USAF COL. Prouty, Operation BLOODSTONE, SS-Obersturmbannführer Skorzeny, & the murder of President Kennedy...

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

 

For the love of peace and illumination, enough of the personal attacks, I AM NOT SPINNING ANYTHING ANTI-COL. PROUTY, NOR IS IT A CONSPIRACY THEORY!

I am quoting COL. Prouty directly, on topics that have been ignored by elements of the research community, yes, but I am not going to entertain this monkey-shine any further!

It seems you have an axe to grind, so go grind it somewhere else!

For Pete's sake, I reposted the original post I set up, with the intent of getting back on track and here you are again trying to get me to hold your hand in the bash COL. Prouty crowd, which is not at all what I am doing.

Do you, or any of the other deflective clowns that have commented here, have anything to add about Operation BLOODSTONE, or the fact that COL. Prouty had intimate knowledge surrounding it's development, function, deployment and utilization?!

If not, take a hike!

Christ almighty, you guys call yourself researchers?!

And you, Mr. Griffith, did COL. Prouty pee in your Cheerios, or something?

Quit hijacking this post, you provocateur! 

Sincerely,

The author of the post that nobody will engage in proper decorum with. 

What? Huh? Did you not say that Prouty may have known more about the conspiracy than he ever revealed? Did you not say that he was involved in setting up an operation that may have played a role in the assassination? Did you not say these things? And are you not relying partly on Prouty for this stuff? I quote you:

The following passage, from pages 137 & 138 of Christopher Simpson’s “Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Destructive Impact on Our Domestic and Foreign Policy,” which demonstrate that COL. Prouty, by his own admission, was a driving force behind creation of the United States Army’s “Special Forces” units—and that these same units later morphed into assassination teams.

A network of Nazi commandos and assassins that COL. Prouty says he created himself!  

And the information about this network of Nazi commandos and assassins was provided by interviews given to author Christopher Simpson by COL. Prouty personally.

Whether anyone will agree with me or not, I believe COL. Prouty may have known a helluva lot more than he revealed, and took valuable information concerning the real murderers of President Kennedy to the grave...  

So you will have to forgive me for inferring that you are positing a conspiracy theory that involves Prouty as someone who set up an operation that later morphed and took part in JFK's death and/or as someone who knew more about the plotters than he ever revealed. And are you not relying partly on Prouty for this stuff?

Edited July 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Robert - Prouty’s military records show him at Yale and New York City on academic assignments (course teaching and textbook writing) from 1946 through the beginning of 1951. How do you account for this in light of your hypothetical claims that Prouty was an “organizing military officer” for a massive covert program?

What is the source of your information on Maj. Gen. Robert James "J.R." Smith? You have inferred he had long-standing operational interests aligned with Col. Prouty, beginning in 1943.

 

You are claiming that Prouty made “admissions” of his role during interviews in the 1980s. It appears your hypothesis is in no small part reliant on such admission.  Here is one quote you provide:

“But I've done a lot of thinking since then, especially since the publication of this book Blowback and others, that shows we exfiltrated thousands of ex-Nazis out of Germany for various reasons after WWII..."

Here’s a second:

"...The Eastern European and Russian émigré groups we had picked up from the Germans were the center of this; they were the personnel,” according to the retired colonel. “The CIA was to prepare these forces in peacetime; stockpile weapons, radios, and Jeeps for them to use; and keep them ready in the event of war. A lot of this equipment came from military surplus..."

You have added emphasis - namely you have underlined the word “we”. It appears you have determined that “we” is a direct reference to Prouty himself and the programs you hypothesize he was responsible for. I would venture that most readers, in context, would understand the word “we” as instead referring to the United States or the United States Military. Note in the first quote how the word “we” is contextualized in reference to information from the Simpson book “Blowback”. Surely Prouty didn’t learn of his own alleged nefarious role from a book published forty years later, but that’s how the sentence reads according to your interpretation.

 

It appears your hypothesis is about three weeks old. Yet you have stacked the thread with a torrent of names and connections outlining a major covert program extending over decades which, if true, upends decades of historic research and rewrites the postwar era. Can you discuss your research methods?

