+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Prouty on Lansdale (/thread-5522.html)
Prouty on Lansdale - Bernice Moore - 26-01-2011
Seamus, who said or has proven the storm drain angle was, is defunct, or is it as defunct as the shot from the south side of the overpass or north, depending as well on ones research,...or as i know that's the par at a la lancer, .could you please show me and all, your research into proving such, thank you..and just because someone is a well respected researcher does not mean that he or she cannot be wrong. imo..best b
Prouty on Lansdale - Seamus Coogan - 26-01-2011
Bernice Moore Wrote:Seamus, who said or has proven the storm drain angle was, is defunct, or is it as defunct as the shot from the south side of the overpass or north, depending as well on ones research,...or as i know that's the par at a la lancer, .could you please show me and all, your research into proving such, thank you..and just because someone is a well respected researcher does not mean that he or she cannot be wrong. imo..best b
Furthermore too say that eveybody at Lancer believes the southside angle is entirely untrue.
I for one don't Bernice. I actually stand by the conservative estimates and observations and research of Bob Groden and others. I'm sure you can find Bob's opinions in Google searches Bernice. But let's not digress. Jim Di is urging caution on Lansdale in the picture. I personally think there's a chance it maybe Lansdale (more so than Jim Di does). But I also admire Jim's caution on the issue. If we keep going like this we'll soon have the 'Three Stooges as gunmen!'
I would much rather be cautious and wrong than stake my entire reputation on something marginal that could go either way. Thats how CTKA work its not about finishing first its about finishing at all. Its also not about jumping onto every fad or theory about the case. Which I think a few people are more than prone to do.
Prouty on Lansdale - Jack White - 26-01-2011
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:...as per Lansdale, well that is iffy.
jim
Very impressive opinion, Jim--since you knew Lansdale so well.:banghead:
Isn't it about time Greg (master researcher) that you went round and told everyone the glorious news about gunmen coming out of every orifice in Dealey? In particularly your backing of the defunct Storm Drain angle. Hmmmmmmmm now isn't Jim's caution with the photo's a little more sensible an option than plunging on in?
Well Greg it appears you plunge in on quite a few things doesn't it?
Like just about any new fad that comes along.
Why don't you come back and tell me how credible a guy Chauncey Holt is? Sheesh Greg while your at it let's hear about your wonderful theories about how Zapruder was in on the plot? Tell me how credible JVB is and how a study of Oswald's penis will be useful to the case? How about let's discuss crop circles (I see they are advocated on your site as is a link to John Hankeys appalling video JFK II) You may have missed the bus on that goldmine Greg.
Of course you can always find flaws in Jim Di's arguments by using such good and well researched links to your site. Have you seen Hankey call Jim Di and I intelligence assets?
So before you criticise anybodies opinions on Lansdale or any other researcher. I'd think real, real, real long and hard about the very ones you advocate for and why Greg (more so than yourself by a country mile no make it continents) Jim DiEugenio is one of the most respected researchers currently operating! Furthermore, some people may find that a little on the nose.
But it's why I'll be hard pressed to use anything you have ever done in the field. Hows them apples?
Oh I say this not out of being vindictive. But because I won't lose any sleep if you don't use mine. Should you start too I'd be seriously worried about my massive drop in standards!
I know Greg well. I did not know he has a website where he
discusses crop circles. I need to compare notes with him.
Hmmmmmmm.
Jack
Prouty on Lansdale - Phil Dragoo - 26-01-2011
- If Jim demands extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims,
I want to see his extraordinary proof that Gedney, Doyle and
Abrams were the three tramps. And if he quotes the extraordinary
book OSWALD TALKED by the LaFontaines which supports that
thesis, I'm gonna throw up.
Jack
Jack, I bought Oswald Talked by Ray and Mary LaFontaine and found their claim that Gedney, Doyle and Abrams were the classic tramps to be not credible based on their trio having paperwork and several days in jail, while the photo-tramps were released without any record or time.
Further, I found their claim that DeMohrenschildt killed himself as credible as the current slick attempt to sell a Pitzer "suicide," which is to say, not credible in the least.
As for Lansdale, that is a separate issuebut the trio in the photo is not Gedney, Doyle and Abrams.
Prouty on Lansdale - Greg Burnham - 26-01-2011
Jack White Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:...as per Lansdale, well that is iffy.
jim
Very impressive opinion, Jim--since you knew Lansdale so well.:banghead:
Greg...I have numerous friends, probably dozens, that I would recognize
immediately from a rear view. It is the total person, not just facial features;
height, weight, hair, posture and even habits or wearing apparrel all enter
into it...no IFFY to it at all. In fact in a Dealey Plaza photo I recognized a
friend that I had not seen since 1949. It was Bill Kirkpatrick, who had
been a classmate of mine at college. There was no mistaking him from a
3/4 rear view, about like the Lansdale view.
Jack
Hi Jack,
I think it is totally disingenuous for folks to claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to recognize people with whom they have been intimately associated for over a decade! This is a no brainer.
Rather, they are claiming (in not so many words) that Prouty is a liar! That Krulak is a liar! Or, perhaps they are claiming that these two senior Pentagon Officials were so incompetent that they might "mistake" the identity of a man with whom they associated ON A DAILY BASIS!
