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

[Michael Griffith]

21 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

William,

He does not get it from McAdams. 

He gets it from Litwin.

Ask Jeff.

This silliness reinforces my point about the dividing line in the research community between serious research and fringe research, between using valid sources and using discreditable sources, between advancing rational theories and peddling wingnut theories. Actually, the information on Prouty's false claims and sleazy associations comes from the following:

-- Prouty's own books

-- Prouty's ARRB interview

-- Prouty's supportive letter to the editor of the IHR's journal, in which he praised the IHR's goals

-- The IHR's announcement of the speakers at the then-upcoming Holocaust-denial conference at which Prouty spoke

-- Prouty's comments in the speech he delivered at a Liberty Lobby convention, in which, among other things, he praised Carto and Marcellus for agreeing to publish one of his books

-- The Anti-Defamation League; specifically, the ADL article that listed who had appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio program and how many times they had appeared--the ADL documented that Prouty appeared on the show 10 times in a four-year period

-- A letter that Prouty wrote to a fellow researcher in which he expressed concern about Jewish sergeants running targeting computers during air combat operations

-- Prouty's shameful attacks on critics of the Scientology cult and its crooked founder, L. Ron Hubbard, and his equally shameful--and nutty--defense of Hubbard

-- The IHR's list of books it had published, which included one of Prouty's books (and, again, Prouty's praising of Carto and Marcellus for agreeing to republish the book during his speech at a Liberty Lobby convention)

-- Prouty's sleazy dodge of "I'm no authority in that area" when asked about Carto's Holocaust denial

-- Liberty Lobby's newspaper The Spotlight, which praised Prouty on several occasions and which proudly repeated Prouty's recommendation that people read the anti-Semitic rag

The ADL can hardly be accused of harboring right-wing sentiments. Similarly, another major source that has documented most of these facts about Prouty is Chip Berlet, an ultra-liberal journalist who has dedicated much of his career to exposing far-right activities, so he can hardly be accused of being a right-wing source either. 

Yes, McAdams and Litwin have also discussed most of these shady aspects of Prouty's views and conduct. So what? A fact is a fact, regardless of who cites it or repeats it. Just because you don't agree with Litwin about the JFK case does not mean that everything Litwin says about Prouty is automatically wrong. In point of fact, Litwin's criticisms of Prouty are based on solid evidence, most of it coming from Prouty himself and from the IHR journal.

But even when an ardent ultra-liberal like Berlet makes many of the the same fact-based observations about Prouty that McAdams and Litwin make, you and other Prouty apologists refuse to face reality about Prouty. One of you even claimed that Berlet is not really a liberal.

You two are a dream-come-true for WC apologists. Indeed, anyone who keeps using Prouty as a source and who continues to defend him is a dream-come-true for WC apologists. When you cite Prouty as a source, all LNers have to do is recite just some of Prouty's bogus claims and/or just some of his shameful conduct (e.g., speaking at an IHR conference, praising the IHR's goals, recommending The Spotlight, praising Carto and Marcellus, having a book republished by the IHR, appearing numerous times on Liberty Lobby's radio show, etc., etc.).

Edited May 24, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

I don't read Mike anymore.

 

What did he say?

[Paul Cummings]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't read Mike anymore.

 

What did he say?

I think he's tired of Conservatives getting blamed for JFKA while Liberals are trying to rewrite history? 

[W. Niederhut]

Michael Griffith and Fred Litwin are the price we all have to pay for our First Amendment right to free speech.

Disinformation and slander are unethical, but not illegal.

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Michael Griffith and Fred Litwin are the price we all have to pay for our First Amendment right to free speech.

Disinformation and slander are unethical, but not illegal.

You know this is dishonest. It is also illogical.

Much of my information on Prouty comes mainly from liberal sources, namely, Chip Berlet and the ADL.  The rest of my information comes from Prouty himself and from pro-Prouty sources.

Neither Litwin nor McAdams wrote Prouty's supportive letter to the IHR's Holocaust-denying journal. Neither Litwin nor McAdams wrote Prouty's letter, found at the National Archives, in which Prouty expressed concern about Jewish sergeants running targeting computers. Neither Litwin nor McAdams forced Prouty to speak at one of the IHR's Holocaust-denying conventions, nor did they produce the IHR journal's announcement of Prouty's appearance at the conference. Nor did Litwin or McAdams force Prouty to appear on Liberty Lobby's white-supremacist, anti-Semitic radio show 10 times in four years (documented by each date of appearance by the ADL). Nor did Litwin or McAdams compel Prouty to praise Carto and Marcellus. Nor did they feed Prouty the damning answers he gave to the ARRB. Nor did they write Prouty's sleazy defenses of the Scientology cult and its fraudulent founder. You get the idea. 

Rather than deal credibly and candidly with the evidence about Prouty, you keep falsely portraying this as a right-wing attack on him. You know full well that plenty of liberals have also discussed Prouty's fraudulent claims and sleazy relationships with Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites. You also know that much of the damning information comes from Prouty himself and/or from pro-Prouty sources.

