ARRB Questions Prouty

[John McAdams]

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/CBARGER/WP-DOCS/PROUTY11.WPD.pdf

Conclusion:

<Quote on>

Fletcher Prouty was where he says he was during the period from
1955-1964. His position can be documented. Beyond documents verifying
his position, however, the ARRB is unlikely to find anything to add to
the record by following Prouty’s allegations or statements. His
statements, coming from someone who was verifiably in a position to
know, sound plausible, and would appear to carry the credibility of an
insider’s knowledge. Under more careful analysis, it becomes clear
that:

a.) Prouty has no first hand knowledge of any activities involving Lee
Harvey Oswald, a plot to assassinate the president, or any evidence of
such a plot.

b.) Prouty’s allegations, while sounding authoritative, are based
primarily on his interpretations of events. Furthermore, upon
questioning, it seems clear that many of Prouty’s allegations are not
based on interpretations of actual events, but merely his feelings or
general beliefs. Any follow-up action on his allegations would be an
ineffectual use of ARRB time and resources.

c.) Prouty, in his published work, makes allegations which point
clearly to a high level conspiracy. Given the opportunity to document
these allegations or in some other fashion uncover the truth, however,
Prouty declined to do so, and often retreated from or contradicted his
published claims.

<end quote>

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[19efppp]

Post by John McAdams
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/CBARGER/WP-DOCS/PROUTY11.WPD.pdf
<Quote on>
Fletcher Prouty was where he says he was during the period from
1955-1964. His position can be documented. Beyond documents verifying
his position, however, the ARRB is unlikely to find anything to add to
the record by following Prouty’s allegations or statements. His
statements, coming from someone who was verifiably in a position to
know, sound plausible, and would appear to carry the credibility of an
insider’s knowledge. Under more careful analysis, it becomes clear
a.) Prouty has no first hand knowledge of any activities involving Lee
Harvey Oswald, a plot to assassinate the president, or any evidence of
such a plot.
b.) Prouty’s allegations, while sounding authoritative, are based
primarily on his interpretations of events. Furthermore, upon
questioning, it seems clear that many of Prouty’s allegations are not
based on interpretations of actual events, but merely his feelings or
general beliefs. Any follow-up action on his allegations would be an
ineffectual use of ARRB time and resources.
c.) Prouty, in his published work, makes allegations which point
clearly to a high level conspiracy. Given the opportunity to document
these allegations or in some other fashion uncover the truth, however,
Prouty declined to do so, and often retreated from or contradicted his
published claims.
<end quote>
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

That doesn't make Prouty look very good. They should have asked him about
McGeorge Bundy and the Bay of Pigs invasion.

[John Corbett]

Post by John McAdams
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/CBARGER/WP-DOCS/PROUTY11.WPD.pdf
<Quote on>
Fletcher Prouty was where he says he was during the period from
1955-1964. His position can be documented. Beyond documents verifying
his position, however, the ARRB is unlikely to find anything to add to
the record by following Prouty’s allegations or statements. His
statements, coming from someone who was verifiably in a position to
know, sound plausible, and would appear to carry the credibility of an
insider’s knowledge. Under more careful analysis, it becomes clear
a.) Prouty has no first hand knowledge of any activities involving Lee
Harvey Oswald, a plot to assassinate the president, or any evidence of
such a plot.
b.) Prouty’s allegations, while sounding authoritative, are based
primarily on his interpretations of events. Furthermore, upon
questioning, it seems clear that many of Prouty’s allegations are not
based on interpretations of actual events, but merely his feelings or
general beliefs. Any follow-up action on his allegations would be an
ineffectual use of ARRB time and resources.
c.) Prouty, in his published work, makes allegations which point
clearly to a high level conspiracy. Given the opportunity to document
these allegations or in some other fashion uncover the truth, however,
Prouty declined to do so, and often retreated from or contradicted his
published claims.
<end quote>

I think most of the participants in this newsgroup are aware that Prouty
was the inspiration for Donald Sutherland's X character in Oliver Stone's
movie. That was a composite character that was based primarily on Prouty.
Stone used that character to sum up his theory of the assassination= . It
speaks volumes that Stone's case for conspiracy was laid out by someone so
lacking in credibility.

Ironically, given that was a climactic moment in the movie, I started
nodding off in the theater during that scene and did so again when
watching the movie on DVD. I guess I could take just so much of Stone's BS
before zoning out.

[Mark]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John McAdams
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/CBARGER/WP-DOCS/PROUTY11.WPD.pdf
<Quote on>
Fletcher Prouty was where he says he was during the period from
1955-1964. His position can be documented. Beyond documents verifying
his position, however, the ARRB is unlikely to find anything to add to
the record by following Prouty’s allegations or statements. His
statements, coming from someone who was verifiably in a position to
know, sound plausible, and would appear to carry the credibility of an
insider’s knowledge. Under more careful analysis, it becomes clear
a.) Prouty has no first hand knowledge of any activities involving Lee
Harvey Oswald, a plot to assassinate the president, or any evidence of
such a plot.
b.) Prouty’s allegations, while sounding authoritative, are based
primarily on his interpretations of events. Furthermore, upon
questioning, it seems clear that many of Prouty’s allegations are not
based on interpretations of actual events, but merely his feelings or
general beliefs. Any follow-up action on his allegations would be an
ineffectual use of ARRB time and resources.
c.) Prouty, in his published work, makes allegations which point
clearly to a high level conspiracy. Given the opportunity to document
these allegations or in some other fashion uncover the truth, however,
Prouty declined to do so, and often retreated from or contradicted his
published claims.
<end quote>

I think most of the participants in this newsgroup are aware that Prouty
was the inspiration for Donald Sutherland's X character in Oliver Stone's
movie. That was a composite character that was based primarily on Prouty.
Stone used that character to sum up his theory of the assassination . It
speaks volumes that Stone's case for conspiracy was laid out by someone so
lacking in credibility.
Ironically, given that was a climactic moment in the movie, I started
nodding off in the theater during that scene and did so again when
watching the movie on DVD. I guess I could take just so much of Stone's BS
before zoning out.

Prouty was another crazy, paranoid cockroach who came out of the woodwork
when he smelled his15 minutes of fame and a book contract. Mark

[Mark]

Post by John McAdams
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/CBARGER/WP-DOCS/PROUTY11.WPD.pdf
<Quote on>
Fletcher Prouty was where he says he was during the period from
1955-1964. His position can be documented. Beyond documents verifying
his position, however, the ARRB is unlikely to find anything to add to
the record by following Prouty’s allegations or statements. His
statements, coming from someone who was verifiably in a position to
know, sound plausible, and would appear to carry the credibility of an
insider’s knowledge. Under more careful analysis, it becomes clear
a.) Prouty has no first hand knowledge of any activities involving Lee
Harvey Oswald, a plot to assassinate the president, or any evidence of
such a plot.
b.) Prouty’s allegations, while sounding authoritative, are based
primarily on his interpretations of events. Furthermore, upon
questioning, it seems clear that many of Prouty’s allegations are not
based on interpretations of actual events, but merely his feelings or
general beliefs. Any follow-up action on his allegations would be an
ineffectual use of ARRB time and resources.
c.) Prouty, in his published work, makes allegations which point
clearly to a high level conspiracy. Given the opportunity to document
these allegations or in some other fashion uncover the truth, however,
Prouty declined to do so, and often retreated from or contradicted his
published claims.
<end quote>
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John, the ARRB and you are so picky. I mean Prouty was good enough for
Oliver Stone. What more could we want? The nerve of asking the poor guy
to backup his allegations. Mark