Prouty on Lansdale

[Greg Burnham]

Jim DiEugenio: "which breaks every rule of covert ops"

I don't have any problem whatsoever with Jim's implicit understanding of covert operations -- an understanding that is the product of years of diligent research and important published writing.

Great, I don't either--unless and until he begins to challenge the eyewitness accounts of CREDIBLE individuals who are in a much better position to know about these matters than is he. This is a no brainer.

If we are to hold analysts and historians to a "you had to be there" standard, then why bother with the exercises of analysis and historical enquiry?

Agreed. However, no one is holding Jim to such a standard--and your suggestion that I am doing so is a Straw Man. He drew first blood by claiming that the positive ID made by both Colonel L Fletcher Prouty and General Victor Krulak were "iffy" identifications.

What part of the Lansdale identification is "iffy" Charles? Is it the Letter from General Krulak that positively identifies Lansdale? Is it the letters from Col. Fletcher Prouty positively naming Lansdale or is it the YouTube video made by Len Osanic?

I don't buy the Ambassador Hotel IDs for a number of reaons, but one simple reason will suffice for this particular argument: The spooks allegedly on scene were masters of and otherwise fully conversant with the processes of incriminating conspirators for future control. Which his to say that what in all likelihood kept them away from the scene of the crime was not fear of public identification so much as fear of blackmail by their alleged comrades.

No comment since that is off topic in this thread...and I have NEVER even spoken about the Ambassador Hotel "spooks" --so I'm mystified as to why you raise this subject here and now in this thread.