[W. Niederhut]

Folks,

   Since Michael Griffith joined the Education Forum last July, he has spent 70% of his time falsely disparaging the superlative research of JFKA expert, James DiEugenio.

   He has spent 25% of his time falsely disparaging Col. L. Fletcher Prouty.

    He has spent the other 5% falsely disparaging the scientists and scholars who have debunked the official government narrative about 9/11.

[Ken Davies]

Is he remeniscent of the biblical naysayers?

 

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Ken Davies said:

Is he remeniscent of the biblical naysayers?

 

Griffith reminds me of that Biblical character who kept urging the Israelites to ignore Moses and worship the Golden Calf.

Edited May 26, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Matthew Koch]

19 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Folks,

   Since Michael Griffith joined the Education Forum last July, he has spent 70% of his time falsely disparaging the superlative research of JFKA expert, James DiEugenio.

   He has spent 25% of his time falsely disparaging Col. L. Fletcher Prouty.

    He has spent the other 5% falsely disparaging the scientists and scholars who have debunked the official government narrative about 9/11.

Can you compute for me how much of your time you spent harassing forum members (Ben, John, Chris, Me, Michael) you perceive to be of politics to the right of you (so they must be whatever stereotype you come up with)? Also the amount of time you have spent goading and misrepresenting people? 

11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Griffith reminds me of that Biblical character who kept urging the Israelites to ignore Moses and worship the Golden Calf.

How Christian of you (Sarcasm emphasized) 

 

This type of unscholarly behavior has gone on my entire 6 months here which has turned this forum into a Boomer Face Book Page for political partisans Sanctuary and not a resource for information and the Mods seem to condone it which is why I want my profile deleted and not associated with the forum💯 

[Paul Cummings]

40 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Can you compute for me how much of your time you spent harassing forum members (Ben, John, Chris, Me, Michael) you perceive to be of politics to the right of you (so they must be whatever stereotype you come up with)? Also the amount of time you have spent goading and misrepresenting people? 

How Christian of you (Sarcasm emphasized) 

 

This type of unscholarly behavior has gone on my entire 6 months here which has turned this forum into a Boomer Face Book Page for political partisans Sanctuary and not a resource for information and the Mods seem to condone it which is why I want my profile deleted and not associated with the forum💯 

Goodbye and God Bless.

[Michael Griffith]

21 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Folks,

   Since Michael Griffith joined the Education Forum last July, he has spent 70% of his time falsely disparaging the superlative research of JFKA expert, James DiEugenio.

   He has spent 25% of his time falsely disparaging Col. L. Fletcher Prouty.

    He has spent the other 5% falsely disparaging the scientists and scholars who have debunked the official government narrative about 9/11.

This is your answer to my reply???

You know that I have not "falsely disparaged" Fletcher Prouty. You must know this is a false claim. You have done nothing but duck and dodge and offer lame excuses for the clear evidence of Prouty's erroneous claims, his anti-Semitic statements, his disgraceful defense of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, and his sleazy relationships with Holocaust deniers. 

As for "falsely disparaging the scientists and scholars" who peddle the 9/11 Truther lunacy, someone should calculate how much time you have spent pushing this nutcase material in this forum. Again, 99% of the scientists and scholars who've examined the 9/11 Truther material regard it as nutty and baseless, but you just don't care. Nor do you care that the overwhelming majority of educated people disagree with you on this subject.

Finally, as for my disagreements with James DiEugenio, most of them involve the Vietnam War, JFK's Vietnam policy, and Fletcher Prouty. Much of Jim's research is solid. I've said many times that JFK Revisited is superb and historic, which is why I recommended it on my JFKA website. But his research on the Vietnam War and JFK's Vietnam policy is very bad and amateurish, and his continued defense of Prouty is inexcusable and reflects badly on his credibility. 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

Fletcher Prouty responded long ago to the CIA/Mockingbird smear campaign claiming, falsely, that he was an Anti-Semite and a "Holocaust Denier."

We have already discussed and debunked that CIA smear campaign on the thread entitled, "Why Prouty's Critics Are Wrong."

Nevertheless, the First Amendment allows propagandists (McAdams, Litwin, et.al.) to repeat defamatory disinformation and infinitum.

It's the Swift Boat Vet propaganda technique-- repeat the lies until the public believes them.

I hate to see it on the Education Forum, but it's the price we pay for freedom of speech.

 

[Michael Griffith]

Just to be clear, I have no idea if Prouty was a plant, an infiltrator, etc., and I am not saying he was. I believe it is possible that he was, but that's as far as I would go. It's a possibility. However, I think it's more likely that he was simply a fraud, an oddball, and a publicity seeker. 

If the plotters had wanted to plant an infiltrator in the research community who would do enormous damage to the case for conspiracy, they could not have found anyone who could have done a better job than Prouty did (and is still doing through those who continue to defend him and who use him as a source). 

