Fletcher Prouty VS Rudolph Reich

At the Education Forum there is a thread by Rob Clark on his Podcast on Fletcher  Prouty

Well some of Malcolm Blunt's documentation sheds more light on this matte of the Military Intelligence Unit "to stand down".

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MJfyc43iUl4khv42xOgzIH9i21WuDwSc/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k0lAQxGSB90Z3wJZeHn3x1f_nKG8cy5n/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y6TDLUqTfIs08evOqETUYyx_R7cQ50iL/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ly50RCxQRyTynHas9CoZMbbl46cjz3rY/view?usp=sharing

Thanks Barto.

Your work and your discoveries have been nothing short of revelatory.
Both you and Malcolm Blunt deserve the highest praise.

I started having my doubts about Prouty when I read the letter he sent to Krulak accompanying the " Lansdale" photos.

More importantly when I read Krulak's reply

He made a point of saying that he never mentioned Lansdale's name. Leaving his readers with the clear implication that Krulak made a " blind I.d"
Independently confirming his own suspicions.

Yet in Krulaks reply he clearly states that Prouty mentioned Lansdale's name.

Prouty was obviously who he said he was but if you were simply to believe him because of his " insider" status, why not believe all the other, even more highly placed insiders who have rubbished the idea that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Or is it a case of believing Prouty simply because Prouty tells us what we want to hear?

As usual Larry H brought a great deal of sense ( and class) to the argument. Just as l'm starting to loose respect for a lot of the conspiracy stalwarts, who more and more seem primarily interested in pushing whatever their particular pet theory happens to be and trying to flog books , my respect for Larry keeps increasing.

He understands the crucial importance of compartmentalization. Prouty dealt with transport, the support and facilitation of covert operations. He may have contributed to the Report in question, but its highly doubtful he would have co written it.

As for the infamous " Stand down" order, that sounds like just another yarn. Once reported in one CT book,  due to an almost incestuous cross pollination it  quickly appears in many others , thus entering the conspiracy mainstream.
If anyone dares to question the original source , or provenance they get shouted down ..accused of being a disinfo agent ..

His stuff about GHW Bush naming the ships for the Bahia de Cochinos...Barbara J and Zapata and the whole Antarctica story...more mythologising

His ARRB interview is right up there with Jack White's appearance before the HSCA in the cringeworthy stakes..

As for the Lansdale photos?
Is it possible to id a close friend/ colleague from the back of their head?
Yes
Is it prudent to base such an important id on a photo of the back of someone's head alone?
No

Such identifications are fraught with difficulties...how many times have the gullible ( and not so gullible) ended up being duped by such potentially intriguing scenarios.

Prouty told some fascinating stories to be sure, but have any of his stories led to any major breakthroughs?
Or are they just superficially convincing baubles to hang from the CT tree?
His stories are beguiling but ultimately unproveable. Yarns spun to an eager audience desperate to believe...

Essay on Prouty by Jim Di.

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

barto wrote:At the Education Forum there is a thread by Rob Clark on his Podcast on Fletcher  Prouty

Well some of Malcolm Blunt's documentation sheds more light on this matte of the Military Intelligence Unit "to stand down".

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MJfyc43iUl4khv42xOgzIH9i21WuDwSc/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k0lAQxGSB90Z3wJZeHn3x1f_nKG8cy5n/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y6TDLUqTfIs08evOqETUYyx_R7cQ50iL/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ly50RCxQRyTynHas9CoZMbbl46cjz3rY/view?usp=sharing

Bart, I recall something from your DPUK talks with Malcolm Blunt that I was disappointed was not included in Jim's article. I tried to find it again but couldn't, so maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought that Blunt said something about the military assigning a couple shady "chaperones" to Prouty for his ARRB appearance, and that ARRB internal documents plus the background of those military guys are what ultimately changed Blunt's mind on Prouty's credibility - or something like that. Do you remember which episode that is from?

If a dead intel spook  gets  ya  flapping like a headless chook 

Who  ya gonna call?

ProutyBusters..

Forget Sir William Crookes  and  " Katy King", Sir Arthur Conan Doyle  and his fairies...or even those intrepid " demon hunters " Ed and Lorraine Warren..

And who needs ghost  hunting  plumbers? Or washed up  Z list  " celebrities " ? who traded in  their  last morsels of self respect ? To go traipsing  around some  abandoned  mental hospital , or  similar  spooky looking locations,  gurning and screeching in mock terror ,  as the make up  lady,  boom operator,  or assistant  cameraman  surreptitiously  flings a few stones or slams a door...

