Old Wine in New bottles: Fletcher Prouty's New Critics recycle the Past

[James DiEugenio]

I agree with Ben, that NSAM 263 should have been enough to convince most people.

But to show you how the MSM resisted, it was not until the ARRB declassified the May 1963 Sec Def conference record that the NY Times actually admitted that Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam as the time of his death.  This was i think in 1997.  Six years after the controversy first broke out.

[Mervyn Hagger]

11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

He was referring to the emerging evidence about JFK, Vietnam, (and NSAM 263) around the time that Oliver Stone was producing, JFK, in consultation with Prouty.

That historical evidence had been effectively suppressed by LBJ and the Mockingbird M$M for decades.

IMO, the CIA had other important reasons for launching their "Kill-the-Messenger" smear campaign against Prouty thirty years ago.

1)  In addition to his revelations about JFK's NSAM263 Vietnam withdrawal policy, Prouty had also pointed out in detail, (initially in The Secret Team) how the NYT and the CIA tried to shift the blame for CIA/Lansdale ops in Vietnam (prior to 1964) onto the Pentagon, in The Pentagon Papers.

2) Prouty also outed Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.  Given Lansdale's longstanding close relationship with Allen Dulles, that was hitting too close to home.

I know why he wrote his comment, but it had nothing to do with the events of 1963.

[Mervyn Hagger]

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

He was referring to the emerging evidence about JFK, Vietnam, (and NSAM 263) around the time that Oliver Stone was producing, JFK, in consultation with Prouty.

That historical evidence had been effectively suppressed by LBJ and the Mockingbird M$M for decades.

IMO, the CIA had other important reasons for launching their "Kill-the-Messenger" smear campaign against Prouty thirty years ago.

1)  In addition to his revelations about JFK's NSAM263 Vietnam withdrawal policy, Prouty had also pointed out in detail, (initially in The Secret Team) how the NYT and the CIA tried to shift the blame for CIA/Lansdale ops in Vietnam (prior to 1964) onto the Pentagon, in The Pentagon Papers.

2) Prouty also outed Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.  Given Lansdale's longstanding close relationship with Allen Dulles, that was hitting too close to home.

The emerging evidence about events from 1960 to 1963 when John Kennedy died, show something very different.

[Mervyn Hagger]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree with Ben, that NSAM 263 should have been enough to convince most people.

But to show you how the MSM resisted, it was not until the ARRB declassified the May 1963 Sec Def conference record that the NY Times actually admitted that Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam as the time of his death.  This was i think in 1997.  Six years after the controversy first broke out.

The New York Times infamous CIA quotation from 1966 is hearsay, unsupported by the facts in evidence. The Kennedy brothers were playing a game, and their supporters have attempted to turn their untruths into truths.

[Michael Griffith]

Look, Prouty praised, in writing, the primary goals of the IHR's journal, the Journal of Historical Review, a Holocaust-denying publication. The IHR, as most know, is a Holocaust-denying organization. Prouty even spoke at an IHR conference that focused on denying the Holocaust. He appeared 10 times on the nutcase radio program produced by Liberty Lobby, a vile anti-Semitic group--other guests on that program included Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, and white supremacists. He also spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention and hosted a discussion panel with Bo Gritz at the convention (and, BTW, during his speech he blamed Israel for high oil prices). For those who don't know, Gritz was white supremacist and former KKK leader David Duke's running mate in 1988.

These indisputable facts alone should convince any rational person that we must repudiate Prouty. 

And this is not to mention Prouty's embarrassing defense of L. Ron Hubbard and his Scientology fraud, Prouty's sleazy attacks on Scientology's critics, Prouty's suggestion that the "Secret Team" may have killed Princess Diana, Prouty's giving of credence to the nutty claim that Churchill poisoned FDR, Prouty's obscene attacks on Edward Lansdale, and Prouty's back-peddling on every major claim he'd been making for years when interviewed by the ARRB in the 1990s (including his admission that he did not have the notes that he allegedly took during his supposed stand-down phone call with the 112th MI Group). 