That dog don't hunt...
Prouty on Lansdale - Greg Burnham - 26-01-2011
Jack White Wrote:Seamus Coogan Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:...as per Lansdale, well that is iffy.
jim
Very impressive opinion, Jim--since you knew Lansdale so well.:banghead:
Isn't it about time Greg (master researcher) that you went round and told everyone the glorious news about gunmen coming out of every orifice in Dealey? In particularly your backing of the defunct Storm Drain angle. Hmmmmmmmm now isn't Jim's caution with the photo's a little more sensible an option than plunging on in?
Well Greg it appears you plunge in on quite a few things doesn't it?
Like just about any new fad that comes along.
Why don't you come back and tell me how credible a guy Chauncey Holt is? Sheesh Greg while your at it let's hear about your wonderful theories about how Zapruder was in on the plot? Tell me how credible JVB is and how a study of Oswald's penis will be useful to the case? How about let's discuss crop circles (I see they are advocated on your site as is a link to John Hankeys appalling video JFK II) You may have missed the bus on that goldmine Greg.
Of course you can always find flaws in Jim Di's arguments by using such good and well researched links to your site. Have you seen Hankey call Jim Di and I intelligence assets?
So before you criticise anybodies opinions on Lansdale or any other researcher. I'd think real, real, real long and hard about the very ones you advocate for and why Greg (more so than yourself by a country mile no make it continents) Jim DiEugenio is one of the most respected researchers currently operating! Furthermore, some people may find that a little on the nose.
But it's why I'll be hard pressed to use anything you have ever done in the field. Hows them apples?
Oh I say this not out of being vindictive. But because I won't lose any sleep if you don't use mine. Should you start too I'd be seriously worried about my massive drop in standards!
I know Greg well. I did not know he has a website where he
discusses crop circles. I need to compare notes with him.
Hmmmmmmm.
Jack
You are quite correct, Jack. I have NO websites at this time, and I have NEVER had a website discussing the matters Coogan suggests.
Moreover, this is bordering heavily on ad hominem, Seamus. You are inventing claims that I have never made and attributing them to me.
I do NOT believe Chauncey Holt was a tramp. Never have. You invented that attribute when you assigned it to me. I am on the record over a DECADE ago with that position. However, I knew him well. He taught me a lot. But, I don't buy that claim at all.
I never said Zapruder was "in on the plot" -- not even once. However, he should rightfully be scrutinized--and I did scrutinize him. Everyone is invited to reach their own conclusions as to what the facts of his circumstances mean, or if their meaning can even be known. It is up to the observer to determine, not you or me.
As for JVB, you are way behind. I have never endorsed her story. I have said that she was very "believable" when I met with her for a day in Los Angeles. However, I have also remained neutral for the most part because I was unable to spend the amount of time it would take to either verify or refute her claims. I simply do not know.
As for Oswald's penis... Have you lost your mind! You are beginning to sound like Robert Morrow! I objected so strongly to it being the topic of discussion on the EF that it was removed! I might have been wrong for objecting, but I did as it seems only remotely--tangentially--relevant if at all.
As for crop circles on my website... ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? First, I HAVE NO WEBSITE! Second, I have never had anything about crop circles on ANY site in the past. And I have no interest in Hankey.
Why am I even defending myself against you? Is Jim so weak that he cannot stand up for himself here? I don't think so.
I don't know why you have such a hard on against me, Seamus. I don't even know you.
Your relationship with Jim D reminds me of Dave Perry's influence on Gary Mack.
A pity. We shall see where it leads.
Prouty on Lansdale - Greg Burnham - 26-01-2011
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Greg:
There is a saying, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".
Ya know, I wasn't even going to reply to your drivel after having entertained the wildly irrational nonsense emanating from the mind of your lackey...however:
Quote:If you are going to say that Lansdale was actually in Dealey Plaza, right after the assassination--which breaks every rule of covert ops...
Huh? What are you claiming to know about covert ops, Jim? WHAT? Please give me some basis for your claim BEYOND being an historian? Huh? WHAT? I'm serious. How do YOU know--first hand--what are "the rules of covert ops" ? Huh? Seriously, that is a very dis-educated claim--an unsupported assertion; unless, of course, you have FIRST HAND knowledge of what "every rule of covert ops" consists of, I find no reason to place any faith in your "guess" about something of which you are poorly prepared to speak.
Quote:...--then you better have extraordinary evidence.
Jim, in all due respect...extraordinary evidence has a definition. Do you imagine it could include credible eye witness accounts? I do. Unless you are willing to call my friend, Colonel Leroy Fletcher Prouty, USAF, a fraud or incompetent, I think you would agree it is therefore logical to describe his account as "extraordinary evidence" -- right? If not, why not?
Quote:Which I do not consider an ID of the back of the head to be.
Complete sentences would help, but, no matter--it's not like you're a teacher or anything...