Want real unimpeachable  first hand evidence of  ghosts , ghoulies and  things that  go " bump" in the night? ( for the  love of Armstrong John Butler put your knickers back  on!! The draught  nearly  blew your  cult leader's troupe clean off...I'm not talking about those sort of  ghoulies..and no, Jimbo Baggins,  the bumps in question  aren't the sounds of the  "hairless geisha  goblin" you keep chained up in the dank pit below your hobbit hole trying to escape ) Well,  you need  look no further  than  messrs  Osanic and  DiEugenio..

They went hunting  spooks and  they  found a...spook!!

According to  Jim, during  his somewhat controversial appearance before the  ARRB Fletcher Prouty spotted none  other than  George  Joannides  in the  audience. His presence was,  allegedly,  one of the main reasons  Col Prouty  decided  to " play along" with the  committee,  disavowing  virtually all of the claims  he had made in the previous couple of decades :  in books, in magazine articles , in speeches and  as a  consultant for Oliver Stone 

In a  post  yesterday Jim assured  his fellow  13 inch headites ( and  any stray troll punks/ disinfo  goons who  happened to be in the vicinity)that  he'd spoken to Len Osanic, who had provided  him with the  proof.  Unfortunately,  for reasons  he didn't  clarify ( Larrytrotter  where art thou?) he wasn't able to  reveal anything more about this proof. 

I'm sure  you'll all agree with me: proof of this magnitude ; with the potential to profoundly change how we understand ourselves,   and  indeed , the  concept of death , should be disseminated  as widely as possible. Surely it shouldn't remain  sequestered,  in the  relative obscurity  of a  JFK assassination  debate forum...

If Fletcher Prouty  saw George Joannides in the  audience  when he appeared before the  ARRB, and if Jim and Len have  proof of this  then they have a duty to  share it. For if true  this sighting would be a truly Earth  shattering  revelation. 

Because  George  Joannides was dead. Having  shuffled off his mortal coil back  in 1990...Ascending ( or descending) to the  Great  CIA Station  in the Sky, or in the  Flaming  Nether regions  ( and  no  Professor Larsen  I'm not talking about the time you experimented with  curry powder and plutonium)

Either Prouty truly  witnessed an otherworldly  manifestation , or he was  mistaken,  or he was  talking shit and Jim , Len and  their  fellow  Proutyites  haven't the cojones to admit  it.


This  is  another,  perhaps the most  egregious  , example  of  assassination research as urban mythology.  Preferring to rely on  unconfirmed  hearsay,  whispers on the wind, rumours  , hand waving  and  cryptic  assurances  " I'm not at liberty  to  say " rather  than dry,  solid sometimes unromantic and unremarkable  facts..

Prouty was  who he said he was,  but  I  think its fair to say  he had a tendency to somewhat  " over season " his various statements  with a hefty  dose of conspiracy  friendly  garnish. 

At times the  seasoning  overwhelmed the  original flavour,  destroying any real  nutritional  value...

Rumour,  hearsay,  anonymous  reports,  high placed sources and  supposed " witnesses " have  created more rabbit holes than are in your average Warren..

It's  all too tempting to believe  something , simply  because  it echoes  your  deepest  beliefs..

https://www.spreaker.com/user/7338953/special-6-10-22-a-review-of-the-kennedys?fbclid=IwAR2iInldQtKj_uBDggKCetdLyzLK1lWDMAo9BjlutaajASLYlFR5n5KrSzg

Because  George  Joannides was dead. Having  shuffled off his mortal coil back  in 1990...Ascending ( or descending) to the  Great  CIA Station  in the Sky, or in the  Flaming  Nether regions  ( and  no  Professor Larsen  I'm not talking about the time you experimented with  curry powder and plutonium)

Either Prouty truly  witnessed an otherworldly  manifestation , or he was  mistaken,  or he was  talking shit and Jim , Len and  their  fellow  Proutyites  haven't the cojones to admit  it.

Yikes. How on earth could have Jim not realised that Joannides was dead? Considering how thorough in his research he is supposed to be.

Prouty, in my humble opinion at least,  belongs in the  " If it's too good to be true " category. 

