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

[Robert Reeves]

15 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

       

 

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.

You position yourself as if you're the gatekeeper of what can be discussed on this forum. Well you may be in an imaginary hierarchy - on this forum - but I don't believe that you have any authority to dispel discussions you do not agree with. You just have the right to allege there is some ''Mysterious new members'' campaign taking place right here to derail your precious beliefs.

 

Like I said, Col. Prouty is a tricky fella.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg2-5NzVdoQ

From clip above: Man stands up at 1:33:45 named Paul Roofer (sic) and asks ''as a voter it seems to be the least I can do is vote for someone who wasn't director of the CIA in the next election (i.e. Bush snr 1992 election) however, I did hear Mark Lane say that George Bush was not only director of the CIA, BUT THAT AS FAR BACK AS 1963 AND EVEN BEYOND HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE CIA --- I would like to ask any of the panelists to confirm what Mark Lane said: based on what they know, and be specific PLEASE!''

Host of the event asks panelists: ''Anyone here have confirmation that George Bush worked for the CIA before he was director?''

Col. Fletcher Prouty is one of the people in attendance and he says nothing. He sits impassively, resting his face on his right hand.

John Judge chimes in detailing the documents mentioning a George Bush of the CIA, in an FBI memo mentioning -- a G Bush of the CIA debriefing anti-Castro Cubans in Miami, the another document mentioned George Bush grassing on someone in the Republican party called Parrot. And lastly Judge mentions the ships used in the Bay Of Pigs raid, the ships, which he says directly link Bush to the CIA, due to the names of the ships - Zapata - Barbara - Houston. 

Prouty still says nothing. Prouty has openly revealed in other instances that during his role as the Chief of Clandestine Ops, he was the purchaser of those ships mentioned by John Judge. That he, Prouty, allegedly supplied the CIA with the ships for the mission. IF TRUE, there couldn't be a person with more knowledge on the subject of those ships. Presumably the questioner wasn't a plant, inserted into the order of questions to tempt Prouty into answering truthfully about the purchases of those ships. Details I'm guessing was still classified?

From Prouty's website letters section, below (undated) source https://www.prouty.org/email.html

"To Jeff Orr

RE: The names of the ships used in the Bay of Pigs operation that were named for the BUSH family.

I was asked to locate three transport vessels to support the Bay of Pigs landing. I was able to get them and sent them to a U.S. Navy base in North Carolina where they were prepared for that operation. In the process they were painted and then given the names: HOUSTON, ZAPATA, and BARBABA. The name Houston was where Bush's business was. Zapata was the name of his oil company. Barbra was the name of his wife. Whoever selected those names certainly knew George Bush in 1960.

L. Fletcher Prouty "
 

So why does Prouty big up himself, at times, and then when cornered he does not speak up and tell the public what he knows. This is duplicitous, to me. 

So Mr Niederhut, are we allowed to ask why Col. Prouty (someone with direct knowledge of the support ships used in the BOP) chooses to sit on his hands when asked to give forth any information he has on the subject? ... in one instance ... and in other instances Prouty openly discusses the theory Bush was almost certainly involved with the CIA purchased supply ships. Even naming them after his wife, his home town, his oil company. Or would you prefer it's not discussed?

 

This is strange to me. Why is Col. Prouty untouchable?!? I say this as someone who actually became interested in this subject because of the brilliant Donald Sutherland role in the movie. I searched out this mysterious figure. So this doesn't come from somewhere bad, like you're trying to allege. There's no ''Mysterious new members'' campaign. There are some inconsistencies with Col. Prouty and the thing's he said. That's all.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Because Robert, as Len Osanic has said, Prouty had a policy of not outing a CIA agent.

So he came as close as he was willing to go.

Whether or not Bush was really a CIA agent, or an asset, is something we can debate all day and night.

 

[Joe Bauer]

16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.?

Totally agree.

