Unraveling the Mystery: Fletcher Prouty's Possible Role in the JFK Assassination

[Michael Griffith]

Fletcher Prouty may well have been an infiltrator sent by the plotters to discredit the case for conspiracy. I don't know how this plausible possibility has not occurred to more researchers. Certainly Prouty has done more damage to the case for conspiracy than any other supposedly friendly source has done.

Prouty seemingly did all he could to destroy his own credibility, but the research community did not realize his sleazy baggage until they had run with many of his most outlandish claims, especially in the movie JFK. Yet, even when Prouty's obscene actions, statements, and associations came to light, many researchers refused to repudiate him and have continued to offer lame excuses for his conduct. 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Repeat

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Jeff Carter]

I have yet to see any compelling information to suggest Prouty was anything other than who he said he was - i.e. a retired military man whose career had provided remarkable access to extraordinary events. He was not a whistleblower in the sense of revealing classified information, which he never did. However, neither did he ever sign a non-disclosure agreement with the CIA, which is why he could speak more thoroughly than others about CIA programs. If anything, he reflected the opinion of a sizeable faction of the military who resented the growth of the CIA, led by Dulles, into a “fourth force” in the US defence structure. Politically, though he never really discussed his personal leanings, he was not right-wing, as sometimes characterized. He might be best described as a mid-century main-street Rotary-club American.

Before “JFK” he was a relatively marginal figure. “Secret Team” got great reviews but no distribution, and there was no follow up. His essays were published for a time by “men’s magazines”. He came into Oliver Stone’s orbit through a series of communications he had with Garrison in the mid-80s. Prouty provided the “Washington angle”, which Stone thought lifted “JFK” into a “bigger movie.” However, as Prouty told the ARRB, he was not personally an assassination “buff”, and his principle work concerns the rise of the CIA and its clandestine activities through the 1950s leading to the critical juncture during the Kennedy administration.

[David Andrews]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Fletcher Prouty may well have been an infiltrator sent by the plotters to discredit the case for conspiracy.

 

In which case, it didn't really happen until this thread, did it?

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

In which case, it didn't really happen until this thread, did it?

Well, that's not entirely true...

Previous Prouty Discussion

Quote

The only thing misleading is Prouty.

It matters that when given the opportunity to support his claims he instead backtracked from them.

There is no shortage of people associated with the JFKA changing their stories over the years and no shortage of people taking them to task for it. Why does Prouty get a free pass? 

It's not "lingo" about routine..These are Prouty's own words. Why do you all ignore his own words which negate his past comments? This isn't some outside attack on his statements, this is him negating them with his own words. This is him refusing to defend his comments and not only refusing to defend them, but actually saying the opposite.

We aren't making this up. He really did it. You really don't care though. Why?

Personally, I think Prouty's role all along was to mislead. His position and background makes him the perfect candidate. Surely enough, 99% of the JFKA community has eaten everything he has ever said without taking into account his connections and who he actually is.

 

[W. Niederhut]

6 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

Well, that's not entirely true...

Previous Prouty Discussion

 

Utter nonsense, Mark.

Your oft-repeated trope about Prouty's "routine" trip to Antarctica was debunked long ago on this forum.

What had he been working on in the fall of 1963-- a treatise on penguins?

I understand your methodology.

If you, Griffith, McAdams, et.al., repeat the bunk enough times, some people will mistake it for the truth, eh?

 

[Mark Stevens]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Utter nonsense, Mark.

Your oft-repeated trope about Prouty's "routine" trip to Antarctica was debunked long ago on this forum.

What had he been working on in the fall of 1963-- a treatise on penguins?

I understand your methodology.

If you, Griffith, McAdams, et.al., repeat the bunk enough times, some people will mistake it for the truth, eh?

 

I don't have any "oft-repeated trope" regarding Antarctica, all I did was copy and paste Prouty's own words (my emphasis added though):

Quote

"It was so routine for them to call me, I didn’t give it a second thought... it’s the military custom to put an escort officer on board.” “And even afterwards, when I heard people extrapolating in that sense--
thinking that it wasn’t my job-- they didn’t know I’d already been working with Antarctica people
since 1959.”

You saying "nuh uh" isn't debunking. Prouty said it. It was routine for him to be called to go on those trips. What is there even to debunk? Crazy talk...

Again, I'm not saying Prouty isn't who he is, wasn't where he was, and hell didn't even hear the things he says he heard. What I am saying is Prouty has no actual first hand knowledge of anything related to the JFKA. 

His opinions were formed based on his experiences, unrelated to the JFKA, as well as newspapers and books, and "other things he heard." With this lack of any genuine evidence or knowledge, when you account for his military experience, his opinion ranks just slightly higher than yours, or mine for that matter. Until he goes of the rails with this beliefs that is, then his opinion is obviously worthless.

[James DiEugenio]

What a load of malarkey Mark.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-the-arrb

 

And have you ever read his 1986 essay on Vietnam?

yes or no.

