 54 words. 

And Wray was correct in noting that Prouty's answers contained a number of retractions, contradictions and disqualifications. Anyone who reads the transcript can see this.

The bottom line is that the interview was in no sense an "ambush." If anything, the interviewers were too soft on him. I would have pressed him on several points, especially his casually stated bombshell answer that his alleged notes from his supposed phone call with the 112th MI Group were lost. Yeah, just like his alleged Tehran-trip photos of the Chinese delegation. 

It is hard for me to understand how anyone who truly cares about the case for conspiracy can continue to defend Prouty given all that we now know about his nutty and bogus claims.

[Joe Bauer]

The technical science of human anatomical identification including walking gate, posture, height, head and body shape is so advanced now that it is used worldwide in security surveillance by almost every type of highest level intel agencies.

One assumes the equipment and technical expertise to operate and analyze this high tech identification process is very expensive and tightly controlled by those who utilize it.

Even so, if it could be used in this case, I would guess that the top experts in this field could make a high probability ID finding either proving the Dealey Plaza walking man is or is not Lansdale.

They could do this by analyzing every known full body still photo or even video footage of Lansdale and comparing them to the man in the Dealey Plaza Tramp walk photo.

That would be the only way to come up with anything close to a definitive scientific proof conclusion in the matter.

And it will never happen.

However, just taking the most unscientific layman look at photos of Lansdale such as the one where he is standing next to Alan Dulles and one where he is arriving at and walking over some airport tarmac overseas, my untrained eyes do see similarities between those two photos and the 11,22,1963 Dealey Plaza Tramp photo man.

The height. Dulles was 6 ft. 2 in. tall. Lansdale matches him in height.

The build. Lansdale was a thin bone structure man. Narrower shoulders than Dulles.

Longer neck from head to shoulders than Dulles.

Lansdale's military uniform is cut with a much more tightened waist draw in. This is just above the hip line of which is noticeably high with Lansdale. I see these same two upper body and coat aspects in the Dealey Plaza photo ... do you?

There is a slight drop of Lansdale's shoulders, one lower than the other. They are not equally straight across.

Landale appears to be moderately bow-legged. You can see this in the tarmac photo. Much more space between them than the more straight-legged men next to him.

Lansdale clearly has a block head shape. So does the Dealey Plaza man.

Same ear shape and vertical and horizontal skull location. Same haircut.

And the hands.

Lansdale's hands in the Dulles photo match the size, shape and curled in finger hold position as the Plaza man...imo anyways.

The Dealey Plaza man walks with his head slightly stooped or bowed forward. Did Lansdale have this lean-to as well?

The similarities are close enough to not easily dismiss their Lansdale match importance imo.

Yes, the Dealey Plaza photo man is wearing glasses. Don't know if Lansdale ever did. That's a valid point of debate in the matter.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

The technical science of human anatomical identification including walking gate, posture, height, head and body shape is so advanced now that it is used worldwide in security surveillance by almost every type of highest level intel agencies.

One assumes the equipment and technical expertise to operate and analyze this high tech identification process is very expensive and tightly controlled by those who utilize it.

Even so, if it could be used in this case, I would guess that the top experts in this field could make a high probability ID finding either proving the Dealey Plaza walking man is or is not Lansdale.

They could do this by analyzing every known full body still photo or even video footage of Lansdale and comparing them to the man in the Dealey Plaza Tramp walk photo.

That would be the only way to come up with anything close to a definitive scientific proof conclusion in the matter.

And it will never happen.

However, just taking the most unscientific layman look at photos of Lansdale such as the one where he is standing next to Alan Dulles and one where he is arriving at and walking over some airport tarmac overseas, my untrained eyes do see similarities between those two photos and the 11,22,1963 Dealey Plaza Tramp photo man.

The height. Dulles was 6 ft. 2 in. tall. Lansdale matches him in height.

The build. Lansdale was a thin bone structure man. Narrower shoulders than Dulles.

Longer neck from head to shoulders than Dulles.

