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

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Prouty’s source for the information re: Jonestown was an After-Action Report written for the Joint Chiefs which included a detailed chronology.

“Guyana Operations,” After-Action Report, 18-27 November, 1978, prepared by the Special Study Group, Operations Directorate, USMC Directorate, Joint Chiefs of Staff

This report is also referred in an article linked below by the respected journalist Jim Hougan, who did several pieces on Jonestown.     https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=16572#_ftn24

Thanks Jeff. I may have read this at one time, which is why I have the impression I stated. It’s long, but I’ll browse it and familiarize myself. I have great respect for Hougan.

[Jeff Carter]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The Spotlight, which carried literally hundreds of articles that questioned the Holocaust, attacked Jews, placed all the blame for the Arab-Israeli conflict on Israel, minimized Hitler's crimes, peddled white supremacy, posited an international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, etc., etc.

This does not square at all with the description of the paper as appears on Wikipedia:

"In 1975, Liberty Lobby began publishing a weekly newspaper called The Spotlight, which ran news and opinion articles with a very populist and anti-establishment slant on a variety of subjects, but gave little indication of being extreme-right or neo-National Socialist. However, critics charged The Spotlight was intended as a subtle recruiting tool for the extreme right, using populist-sounding articles to attract people from all points on the political spectrum including liberals, moderates, and conservatives, and special-interest articles to attract people interested in such subjects as alternative medicine."

 

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

And this is not to even mention Prouty's other bizarre and embarrassing claims... his bogus suggestion that he was sent to the South Pole to help strip JFK of security (JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, pp. 283-285)--a claim that he back-peddled from with the ARRB

Prouty never suggested anywhere ever that he was sent South Pole to specifically “help strip JFK of security”, and certainly not on pp 283-285 of the book. The “suggestions” (an idea put forward for consideration)  Prouty did entertain never once amounted to a “claim” (an assertion that something is the case) he had to back-peddle from, as can be easily confirmed from the primary sources.   

 

[Michael Griffith]

9 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

Quote

This does not square at all with the description of the paper as appears on Wikipedia:

"In 1975, Liberty Lobby began publishing a weekly newspaper called The Spotlight, which ran news and opinion articles with a very populist and anti-establishment slant on a variety of subjects, but gave little indication of being extreme-right or neo-National Socialist. However, critics charged The Spotlight was intended as a subtle recruiting tool for the extreme right, using populist-sounding articles to attract people from all points on the political spectrum including liberals, moderates, and conservatives, and special-interest articles to attract people interested in such subjects as alternative medicine."

So you are actually trying to whitewash The Spotlight and pretend that it really wasn't extreme, racist, and anti-Semitic, all because Prouty urged people to read it. This is shameful. The U.S. Court of Appeals for DC noted that The Spotlight repeatedly publicized the claim that the Holocaust never occurred: 

          The Spotlight has given extensive publicity to the fantastic claim that the Holocaust, the extermination of 6,000,000 Jews by N-azi Germany, never occurred. (Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones Co., Inc., 838 F.2d 1287 | Casetext Search + Citator)

I repeat the fact that both the DC District Court and the DC U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic and cited The Spotlight as part of the evidence for that conclusion:

          The district court went on to hold that, to the extent the charge of anti-Semitism had any objectively verifiable factual content, the statement was substantially true. Relying upon the contents of a multivolume file Liberty Lobby kept on publications about Jews and upon the views expounded in Liberty Lobby's official organ, The Spotlight, the district court found that appellees' "evidence of Liberty Lobby's institutional anti-Semitism in its most malign sense" was "compelling." (Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones Co., Inc., 838 F.2d 1287 | Casetext Search + Citator)

Now, I notice you snipped out the following statement from the paragraph you quoted from the Wikipedia article:         

          "Critics also charged the newspaper with subtly incorporating antisemitic and white racialist undertones in its articles, and with carrying advertisements in the classified section for openly neo-N-azi groups and books."