The subject of Fletcher Prouty is a bright red line that separates credible, serious JFK research from fringe, specious JFK research. If you write a 10-chapter book on WW II, and if one of the chapters stoutly defends Hitler and the Third Reich, no one will care about what the other chapters say, no matter how valid they might be. 

Fletcher Prouty did enormous damage to the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination. He continues to do so because a handful of researchers still defend him and still peddle his discredited, fringe claims.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Mervyn Hagger]

"..... the nutty claim that Churchill poisoned FDR ...."

Leaving aside the claim that Churchill poisoned FDR, what we do know is that "nutty Churchill" wrote a full page article that was published by a newspaper in 1920, in which this Scottish MP promoted the idea that "bad Jews" created the USSR and that they belonged to a secret society called 'Illuminati'.

How 'nutty' is that?

 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

"..... the nutty claim that Churchill poisoned FDR ...."

Leaving aside the claim that Churchill poisoned FDR, what we do know is that "nutty Churchill" wrote a full page article that was published by a newspaper in 1920, in which this Scottish MP promoted the idea that "bad Jews" created the USSR and that they belonged to a secret society called 'Illuminati'.

How 'nutty' is that?

And what does this have to do with Prouty's praise of the IHR's Holocaust-denying journal, his speaking appearance at an IHR Holocaust-denial conference, his multiple appearances (10 in four years) on Liberty Lobby's nutjob radio show, his speaking appearance at a Liberty Lobby convention, his co-hosting of a discussion panel with Bo Gritz at the same Liberty Lobby convention, his warm praise for Carto and Marcellus for publishing one of his books, his written expression of concern about Jewish sergeants manning military targeting computers, his disgraceful and bizarre defense of Hubbard and Scientology, his phony claims about his role in presidential protection, his false claim that he was sent to the South Pole for sinister reasons (he later admitted to the ARRB that there was nothing sinister or unusual about the trip), etc., etc., etc.?

[Mervyn Hagger]

I was referring to your own comment which I reproduced. You switched topics.

[Jeff Carter]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Look, Prouty praised, in writing, the primary goals of the IHR's journal, the Journal of Historical Review, a Holocaust-denying publication. The IHR, as most know, is a Holocaust-denying organization. Prouty even spoke at an IHR conference that focused on denying the Holocaust. He appeared 10 times on the nutcase radio program produced by Liberty Lobby, a vile anti-Semitic group--other guests on that program included Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, and white supremacists. He also spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention and hosted a discussion panel with Bo Gritz at the convention (and, BTW, during his speech he blamed Israel for high oil prices). For those who don't know, Gritz was white supremacist and former KKK leader David Duke's running mate in 1988.

These indisputable facts alone should convince any rational person that we must repudiate Prouty. 

And this is not to mention Prouty's embarrassing defense of L. Ron Hubbard and his Scientology fraud, Prouty's sleazy attacks on Scientology's critics, Prouty's suggestion that the "Secret Team" may have killed Princess Diana, Prouty's giving of credence to the nutty claim that Churchill poisoned FDR, Prouty's obscene attacks on Edward Lansdale, and Prouty's back-peddling on every major claim he'd been making for years when interviewed by the ARRB in the 1990s (including his admission that he did not have the notes that he allegedly took during his supposed stand-down phone call with the 112th MI Group). 

The subject of Fletcher Prouty is a bright red line that separates credible, serious JFK research from fringe, specious JFK research. If you write a 10-chapter book on WW II, and if one of the chapters stoutly defends Hitler and the Third Reich, no one will care about what the other chapters say, no matter how valid they might be. 

Fletcher Prouty did enormous damage to the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination. He continues to do so because a handful of researchers still defend him and still peddle his discredited, fringe claims.

Mr Griffith continues to demonstrate that, on this topic, there is not a single internet rumour he will not endorse if it corresponds with his own personal projections. He is portraying a wildly exaggerated and distorted frame of reference which stems from ideologically-motivated and narrowly focussed source material from the early 1990s, the background of which is discussed in the essay.

Here is a reference which clarifies how distorted and off-base these claims really are. This is one of the Radio Free America broadcasts which is described as replete with extremist racialist content. Judge for yourself:

https://www.prouty.org/RFA/aug_31_1989.mp3

[James DiEugenio]

All the stuff that Mike uses above has been addressed by Jeff Carter and been shown to be wrong.  Jeff did something Mike did not.  He researched it and actually got the tapes.  So this John McAdams junk is just that, junk.