Jeff - I respect your contributions here, as you know. One question I have for you is whether you think ‘we’ doesn’t refer to himself and his superior officer. Maybe you are right that it’s generic. And then again maybe not. The other, more important question, is whether you think it’s worth examining the documents pertaining to Bloodstone? Are you of the ‘no big deal’ camp when it comes to the incorporation of Nazi soldiers and intelligence operatives into US special forces? Leave Prouty out for a second, as I asked others to do. Do you think the US military was involved, as Prouty himself later asserted? 

[Leslie Sharp]

22 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

 

Well, Leslie, I've been thru the ringer here, you wanna give a brother a break and tap in?

 

I would like to point out to everyone else who is not Leslie, that this post is called:

 

"USAF COL. Prouty, Operation BLOODSTONE, SS-Obersturmbannführer Skorzeny, & the murder of President Kennedy..."

 

This post is not called "The Article I Wrote About the Bad Shake Prouty Got from ARRB..."

This post is not called "Let's Talk About the Secret Service Being Worthy of A Military Firing Squad..."

This post is not called "Let's Defend the Legacy of Our Golden-Calf, COL. Prouty..." 

This post is not called "How to Snap Back with Non-Sequitur & Win Augments with Diversionary Tactics..."

This post is not called "I'm Not A Real Researcher, & I have Nothing Constructive to Add to this Post, What's for Lunch..." 

 

I want a real discourse with the evidence that I presented.

 

So be educated, free thinkers, and discuss the evidence I presented.

 

If that cannot happen, then I guess we are all unworthy of even mentioning President Kennedy's name, and it's a good thing he was murdered, because we, as human beings that did not perish in a thermonuclear catastrophe, do not even deserve the man's legacy.

And that is what President Kennedy did three times during his thousand days in office!

He prevented a global holocaust three times—once when the Joint Chiefs sought his approval for first-strike attacks on hundreds of millions of innocent human beings in the USSR & China, once during the Checkpoint Charlie Incident, and once during the Missile Crisis—and I'd like to know why he had to do that, and what global forces of fascism were at play, and I think COL. Prouty was being diversionary with his service record...

       

Come on over to the crime-solving thread: Getting Down to the Nuts and Bolts ... and the Question of Cubans in "direct capacities" 🙂 

Hopefully the deliberations on the thread will remain focused specifically on the Lafitte datebook entries — applying as little dot-connecting or historical propinquity as possible for now. The entries  provide a solid foundation for the deliberate pursuit the cold case murder investigation.  Raising the roof before the foundation dries, or the scaffolding has been set, is not very sound construction.

I'm convinced this is a unique opportunity to talk the reader through Albarelli's investigation which shifted the case significantly, however uncomfortable that may have been for many.  Those who resist Hank's primary source material might at least walk through the exercise out of sheer curiosity —  a "hypothetical" what if Lafitte's datebook is authentic?  How many before us have been assailed for theories based on far less than Lafitte's records that eventually proved credible?

 

Note: the thread is an Oswald Free Zone except to confirm his role as the patsy in the Skorzeny / Angleton strategy. We're identifying who did kill JFK, not who didn't.

@Robert Montenegro We might be able to avoid the quagmire that developed on this thread? As I've cautioned repeatedly, blowing too much air in a ballon whose creation originated with Pierre Lafitte's records, risks serious blowback and for that reason, I am avoiding this obsession with Col. Prouty for the moment. I appreciate the historical context and the significant research presented, but how it relates to the assassination strategy conceived and directed by Otto Skorzeny from his base in Berlin is a stretch for now.
 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Paul Brancato]

13 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jeff - I respect your contributions here, as you know. One question I have for you is whether you think ‘we’ doesn’t refer to himself and his superior officer. Maybe you are right that it’s generic. And then again maybe not. The other, more important question, is whether you think it’s worth examining the documents pertaining to Bloodstone? Are you of the ‘no big deal’ camp when it comes to the incorporation of Nazi soldiers and intelligence operatives into US special forces? Leave Prouty out for a second, as I asked others to do. Do you think the US military was involved, as Prouty himself later asserted? 