Gee, why did you omit that statement? You didn't even use ellipses to tell readers you were omitting it. You also ignored Wikipedia's article on The Spotlight, which includes the following observation:

          The Spotlight was called "the most widely read publication on the fringe right" by the Anti-Defamation League, who also stated the newspaper "reflected Carto's conspiracy theory of history" and called the paper anti-Semitic.

The Spotlight also printed favorable articles about KKK leader David Duke when he ran for president, and reprinted articles from Lyndon LaRouche's publication. In one issue, The Spotlight said that "political Zionism is the most ruthless, wealthy, powerful, and evil political force in the history of the Western world." (Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones Co., Inc., 838 F.2d 1287 | Casetext Search + Citator).

Again, shame on you for trying to whitewash such a vile, racist, and anti-Semitic newspaper as The Spotlight, and all because Prouty disgracefully urged people to read it. 

Quote

Prouty never suggested anywhere ever that he was sent South Pole to specifically “help strip JFK of security”, and certainly not on pp 283-285 of the book. The “suggestions” (an idea put forward for consideration)  Prouty did entertain never once amounted to a “claim” (an assertion that something is the case) he had to back-peddle from, as can be easily confirmed from the primary sources. 

Oh, get real. Any honest, rational person with sufficient reading skills can read Prouty's statements about his South Pole trip in his book and see that he clearly implied that he was sent on the trip to prevent him from having any chance to observe or be involved with presidential protection for the motorcade:

          I have always wondered, deep in my own heart, whether that strange invitation that removed me so far from Washington and from the center of all things clandestine that I knew so well might have been connected to the events that followed. Were there things that I knew, or would have discovered, that made it wise to have me far from Washington, along with others, such as the Kennedy cabinet, who were in midair over the Pacific Ocean en route to Japan, far from the scene? 

          I do not know the answer to that question, although many of the things that I have observed and learned from that time have led me to surmise that such a question might be well founded. After all, I knew that type of work very well. I had worked on presidential protection and knew the great extent to which one goes to ensure the safety of the chief executive. Despite all this, established procedures were ignored on the President’s trip to Dallas on November 22, 1963. (pp. 285-286)

Leaving aside the fact that Prouty exaggerated his experience with presidential protection, he was clearly implying that the plotters sent him to the South Pole to keep him away from DC so that he would have no chance to monitor or be involved with security for the motorcade.

I should add that the movie JFK expressly made this claim, based on Prouty's input, and Prouty never walked it back until his ARRB interview. 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Kirk Gallaway]

Michael: Until yesterday, I assumed that everyone in this forum knew the basic facts about Liberty Lobby and their founder Willis Carto,

 

That's true, there's only been a very superficial interest in the Liberty Lobby concerning Hunt's litigation.That's a little like people who come here from the right, never hearing of the Koch Bros.

But Geez, Can we at least admit Michael knows more about the Liberty Lobby than anyone else here?

 

What I see is Michael's has made all the recent points here, making a pretty solid case that it's not likely Prouty doesn't know who the Liberty Lobby is. And there's been zero points made against his assertions except an attempt to make this issue about Michael himself and impugn his motives on this thread, and  now another thread,, which is always a tactic of people who are losing the argument.

You have a choice, whether to really bone up and attack Michael's  repeated incidents of Prouty support  for the Liberty Lobby or try to attack Michael's assertion further that Prouty is L. Ron Hubbard fan, while if true, by itself wouldn't be a deal breaker, but is just more icing on the cake. Or  2) choose to let it ride and say it's impossible to know what was going on in Prouty's head, and damn it, I believe him!

 

Chris: We tend to ever increasingly fall into the emotional thinking, attacking the man as opposed to specifically what they have said, the matter in contention. 

I'm not sure I would call that emotional, Chris. If Prouty spent several years as an ardent defender of the Liberty Lobby, it says a whole lot about his judgment.  But it's true, it's not a reason to dismiss everything he says whole cloth, as I previously  said.

But let's examine your emotional thinking point from the other side.

This forum is heavily wedded to Oliver Stone's "JFK". It is a movie without a climax per se. The most powerful moment by everyone's account here is the meeting between Garrison and Prouty. That is the revealing moment of the movie. The articulation of the "whodunit."

