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

[James DiEugenio]

Let me also add, to my knowledge, it was Prouty who first revealed that the Taylor/McNamara report was pre written.

And the late Howard Jones agreed with that in his book on JFK and Vietnam, Death of A Generation.

This is one of the (many) reasons why  McCord despised Prouty.  It was also over Watergate.

To Paul:

in the first (forlorn and forgotten) edition of Destiny Betrayed I wrote about things from Simpson's book, and I also used Mae Brussell's long essay--ghosted by Bill Turner--which was titled something like "The Nazi Connection to the JFK assassination".  I went into things like Paper Clip and the Gehlen Org.

But in the second edition, i revised the book heavily for the simple reason that the massive ARRB declassified files changed the calculus of both Jim Garrison's inquiry, and New Orleans.  Plus Mexico City.  I found the evidence there in those files to be much more detailed, expansive and convincing about matters like Sergio Arcacha Smith, 544 Camp Street, Phillips, McCord and the anti FPCC crusades, Clinton-Jackson,  Goodpasture and Mexico City, Dick Helms' campaign to destroy Garrison, the CIA interference in the Shaw trial, Shaw's now provable repeated perjury, and the CIA cover up about him, plus the Gunn/Horne inquiry into the autopsy etc  I could go on and on. 

But these things and the overall concept of a high level plot run by the CIA/Pentagon with the Cuban exiles in tow and in Dallas e.g. Smith and DeTorres  (Rose Cherami and Fonzi).  All of this was now in my view provable, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, and maybe by the clear and convincing standard. So that is why I concentrated on that.

Its a shame no one reads that book. I really think its good.

(Not to dodge the second part of you question, but i think my reply is implied.) 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Robert Montenegro]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me also add, to my knowledge, it was Prouty who first revealed that the Taylor/McNamara report was pre written.

And the late Howard Jones agreed with that in his book on JFK and Vietnam, Death of A Generation.

This is one of the (many) reasons why  McCord despised Prouty.  It was also over Watergate.

To Paul:

in the first (forlorn and forgotten) edition of Destiny Betrayed I wrote about things from Simpson's book, and I also used Mae Brussell's long essay--ghosted by Bill Turner--which was titled something like "The Nazi Connection to the JFK assassination".  I went into things like Paper Clip and the Gehlen Org.

But in the second edition, i revised the book heavily for the simple reason that the massive ARRB declassified files changed the calculus of both Jim Garrison's inquiry, and New Orleans.  Plus Mexico City.  I found the evidence there in those files to be much more detailed, expansive and convincing about matters like Sergio Arcacha Smith, 544 Camp Street, Phillips, McCord and the anti FPCC crusades, Clinton-Jackson,  Goodpasture and Mexico City, Dick Helms' campaign to destroy Garrison, the CIA interference in the Shaw trial, Shaw's now provable repeated perjury, and the CIA cover up about him, plus the Gunn/Horne inquiry into the autopsy etc  I could go on and on. 

But these things and the overall concept of a high level plot run by the CIA/Pentagon with the Cuban exiles in tow and in Dallas e.g. Smith and DeTorres  (Rose Cherami and Fonzi).  All of this was now in my view provable, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, and maybe by the clear and convincing standard. So that is why I concentrated on that.

Its a shame no one reads that book. I really think its good.

(Not to dodge the second part of you question, but i think my reply is implied.) 

 

 

Back from the waves, very nice here in Laguna.

Yes, once again, I acknowledge, having absorbed every (no exaggeration) bit of media I could find on COL. Prouty, and yes he did some brilliant work—I would not be here doing this research if I didn't start looking at COL. Prouty's work (amongst hundreds of other researcher's & whistleblower's work)—bless you Colonel. 

However, that is not the purpose of this post.

Nor is continuing a pro-COL. Prouty death rant accomplishing anything other than proving we cannot enter into a civilized debate without hitting am impregnable psychic force-field made up of provocateurs like Griffith or "...COL. Prouty is a saint..." echo-chambering from yourself, Mr. DiEugenio (holy-cow, I love you and your work, but this is so painfully obvious).

What's that neo-Nazi sound-bite that get's thrown around here a lot, "...To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize...”

I know that is overtly simplistic, but holy horse blinders Batman, is it ever happing here.

And the late, great, Mae Brussell, wrote that article over 40 years ago.

So much good research has come forward since.

You know, like Coup in Dallas, which currently has no review on kennedysandking.com.

Not to sound like a shameless shill, but what gives?

Not even a "...this is garbage, don't read it..." hit piece from Vasilios Vazakas...