Can we look at Operation Bloodstone and all of its implications? Maybe Prouty was in a position to know about it later and communicate that to the author Christopher Simpson and his book Blowback, which I own and have read? Maybe he was active in the first place. What good does it do anyone to assert that Robert M misinterpreted the documents, while ignoring the bigger import of the documents? Why the reticence to look at the incorporation of Nazis and Eastern Europe [and western Europe also) fascists and WW 2 Nazi enablers into the US intelligence and military operations? Is that a rewriting of history, or setting the record straight? 
Are you all that ignorant of the military and CIA histories of some of our favorite suspects? Angleton in Italy liaisons with Italian fascists, Harvey, Morales, Shackley and others training in Berlin? 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

No one is ignorant of this I think.

In fact, in my first book I talked about it a lot.  I quoted from Simpson.

But to accuse Prouty of what they are accusing him of, I mean its kind of offensive. To a guy who made some really valuable contributions to the case, and to Stone's milestone film.

Especially when there is a benign explanation.  Which Jeff has stated.  And Fletcher has talked about.

Edited July 17, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Robert Montenegro]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

No one is ignorant of this I think.

In fact, in my first book I talked about it a lot.  I quoted from Simpson.

But to accuse Prouty of what they are accusing him of, I mean its kind of offensive. To a guy who made some really valuable contributions to the case, and to Stone's milestone film.

Especially when there is a benign explanation.  Which Jeff has stated.  And Fletcher has talked about.

 

Yes, COL. Prouty made some very valuable contributions to the cause of fact-finding surrounding the murder of President Kennedy, I wholly admit that, and it is thru his admissions that I first heard of Operation BLOODSTONE.

However, their is nothing at all benign about his claims.

I have scoured every source imaginable and there is ever indication that Operation BLOODSTONE was in full-effect by 1963!

Ever heard of Operation BLOODSTONE operative Mykola Lebed, who oversaw CIA commandos under cryptonym AERODYNAMIC.

I bet you haven't

Look him up and get ready to vomit.

The intrepid COL. Prouty was the Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commander of a CIA focal point network, arming special operations personnel behind enemy lines.

And that means, COL. Prouty was the top focal point man arming Mykola Lebed, who by 1951, was a full-fledged CIA agent, commanding CIA special operations teams in the field, and was still commanding these teams by 1963.

Never mind that Mykola Lebed was directly responsible for the mass-genocide of one-hundred thousand Polish Jews in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia.

How did COL. Prouty sleep at night?

This is not reductive or roundabout logic, these are the facts.

Never mind that during COL. Prouty's tenure as the CIA's top focal point officer, arming covet operations via the military, no less than twelve coup d'états took place that we know of where the CIA utilized COL. Prouty's military support networks!

Once again, how did the man sleep at night.

And don't give me any crap about being a good soldier, it's called having integrity not following an unlawful order, something I did in combat several times, to the point that I was threatened with a damn firing squad!

Anyway, thanks for the memories.

I think I should take a break from this research for a while.

Mr. DiEugenio, if you already haven't done it, I wish of you to take a long view assessment of COL. Prouty.

Yes he repented in the final hours of his life, and provided some fantastic insight, and I myself have absorbed every bit of media that references him (as you can see).

But truly, consider every brutal action taken by the US special operations community between 1955 and 1964.

COL. Prouty was at the tip of the spear for all of that.

Including Operations like GLADIO and BLOODSTONE, that were filled to the brim with tens-of-thousands of World War II era war criminals.

Consider it.

That's all I have to say.

Sorry if I ruffled some powerful feathers.

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[David Cooper]

I value Fletcher Prouty's written works and interviews. I have learned a lot from them. I think that Jim DiEugenio, Len Osanic and David Ratcliffe have done a great service presenting Prouty's insights--which I believe are valuable regardless of some of his questionable associations. And maybe we need to look more into those as well. However, I agree with Robert that Prouty's works comprise a "limited hangout". Of course it is, as he was an intelligence and counterintelligence specialist. Who was he protecting? Who did he leave out of his account? Prouty was not amoral, like, say, Miles Copeland, and clearly had a conscience and devotion to the United States and its armed forces. From his unique vantage, Prouty posed questions and helped us understand how the secret world functioned. Consider his descriptions of the background to the Bay of Pigs, his description of when he saw Churchill being challenged outside the barrier on his journey to Tehran or describing his long conversations with Ed Lansdale. What was his role in Operation Bloodstone? I think Oliver Stone presented this "limited hangout" approach effectively in JFK when he had Donald Sutherland cautiously hint at things for Garrison to pursue.