Professional image defamers and destroyers consistently use this psychological ploy of planting mental illness labels upon those they want to discredit.

Nothing scares half the people more than their fear that "they themselves" maybe so labeled simply for defending targeted subjects or even keeping an open mind regards their integrity.

I remember a classic example of this PSYOP tactic being used against Howard Dean in the beginning stages of the 2004 presidential primary campaign.

Dean's campaign took a strong 3rd place in the Iowa caucus vote! He was now a legitimately viable rising star in the Democratic primary field! 

And smart, aggressive and super progressive liberal Dean ( a medical doctor in his private life ) scared the heebie-jeebies out of the corporate 1% / MIC power structure. Seriously scared them.

Within just days I saw a national media campaign so widespread, aggressively promoted and blatantly obvious in it's one super exaggerated fear spreading message it was weird, and in my mind suspiciously so.

"HOWARD DEAN IS NUTS!"

Within three days after Dean's Iowa win, the supermarket magazine/tabloid racks right next to the checkout lines already displayed two of our most well known weekly publications ( "Time" and "Newsweek") with one of them blaring this huge block letter fear title:

"DOUBTS ABOUT DEAN" ... with a dark silhouette image of Dean's face broken up into a dozen scattered parts.

Really? 

Dozens of other national publications also immediately jumped on board with this highly exaggerated "DEAN IS NUTS" fear campaign. 

The massive right wing radio propaganda machine (50 million daily listeners) went so all out in this effort to immediately destroy Howard Dean's unexpected surge to the top tiers of the Democratic Party primary race they turned to creating an illogically frantic over-the-top fear image of Dean.

They and the rest of the compromised and controlled national media latched onto Dean's inspired campaign victory speech and turned it into a maniac rant with very calculated editing and manipulation.

They called it ..."THE DEAN SCREAM!"

They played only the singular rally cry shout out part of Dean's animated campaign speech every chance they could ( many times a day ) and through every venue.

With right wing radio propagandist king Rush Limbaugh leading the charge and playing the "DEAN SCREAM" seemingly every hour.

"Listen to this lunatic folks"  ...   "EEYYYAAAGGGHHH!"

The "Dean Scream" became a nationally reported joke.

This Dean image destruction campaign worked and Dean soon fell out of the primary poll standings. Many voters who veered away from Dean cited some doubts about Dean's mental state which the DEAN SCREAM media campaign had successfully planted in their thoughts. 

Never had I seen such an immediate all out and hugely financed ( and successful ) PSYOP media campaign to destroy a rising presidential primary candidate who inspired that much fear in the true powers to be.

Our own Joseph McBride provides a monumentally important and revealing look at this part of our media corruption, it's history and it's power to change elections and cover up many of our darkest national truths in his tome: "Political Truth - The Media And The Assassination Of President Kennedy."

To varying degrees, Prouty, Oliver Stone and his 1994 film JFK have all been targets of this media branch of our secret government...imo anyways.

YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6i-gYRAwM0

2004: The scream that doomed Howard Dean - YouTube

Web2004: The scream that doomed Howard Dean. 

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Robert Reeves]

31 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Because Robert, as Len Osanic has said, Prouty had a policy of not outing a CIA agent.

So he came as close as he was willing to go.

Whether or not Bush was really a CIA agent, or an asset, is something we can debate all day and night.

 

I get this. I am a long time listener to BOR. Col. Prouty is without doubt the most interesting and informative persona in the 'white hat' information volunteers. A real insider. But he had the chance to really go on record with the ARRB. That was a watershed moment. What I posted about Prouty not grassing Bush is a minor discretion, Obviously. If Prouty had gone on record with the ARRB and told them 'that was Lansdale in Dealy Plaza at approximately 1:30pm with the three tramps' it would have been on the record that he believed Lansdale was involved in the assassination of JFK. It would have given major credence to the CIA involvement. Now there is major doubt to the real position of Col. Prouty. Who did he represent? Which Pentagon faction?