Some of his tales could almost have been custom made to appeal to the  imagination , the prejudices ( and  the ingrained  paranoia) of a certain type of conspiracist. Who'll  believe anything vaguely conspiratorial. The Don Jeffries School of  Pseudo Research. Believe  absolutely  ANYTHING  that hints at the  magical  C word. Cast asperations ( Neocon  , disinfo  agent,  closet lone nutist) on anyone who dares to examine the provenance of  deeply cherished  CT shibboleths...Make damn sure absolutely  fuck all  progress will be made. Or ever will be made. Ensuring there's always a vague nebulous  " They", Bildebergers,  Illuminati,  Lizard People,  Jew..I mean  Zionists,  to blame  EVERYTHING  upon, and  I  mean  EVERYTHING,  ( for example  poor old  Donnies faulty  washing machine was obviously the work of the  Jew..I mean Zionist cabal,  who control everything). Be sure to tune into  I Protest  next week folks!! Did I mention the PayPal option at the bottom of the screen? And  please  please  PLEASE  don't forget to give your favourite independent minded populist a like on Facebook,  or a  good review on Amazon...

The type  who:  A- possess absolutely  no faculty for critical thought,  or B- have allowed themselves to become so mesmerized by the  cult of conspiracy  that they've allowed whatever critical thinking skills they may have once possessed to atrophy. 

I mean  for fuck sakes,  you don't have to crack archival  researcher, or even a savant like John " I've solved the assassination singlehandedly " Butler  to check Joannides biography. This sort of  sloppy  unthinking  research  just  plays up to the nefarious  mainstream media stereotypes. 

Can you just imagine the field day the likes of  Fred Litwin , Dave Reitzes, DVP or the  coven of  undead lonely  nutters who congregate over in the salubrious  ambience of  Stinky Mac's House of Piss are going to have? If they uncover this latest  gem? 

Already a poster boy for a certain type  of conspiracentric  thinking ; after his pseudonymous  star turn as Mister X in JFK , Prouty was virtually beatified.  Thus it became almost sacrilegious to question his sincerity,  his credibility and his honesty. 
His first book(?) Secret  Team  was undoubtedly the best. It was both insightful and illuminating  , largely because it dealt with the sort of operations Prouty would have  first  hand knowledge  of while posted , as Chief of  Special  Ops, at  the Pentagon. 

I think  too a lot of people have been dazzled by his resume. " Someone  this high up, Chief of  Special Ops,  no less,  would  have to have known.  He must have been privy to all sorts of insider information...

Imho when he began discussing JFK , and the wider geopolitical/ strategic  picture  , he began to rely upon conjecture and surmise. Perhaps  elaborating upon whispers he may have heard,  wafting down hushed corridors of power. Or else  he was canny enough to  give his audience what they wanted.  Perhaps a little bit of both. After all  the  truth is often found in the middle, caught in the no mans land between two competing  extremes..

Some of his other stuff was  quite  frankly,  bizarre. At times  disturbingly  bizarre.  His dalliance/ flirtation ( unconsummated?) with Scientology most especially springs to mind.

The stuff about  Joannides is just downright   surreal.  More so  after Jim's laboured defence. Is he really  trying to say Len Osanic has proof Fletcher Prouty saw George  Joannides ghost while he was interviewed by the  ARRB? 

That's most certainly what it sounded like. All this stuff about  third party  phone calls, Prouty having " professional  issues"..Well, that's  certainly one way of putting it! However   I'd  humbly suggest  seeing the  ghost of a dead CIA officer is far more than just a mere " professional issue "...and  hinting at  enigmatic  proof he's not at liberty to discuss ( what's the fucking problem? If he has proof Col  Reich was " blowing smoke " why not elaborate? I'm sure he's quite safe...after all like Joannides  both Fathers Merrin  and  Karras  are dead) It just reeks of  big standard conspiracy bullshit. I used to  really respect  Jim DiE. It was the anthology  he edited with Lisa  Pease that first got me interested in learning more about the assassinations of the  60s, and the  JFK assassination in particular.  But more and more he's starting to resemble a conspiracy  tout. A zealot,  impervious to reason and rational thinking. The Greek Chorus  he's assembled over on the  13 Inch Head  forum  does him no favours. Those who wallow in shit end up  covered in shit; likewise those who wallow in mediocrity end up becoming mediocre.  Jim's admiring gaggle of ever pliant yes men is made up of the most dull insipid  uninspiring characters imaginable. One of Jim's worst faults is his lack of discernment,  he'll praise the worst hacks if they agree with him. He doesn't seem to understand this simple fact. The likes of Larsen , Butler and Baggins are a monumental impediment. One of  their posts has the potential to decimate the  credibility of everyone even tangentially associated with the subject...