Prouty on Lansdale - Bernice Moore - 26-01-2011
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Bernice Moore Wrote:Seamus, who said or has proven the storm drain angle was, is defunct, or is it as defunct as the shot from the south side of the overpass or north, depending as well on ones research,...or as i know that's the par at a la lancer, .could you please show me and all, your research into proving such, thank you..and just because someone is a well respected researcher does not mean that he or she cannot be wrong. imo..best b
Furthermore too say that eveybody at Lancer believes the southside angle is entirely untrue.
I for one don't Bernice. I actually stand by the conservative estimates and observations and research of Bob Groden and others. I'm sure you can find Bob's opinions in Google searches Bernice. But let's not digress. Jim Di is urging caution on Lansdale in the picture. I personally think there's a chance it maybe Lansdale (more so than Jim Di does). But I also admire Jim's caution on the issue. If we keep going like this we'll soon have the 'Three Stooges as gunmen!'
I would much rather be cautious and wrong than stake my entire reputation on something marginal that could go either way. Thats how CTKA work its not about finishing first its about finishing at all. Its also not about jumping onto every fad or theory about the case. Which I think a few people are more than prone to do.
wow you really do like borax don't you, quote ''or is it as defunct as the shot from the south side of the overpass or north'' i asked or is it, ?? i did not say all believe such at lancer either, you do run on, and now that greg's reply has proven to show just how much you do, and did in reference to your "" conservative '' estimate on the knowledge pertaining to his in anyway, i will now,chose often to ignore much of what you have to contribute..until, you do your research before using your Borax.. b
Prouty on Lansdale - Seamus Coogan - 26-01-2011
I've had some problems signing in and so fourth. I have had a look at the replies and. Greg is owed a big sorry from me. That site is clearly not his and I realised about ten minutes after I posted. But cheers to Bernice for pointing out my 'pointing of the Borax' so to speak.
The issue here is being cautious. No after my latest faux pas that sounds a little well hypocritical lol. But its only hypocritical when one doesn't acknowledge the irony of the situation and one has to re-correct in particularly when they think have been signed in. But as I said I find the image of Lansdale compelling. I also have been trying too type in here I agree with Burnham that the ID by Krulak is also extremely interesting. Do I have a firm opinion on it all no I don't. In all of this everyone is forgetting that Prouty named the 'tramps' as actors or a sideshow.
Whether involved or not. As for Gregs other 'real' points concerning shots from the Storm Drain and Zapruders purported connections they are all for another time or thread and I heartily agree with you. In much as the same I agree with Greg I over shot the mark on some things I said.
Yours Seamus.
Prouty on Lansdale - Jim DiEugenio - 26-01-2011
OK, here we go again.
This stuff is just silly.
Let us call off the roll: there was Morales, Campbell, and Johannides at the Ambassador. Now these were straight on photos and films. This was started with a guy from JM Wave, Brad Ayers who worked with them, and a shadowy guy named Dave Rabern. Which caused Shane O. to go on BBC and announce to the world that three CIA officers were at the Ambassador Hotel that night RFK was murdered.
Hmm. Three CIA officers were allowing themselves to be recorded by movie cameras and still cameras for hours while the conspiracy was actually ongoing? Why would you do it? Just to risk being caught? How did Dick Helms forget to be there then? Sounds sensible to me. And Fetzer still tries to revive this stuff, even though Shane himself renounced it in his book.
Then there was AJ Weberman and the Hunt allegation as Howard being one of the three tramps. How was this verified? By something called an 'earprint". Sure, AJ, that will stand up in court won't it?
Then there was Lucien Conein. Except it was not him. He was in S. Vietnam and the guy mistaken for him was identified as someone else by his close friend.
Then there was Joseph Milteer in Dealey Plaza. Except, as Jerry Rose found out years later, Milteer was on the East Coast.
Oh yeah, and let us not forget Harrelson and Sturgis. And oh yes, that photo of Geroge Bush that Hankey swears by. The gang was all there right? Sort of like the ever evolving Murchison party.
I mean who else do you want there? I guess maybe we are missing Max Taylor perhaps? Someone missed that phone call.
Exactly what has all this gotten us in all these years? Nothing but pratfalls, embarassment, and ridicule. Photo identification is one of the trickiest arts that there is. Unless you have a really good head on shot, which has enough perspective to show comparative height and weight, you don't really have enough to go on. Secondly, unless the guy is so obviously the person that its indisputable, you then have to cross check if this person has an alibi.
If you do not do the above, then you leave yourself wide open. Weisberg swore off the whole three tramps thing for that reason. And that was before they were identified. Oliver made a mistake in using this in his film. Its the kind of thing that called for further investigation, that he did not do. If I had been advising him, I would have told him not to use it. In the Lansdale thing, I am glad he did not make it explicit. He kind of slid by it.
And BTW, for the Gedney, Abrams things, I was going with the TV show which I think was called Current Affair or something like that. They did a pretty good investigation of it, since they had money to do it with. Gedney and Doyle said it was them, and their stories matched from where they were the night before. Doyle's sister said he had told her about being arrested in Dealey Plaza. The deceased Abrams' sister recalled his vagabond days, and she identified his photo.
IMO, at this stage, we should be going with only the very best info we have. And that is stuff that can be used to reopen the case. This kind of thing does not come close to meeting that standard.