And how dare you invoke Jim Garrison in this post, when he was literally looking for Nazi intelligence agents, something you never mention in both versions of your book, Mr. DiEugenio:

 

• https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=97720#relPageId=3&search=hohenlohe

 

 

 

In case your wondering, that Nazi that US Army Lt. Col. Raymond George Rocca, CIA Deputy Chief of Counterintelligence, Research & Analysis (DC/CI/RA), identities in this document, Prince Egon Maximilian von Hohenlohe, a Nazi intelligence agent who was close, personal friends with Allen Welsh Dulles, going all the way back to WWII:

 

• https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Devil_s_Chessboard/MeE_BgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Hohenlohe

 

Do you have anything to say about this document, Mr. DiEugenio, or why it does not enter anywhere in your work?

Edited July 18, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[James DiEugenio]

Good Lord Bob:

Two CIA assets and you are using them together.

Where will this all end?

 

[Robert Montenegro]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Good Lord Bob:

Two CIA assets and you are using them together.

Where will this all end?

 

 

Good Lord Jim:

Between 1955 and 1964, COL. Leroy Fletcher Prouty was the commander of all of the Central Intelligence Agency's military focal point support networks for covert operations!

Where will all of your deflections end?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Robert Montenegro]

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Good Lord Bob:

Two CIA assets and you are using them together.

Where will this all end?

 

Plus, yes, until we get to the bottom of the matter, who exactly murdered President Kennedy, I will use every resource available, ask questions, and draw logical conclusions,

That is what good investigative journalism is all about. 

I mean, Mary Ferrell is filled to the brim with, yes CIA documents, that, yes, quote CIA assets and officers!

What is your point, Mr. DiEugenio?

I mean, from 1955 to 1964, COL. Prouty was a CIA asset, no?

Ah, but he had a nice story, clean teeth and a firm handshake, so we all gotta bow down to CIA asset COL. Prouty...

Edited July 18, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Michael Griffith]

8 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

Yes, once again, I acknowledge, having absorbed every (no exaggeration) bit of media I could find on COL. Prouty, and yes he did some brilliant work—I would not be here doing this research if I didn't start looking at COL. Prouty's work (amongst hundreds of other researcher's & whistleblower's work)—bless you Colonel. 

However, that is not the purpose of this post.

Nor is continuing a pro-COL. Prouty death rant accomplishing anything other than proving we cannot enter into a civilized debate without hitting am impregnable psychic force-field made up of provocateurs like Griffith or "...COL. Prouty is a saint..." echo-chambering from yourself, Mr. DiEugenio (holy-cow, I love you and your work, but this is so painfully obvious).

Your posts border on being schizophrenic and are increasingly diving off the deep end. After pretending to acknowledge that Prouty was a crackpot and a fraud, now you say he did "brilliant work." No, he did not. He made one bogus claim after another, including a number of downright nutty claims. 

FYI, there are several liberal JFK conspiracy theorists, as well as several ultra-liberal anti-fascist activists, who recognize that Prouty was a flake and a fraud. 

[Robert Montenegro]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Your posts border on being schizophrenic and are increasingly diving off the deep end.

 

Not too sure you want to go around calling people schizophrenic, especially ever since that is a personal insult (and since I suffer from combat-induced PTSD, a horrifyingly personal attack) and a direct violation of the rules of conduct on this forum. 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[David Josephs]

On 7/17/2023 at 1:49 AM, Paul Brancato said:

I don’t think it took guts to debunk the WC narrative. So many went before him. As I asked in an earlier post, what info did he give Garrison other than an overview of why, and the general nature of the conspiracy? I believe him. I dare say most of us do, and are grateful that someone articulated it, someone with military credibility. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a limited hangout. Why haven’t we at least considered that possibility?
But here we are, still trying to convince everyone that the WC was wrong, that Oswald was a Patsy. Aren’t you ready for something more? 
Can we talk about Operation Bloodstone? I may have heard of it before, but knew no details. Robert was astounded to see Prouty associated with it. The way I see it, for the sake of exploration, why don’t we forget Prouty for a moment and see if we can draw some links between Bloodstone and US Special forces. Were Nazis and some of their Allies in Europe, East or West, cleaned up, given new identities, and incorporated into our military structures? We accepted long ago that we did that for scientists, German and Japanese, and some pretty horrible ones too. But when it comes to our military operations, from Gladio stay behinds, to ZR projects, to just plain changing names and providing cover for SS, Gestapo agents, we seem to be unwilling to clearly look at the evidence. I’ve been fighting this nearly alone here for years. Robert comes along, zealously 24/7 deep diving into documents and books and putting things together in a new way, and you all attack his research, nearly every time. I’d like to see some cooperation. Get rid of your personal sacred cows and get on board. No one has to be right all the time. This isn’t a damned competition, says the idealist in me, but a chance to put our heads together. How many times have I been told, when mentioning Nazi connections, to move on? Why, in this particular case, do people roll their eyes? Maybe some of you think - hey, I know all that, but our CIA was in charge so who cares? Others think why look any further than the Cuban exiles for shooters? Nevermind that JMWAVE was staffed at top levels with operatives who cut their teeth in post war Germany working for, or at least with, Reinhardt Gehlen. Nevermind that Skorzeny, for one, appears in many more documents than I could discover, and I looked - for months. 
If Robert is onto something we have been ignorant of, or feel uncomfortable with, or think is a rabbit hole - whatever your objections - we will never know unless we give him a thorough listen. When your buttons get pushed, try to focus on the subject at hand. Shoot the messenger strategy doesn’t do anyone any good. 
I very much want to hear from Jim D and Larry Hancock in particular about their points of view, regardless of whether there is an intersection with events on the ground in Dallas, with CIA and military recruitment and yes, protection of Nazis and other far right Europeans who aided Germany beginning after the war. And I know there are many other document researchers among us here. I want to know what you think about this. 