Or maybe he just doesn't care anymore. Conspiracy has become his means and his end. It's provided him with a more than comfortable sinecure. What does he care if Butler  pollutes the place with his embarrassing  nonsense,  or if Jimbo Baggins continues to pimp his cult. To paraphrase  Mick and  Keef ( well Mick, Ronnie Wood and David Bowie) It's Only Conspiracy,  but I  like it...

I agree with Rob Clark. For want of a better expression,  his " cover story " of playing along with the ARRB, backtracking on virtually everything he'd said,  or written,  in the preceding couple of decades , is a  laughably  poor excuse. 

The type of excuse only  true believers and/ or the  helplessly,  haplessly  gullible would buy... 

Lies are lies and exaggerations are exaggerations.

Regardless of who tells them,  or why they have been  told.

Clinging on to " bad evidence "; be it the testimony of dubious witnesses , long debunked  pseudo facts, or cherished  pet theories seriously  impedes research. How  much time has been wasted chasing red herrings down rabbit holes?

The whole  LN/ CT divide is a  totally failed paradigm. It's Bread and Circuses, translated and   reconstituted to satisfy unimaginative zealots ;  debasing assassination research , diverting any real sense of purpose by keeping it safely  neutered,  locked in an never ending  cycle of fucking meaningless debate. A platform fit for intellectual  titans  like Bud,  BigDog,  Porcelain Throne and Healy to call one another  " Conspiracy  Hobbyists  " or " Lone Neuters"  Fuck them all. A plague on both their  houses...Apart from this forum,  all others,  from militant  lone nutists to purveyors of far out doppelganger friendly zaniness,  insist on viewing everything  through LN/ CT goggles..

As is so often the case  Larry Hancock tells it like it is. Prouty is a  good source  when it comes to facts/ operations/ details  he would have had  first hand knowledge of. Prouty himself  tells us how strictly compartmentalised  things were. 

But when it comes to  JFK and the wider picture  , most of his statements,  to a greater or lesser extent,  relied on speculation. Informed speculation perhaps but speculation  just the same. And they should be treated with  more than just a little circumspection,  and most  certainly not accorded  infallible  status..

Who ya gonna call?

ProutyBusters 

Armstrong have mercy on us all...

Vinny wrote:Because  George  Joannides was dead. Having  shuffled off his mortal coil back  in 1990...Ascending ( or descending) to the  Great  CIA Station  in the Sky, or in the  Flaming  Nether regions  ( and  no  Professor Larsen  I'm not talking about the time you experimented with  curry powder and plutonium)

Either Prouty truly  witnessed an otherworldly  manifestation , or he was  mistaken,  or he was  talking shit and Jim , Len and  their  fellow  Proutyites  haven't the cojones to admit  it.

Yikes. How on earth could have Jim not realised that Joannides was dead? Considering how thorough in his research he is supposed to be.

It was definitely a typo and he was talking about the HSCA. That’s what it says in the actual K&K article. That said I don’t think there’s any evidence of Prouty actually seeing Joaniddes there, or even knowing who Joaniddes was, so I have no idea what the deal is with this supposed confidential “source”. It sounds like hearsay  e.g. “oh yea Prouty told me about that guy”, but after the work of Jeff Morley, etc. 

I would not have used 30 year old phone call recollections from Osanic as a source for what Prouty has said without corroboration either. Like did Prouty ever mention his impression of the ARRB in any of the dozens of interviews he did? Or the HSCA, etc.? I don’t think Osanic would make something like that up, but memory/hearsay alone isn’t really reliable enough of a source IMO. 

However, I still need to find that segment of Bart’s talk with Malcolm Blunt. I think most people here would agree that Blunt is an excellent researcher, and something he found made him do a complete 180 on his opinion of Prouty’s credibility - and I’m pretty sure the details of that were not included in Jim’s article. I admittedly know little about this topic other than that Prouty backtracked on a bunch of his statements to the ARRB, and I agree that a lot of his claims I’ve read sound embellished in favor of conspiracy, but I’m still curious about what changed Blunt’s mind.

I'm pretty certain he was talking about the  ARRB. 

If I'm wrong,  if he was in fact talking about the  HSCA , or if it was just a typo, I'll happily apologise to Jim and the forum members 

However I wasn't only relying upon Jim's most recent essay. This particular claim- Prouty seeing Joannides at the  ARRB , and Prouty retracting his earlier statements to " play along " with the  ARRB, because  he'd figured out  what it was up to ;with Joannides alleged presence being a factor in this apparent  " figuring "- has been  circulating for a while. 