I don't think this limited hangout approach by intelligence people is unusual. They are trained not to talk too much to people who don't know or understand what they are saying. I certainly don't condemn Prouty for it. When I have interviewed people involved in intelligence, I found that they opened up more when you demonstrated that you uncovered information that showed their previous statements to be incomplete or misleading. They respected you more when you could break through one of their firewalls. If you took what they said at face value and assumed they were revealing the whole truth you lost some of their respect. Layers upon layers upon layers.

Prouty was intelligent enough to leave clues in his works that functioned the same way. When you could dig deeper you would see something new. Whether I agree with all of Robert's conclusions or not is not the point here. His important research brings new questions to the table that add to the value of our ongoing discussions and projects. Ultimately, in my opinion, we need to read all of our sources less literally to find the clues they leave for us. I don't post often, but I read the posts regularly and am much happier when the discussion is respectful and open to different considerations, rather than repetitions of the same points and positions, or attempts to halt any discussion of alternative ideas. We are all here for the same purpose: to learn what happened and why--and what it continues to imply for us. 

[Robert Montenegro]

1 hour ago, David Cooper said:

I don't think this limited hangout approach by intelligence people is unusual. They are trained not to talk too much to people who don't know or understand what they are saying. I certainly don't condemn Prouty for it. When I have interviewed people involved in intelligence, I found that they opened up more when you demonstrated that you uncovered information that showed their previous statements to be incomplete or misleading.

 

I hope you don't mind that I emboldened one of you sentences, Mr. Cooper.

"...I certainly don't condemn Prouty for it..."

Exactly.

I am not attacking the legacy of COL. Prouty, I am trying to examine whether or not, COL. Prouty had any connection to Operation BLOODSTONE (by his own admission, he did), & whether or not he was involved in the development of special operations teams that were later turned on the President of the United States (sure as Hell seems like that happened).

Plus, when you consider the disturbing implications surrounding SS-Obersturmbannführer Skorzeny (a man who's entire Nazi special forces cadre was absorbed by Operation BLOODSTONE) having something to do with the mechanics that physically murdered the President (Hell, Jean René Marie Souètre was trained by Skorzeny, that is a historical fact), I have to do the logical thing and ask questions.

Yes, questions so upsetting, that even someone as powerful as Mr. DiEugenio may be afraid to ask.

Once again, I am not engaging in slander, I quote COL. Prouty directly.

Though it may seem like I am attacking COL. Prouty, I am not.

However, I have no illusions about the special operations community.

I served in a close support capacity with them in Afghanistan, and I can tell you about events in my life that will make you want to end it in all.

COL. Prouty was not a boy scout and the personnel that received his support behind enemy lines, between 1955 and 1964, the bulk of them, were World War II veterans of the Axis Powers, functionaries of the Holocaust in Europe, and the mass extermination of Asian men, women and children under the Imperial Japanese.

Ever heard of Lt. Gen. Seizō Arisue, Mr. DiEugenio, the Chief of Military Intelligence for the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces during WWII, and Operation BLOODSTONE asset?

Lt. Gen. Seizō Arisue oversaw the mass murder of ten million men, women, and children in Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands and Mainland China as commander of the Imperial Japanese total-war plan, and during his tenure and was a military attaché to the Vatican!

Later, Lt. Gen. Seizō Arisue ran Operation GLADIO-style stay-behind units in North Korea for the Seoul CIA Station Chief, US Army COL. Albert Richard Haney, commander of US military support teams involved in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, code-named PBSUCCESS.

Guess who, Mr. DiEugenio, flew in the US security teams at Atsugi Air Base, when the genocidal goon Lt. Gen. Seizō Arisue surrendered his entire intelligence command structure to US Army Maj. Gen. Charles Andrew Willoughby?

United States Army Air Forces Captain Leroy Fletcher Prouty. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, David Cooper said:

I value Fletcher Prouty's written works and interviews. I have learned a lot from them. I think that Jim DiEugenio, Len Osanic and David Ratcliffe have done a great service presenting Prouty's insights--which I believe are valuable regardless of some of his questionable associations. And maybe we need to look more into those as well. However, I agree with Robert that Prouty's works comprise a "limited hangout". Of course it is, as he was an intelligence and counterintelligence specialist. Who was he protecting? Who did he leave out of his account? Prouty was not amoral, like, say, Miles Copeland, and clearly had a conscience and devotion to the United States and its armed forces. From his unique vantage, Prouty posed questions and helped us understand how the secret world functioned. Consider his descriptions of the background to the Bay of Pigs, his description of when he saw Churchill being challenged outside the barrier on his journey to Tehran or describing his long conversations with Ed Lansdale. What was his role in Operation Bloodstone? I think Oliver Stone presented this "limited hangout" approach effectively in JFK when he had Donald Sutherland cautiously hint at things for Garrison to pursue.