 

What is fascinating about Col. Prouty is his code. His loyalty to the machine (CIA). I  just find it fascinating he points his finger at Lansdale but, really, he does not put the knife in and really finish the guy off. This doesn't really move the truth seeking work any further down the line. It leaves unanswerable questions. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Robert Reeves

[Jeff Carter]

34 minutes ago, Robert Reeves said:

I get this. I am a long time listener to BOR. Col. Prouty is without doubt the most interesting and informative persona in the 'white hat' information volunteers. A real insider. But he had the chance to really go on record with the ARRB. That was a watershed moment. What I posted about Prouty not grassing Bush is a minor discretion, Obviously. If Prouty had gone on record with the ARRB and told them 'that was Lansdale in Dealy Plaza at approximately 1:30pm with the three tramps' it would have been on the record that he believed Lansdale was involved in the assassination of JFK. It would have given major credence to the CIA involvement. Now there is major doubt to the real position of Col. Prouty. Who did he represent? Which Pentagon faction?

 

What is fascinating about Col. Prouty is his code. His loyalty to the machine (CIA). I  just find it fascinating he points his finger at Lansdale but, really, he does not put the knife in and really finish the guy off. This doesn't really move the truth seeking work any further down the line. It leaves unanswerable questions. 

hi Robert - I appreciate any and all contributions to an actual discussion, absent the partisan talking points and insults. 

It has often struck me that Prouty's at times open disdain for the CIA is that of a military man who viewed the ascension of the CIA in the 1950s to status as a "fourth force" within the services with some degree of condescension - a shared attitude within the military I assume. But I think he speaks as a military man rather than for some faction of the military. 

Prouty never signed a CIA non-disclosure agreement, saying his own agreement with the Air Force superseded the former. This gave him some latitude in what he could talk about.

As to ARRB interview - the questioners tend to control these sessions, but he did drop a couple of things late in the session:

Prouty:  Have you ever had access to the files kept by Michael Mitchell?

Gunn: Not that I know of.

Prouty:  He was the military personnel officer for the CIA for years. Have you had any access to the records kept by Larry Houston?  (General Counsel CIA)

[Paul Brancato]

I’m certainly not on a mission re Prouty. What I’d like the experts here to do is outline in their view what Prouty, in his Liaison role between JCS and CIA would have known or not known regarding covert ops. There are inconsistencies in his testimony, and maybe he had good reasons for not going on the record, or not confirming previous assertions like the military stand down order. But it remains troubling that he held back on Lansdale. He must have known far more about a lot of things than he ever let on. 
so what exactly would he have been privy to? 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Because Robert, as Len Osanic has said, Prouty had a policy of not outing a CIA agent.

So he came as close as he was willing to go.

Whether or not Bush was really a CIA agent, or an asset, is something we can debate all day and night.

 

Prouty's tendency to be circumspect about discussing classified intelligence-- including the identities of CIA agents-- is, apparently, what Robert Reeves defines (above) as "tricky" behavior.

It's a slur, implying that Prouty was devious-- less than ethical, insightful, and honest.

IMO, this is a false characterization of the man, all too typical of the CIA propaganda on the subject during the past 30 years.  Hence, my response.

As for Mr. Reeves' delusion that I am some sort of "gate keeper" around here-- it's silly.

Forum members are at liberty to post what they believe, and we are all free to comment on their posts, aren't we?

[Robert Reeves]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Prouty's tendency to be circumspect about discussing classified intelligence-- including the identities of CIA agents-- is, apparently, what Robert Reeves defines (above) as "tricky" behavior.

It's a slur, implying that Prouty was devious-- less than ethical, insightful, and honest.

IMO, this is a false characterization of the man, all too typical of the CIA propaganda on the subject during the past 30 years.  Hence, my response.