 

[Ron Ecker]

On the question of Prouty "outting" Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, it's my recollection that it was Victor Krulak who identified Lansdale in a DP photo, and Prouty in a letter to Krulak agreed that it looked like Lansdale and he wondered "what in the world" Lansdale was doing there. Could Prouty have known that his personal correspondence with Krulak would later be public? Or did Prouty himself go public with it in one of his books?
 

 

[W. Niederhut]

38 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

On the question of Prouty "outting" Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, it's my recollection that it was Victor Krulak who identified Lansdale in a DP photo, and Prouty in a letter to Krulak agreed that it looked like Lansdale and he wondered "what in the world" Lansdale was doing there. Could Prouty have known that his personal correspondence with Krulak would later be public? Or did Prouty himself go public with it in one of his books?
 

 

Ron,

     If I recall correctly, Prouty was shown the photos of Dealey Plaza and concealed his initial shock when he saw Ed Lansdale in the photos.

     He then discussed the photos with Krulak, who confirmed that it was Lansdale in the photos.

     I posted a copy of Prouty's lengthy letter to Krulak on the subject of Lansdale in Dealey Plaza.

     It's at the top of the recent thread here entitled, "Why Fletcher Prouty's Critics Are Wrong."

Edited May 23, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Griffith]

18 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

I have yet to see any compelling information to suggest Prouty was anything other than who he said he was - i.e. a retired military man whose career had provided remarkable access to extraordinary events.

You have "yet to see" this information because you are so emotionally committed to Prouty's nutcase claims that you either ignore the information or you wave it away with pitiful excuses. 

The use of Prouty as a credible source is a clear and bright dividing line in the research community. It is the line between researchers who make a credible and reasonable case for conspiracy and researchers who blacken and discredit the case for conspiracy by treating Prouty as a reliable source in spite of his shameful, discreditable record.

And I find it revealing that many of the same researchers who refuse to face reality about Prouty are some of the same people who peddle 9/11 Truther trash, who repeatedly bash Israel at every opportunity (often repeating Muslim terrorist claims about Israel in the process), and who frequently argue that anyone who disagrees with their liberal politics can't be trusted on the JFK case (or on any other historical or political issue).

Edited May 23, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

Are there no limits on Michael Griffith's incessant disinformation posts around here?

He continues to "flood the zone" with McAdams-esque propaganda tropes, while mislabeling forum members as, "rabid ideologues," "nutcases," and "ultra liberals" who "lack critical thinking skills," etc.

It's garbage.  Disinformazia.

It's all about repeating defamatory sales jingles, ("Swift Boat Vetting") and decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio for important revelations about the CIA, Vietnam, and the JFK assassination.

[James DiEugenio]

William,

He does  not get it from McAdams. 

He gets it from Litwin.

 

Ask Jeff.

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Mark Stevens]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What a load of malarkey Mark.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-the-arrb

 

And have you ever read his 1986 essay on Vietnam?

yes or no.

What is nonsense about what I posted? I guess I can understand if you don't agree with the possibility that Prouty was some kind of plant, but besides that all I've done is use Prouty's own words to highlight and prove my point. You guys dance around those statements and give "whataboutisms" and believe for some reason that since I haven't read his "1986 essay on Vietnam" that I'm not qualified to read and understand his comments on an entirely different subject. Or because I haven't read some other book he wrote that he somehow didn't mean what he said.

What about his essay on how a "Jewish Cabal" was behind the JFKA?

What about his essay on how a "bankers cabal" was behind the JFKA?

What about your lack of appropriate criticism for his obvious cognitive dissonance on the subject?

You're living in the past man. You're hung up on some clown from the 60's, man!

What he said in 1996 is the only real thing that matters. He didn't back up literally anything he had ever said. Maybe 50% of those claims he at least "stood by" but in those he admitted he didn't actually have any real knowledge of anything related to the JFKA. Everything he ever said was based on what experiences he had in the military, unrelated to the JFKA but related to intelligence, and things he read and heard. He references Oliver Stone for Lansdale being in Dealey Plaza and Stone references him. I mean, c'mon. The other 50% of his claims he backtracks on and/or changes.

You saying "nuh-uh" doesn't really change any of that.

[James DiEugenio]

Mark, 

Please show us the "Jewish Cabal" essay.  And please: by Fletcher and not by Litwin.

Did you read my article about what you say he said in 1996?

Or does that not matter to you?

If that does not matter to you then you should not be here.

The ARRB was wrong about the 112th, and Prouty realized a couple of questions into the interview that this was a pre planned ambush, which it was by Wray.  It was one of the  worst moments of the ARRB.  But the two areas Prouty consulted on for Stone were accurate, about the Secret Service failure and the Vietnam withdrawal.  Whether it was Lansdale or not, that is something that will probably never be ascertained.

My reference to the 1986 essay by Fletcher directly contradicts your contention that Prouty did not have inside info, as does the 112th evidence in my essay--i mean five witnesses?  His Vietnam info was quite accurate and foretold Newman's book by about six years.