It was most certainly quoted in an earlier  thread, started in 2020, over on the  Education Forum,  and I'm sure I remember reading about it elsewhere. Although I'd  have to refresh my memory to  recall  the exact quotes

Like you , I found it hard, almost  impossible  in fact,  to believe a researcher of Jim's experience would make such an embarrassingly  clumsy blunder. I wasn't just relying upon  vague memories,  I read and reread  the  article and both the threads in question,  just to be certain I hadn't missed any nuances,  or if I'd taken his comment(s) out of context. 

Honestly,  I couldn't think of any other way of reading it. They were discussing  Prouty's apparent recanting  before the  ARRB,  which was explained away as him " playing along " , after he'd figured out the ARRBs real agenda. Joannides alleged  presence was clearly mentioned in this context. 

Of course I  maybe wrong. In fact I hope I'm wrong. I'd hate to think  Jim would make such a mistake . And surely he wouldn't attempt to pull off such a  blatantly transparent,  not to mention,  shoddy confidence trick just to shore up his position? . Or maybe Prouty did claim he saw George Joannides ghost.  And maybe Jim and Len believe him.. I'm only kidding...

I too find relying upon  hearsay  , " third party phone calls " and  references to enigmatic pieces of evidence that can't be revealed,  or indeed sources who can't be named, singularly  unconvincing. 

If they were trying to salvage Prouty's credibility,  imho it's had the opposite effect. But that's just my opinion. 

I hope I'm wrong,  I really do. In the grand scheme of things  my opinions count for very little. I sincerely hope I have made a mistake,; the alternative is by some considerable margin,  a far gloomier,  potentially damaging prospect. A leading researcher,  make that two leading researchers,  one being  arguably the most  eminent,  and certainly most visible pro conspiracy advocate, making such a an amateurish blunder, or even worse,  stooping to such depths , merely  in an attempt to shore up Prouty's credibility. 

Imho  Jim's  far too enamoured with the spurious  LN / CT divide. It informs his entire outlook,  he views things ( facts witnesses  etc)through a stark prism: the them and us dichotomy. All facts must be viewed equally. A willingness to  abandon  critical thinking simply because a so called witness is telling us what we want to here, or rejecting documents as fake simply because they puncture treasured pet theories is a  sure guarantee of failure. 

Making mistakes is part of life, learning  from  those mistakes is  part of growing up, part of maturing.  Making the same mistake over and over but expecting a different outcome is often considered to be a symptom of madness. 

Making the same mistake over and over and not understanding,  or not wanting to accept that it is a mistake , is perhaps a fate worse than madness. 



Regarding  Malcolm Blunt,  I couldn't agree more. His archive may well prove to be a  treasure trove beyond even  Mary Ferrell's wildest  flights of avarice. 

Along with  Barto, the  " sorcerer's apprentice ", their combined efforts have been responsible for some of the most recent breakthroughs..

The discovery of the Hosty note alone assures them an honourable plinth on Mount  Parnassus 

Ive read  all of your posts,  and your essay  , Tom ( JFK FNG, I hope I've got your name right. If not you have my sincerest apologies) and ive found your work to be  both insightful and illuminating. Causing me to reevaluate some of my own opinions regarding the assassination. 

It's  great to see you here.

P.S. Rob Clark mentioned the  Joannides sighting on at least a couple of his podcasts. I may be  mistaken but I think Jim's essay was an attempt at  rebutting  one of  Robs recent broadcasts

alex_wilson wrote:I'm pretty certain he was talking about the  ARRB. 

If I'm wrong,  if he was in fact talking about the  HSCA , or if it was just a typo, I'll happily apologise to Jim and the forum members 

However I wasn't only relying upon Jim's most recent essay. This particular claim- Prouty seeing Joannides at the  ARRB , and Prouty retracting his earlier statements to " play along " with the  ARRB, because  he'd figured out  what it was up to ;with Joannides alleged presence being a factor in this apparent  " figuring "- has been  circulating for a while. 

It was most certainly quoted in an earlier  thread, started in 2020, over on the  Education Forum,  and I'm sure I remember reading about it elsewhere. Although I'd  have to refresh my memory to  recall  the exact quotes

Like you , I found it hard, almost  impossible  in fact,  to believe a researcher of Jim's experience would make such an embarrassingly  clumsy blunder. I wasn't just relying upon  vague memories,  I read and reread  the  article and both the threads in question,  just to be certain I hadn't missed any nuances,  or if I'd taken his comment(s) out of context. 