I don't think this limited hangout approach by intelligence people is unusual. They are trained not to talk too much to people who don't know or understand what they are saying. I certainly don't condemn Prouty for it. When I have interviewed people involved in intelligence, I found that they opened up more when you demonstrated that you uncovered information that showed their previous statements to be incomplete or misleading. They respected you more when you could break through one of their firewalls. If you took what they said at face value and assumed they were revealing the whole truth you lost some of their respect. Layers upon layers upon layers.

Prouty was intelligent enough to leave clues in his works that functioned the same way. When you could dig deeper you would see something new. Whether I agree with all of Robert's conclusions or not is not the point here. His important research brings new questions to the table that add to the value of our ongoing discussions and projects. Ultimately, in my opinion, we need to read all of our sources less literally to find the clues they leave for us. I don't post often, but I read the posts regularly and am much happier when the discussion is respectful and open to different considerations, rather than repetitions of the same points and positions, or attempts to halt any discussion of alternative ideas. We are all here for the same purpose: to learn what happened and why--and what it continues to imply for us. 

Hear. Hear!

[Robert Montenegro]

38 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Hear. Hear!

 

Thanks Leslie.

So far, not one "researcher" has actually entered into a legitimate discourse with me.

I tried hard not believe the stories you've told me about the Education Forum since my ban over three years ago, but yowza!

Some people really are narrative defenders and not actually researchers who have the huevos to ask, yes, difficult and disturbing questions, no matter the paradigm that may be upset.

  

Edited July 17, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

No one is ignorant of this I think.

In fact, in my first book I talked about it a lot.  I quoted from Simpson.

But to accuse Prouty of what they are accusing him of, I mean its kind of offensive. To a guy who made some really valuable contributions to the case, and to Stone's milestone film.

Especially when there is a benign explanation.  Which Jeff has stated.  And Fletcher has talked about.

Prouty had no credible, believable benign explanation for the actions and statements that I have documented (much of the documentation coming from his own mouth). His "contributions" to Stone's milestone film ruined the film's credibility with virtually every member of the academic community and with most journalists. The film's inclusion of Prouty's obscene claims about Lansdale as a plotter and about the mythical plan to abandon South Vietnam after the election provided low-hanging fruit for critics to destroy.

Prouty made no valuable contributions to the JFK case, and in his ARRB interview, when he had the chance to affirm and defend his case under oath, he back-peddled on virtually every major claim he had been making up to that point. 

What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's writing a glowing letter to the editor of the Holocaust-denying IHR journal and praising the IHR's primary goals, which were and are to deny the Holocaust and bash the state of Israel? What is the "benign explanation" for his shameful attacks on the principled critics of Ron Hubbard and Scientology? What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's appearing on Liberty Lobby's nutcase radio show 10 times in four years? What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's speaking at an IHR conference and at a Liberty Lobby convention and publicly praising Carto and Marcellus? And on and on we could go. 

 

[Robert Montenegro]

52 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty had no credible, believable benign explanation for the actions and statements that I have documented (much of the documentation coming from his own mouth). His "contributions" to Stone's milestone film ruined the film's credibility with virtually every member of the academic community and with most journalists. The film's inclusion of Prouty's obscene claims about Lansdale as a plotter and about the mythical plan to abandon South Vietnam after the election provided low-hanging fruit for critics to destroy.

Prouty made no valuable contributions to the JFK case, and in his ARRB interview, when he had the chance to affirm and defend his case under oath, he back-peddled on virtually every major claim he had been making up to that point. 

What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's writing a glowing letter to the editor of the Holocaust-denying IHR journal and praising the IHR's primary goals, which were and are to deny the Holocaust and bash the state of Israel? What is the "benign explanation" for his shameful attacks on the principled critics of Ron Hubbard and Scientology? What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's appearing on Liberty Lobby's nutcase radio show 10 times in four years? What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's speaking at an IHR conference and at a Liberty Lobby convention and publicly praising Carto and Marcellus? And on and on we could go. 