Hey, imagine you are the guy that asked ''does anyone have any information about Bush Snr being in the CIA'' ... John Judge reels off an interesting tale of Bush's involvement with the BOP - implicating Bush being an employee or contractor within the CIA, that Bush actually named the supply ships after his wife, and so on. And little do you know that the mysterious older gentleman on the panel who is refusing to say anything actually purchased the supply ships in question. He was directly involved in the BOP supply mission. There isn't a person on planet Earth with greater actual knowledge of those supply ships used in the BOP. But he refuses to speak up in public -- when it would be extremely useful to the benefit of truth. Selectively though, Col. Prouty will give away the truths to random people that write into his website asking if he knows anything about the mysteriously Bush named ships operating in the BOP mission.

It doesn't really add up. I see it as 'tricky' because that is what it looks like. How do you explain this to someone who isn't really info'd up on the loyalty to the code? tradecraft. ''Why did no one speak'' How can you ever complete the circle when people like Col. Prouty remained loyal to this unwritten law of never grassing on someone connected to the CIA?

The people in that room would be surprised to learn that Col. Prouty knew Bush Snr personally, Prouty supposedly taught Bush Snr at Yale. And then allegedly acquired those BOP supply ships for Bush in 1960. But he said NOTHING. He refused to go on the record when called to reveal what he knows about the man. That is - ''devious-- less than ethical, insightful, and honest''  Mr Niederhut. 

This isn't a conspiracy to criticize Col. Prouty. 

 

 

 

[Jeff Carter]

Is it not the case that a great deal of information regarding the Cuban operations became officially declassified between 1992 and 1999, and that may be the difference between what he was at liberty to discuss at the C-SPAN event vs later questions?

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Is it not the case that a great deal of information regarding the Cuban operations became officially declassified between 1992 and 1999, and that may be the difference between what he was at liberty to discuss at the C-SPAN event vs later questions?

I'm no expert on the subject, but isn't it illegal to out CIA agents?

Isn't outing Valerie Plame what landed Scooter Libby in jail?

I have read, or listened, to Prouty commentaries where he specifically mentioned his tendency to be very careful about not illegally divulging classified military or intelligence information.  As an example, Prouty discussed Saigon Station ops only following the publication of the Pentagon Papers-- and partly to clarify his opinion that the CIA had falsely blamed the Pentagon (with the selective publication of the Pentagon Papers) for some of their Saigon Station black ops.

For someone to call Prouty's circumspection about classified material, "tricky"-- or disreputable-- is simply inaccurate.  On the contrary, it is evidence of Prouty's integrity.

I raised this same issue in the context of talking about Robert Montenegro's Operation Bloodstone material.  Was Prouty manipulatively lying about his USAF liaison work for the CIA, or simply obeying the law with respect to classified material?

Edited October 18, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Robert Reeves said:

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 doubt that the guy you're pointing to in your collage is the same person as the alleged Lansdale. The alleged Lansdale is wearing glasses and this guy isn't.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

 

"Odd phenomena from mysterious new members coming out  of woodwork repeating the same old defamatory CIA propaganda".

What are you implying here? That Robert is a CIA plant W.?

 

You've expressed to me on a number of times in pm, your suspicions that people here that disagree with you are plants from somewhere else.  In every case, I didn't agree with them either, but I've tried to steer you away from thinking they all represent some plot, from some spooky operation or the CIA/ Operation Mockingbird or some right wing or Maga organization, other than just being a Trump voter.. .

 

I give credit to Jeff for drawing a line on this. This sort of a xenophobic browbeating  is no way to treat a new member whose raising legitimate questions and definitely appears to have his faculties, but simply disagrees with you. You have  to reflect on this  and stop this.

 

 

With love,

 

 

 

P.S. If he burst on the scene and was out to lunch, and didn't appear to have his faculties, I might trash on him too.

[Robert Reeves]

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

hi Robert - I appreciate any and all contributions to an actual discussion, absent the partisan talking points and insults. 