 Now we, who have invested so much emotion in that scene, and now the title of this thread has been turned from a title that originally implied everybody who denies Prouty's assertions is a crackpot to having to entertain the assertion that maybe Prouty himself is a crackpot! That is a very bitter pill to swallow. This of course was never going to be accepted here gracefully.

I felt like I was the only one in this forum who felt any disappointment in Prouty when he folded like a lounge chair in front of that questioning body Prouty stood before.*  He didn't stick up for anything he had previously said! Didn't that bother anybody here? And I know there are factors we can't know, such as Prouty's fear maybe of losing his pension etc.

My guess is that's because Prouty then becomes like a Garrison martyr figure here, who later lost his confidence and came off very badly in public appearances but  we sympathize with his frustration, just as we sympathize with Prouty's capitulation because both of them are  being grinded down by the deep state.

I think the evidentiary basis for the JFKAC  still holds up very well, Thank you, without some cleverly written dialog in a movie, or even Prouty's viewpoint. By that, I'm not saying, he has no credibility. I just don't have to believe him.

 

* I assume his assertions about getting rid of Trujillo were after his testimony, or it would have really interesting if he was questioned about making that assertion. Of course not saying it couldn't be true.

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Michael: Until yesterday, I assumed that everyone in this forum knew the basic facts about Liberty Lobby and their founder Willis Carto,

 

That's true, there's only been a very superficial interest in the Liberty Lobby concerning Hunt's litigation.That's a little like people who come here from the right, never hearing of the Koch Bros.

But Geez, Can we at least admit Michael knows more about the Liberty Lobby than anyone else here?

 

What I see is Michael's has made all the recent points here, making a pretty solid case that it's not likely Prouty doesn't know who the Liberty Lobby is. And there's been zero points made against his assertions except an attempt to make this issue about Michael himself and impugn his motives on this thread, and  now another thread,, which is always a tactic of people who are losing the argument.

You have a choice, whether to really bone up and attack Michael's  repeated incidents of Prouty support  for the Liberty Lobby or try to attack Michael's assertion further that Prouty is L. Ron Hubbard fan, while if true, by itself wouldn't be a deal breaker, but is just more icing on the cake. Or  2) choose to let it ride and say it's impossible to know what was going on in Prouty's head, and damn it, I believe him!

 

Chris: We tend to ever increasingly fall into the emotional thinking, attacking the man as opposed to specifically what they have said, the matter in contention. 

I'm not sure I would call that emotional, Chris. If Prouty spent several years as an ardent defender of the Liberty Lobby, it says a whole lot about his judgment.  But it's true, it's not a reason to dismiss everything he says whole cloth, as I previously  said.

But let's examine your emotional thinking point from the other side.

This forum is heavily wedded to Oliver Stone's "JFK". It is a movie without a climax per se. The most powerful moment by everyone's account here is the meeting between Garrison and Prouty. That is the revealing moment of the movie. The articulation of the "whodunit."

 Now we, who have invested so much emotion in that scene, and now the title of this thread has been turned from a title that originally implied everybody who denies Prouty's assertions is a crackpot to having to entertain the assertion that maybe Prouty himself is a crackpot! That is a very bitter pill to swallow. This of course was never going to be accepted here gracefully.

I felt like I was the only one in this forum who felt any disappointment in Prouty when he folded like a lounge chair in front of that questioning body Prouty stood before.*  He didn't stick up for anything he had previously said! Didn't that bother anybody here? And I know there are factors we can't know, such as Prouty's fear maybe of losing his pension etc.

My guess is that's because Prouty then becomes like a Garrison martyr figure here, who later lost his confidence and came off very badly in public appearances but  we sympathize with his frustration, just as we sympathize with Prouty's capitulation because both of them are  being grinded down by the deep state.

I think the evidentiary basis for the JFKAC  still holds up very well, Thank you, without some cleverly written dialog in a movie, or even Prouty's viewpoint. By that, I'm not saying, he has no credibility. I just don't have to believe him.