Honestly,  I couldn't think of any other way of reading it. They were discussing  Prouty's apparent recanting  before the  ARRB,  which was explained away as him " playing along " , after he'd figured out the ARRBs real agenda. Joannides alleged  presence was clearly mentioned in this context. 

Of course I  maybe wrong. In fact I hope I'm wrong. I'd hate to think  Jim would make such a mistake . And surely he wouldn't attempt to pull off such a  blatantly transparent,  not to mention,  shoddy confidence trick just to shore up his position? . Or maybe Prouty did claim he saw George Joannides ghost.  And maybe Jim and Len believe him.. I'm only kidding...

I too find relying upon  hearsay  , " third party phone calls " and  references to enigmatic pieces of evidence that can't be revealed,  or indeed sources who can't be named, singularly  unconvincing. 

If they were trying to salvage Prouty's credibility,  imho it's had the opposite effect. But that's just my opinion. 

I hope I'm wrong,  I really do. In the grand scheme of things  my opinions count for very little. I sincerely hope I have made a mistake,; the alternative is by some considerable margin,  a far gloomier,  potentially damaging prospect. A leading researcher,  make that two leading researchers,  one being  arguably the most  eminent,  and certainly most visible pro conspiracy advocate, making such a an amateurish blunder, or even worse,  stooping to such depths , merely  in an attempt to shore up Prouty's credibility. 

Imho  Jim's  far too enamoured with the spurious  LN / CT divide. It informs his entire outlook,  he views things ( facts witnesses  etc)through a stark prism: the them and us dichotomy. All facts must be viewed equally. A willingness to  abandon  critical thinking simply because a so called witness is telling us what we want to here, or rejecting documents as fake simply because they puncture treasured pet theories is a  sure guarantee of failure. 

Making mistakes is part of life, learning  from  those mistakes is  part of growing up, part of maturing.  Making the same mistake over and over but expecting a different outcome is often considered to be a symptom of madness. 

Making the same mistake over and over and not understanding,  or not wanting to accept that it is a mistake , is perhaps a fate worse than madness. 



Regarding  Malcolm Blunt,  I couldn't agree more. His archive may well prove to be a  treasure trove beyond even  Mary Ferrell's wildest  flights of avarice. 

Along with  Barto, the  " sorcerer's apprentice ", their combined efforts have been responsible for some of the most recent breakthroughs..

The discovery of the Hosty note alone assures them an honourable plinth on Mount  Parnassus 

Ive read  all of your posts,  and your essay  , Tom ( JFK FNG, I hope I've got your name right. If not you have my sincerest apologies) and ive found your work to be  both insightful and illuminating. Causing me to reevaluate some of my own opinions regarding the assassination. 

It's  great to see you here.

P.S. Rob Clark mentioned the  Joannides sighting on at least a couple of his podcasts. I may be  mistaken but I think Jim's essay was an attempt at  rebutting  one of  Robs recent broadcasts

This is the quote from Jim’s article that references Joannides in the context of the HSCA: 


I’ll have to read back through the Ed forum thread, but since the above is what’s in Jim’s article I figured he just got mixed up. I’ve been back through three of Bart’s talks with Blunt today and still haven’t found where he talks about Prouty. I swear it’s in there somewhere, it was something about military escorts or chaperones or something like that - and Blunt apparently found it pretty compelling. I recall, and disclaimer my memory is questionable here, that Blunt said whatever he found totally changed his mind on Prouty’s ARRB appearance - and the stuff Blunt mentioned was not included in Jim’s article (I think). I’ll keep looking.

JFK_FNG wrote:

barto wrote:At the Education Forum there is a thread by Rob Clark on his Podcast on Fletcher  Prouty

Well some of Malcolm Blunt's documentation sheds more light on this matter of the Military Intelligence Unit "to stand down".

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MJfyc43iUl4khv42xOgzIH9i21WuDwSc/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k0lAQxGSB90Z3wJZeHn3x1f_nKG8cy5n/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y6TDLUqTfIs08evOqETUYyx_R7cQ50iL/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ly50RCxQRyTynHas9CoZMbbl46cjz3rY/view?usp=sharing

Bart, I recall something from your DPUK talks with Malcolm Blunt that I was disappointed was not included in Jim's article. I tried to find it again but couldn't, so maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought that Blunt said something about the military assigning a couple shady "chaperones" to Prouty for his ARRB appearance, and that ARRB internal documents plus the background of those military guys are what ultimately changed Blunt's mind on Prouty's credibility - or something like that. Do you remember which episode that is from?