As per the Stalin FDR thing, that was something that Stalin thought and was in a Parade magazine article and Jeff can get that article if you do not think its around. 

 Prouty was only using it to show the disagreement and suspicion  between Churchill and Stalin and how Stalin knew that without FDR, the war time alliance would be lost. Which it was.

I talk about this a bit on Len's show this evening.

Edited August 31, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

All the stuff that Mike uses above has been addressed by Jeff Carter and been shown to be wrong.  Jeff did something Mike did not.  He researched it and actually got the tapes.  So this John McAdams junk is just that, junk.

As per the Stalin FDR thing, that was something that Stalin thought and was in a Parade magazine article and Jeff can get that article if you do not think its around. 

 Prouty was only using it to show the disagreement and suspicion  between Churchill and Stalin and how Stalin knew that without FDR, the war time alliance would be lost. Which it was.

I talk about this a bit on Len's show this evening.

Churchill carved-up Europe and handed it to Stalin. Even Stalin was shocked. Churchill is no more of a 'saint' than the two Kennedy brothers. 

[Michael Griffith]

19 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Mr Griffith continues to demonstrate that, on this topic, there is not a single internet rumour he will not endorse if it corresponds with his own personal projections. He is portraying a wildly exaggerated and distorted frame of reference which stems from ideologically-motivated and narrowly focussed source material from the early 1990s, the background of which is discussed in the essay.

Here is a reference which clarifies how distorted and off-base these claims really are. This is one of the Radio Free America broadcasts which is described as replete with extremist racialist content. Judge for yourself:

https://www.prouty.org/RFA/aug_31_1989.mp3

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

All the stuff that Mike uses above has been addressed by Jeff Carter and been shown to be wrong.  Jeff did something Mike did not.  He researched it and actually got the tapes.  So this John McAdams junk is just that, junk.

As per the Stalin FDR thing, that was something that Stalin thought and was in a Parade magazine article and Jeff can get that article if you do not think its around. 

 Prouty was only using it to show the disagreement and suspicion  between Churchill and Stalin and how Stalin knew that without FDR, the war time alliance would be lost. Which it was.

I talk about this a bit on Len's show this evening.

Total nonsense. Jeff's and your attempts to whitewash Prouty are embarrassing and inexcusable. Allow me to repeat a few facts, facts that, as you and Jeff know, I have documented in previous exchanges on Prouty (links provided below):

Prouty wrote a warm, positive letter to the editor of the IHR's Holocaust-denying journal in which he spoke approvingly of the journal's primary goals. You can read the letter in the IHR's journal online. I have provided two links to the letter in previous replies. This letter alone should cause any rational person to repudiate Prouty.

Prouty spoke at an IHR conference that focused on denying the Holocaust. This is documented in the IHR's own agenda for the conference, as I have documented in previous replies.

Prouty spoke at a convention of the far-right anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby. During the convention, he co-hosted a panel discussion with Bo Gritz, David Duke's running mate. Liberty Lobby's newspaper The Spotlight published portions of Prouty's remarks, part of which included Prouty's blaming of Israel for high oil prices.

Prouty had one of his books published by the IHR and praised Carto and Marcellus for their "vision" and "courage" in being willing to publish his book. This is a matter of record.

Prouty expressed, in writing, his concern about Jewish sergeants manning military targeting systems. We have the letter. I have posted a link to it.

The fact that Prouty did not always express extremist views during his 10 appearances on Liberty Lobby's radio show does not change the fact that no one in their right mind would have been caught dead appearing on that show, nor does it change the fact that the show frequently included Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, and white supremacists as guests. 

The fact that the mass murderer Joseph Stalin advanced the nutty theory that Churchill poisoned FDR hardly excuses Prouty for giving it credence. Your willingness to make excuses for such nuttiness shows you are too emotionally committed to defending Prouty to be taken seriously.