Thank you Paul - one of the finest posts this forum has ever been offered.

  

[Michael Griffith]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

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.

Let's get real. It was reckless and irresponsible to use Lansdale as an "example" of someone who could have "laid out the plot." Furthermore, the movie clearly goes further than just citing Lansdale as a hypothetical example.

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.

You are once again using verbiage that is misleading and comparing apples to poison. There was no plan for an unconditional total disengagement from South Vietnam after the election, contrary to what you have been claiming for years. 

There was a plan for a conditional, gradual withdrawal, and that plan called for continued aid to South Vietnam after the withdrawal, as well as for leaving behind some support troops to facilitate the provision of aid. Even James K. Galbraith has admitted this, as I have personally documented for you in previous exchanges.

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.

And Prouty was wrong. I again repeat the fact that even extremely liberal, stridently anti-Vietnam War historians reject your claim that JFK planned on abandoning South Vietnam after the election. The White House tapes alone refute this notion, as Selverstone has documented. 

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.  

Nonsense. Tom Gram has not "exposed" Moyar's "phony book." Go read our exchanges in the Top 5 Books on JFK & Vietnam thread, which is the thread where you think he has done this. Tom Gram, who is clearly a novice on the Vietnam War, ran with error-filled negative reviews of Moyar's book without bothering to read Moyar's responses to those reviews. I point out just some of the many erroneous claims made in those negative reviews in the Top 5 Books thread. I also quote sizable segments from Moyar's responses to those negative reviews in which he refutes one false claim after another found in them. 

As for your review of Selverstone's book, as I have noted in replies in this forum, you simply ignore most of the evidence that Selverstone presents, especially regarding the White House tapes whereon we hear JFK repeatedly express his desire to keep South Vietnam free and never so much as hints about any intention to abandon the cause after the election.

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 . . . escapes me:

I have answered this silly argument at least five times in this forum, but you just keep ignoring my counter arguments. Once again: 

One, JFK increased our military presence in South Vietnam from a few hundred troops when he took office to some 16,000 by November 1963. 

Two, JFK never confronted the kind of situation that LBJ confronted in 1964-1965, because the Hanoi regime vastly escalated their war effort after Diem's death. Ho Chi Minh and Le Duan began sending vastly larger amounts of weapons and equipment and vastly larger numbers of troops into South Vietnam than they had ever sent before Diem's removal, so Kennedy was never faced with having to deal with such a massive escalation. But you keep ignoring this crucial difference in the situations that JFK and LBJ faced, and then you proclaim that you are certain that JFK never would have escalated the way LBJ did because, gee, he did not do this before he died.

Three, in his April 1964 oral interview, Bobby himself flatly rejected the idea that JKF was considering withdrawing from South Vietnam. Bobby even said that JFK may have sent combat troops (i.e., regular infantry troops) to South Vietnam if it became necessary.   

when it ended up in a colossal disaster--in Laos and Cambodia also . . . 5.8 million deaths.

Your far-left extremism is showing again. So I take it you blame America for those 5.8 million deaths and not the Communist aggressors? And there was only a disaster when your anti-war buddies in Congress slashed aid to South Vietnam soon after the Paris Peace Accords.

And I hate to mention this, but I think it bears repeating that you are wholly unqualified to be making claims about the Vietnam War. People can read our exchanges on the war in other threads (such as the Top 5 Books thread) and see how many times you have made embarrassing, inexcusably erroneous claims about the war, how many times you have cited fringe, shoddy sources, and how many times you have proved that your research on the war has been extremely limited and one sided.

Maybe you want to join the Max Boot club?  The guy who never saw a war he did not like.