* I assume his assertions about getting rid of Trujillo were after his testimony, or it would have really interesting if he was questioned about making that assertion. Of course not saying it couldn't be true.

Glory hallelujah! Some sanity! Some rational thinking! Thank you.

Let's put it this way: If Prouty had been a lone-gunman theorist, nobody in this thread would be offering lame excuses and vacuous denials for his close, long-term relationship with Carto, Marcellus, Liberty Lobby, and the IHR. 

I think if you look more closely into Scientology and Hubbard, you will conclude that Prouty's defense of them was almost as disgraceful as his relationship with the above-named Holocaust deniers.

 

Quote

Jeff Carter said:

Prouty’s source for the information re: Jonestown was an After-Action Report written for the Joint Chiefs which included a detailed chronology.

“Guyana Operations,” After-Action Report, 18-27 November, 1978, prepared by the Special Study Group, Operations Directorate, USMC Directorate, Joint Chiefs of Staff

This report is also referred in an article linked below by the respected journalist Jim Hougan, who did several pieces on Jonestown.     https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=16572#_ftn24

Oh, please, just stop. Just stop with the nutcase material. Is there no loony, bizarre theory you won't defend just because Prouty floated it? The JCS and the IC had nothing to do with the Jonestown tragedy.

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Guest]

@Kirk Gallaway I like your rationale in the previous post. I think you are correct about some of the reactions here, they too are connected to strong emotions. @W. Niederhut’s original title was whether deliberately or not, agitation. 
What I referred to is; the simple premise that Prouty can be correct on the JFKA, and incorrect on any other manner of things. Hypothetically, can be all things evil and correct on the JFKA. That’s completely free of emotion. I think you agree with that. 

 

 

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Michael: Until yesterday, I assumed that everyone in this forum knew the basic facts about Liberty Lobby and their founder Willis Carto,

 

That's true, there's only been a very superficial interest in the Liberty Lobby concerning Hunt's litigation.That's a little like people who come here from the right, never hearing of the Koch Bros.

But Geez, Can we at least admit Michael knows more about the Liberty Lobby than anyone else here?

 

What I see is Michael's has made all the recent points here, making a pretty solid case that it's not likely Prouty doesn't know who the Liberty Lobby is. And there's been zero points made against his assertions except an attempt to make this issue about Michael himself and impugn his motives on this thread, and  now another thread,, which is always a tactic of people who are losing the argument.

You have a choice, whether to really bone up and attack Michael's  repeated incidents of Prouty support  for the Liberty Lobby or try to attack Michael's assertion further that Prouty is L. Ron Hubbard fan, while if true, by itself wouldn't be a deal breaker, but is just more icing on the cake. Or  2) choose to let it ride and say it's impossible to know what was going on in Prouty's head, and damn it, I believe him!

 

Chris: We tend to ever increasingly fall into the emotional thinking, attacking the man as opposed to specifically what they have said, the matter in contention. 

I'm not sure I would call that emotional, Chris. If Prouty spent several years as an ardent defender of the Liberty Lobby, it says a whole lot about his judgment.  But it's true, it's not a reason to dismiss everything he says whole cloth, as I previously  said.

But let's examine your emotional thinking point from the other side.

This forum is heavily wedded to Oliver Stone's "JFK". It is a movie without a climax per se. The most powerful moment by everyone's account here is the meeting between Garrison and Prouty. That is the revealing moment of the movie. The articulation of the "whodunit."

 Now we, who have invested so much emotion in that scene, and now the title of this thread has been turned from a title that originally implied everybody who denies Prouty's assertions is a crackpot to having to entertain the assertion that maybe Prouty himself is a crackpot! That is a very bitter pill to swallow. This of course was never going to be accepted here gracefully.

I felt like I was the only one in this forum who felt any disappointment in Prouty when he folded like a lounge chair in front of that questioning body Prouty stood before.*  He didn't stick up for anything he had previously said! Didn't that bother anybody here? And I know there are factors we can't know, such as Prouty's fear maybe of losing his pension etc.