That it?

The files are at the Blunt archives.
Check out Weiss in Mil Intel 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RrTiwCzJSUFQIjPYvkpBkABwR1dDC291?usp=sharing

barto wrote:

JFK_FNG wrote:

barto wrote:At the Education Forum there is a thread by Rob Clark on his Podcast on Fletcher  Prouty

Well some of Malcolm Blunt's documentation sheds more light on this matter of the Military Intelligence Unit "to stand down".

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MJfyc43iUl4khv42xOgzIH9i21WuDwSc/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k0lAQxGSB90Z3wJZeHn3x1f_nKG8cy5n/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y6TDLUqTfIs08evOqETUYyx_R7cQ50iL/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ly50RCxQRyTynHas9CoZMbbl46cjz3rY/view?usp=sharing

Bart, I recall something from your DPUK talks with Malcolm Blunt that I was disappointed was not included in Jim's article. I tried to find it again but couldn't, so maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought that Blunt said something about the military assigning a couple shady "chaperones" to Prouty for his ARRB appearance, and that ARRB internal documents plus the background of those military guys are what ultimately changed Blunt's mind on Prouty's credibility - or something like that. Do you remember which episode that is from?

That it?

The files are at the Blunt archives.
Check out Weiss in Mil Intel 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RrTiwCzJSUFQIjPYvkpBkABwR1dDC291?usp=sharing

Yes that is what I was thinking of. Thanks Bart. I’ll check out some of those documents for sure. So Jim did mention Wray and Barger in his article, but I would have liked to have seen more discussion of/direct quotes from ARRB documents that suggest the 112th Special Project was an operation designed to discredit Prouty and Jones - i.e. the stuff that convinced Blunt. I guess I’ll have to take a look for myself. 

I think the biggest issue I have with Jim’s assessment of Prouty is Prouty’s alleged spidey-sense ability to figure out that an official inquiry is less than honest, and more importantly his alleged decision to “play along” with the bullshit instead of telling the truth. Is there any documented evidence from Prouty himself supporting this? Anything more credible than hearsay? Sure it’s not hard to come up with a vague motive of self-preservation for this kind of thing, but without any evidence it’s just as likely that he was just paranoid and making shit up. I was listening to a BOR episode the other day where Osanic said Prouty told him he thought there was a “mole” in the production team for The Men Who Killed Kennedy directing Nigel Turner to focus on a bunch of bullshit so the overall series could be discredited. That sounds pretty paranoid to me, but who knows? 

IF Prouty’s ARRB appearance reflects him “playing along with the spin”, and not just backtracking on a bunch of conspiratized B.S. because he was under oath I have no idea. I do not think that hearsay plus legit evidence for just the “spin” itself is enough to really vindicate him though. I think that anyone looking to rehabilitate Prouty at this point needs to show real corroborating evidence for Prouty’s alleged “playing along”. The only example Jim gives is Prouty telling the ARRB he didn’t keep notes “of his information” on the 112th - even though there are notes in Osanic’s Prouty collection from a different guy (Bill McKinney) on the topic. That’s not exactly convincing evidence IMO.

Laying to rest the obfuscations of L. Fletcher Prouty, Scientology’s conspiracist-for-hire


https://tonyortega.org/2016/09/10/laying-to-rest-the-obfuscations-of-l-fletcher-prouty-scientologys-conspiracist-for-hire/

That's an interesting article, Vinny. Thanks for posting the link. Before I read it I had no idea Prouty was defending Scientology.

That's bad enough, but it also mentions that Prouty's Secret Team was published by the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review at one time. Which I knew. I always thought that chapter of Prouty's life has deserved more examination. The IHR is not just some conservative organization. It's very far-right, full-blown about its Holocaust Denial-- which is to say anti-semitism-- which is to say it's a neo-nazi organization/publisher. I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that. Funny how Prouty always gets a pass for his association with them.

Just like Mark Lane does for his associations with Willis Carto and Jonestown. But I digress.

Welcome Roger. Yes that stuff about Scientology is quite disturbing. Regarding Lane here is an old thread that you might find interesting.



https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t354-mark-lane-question

Is Scientology any different from any other “religion”? As far as I can tell, the only difference between a religion an a cult are the number of followers and state acceptance.