Lansdale's military uniform is cut with a much more tightened waist draw in. This is just above the hip line of which is noticeably high with Lansdale. I see these same two upper body and coat aspects in the Dealey Plaza photo ... do you?

There is a slight drop of Lansdale's shoulders, one lower than the other. They are not equally straight across.

Landale appears to be moderately bow legged. You can see this in the tarmac photo. Much more space between them than the more straight-legged men next to him.

Lansdale clearly has a block head shape. So does the Dealey Plaza man.

Same ear shape and vertical and horizontal skull location. Same hair cut.

And the hands.

Lansdale's hands in the Dulles photo match the size, shape and curled in finger hold position as the Plaza man...imo anyways.

The Dealey Plaza man walks with his head slightly stooped or bowed forward. Did Lansdale have this lean to as well?

The similarities are close enough to not easily dismiss their importance imo.

Yes, the Dealey Plaza photo man is wearing glasses. Don't know if Lansdale ever did. That's a valid point of debate in the matter.

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as debating the validity of an Elvis sighting. 

No, there is no known photo of Lansdale wearing glasses. His son said he did not wear glasses. His son also said that Lansdale did not wear the prominent ring that the man in the tramp photo is wearing. 

The whole discussion is absurd. I have proved that Prouty made utterly bogus claims, some of which are as whacky as claiming that McGovern won the 1972 election. 

How many years does a person have to spend palling around with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers to be repudiated as a credible source? How many of the person's claims have to be indisputably exposed as false, and even downright nutty, before Occam's Razor kicks in?

[Robert Reeves]

Col. Fletcher Prouty was a tricky fella. He directed attention to a man with his back to the camera. Someone unidentifiable.

I believe Col. Prouty would have studied all seven of the 'three tramps' photo sequence. Surely?

So with Gen. Lansdale in his sights, how did Col. Prouty fail to also identify a more identifiable profile view of Lansdale. Surely this would have Bolstered his case in pointing the finger at Lansdale!?

 

 

I believe the person shown in profile was captured in one of the Allen photographs. Does anyone believe Prouty would not have seen this person? So I find it so strange he never jumped all over it. I think it was Charles Drago that first noticed this person in the photos.

But much like his ARRB performance, Prouty never really put his foot right in it', and buried Lansdale and Co when he had the chance. 

From Harold Weisberg's documents at jfk.hood.edu 

Weisberg discusses Prouty with a person named 'Ed'. Weisberg asks ''I have long held the same question about Prouty in all this: does he speak for the military as opposed to the CIA?'' *from Weisberg collection at Hood*

Weisberg was OSS (CIA).

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as debating the validity of an Elvis sighting. 

No, there is no known photo of Lansdale wearing glasses. His son said he did not wear glasses. His son also said that Lansdale did not wear the prominent ring that the man in the tramp photo is wearing. 

The whole discussion is absurd.

If you can't see any similarities in the Tramp walk-by photo to other photos of Lansdale as I described, what can one say?

I see enough of them to consider it possible it could be Lansdale.

However, like I said, only the highest body and walking gate scan technology in the world would be able to definitively prove an ID either way.

It's difficult to discuss and debate Prouty with you.

You are so invested in such a highly charged daily pounding of Prouty's credibility, character, claims, integrity and motives ( for weeks and months on end ) that to a degree it's sometimes off-putting to even consider doing so.

Still, I have to consider your Prouty research facts with a rational open mind.

You've definitely revealed many points about Prouty and his statements to give me some pause and fair reasons to look closer at him in that area.

However, Prouty's incredibly distinguished, achieving and responsible duty career in the highest levels of military command postings after direct war time duty will always prevent me from considering him and his integrity with anything but the highest regards.

If only half of Prouty's JFK related claims are true...they are epically important in understanding and revealing the full JFKA truth.

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

44 minutes ago, Robert Reeves said:

Col. Fletcher Prouty was a tricky fella. He directed attention to a man with his back to the camera. Someone unidentifiable.

I believe Col. Prouty would have studied all seven of the 'three tramps' photo sequence. Surely?