 

I give up.

I gonna go hit the beach and chase some consensual tail.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[James DiEugenio]

Stone did not say what you are saying he said.

And Oliver always insisted that the whole thing about Lansdale was an example of someone who could have been the guy who laid out the plot Mike.

And there was no mythical plan, it was a real plan to leave Vietnam.  Its in black and white now with the May 1963 Sec Def meeting and the October 1963 tapes of the White House conferences where JFK and McNamara rammed the plan through.

Fletcher Prouty brought that to Oliver Stone.  Since he had written a long, finely wrought article several years before that on the subject. That article, which Len Osanic has on his site, was essentially Newman's first book in micro.

Now as Tom Gram has shown in his exposes of Moyar's  phony book, and I have shown with my review of Selverstone, any attempt to amend this is ridiculous.  Taylor, Bundy and McNamara are all on the record as saying that Kennedy was never going into Vietnam.  And Taylor said that it was Kennedy who stopped that attempt dead in its tracks.  Mike, why you insist on denying this, when it ended up in a colossal disaster--in Laos and Cambodia also-- escapes me: 5.8 million deaths. Maybe you want to join the Max Boot club?  The guy who never saw a war he did not like.

And let me add, Fletcher did not just do this, he also brought in the Secret Service angle.

But beyond that, Fletcher was in a good documentary on the KIng case, and secondly, he was one of the first people to say that Watergate was not what it appeared to be.

Yeah, there is a real cover up artist for you. Huh?

Edited July 18, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty had no credible, believable benign explanation for the actions and statements that I have documented (much of the documentation coming from his own mouth). His "contributions" to Stone's milestone film ruined the film's credibility with virtually every member of the academic community and with most journalists. The film's inclusion of Prouty's obscene claims about Lansdale as a plotter and about the mythical plan to abandon South Vietnam after the election provided low-hanging fruit for critics to destroy.

Prouty made no valuable contributions to the JFK case, and in his ARRB interview, when he had the chance to affirm and defend his case under oath, he back-peddled on virtually every major claim he had been making up to that point. 

What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's writing a glowing letter to the editor of the Holocaust-denying IHR journal and praising the IHR's primary goals, which were and are to deny the Holocaust and bash the state of Israel? What is the "benign explanation" for his shameful attacks on the principled critics of Ron Hubbard and Scientology? What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's appearing on Liberty Lobby's nutcase radio show 10 times in four years? What is the "benign explanation" for Prouty's speaking at an IHR conference and at a Liberty Lobby convention and publicly praising Carto and Marcellus? And on and on we could go. 

 

I don’t dismiss this info. It’s hard to find a benign explanation for his latter days associations. However, I don’t include your low hanging fruit about JFK withdrawal plans, or think his statements to Garrison useless. I don’t hold it as highly as some, since he did not name names. I recall him writing to General Krulak about seeing Lansdale in the Dealey Plaza pics, but did he ever claim that Lansdale was running the operation? If so I missed it. Please show me if you know better.
Please, can you focus in on what Robert is really asking? You’ve reiterated your points so many times. We’ve all heard it. Some won’t even consider this info, but you will not succeed in convincing them otherwise by repeating it over and over. I remain surprised that you choose to do this rather than examine Prouty’s official history while he was in the service. It would seem right up you alley. Even if you don’t intend to derail your repeated posts have that effect. 
I highly recommend John Loftus book ‘The Secret War Against the Jews’ if you want to gain a picture from an acknowledged expert of the US relations with Nazi Germany pre war. The policy of incorporation of Nazi operatives of all kinds after the war flowed from already existing relationships, mostly corporate. 

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

No one is ignorant of this I think.

In fact, in my first book I talked about it a lot.  I quoted from Simpson.

But to accuse Prouty of what they are accusing him of, I mean its kind of offensive. To a guy who made some really valuable contributions to the case, and to Stone's milestone film.

Especially when there is a benign explanation.  Which Jeff has stated.  And Fletcher has talked about.

Do you think that Bloodstone is important and relevant? Are you referring to Destiny Betrayed?