My guess is that's because Prouty then becomes like a Garrison martyr figure here, who later lost his confidence and came off very badly in public appearances but  we sympathize with his frustration, just as we sympathize with Prouty's capitulation because both of them are  being grinded down by the deep state.

I think the evidentiary basis for the JFKAC  still holds up very well, Thank you, without some cleverly written dialog in a movie, or even Prouty's viewpoint. By that, I'm not saying, he has no credibility. I just don't have to believe him.

 

* I assume his assertions about getting rid of Trujillo were after his testimony, or it would have really interesting if he was questioned about making that assertion. Of course not saying it couldn't be true.

 

 

Kirk, what you left out is the fact that the critic referred  has engaged a process of insults and name-calling from the start in the interest of reputational disparagement, using a technique known as the “prosecutor’s brief”, whereby one amplifies all the information reckoned to support a “case” while excising or otherwise diminishing information which doesn’t. Rhetorically, as a means of argument or seeking to convince, the prosecutor’s brief properly requires being put to the test (or cross-examined). The other day, for example, the critic offered a  list of twelve bullet points to bolster his argument, but put to the test every single one of those points could be shown to be either factually incorrect or a gross distortion of the facts - and I am very confident saying that.

That’s a bad track record, which suggests the need to continue to "test" further assertions.  Things that stick out in this regard are, for example, the characterization of a “close and prolonged” relationship with the Lobby's top leadership when there is no record to even suggest the parties had ever met or corresponded in any way. Or cite a willingness to be a “character witness” which not only never materialized but there is also no contextual information available to describe the process by which that allegedly occurred (the only reference is in an article which itself serves as a prosecutor's brief). There is also the insistence that through submission of articles for publication or appearance on a nationally syndicated radio program one is necessarily endorsing a set of ideological principles expressed through “hundreds” of extremist articles, but put to the test such formulation does not in fact seem exactly accurate as the Wikipedia description contradicts the notion. So what is more accurate - that the newspaper in question published “hundreds” of extremist articles or that it gave “no indication” of its ideological underpinnings?

That said, using the Liberty Lobby as a stick is an effective point of argument as it, by default, puts a cross-examination on the backfoot, in a “when did you stop beating your wife?” kind of way. Therefore, trying to understand what a reasonable person should have known about the publication in the late 1980s - which I do not know - becomes a “whitewash of a vile and racist” newspaper. Faced with that sort of inflamed rhetoric, one might decide is is best to avoid the topic altogether and forego any sort of cross-examination. That is ultimately the purpose of the insults in the first place - as seen elsewhere in the “conspiracy theorist” attacks on Stone following “JFK” or the gratuitous drive-bys which fill Bugliosi’s book.

On the South Pole trip, we have two primary sources, both written by Prouty, neither of which express any certainty as to the purpose of the trip, and therefore serve - openly and directly - as a speculation or a surmise. The criticism which has appeared in this thread instead portrays it as a factual “claim”. This rhetorical process is the prosecutor’s brief at work.

[Paul Brancato]

Kirk - just want to point out that I am very familiar with the allegations and the truth behind those allegations concerning Carto and Liberty Lobby, and like you was disappointed with Prouty’s backtracking under oath. I’m also a fan of the movie JFK, but not a fan of Prouty for other reasons. I still think it’s a smear against Prouty intended to reveal him as an anti- Semite and Holocaust denier. We might as well dismiss Mark Lane too, who not only defended Liberty Lobby but also worked for Jim Jones. Yet it’s undeniable how much good work Lane did on the JFK case. It’s called shoot the messenger right? I think that the only way to judge Lansdale’s participation on 11/22 is on its own merits. Prouty claims he was there. That may be true regardless of anything Mr. Griffith has pointed out, and even if Lansdale was there it doesn’t prove he was running the show. I also don’t think that the efforts to assassinate Prouty’s character need to be CIA directed, or that they prove that aspersions of Prouty prove he was dangerous to the lone gunman theory of the WC. It would me more productive to examine Lansdale than Prouty. 