So with Gen. Lansdale in his sights, how did Col. Prouty fail to also identify a more identifiable profile view of Lansdale. Surely this would have Bolstered his case in pointing the finger at Lansdale!?

 

 

I believe the person shown in profile was captured in one of the Allen photographs. Does anyone believe Prouty would not have seen this person? So I find it so strange he never jumped all over it. I think it was Charles Drago that first noticed this person in the photos.

But much like his ARRB performance, Prouty never really put his foot right in it', and buried Lansdale and Co when he had the chance. 

From Harold Weisberg's documents at jfk.hood.edu 

Weisberg discusses Prouty with a person named 'Ed'. Weisberg asks ''I have long held the same question about Prouty in all this: does he speak for the military as opposed to the CIA?'' *from Weisberg collection at Hood*

Weisberg was OSS (CIA).

The side profile of Lansdale in 1964 grabs my attention.

In my mind's eye, I could see the Tramp Walk-By fellow having that face. His head shape resembles the Walk-Bye man's.

Didn't Prouty say from time to time, that there were certain military and or covert activities he was either involved in or aware of that even he could never fully reveal the details of?

For obvious national security reasons?

Edited October 17, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[W. Niederhut]

       

56 minutes ago, Robert Reeves said:

Col. Fletcher Prouty was a tricky fella. He directed attention to a man with his back to the camera. Someone unidentifiable.

I believe Col. Prouty would have studied all seven of the 'three tramps' photo sequence. Surely?

So with Gen. Lansdale in his sights, how did Col. Prouty fail to also identify a more identifiable profile view of Lansdale. Surely this would have Bolstered his case in pointing the finger at Lansdale!?

 

 

I believe the person shown in profile was captured in one of the Allen photographs. Does anyone believe Prouty would not have seen this person? So I find it so strange he never jumped all over it. I think it was Charles Drago that first noticed this person in the photos.

But much like his ARRB performance, Prouty never really put his foot right in it', and buried Lansdale and Co when he had the chance. 

From Harold Weisberg's documents at jfk.hood.edu 

Weisberg discusses Prouty with a person named 'Ed'. Weisberg asks ''I have long held the same question about Prouty in all this: does he speak for the military as opposed to the CIA?'' *from Weisberg collection at Hood*

Weisberg was OSS (CIA).

This is nonsense.

Anyone who has studied Prouty's work knows that he was a consistent critic of the CIA-- based on his long-term observations as a U.S. military liaison to the CIA for Special Ops.

In fact, his criticism of CIA black ops was the very essence of his post-military career witness testimony.

And, yes, his book, The Secret Team, rapidly disappeared from circulation after the first printing.

Meanwhile, who are these mysterious new members who have been coming out of the woodwork to repeat the same old defamatory CIA propaganda tropes about Prouty being, "tricky," "nutty," etc.?

It's an odd phenomenon on this forum.

Edited October 17, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Joe Bauer]

47 minutes ago, Robert Reeves said:

Col. Fletcher Prouty was a tricky fella. He directed attention to a man with his back to the camera. Someone unidentifiable.

I believe Col. Prouty would have studied all seven of the 'three tramps' photo sequence. Surely?

So with Gen. Lansdale in his sights, how did Col. Prouty fail to also identify a more identifiable profile view of Lansdale. Surely this would have Bolstered his case in pointing the finger at Lansdale!?

 

 

I believe the person shown in profile was captured in one of the Allen photographs. Does anyone believe Prouty would not have seen this person? So I find it so strange he never jumped all over it. I think it was Charles Drago that first noticed this person in the photos.

But much like his ARRB performance, Prouty never really put his foot right in it', and buried Lansdale and Co when he had the chance. 

From Harold Weisberg's documents at jfk.hood.edu 

Weisberg discusses Prouty with a person named 'Ed'. Weisberg asks ''I have long held the same question about Prouty in all this: does he speak for the military as opposed to the CIA?'' *from Weisberg collection at Hood*

Weisberg was OSS (CIA).

The two side by side photos in the upper left do not match.