As to ARRB interview - the questioners tend to control these sessions, but he did drop a couple of things late in the session:

Prouty:  Have you ever had access to the files kept by Michael Mitchell?

Gunn: Not that I know of.

Prouty:  He was the military personnel officer for the CIA for years. Have you had any access to the records kept by Larry Houston?  (General Counsel CIA)

Hi Jeff, the people who hold up Col. Prouty and take offence to him being challenged I can understand. 

10 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Is it not the case that a great deal of information regarding the Cuban operations became officially declassified between 1992 and 1999, and that may be the difference between what he was at liberty to discuss at the C-SPAN event vs later questions?

As to the C-SPAN event - I believe you are right. What Col. Prouty could/would discuss in 1992 was different to the details given during the remainder of his life. Which is ... the complicated minefield of this assassination.

 

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, Robert Reeves said:

You position yourself as if you're the gatekeeper of what can be discussed on this forum. Well you may be in an imaginary hierarchy - on this forum - but I don't believe that you have any authority to dispel discussions you do not agree with. You just have the right to allege there is some ''Mysterious new members'' campaign taking place right here to derail your precious beliefs.

Like I said, Col. Prouty is a tricky fella.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg2-5NzVdoQ

From clip above: Man stands up at 1:33:45 named Paul Roofer (sic) and asks ''as a voter it seems to be the least I can do is vote for someone who wasn't director of the CIA in the next election (i.e. Bush snr 1992 election) however, I did hear Mark Lane say that George Bush was not only director of the CIA, BUT THAT AS FAR BACK AS 1963 AND EVEN BEYOND HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE CIA --- I would like to ask any of the panelists to confirm what Mark Lane said: based on what they know, and be specific PLEASE!''

Host of the event asks panelists: ''Anyone here have confirmation that George Bush worked for the CIA before he was director?''

Col. Fletcher Prouty is one of the people in attendance and he says nothing. He sits impassively, resting his face on his right hand.

John Judge chimes in detailing the documents mentioning a George Bush of the CIA, in an FBI memo mentioning -- a G Bush of the CIA debriefing anti-Castro Cubans in Miami, the another document mentioned George Bush grassing on someone in the Republican party called Parrot. And lastly Judge mentions the ships used in the Bay Of Pigs raid, the ships, which he says directly link Bush to the CIA, due to the names of the ships - Zapata - Barbara - Houston. 

Prouty still says nothing. Prouty has openly revealed in other instances that during his role as the Chief of Clandestine Ops, he was the purchaser of those ships mentioned by John Judge. That he, Prouty, allegedly supplied the CIA with the ships for the mission. IF TRUE, there couldn't be a person with more knowledge on the subject of those ships. Presumably the questioner wasn't a plant, inserted into the order of questions to tempt Prouty into answering truthfully about the purchases of those ships. Details I'm guessing was still classified?

From Prouty's website letters section, below (undated) source https://www.prouty.org/email.html

"To Jeff Orr

RE: The names of the ships used in the Bay of Pigs operation that were named for the BUSH family.

I was asked to locate three transport vessels to support the Bay of Pigs landing. I was able to get them and sent them to a U.S. Navy base in North Carolina where they were prepared for that operation. In the process they were painted and then given the names: HOUSTON, ZAPATA, and BARBABA. The name Houston was where Bush's business was. Zapata was the name of his oil company. Barbra was the name of his wife. Whoever selected those names certainly knew George Bush in 1960.

L. Fletcher Prouty "

So why does Prouty big up himself, at times, and then when cornered he does not speak up and tell the public what he knows. This is duplicitous, to me. 

So Mr Niederhut, are we allowed to ask why Col. Prouty (someone with direct knowledge of the support ships used in the BOP) chooses to sit on his hands when asked to give forth any information he has on the subject? ... in one instance ... and in other instances Prouty openly discusses the theory Bush was almost certainly involved with the CIA purchased supply ships. Even naming them after his wife, his home town, his oil company. Or would you prefer it's not discussed?