[W. Niederhut]

On 4/6/2023 at 5:51 PM, James DiEugenio said:

As i wrote in my article "Fletcher Prouty vs the ARRB", this unwarranted criticism of Prouty began due to his cooperation with Oliver Stone on his film, JFK in 1991.

Because Stone used Jim Garrison as his protagonist, Gerrison's book, and because of his choice to accent Vietnam, the MSM had their hatchets out for Prouty.

But worse, people in the critical community, who should have known better, took part in this.

Fletcher Prouty had many important contributions he  made to understanding the CIA and the secret government. Len Osanic's site is a good repository for this.

His insights on Vietnam, which he wrote in the eighties, are simply remarkable.  And if you have not read this articles from that period, you do not understand just how insightful  he was.

Well, I'm somewhat surprised and disappointed that even Kirk Galloway has been suckered by Michael Griffith's persistent hijacking of this thread, and Griffith's McAdams-esque propaganda disparaging Prouty.

The thread isn't about the Liberty Lobby, which had very little to do with Fletcher Prouty's lengthy, distinguished military career and his important revelations about CIA history, Vietnam, and JFK's assassination.

It's a straw man-- a propaganda trick-- as Jeff Carter has pointed out.

If anything, the thread is supposed to be about the way that CIA propagandists during the past 30 years have systematically tried to smear and discredit Prouty's important revelations about CIA history by focusing on the Liberty Lobby, etc.

Kirk Galloway, evidently, missed the Esquire commentary (above) by Oliver Stone about Prouty's own disclaimers regarding anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, etc.

As Prouty, himself, pointed out, he also spoke to organizations memorializing the Holocaust.

Meanwhile, I'm genuinely curious about Michael Griffith's career in McLean, Virginia, and his history of involvement with the U.S. military establishment and the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California.

Is Griffith working for the CIA to discredit revelations about CIA history in relation to Vietnam and the JFK assassination?

Edited April 14, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Griffith]

58 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I still think it’s a smear against Prouty intended to reveal him as an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. We might as well dismiss Mark Lane too, who not only defended Liberty Lobby but also worked for Jim Jones. Yet it’s undeniable how much good work Lane did on the JFK case. It’s called shoot the messenger right? 

I don't understand this logic. Lane worked as an attorney. Attorneys sometimes work for sleazy clients. Lane's legal work for Liberty Lobby hardly does him any favors in the credibility department, but he 

-- never recommended that people read The Spotlight

-- never praised Carto and Marcellus

-- never blamed high oil prices on the Israelis and associated them with a "High Cabal" bent on world domination

-- never had a book published by the Holocaust-denying IHR and never said he was "proud" of having done so

-- never sat on a Liberty Lobby board

-- did not appear 10 times over a four-year period on Liberty Lobby's radio show that frequently hosted Holocaust deniers, neo-N-azis, and white supremacists.

Lane's conduct as an attorney for Liberty Lobby in their libel lawsuits against journalists and publications was disreputable, as the DC U.S. Court of Appeals noted in its decision, but this is still far removed and much different from what Prouty did. 

To speak to a point that Kirk made, yes, I know it is hard for people to abandon major claims that they've made in film, books, and articles for years. I understand it is embarrassing and frustrating. But credibility and scholarly honesty demand that it be done. Better late than never, and the sooner, the better.

It is just tragic that Oliver Stone got hoodwinked by Prouty and decided to run with his claims. Stone's film JFK would have been so much stronger and harder to attack if it had not included Prouty's claims. 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Jeff Carter]

54 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

To speak to a point that Kirk made, yes, I know it is hard for people to abandon major claims that they've made in film, books, and articles for years. I understand it is embarrassing and frustrating. But credibility and scholarly honesty demand that it be done. Better late than never, and the sooner, the better.

It is just tragic that Oliver Stone got hoodwinked by Prouty and decided to run with his claims. Stone's film JFK would have been so much stronger and harder to attack if it had not included Prouty's claims. 

But what you fail to grasp is that the “claims” as they appear in the film cannot be attributed to Prouty.

A speculation or a surmise is not a statement of fact. This is the essential “straw man” fallacy of your argument.