Some of Prouty's fiercest critics have been respected ultra-liberals, such as Chip Berlet. Berlet has spent most of his career studying and exposing extreme right-wing groups. He's a former vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, for crying out loud, and he has worked in support of the ACLU, AIM, and even the Socialist Workers Party. For more information on Berlet's stainless, undeniable left-wing credentials, see the Wikipedia article on him.

Prouty's bizarre, sleazy defense of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology is a matter of record, including his bogus, erroneous interpretation of Hubbard's military records.

Prouty's royal back-peddling on key claims he'd been making for years when he was interviewed by the ARRB is a matter of record. Even if you want to somehow imagine that the ARRB interviewers were somehow hard on Prouty, this does not change the fact that Prouty admitted that there was nothing sinister or unusual about his trip to the South Pole, that he had no meaningful role in presidential protection, that he inexplicably did not have the notes he had supposedly taken during his alleged stand-down phone call with the 112th MI Group, that the photo that supposedly showed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza actually showed no such thing, etc., etc. Is it not tragic and inexcusable that Prouty did not reveal these things to Oliver Stone before Stone released JFK?

If David Duke had peddled the debunked theory that JFK intended to abandon South Vietnam after the election, and if Duke had argued that JFK was killed because of this intention, one fears you would be trying to whitewash Duke the same way you are trying to whitewash Prouty. Researchers who defend Prouty are the reason that the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination is rejected by most journalists and academics.

LINK    LINK    LINK    LINK      LINK     LINK     LINK     LINK     LINK

Edited September 1, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Mervyn Hagger]

From Mike's comments above, it seems that James is the sole determiner of what is valid and what is not. That is the hallmark of a cult leader who will not tolerate any form of questioning of his authority to know everything that there is to know. James seems to be hauling up a banner but what is on that banner I am not sure. What is the name of your church James? David Von Pein is a member of the Warren faith. What is yours James, it seems to be a tangled mess. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Mervyn Hagger

[W. Niederhut]

On 8/23/2023 at 6:44 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Great job by Jeff Carter here.  My only suggestion is that the essay could be entitled, "Old Vinegar in New Bottles."

Will we have to re-post Jeff's summary* in response to the Prouty detractors crawling out of the woodwork to re-post their old McAdams tropes?

What else can we do in response to Swiftboat Vetting defamation techniques?

*    "Therefore, the two express “hatchet-jobs” directed at Prouty in 1991 and 1996 - the Esquire piece and the ARRB interview - both promoting the pretension that Prouty was unstable and his concepts were easily “debunked” by the official record, have proved to be fundamentally in error, first over the NSAMs and second over the military intelligence units. To this day, Prouty’s detractors still cannot articulate where exactly he is wrong - about the assassination or about his experiences during his military career. This is why such criticisms invariably fade into a drab curtain of distraction, stained with reference to the Liberty Lobby, Scientology, Princess Diana, and other irrelevancies."

-- Jeff Carter/August 16, 2023

Old Wine in New Bottles: Fletcher Prouty’s New Critics Recycle the Past (kennedysandking.com)

Well, I'm shocked, shocked to see that Michael Griffith has crawled out of the woodwork, once again, to re-post his oft-repeated, McAdams Kill-the-Messenger tropes impugning Col. Prouty's reputation.

That disingenuous propaganda strategy will never end-- i.e., repeating the disinformation until uninformed people mistake it for truth.

[Jeff Carter]

48 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well, I'm shocked, shocked to see that Michael Griffith has crawled out of the woodwork, once again, to re-post his oft-repeated, McAdams Kill-the-Messenger tropes impugning Col. Prouty's reputation.

That disingenuous propaganda strategy will never end-- i.e., repeating the disinformation until uninformed people mistake it for truth.

All of these distorted and out-of-context claims, as you note, have been effectively countermanded. Obviously, the poster will persist regardless.

When presented with physical proof of his errors, such as the radio program, he simply doubles down and insists on his falsehoods. The cold fact is that Mr Prouty nowhere at any time expressed extremist views, and the poster’s continuing insistence that he did is completely in error.

That this is all in the service of a vicious smear reveals a reckless, irresponsible and ultimately selfish mindset which contributes nothing to the Educational process represented by this Forum.