Religion: The best means of mind control yet devised by man.

Regarding those with controversial associations, if such a person puts forward a factually based, logical argument where any assumptions are distinct from facts, their views should not be summarily dismissed.

In real life, it’s common that an argument has some ambiguity or circumstantial aspect and some benefit of the doubt may be necessary. Here, a past or present association may be appropriate as to whether the benefit of the doubt should be extended. I think questioning an argument that may be based on self-interest is appropriate. I don’t think questioning due to the unpopularity or controversial reputation is appropriate.

Following the German attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Germans discovered thousands of executed Polish military figures, academics, politicians, administrators etc. buried around Katyn. They called in neutral international observers and even allied POWs to examine the uniforms, documents etc.. It was undeniable that they had been executed while that region of Poland was under Soviet occupation. Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels recognized this as a propaganda windfall and gave the incident maximum publicity. But the Soviets, who by that time where part of the allies, denied it and firmly blamed the Germans. The allies believed the Soviets and covered it up lest it upset the alliance. Today it is known and admitted by Russia that the Soviets were responsible.

Scientology's different than other religions. It has the best music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtxWlTIWRHo

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-edward-epstein

I’ve become skeptical of JFK’s plans for Vietnam as a motive for his assassination. Though it’s clear JFK wanted to avoid a large US ground war in Vietnam, I’m not so sure how differently he would have responded to a Tonkin Gulf incident during the 1964 presidential campaign. Plus, why go through the trouble and risk of an assassination yet conduct the war in such an inept manner, overseen by many of the same people JFK himself named to his administration?

From what I’ve read, JFK’s administration was divided over Vietnam policy, specifically over whether to remove Diem. The CIA leadership (which presumably was in on the assassination) actually opposed to the coup. During the subsequent war, the CIA was generally pessimistic about the war’s progress and provided more accurate assessments of enemy troop levels than did the military. I remember reading former CIA Director Robert Gates book “From the Shadows” discussing his surprise that many of the analysts had anti-war posters in their cubicles and some actually marched in protests against the war (of course this was the “analysis” half of the CIA).

The K and K reference cites Newsweek articles from October, 1963 and August, 1965 contrasting the economic aspects of military spending before and after the JFK assassination. The October 1963 article focused on strategic spending for missiles, aircraft, submarines whose target numbers were largely determined by reconnaissance satellites and reflected in plans made over years. There was no big surprise that the spending would taper off regardless who was in office. Interestingly, the article points out that military spending for the 1964 fiscal year was actually cut $1.4 billion Dollars from what the Kennedy administration had proposed. While the 1965 article describes the revival of defense spending for the Vietnam War, most of the defense contractors reaping the benefits were making consumables such as bullets, uniforms, helmets, etc. There is very little overlap between those contractors in the 1963 article and those from 1965. So even if the Vietnam war was just about securing a revenue stream, those who might have been motivated to see JFK removed from office because of spending on strategic weapons did not benefit significantly.

I haven’t read John Newman’s books on the matter (yet) and could change my mind pending new and convincing arguments. But in my opinion, if a foreign struggle was a motivation for the JFK assassination, it was far more likely to involve Cuba rather than Vietnam.

One of the most informative things I've read in a while is CD 852
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11249
DOD Bartimo Letter of 24 Apr 1964 with Attachments
Starting on about the third page or so of this document is a copy of
Army Regulation 195-10 which spells out how the Army was supposed to liaison with other agencies. It talks about the Army, Navy, Air Force and FBI, but interestingly enough, leaves out the Secret Service.


Basically Army Regulation 195-10 is a How to Manual for conducting investigations of armed forces personnel: Who's got responsibility, who's got control, how the information flows, etc.


Look at Paragraph (9)(c)(1)(a) on the bottom of Page 5 of this CD. It says how Army Commanders are supposed to establish policies to establish "effective liaison" with other agencies and specifically mentions the ATTU.


The idea was not to step on each other's toes, and establish contact with an individual that some other agency was working, e.g. informants. I think in CIA jargon, it was called the “third party” rule.

As I sit here, I don't know if the FBI or the ATTU has such a Regulation they were supposed to be operating under, unless, as in the FBI’s case it would be in the FBI Manual.


Steve Thomas

New article defending Prouty.


https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/old-wine-in-new-bottles-fletcher-prouty-s-new-critics-recycle-the-past