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I don't understand this logic. Lane worked as an attorney. Attorneys sometimes work for sleazy clients. Lane's legal work for Liberty Lobby hardly does him any favors in the credibility department, but he 

-- never recommended that people read The Spotlight

-- never praised Carto and Marcellus

-- never blamed high oil prices on the Israelis and associated them with a "High Cabal" bent on world domination

-- never had a book published by the Holocaust-denying IHR and never said he was "proud" of having done so

-- never sat on a Liberty Lobby board

-- did not appear 10 times over a four-year period on Liberty Lobby's radio show that frequently hosted Holocaust deniers, neo-N-azis, and white supremacists.

Lane's conduct as an attorney for Liberty Lobby in their libel lawsuits against journalists and publications was disreputable, as the DC U.S. Court of Appeals noted in its decision, but this is still far removed and much different from what Prouty did. 

To speak to a point that Kirk made, yes, I know it is hard for people to abandon major claims that they've made in film, books, and articles for years. I understand it is embarrassing and frustrating. But credibility and scholarly honesty demand that it be done. Better late than never, and the sooner, the better.

It is just tragic that Oliver Stone got hoodwinked by Prouty and decided to run with his claims. Stone's film JFK would have been so much stronger and harder to attack if it had not included Prouty's claims. 

Can you show Prouty literally making anti semitic, not anti-Israeli btw, remarks, and appearing alongside of the neos N’s, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers? You’ve belabored your point  now for pages. I get your complaint, agree that it’s troubling, would never defend Carto or any of his screwed up friends. But this thread is about Prouty not Carto. 
Is the transcript of Prouty appearing as a character witness for Carto available? I assume you’ve looked for it, and read it if it is. 
Could you elaborate on his conspiracy theory of a ‘high cabal’? What exactly does he say? 

[Paul Brancato]

Actually the High Cabal statement was easy to find. Why are you twisting it to being anti-semitic? He says essentially that the CIA worked on behalf of a high cabal of bankers and industrialists. Does the word ‘banker’ sound like a dog whistle to you? 

[Jeff Carter]

The following is Fletcher Prouty's own response to accusations of extremist ties, from April 1996:

"Esquire magazine published an article, in which they just made up these things, I've never written for Liberty Lobby. I've spoken as a commercial speaker, they paid me to speak and then I left. They print a paragraph or two of my speech same as they would of anybody else, but I've never joined them. I don't subscribe to their newspaper, I never go to their own meetings, but they had a national convention at which asked me to speak and they paid me very, very well. I took my money and went home and that's it. I go to the meeting, I go home, I don't join.

That sole speech was years ago and was no different than the speech I gave at the Holocaust Memorial Conference. I spoke my own words and ideas. I do admit to having been a rather active public speaker for all types of audiences, on a commercial except for Rotary, They're gratuitous from my point of view.

"The funny thing was two months earlier I had spoken at the Holocaust Conference for the second annual meeting of the Holocaust Group which I learned later the Liberty Lobby is completely opposed to. Dr. Littel, of the Holocaust Memorial organization invited me to attend and make a few comments,as others were requested.

Well, they put all this in this Esquire magazine but did it all backwards, as though I was a member, writing with these people or joining them. The only club I've joined is the Rotary Club !

The attempt of character assassination is a sign you have become a small threat. Others, at the levels I know of, have played up that as though I had been converted to something. It is just their "gentlemanly" tactic of dealing with people they can't handle otherwise.. In fact it is a CIA characteristic trait...as I well know. When they can't handle you, they attack your character.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

There is a present-day lesson in this:

People within the JFKA research community have been shunned by nearly all major media platforms, and (in more recent decades) often pilloried by other social media platforms. 

Operation Mockingbird on steroids. 

So, JFKA'ers tend to go to any platform that will give them an airing. 

Instead of beating up on JFKA'ers who go where at least they can be heard, or attacking platforms that give JFKA'ers a hearing...

Perhaps JFKA'ers should be writing letters to major media platforms asking them why they are not airing JFKA'ers, or covering the snuff-job done on the JFK Records Act by the Biden Administration.