This is strange to me. Why is Col. Prouty untouchable?!? I say this as someone who actually became interested in this subject because of the brilliant Donald Sutherland role in the movie. I searched out this mysterious figure. So this doesn't come from somewhere bad, like you're trying to allege. There's no ''Mysterious new members'' campaign. There are some inconsistencies with Col. Prouty and the thing's he said. That's all.

I, too, became interested in the JFK case because of Oliver Stone's movie JFK, and, like you, I was intrigued by what Donald Sutherland said as "Mr. X."

The problems with Prouty go well beyond his bogus, and sometimes nutty, claims. His close and prolonged association with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers and with L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology disqualifies him as a credible source, by any rational standard.

One big reason that Prouty's followers refuse to face the facts about him is that he was one of the main sources for the myth that JFK was going to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam after the election and that this is why he was killed.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

12 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

"Odd phenomena from mysterious new members coming out  of woodwork repeating the same old defamatory CIA propaganda".

What are you implying here? That Robert is a CIA plant W.?

 

You've expressed to me on a number of times in pm, your suspicions that people here that disagree with you are plants from somewhere else. 

Kirk,

     C'mon, man.   How low can you go?   Firstly, stop splitting.  You have been pushing your bogus Good Jeff/Bad W. narrative here in our Prouty debates for weeks now.

     The truth is that Jeff and I are on the same page about Prouty.  My opinions are based solely on studying Prouty's books.  Jeff has had access to additional, more detailed, Prouty files.  But our assessments of Prouty's work concur.

     As for disinformation, surely, you don't still believe that the mainstream U.S. media and internet bloggers like John McAdams, Fred Litwin, et.al., have promoted false narratives about the JFK assassination evidence because they have been committed to telling the public the truth, do you?  That's simply ludicrous.  Naive.

     Most people are understandably reluctant to accuse propagandists of promoting propaganda, but the examples are legion.  My tendency is to, at least, mention the elephants in the room.

    As for PMs, I'm not sure what PMs you're referring to here.  There are some forum members who seem to specialize in posting JFKA disinformation.  Isn't it rather obvious?

    The truth is that you have always been skeptical and poorly informed about the history of CIA Operation Mockingbird-- e.g., William Colby's "Mockingbird" testimony to the Church Committee, and Carl Bernstein's subsequent landmark expose of CIA Operation Mockingbird in Rolling Stone.  (I have also referenced Udo Ulfkotte's 2014 book on the subject.)

    Did you read Joseph McBride's book on that subject of the mainstream media cover up of the JFK assassination?

    To attribute people's awareness of Operation Mockingbird type propaganda to "paranoia" is naive and/or intellectually dishonest.  We have 60 years of Mockingbird evidence in the JFKA case.

    Then there is the related concept of U.S. government "cognitive infiltration" of social media.   It's especially noticeable to anyone who has studied the 9/11 research data-- ubiquitous websites (which always surface at the top of Google searches) emphatically claiming to "debunk" as "myth" the definitive scientific evidence that the WTC was demolished by explosives on 9/11.  The pervasive dishonesty is nauseating.

      The term, "cognitive infiltration" originated with Cass Sunstein.

     I have posted some references on the forum in recent years about Cass Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" proposals-- i.e., having U.S. government bloggers deployed as "cognitive infiltrators" of internet "conspiracy theory" forums, for the express purpose of undermining acceptance of evidence debunking U.S. government narratives about CIA black ops, including the JFK assassination.

     Are you suggesting that Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" proposal never happened? 

     Meanwhile, why not let these various Prouty defamers speak for themselves?

     I have explained why I believe Robert Reeves' characterization of Prouty as, "tricky," is dead wrong.

    I have done the same in the case of Michael Griffith's repeated defamatory bunk about Prouty being, "nutty," "anti-Semitic," "white supremacist," etc.

 

      

Edited October 18, 2023 by W. Niederhut