Edited May 27, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Adam Johnson]

12 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Just to be clear, I have no idea if Prouty was a plant, an infiltrator, etc., and I am not saying he was. I believe it is possible that he was, but that's as far as I would go. It's a possibility. However, I think it's more likely that he was simply a fraud, an oddball, and a publicity seeker. 

If the plotters had wanted to plant an infiltrator in the research community who would do enormous damage to the case for conspiracy, they could not have found anyone who could have done a better job than Prouty did (and is still doing through those who continue to defend him and who use him as a source). 

Hi Michael, 

Perhaps you've never heard of the late Gary Mack....

Gary Mack, curator of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza and an authority on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, died Wednesday. He was 68.

He had been suffering a “rare and aggressive” form of cancer, according to his wife, Karin Strohbeck, with whom he lived in Arlington.

Mack, who once influenced a congressional inquiry on the JFK assassination, joined the museum in 1994 after a career in radio and television. He had long professed a belief, or at least a suspicion, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing the president.

“As conspiracy theorists like to say, you’re either a lone-nutter or a CT — conspiracy theorist,” Mack once said.

Despite Mack’s “CT” leanings, those who believe Oswald acted alone were among Mack’s staunchest admirers. They respected his open-mindedness and the fact that he embarked, often aggressively, on detailed missions to debunk conspiracy theories as the best way of reaching the truth.

"I doubt if anybody anywhere knew more details about all aspects of the JFK assassination and aftermath than Gary," said Hugh Aynesworth, author of November 22, 1963: Witness to History. Aynesworth is among those who believe Oswald acted alone.

Mack helped unravel “some of the more ridiculous offerings,” Aynesworth said. “His work at The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza was beyond exemplary and will be sorely missed. Within hours of his death, I had three phone calls from European newsmen who were stunned and planning coverage.”

Gerald Posner, a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in writing perhaps the definitive book on the assassination, Case Closed, said he had known Mack for 23 years.

“He was always a remarkable source of information about the case and a wise guide who helped me avoid the many investigative pitfalls and black holes of JFK’s murder,” Posner said. “That we did not agree on the role and sole culpability of Oswald did not prevent him from always finding the time in his otherwise busy schedule to answer my many queries. His top priority was simply searching for the truth in the case.”

Dave Perry, a former insurance adjuster and one of Mack’s closest friends, collaborated often in debunking theories.

With Perry’s help, Mack proved in the early 1990s that a story naming a deceased Dallas police officer as the grassy knoll gunman was bogus. A young man named Ricky White said he could prove that his late father, Roscoe White, had fired the final, fatal shot as part of a conspiracy. Aynesworth later credited Mack and Perry with one of the more important put-downs in the history of assassination research, saying, “Dave and Gary disemboweled the Ricky White story.”

Many credited Mack with knowing more basic facts about Kennedy’s death than anyone.

“It’s not that he’s academically, archivally trained,” the late Jeff West, then the Sixth Floor director, said in 1999. “It’s just that his expertise is amazing. Somebody can bring in a shoe box of old photographs, and just by looking at them, he can tell you the time, the location and who the people are in the pictures. He has so much in his head, I’d like to figure out a way to download his head. Gary’s knowledge of the subject is nothing short of encyclopedic.”

Mack’s reputation extended well beyond Dallas.

G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, credited Mack with playing a key role in putting together evidence that, in 1979, prompted the committee to conclude with a “95 percent or greater” degree of probability that a conspiracy existed. The finding had to do with recordings found in old Dallas police files. Mack came up with the theory that the assassination might have been recorded by Dallas police and brought it to Blakey’s attention.

Although it remains controversial and was later rebutted by the National Academy of Sciences, Mack’s idea led to this: A recording taken from a microphone strapped to an officer’s motorcycle in Dealey Plaza and transferred to a Dictabelt machine at police headquarters indicated there were four shots fired at the president, according to the acoustic sound study conducted by the House committee.

That prompted the committee to conclude that, of the four shots fired, three came from behind and one from the grassy knoll — which missed. If four shots were fired, the committee reasoned, there had to have been two gunmen.

The Warren Commission concluded that only three shots were fired and that all came from the $12.95 Mannlicher-Carcano mail-order rifle owned by Oswald and found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.

The best lesson he ever learned about the assassination, Mack said, “is not to get locked into anything. … There’s a lot of nonsense out there. Part of our job is to clear away some of that stuff and get some straight answers.”

Born in Oak Park, Ill., Mack was given the name Lawrence Alan Dunkel. During his days as a disc jockey, he changed his name to Gary Mack at the request of a radio station program manager, who felt it would be catchier.

Mack is survived by his wife; a sister, Susan Coleman of Las Vegas; a son, Stephen Dunkel of Arlington, Va.; and his grandchildren, Nolan and Violet Dunkel. Details on services are pending.

 

AJ.

[W. Niederhut]

Adam,

You and Michael Griffith forgot to praise Vincent Bugliosi.

Hugh Aynesworth?

Gerald Posner?

Gary Mack?

The Sixth Floor Museum?

What is this-- CIA Propaganda Saturday on the Education Forum?