That is an egregious distortion of Max Boot's views. If you have read Boot's book The Road Not Taken, I cannot fathom how you could so brazenly misrepresent his views.

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

Huh? Several authors had discussed the Secret Service angle before Prouty came along. And, in his ARRB interview, he back-peddled all over the place about his alleged role in presidential protection.

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?

Uh-huh. "Fletcher" also spoke at an IHR Holocaust-denial conference and at a Liberty Lobby convention where he co-chaired a panel with David Duke's running mate, Bo Gritz, after blaming Israel for high oil prices in his convention speech. "Fletcher" also wrote a glowing letter to the editor of the IHR's journal praising the IHR's primary goals (which were and still are denying the Holocaust and bashing Israel). "Fletcher" also said he was "no authority in that area" when he was asked about his good buddy Willis Carto's Holocaust denialism. "Fletcher" also expressed concern about what would happen if a Jewish sergeant were manning a warfare-system computer during military operations (just imagine for a second if he had said "African-American sergeant" instead of Jewish sergeant). "Fletcher" also smeared critics of Ron Hubband and his Scientology fraud and proved he had no clue how to read military service records. "Fletcher" also appeared on Liberty Lobby's extremist radio program 10 times in four years. "Fletcher" also had the IHR republish one of his book and praised Marcellus and Carto for their "vision" and "courage" in agreeing to republish his nutcase book. "Fletcher" also said he wouldn't be surprised if the Secret Team killed Princess Diana, and he took seriously the whacky theory that Churchill had FDR poisoned. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Robert Montenegro]

13 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Thank you Paul - one of the finest posts this forum has ever been offered.

  

 

Agreed.

[Robert Montenegro]

10 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

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.. 

 

Every time one of your fidgety, sweaty, sausage-skinner fingers slams down on the face of the keyboard to type another provocateur rant, and you click "Submit Reply," you are keeping my thread alive, genius.

Just stop doing it.

Nobody cares.

Sincerely,

The people on this forum who can think freely.

PS: Just stop, please. 

[Paul Brancato]

Michael Griffith - please allow Jim D to focus on Bloodstone just for a bit. 
jim - it’s so important to have you revisit this, which you say you put aside after ARRB revelations that seemed to put Cubans front and center. I’m paraphrasing so if I’m not getting to the gist of your objection please correct me. 
The Nazi agent in MC was the tip of the iceberg. The Mexico City station, Win Scott in particular. I believe Robert has a lot more to share on that. He has been trying to be methodical, one step at a time, but there is so much resistance that he is put in the defensive. I know you mentioned Mae’s Nazi treatise, in fact it was probably Destiny Betrayed that put me onto that. It was a first step by an intrepid journalist who had access to way less documents. She focused pretty heavily in her work on Otto Von Bolschwing, who the CIA eventually had to stop protecting due to his exposure. It was the beginning of the unraveling. I’m interested in seeing the whole nasty thing exposed, and we are making progress. 
Robert made a good case for Jerry Droller/Frank Bender actually being a prominent Nazi named Friedrich Schwend. He withdrew that post, presumably to re-examine the evidence, and I’m hoping he reposts it, because it was a good place to start. Maybe his evidence was flawed in some way - I don’t know - but I hope whatever it was that caused him to remove it gets resolved. 
Jim - did the ARRB convince you that shooters were Cuban? If so who? And who ran the operation? My take on the Cuban angle is that it doesn’t jibe with William King Harvey and his ZRRIFLE op. We need to take a much closer look at his buddy Arnold Silver, and at any op with the letters ZR. 

[Robert Montenegro]

49 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I believe Robert has a lot more to share on that. He has been trying to be methodical, one step at a time, but there is so much resistance that he is put in the defensive. 

 

Exactly.

[Robert Montenegro]

50 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Robert made a good case for Jerry Droller/Frank Bender actually being a prominent Nazi named Friedrich Schwend. He withdrew that post, presumably to re-examine the evidence, and I’m hoping he reposts it, because it was a good place to start.

 

I have to restructure that narrative, because I found out that some of the CIA documents were counterintelligence narratives and I had to go back and reexamine the information.

It will be posted again, to be sure, but I am working on like twenty different lines of intrigue, and it will take some time.

Nevermind the onslaught of slander, diversionary tactics, personal insults and non sequitur I've endured with this one post alone.

[Robert Montenegro]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

After pretending to acknowledge that Prouty was a crackpot and a fraud, now you say he did "brilliant work."

 

I never said COL. Prouty was a crackpot, or a fraud.

 

I said, using his own direct quotes, that he may have been engaged in a limited hangout, and I presented my case.

 

To quote the late, great Strother Martin:

 

 

 

Of course, maybe it's a failure to communicate on my part...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Robert Montenegro