4201 Peachtree Place, Alexandria, VA 22304

Aug 13, 1994

Dave Ratcliffe
567 35th Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

Dear Dave,

One of the pleasantest surprises I have ever received was in the mail yesterday. It was the VCR you made while you visited.[1] Although some might say it was a bit "one-sided" from the point of view of who did the preaching, and that it was more than a bit "long winded", I have steeled myself to put up with the burden of criticism in favor of my gratitude toward you for the work, the effort, the concept and the product. Thank you!

I am sending essentially the same letter to Tom and to Patrick. I understand and appreciate their roles in this too, and I want to encourage all of you now to do what you can to promote this work. Lest I appear to be a bit too aggressive on my own behalf, I wish to state that I believe that all of us have produced something for these times that is rare, unusual, and significant. Now it is up to us all to prepare it for a market in the way that it deserves and that the market will accept...perhaps...demand.

I have been getting many requests these days for similar work. Only day before yesterday I made a 2 hour TV taped interview for some fellows who are connected with Compuserve and who want to use it for that and for me to get into that network forum.

At about the same time an author sent me several pages of questions and a blank cassette and asked me to answer the questions and tape it. As a result, I wrote up much of the following and then read it. I thought that I might use it to send to you, Tom and Patrick simply as an up-date.

Before I go into that, I have been -- in response to Patrick's request a while ago -- going through my files and putting all my articles in folders and copying them. When I get this done I plan to make a master list of it all and see what the next step is with you fellows with regard to the Archives in Santa Barbara. I am interested in that.

Along with the articles I have found that I have most of the original publications. They can serve as a sort of Master List from which copies can be made. On top of that, it might be well to bring some of them up to date, and I could do that on cassette or video tape. We have many options ahead of us. Now to the questions I received and the letter. Forgive the fact that it is addressed to other work. Despite that, I believe it may serve a purpose for all of us. (The writer involved is with a small, local publication. I do not expect it to be seen by many people.)

I told him that I had his questions concerning the assassination of President Kennedy, and related matters. I shall provide taped material; but it is essential that I clarify things that are rather confusing in this work about the definition of a "Conspiracy" and the definition of the "Cover Story."

This next section is interesting, because I was doing it for a stranger and then Patrick's package came in with that interesting work by my old friend Peter Dale Scott, "CASE CLOSED? or OSWALD FRAMED?" The review of Gerald Posner's book. It has burned me up since I first saw that book to see the way Posner crafted lies into his work. A good example is what he said about me. These paid hacks/lawyers who have been writing those books have been doing some very heavy disinformation and slanderous work. They need to be exposed.

First of all, let's examine these ideas. Hundreds of unwitting authors have written books about this subject, many of them denying absolutely that there was/is a conspiracy. Unfortunately they do not appear to understand the word. What they are really doing, intentionally or not, is to support the "JFK Assassination Cover Story." This has become a major commercial enterprise, and a really dirty game. They are out to draw blood from anyone who does not agree with the party line of the Coup d'etat perpetrators.

Whether they are witting or unwitting of the objective of their work, they are attempting to perpetuate the cover story. They will do anything, say anything in their witless attempt to protect the idea that only one person, and no more, was involved in the crime.

A conspiracy is a plan, usually an evil or unlawful plan. It involves two or more people. The denial of the fact of a conspiracy, i.e. the cover story, is like a bubble. Once any part of it is proved to be false, it bursts and the cover story is exposed. Like a balloon, it is not necessary to burst a cover story with ten or fifteen pins. It collapses with only one bit of circumstantial evidence that is undeniable.

As I have done in my writing for about 30 years, I go to the most important single point of the cover story and destroy it. I go after the first and most vulnerable of the lies, i.e. the "Three bullets." Except for the nuts who believe the "Magic Bullet" fabrication, there had to be at least four shots -- ergo, at least two riflemen.

After that it is ridiculous to examine every other item on the "Twenty Six Volume" quagmire list. The bubble of the cover story is burst. Therefore, a conspiracy exists; so what more can be said? More than one guy was involved. It's that basic.

At this point one must take into consideration the motivation of hundreds of the authors who support the "Oswald did it alone" mythology. These are the people who are being persuaded by adequate compensation or other inducements to fight for, and to maintain the contrived "Cover Story." Note that they tend to be lawyers, and pseudo-lawyers all the way from David Belin to Gerald Ford and Gerald Posner. They are simply serving their clients, sponsors and captors.

They must not let the web of the "Cover Story" be ripped apart. Beginning with the Warren Commission and Belin, this has been a major occupation for the last three decades. In their desperate efforts they attack those writers who have exposed the fact of a conspiracy, and do all they can to destroy the work of those writers and to degrade them as individuals.

A glowing example of a member of this sleazy profession is Gerald Posner with his book Case Closed. As a simple example, that I am in a position to support, I'll pick his slanderous attack on me. Actually he fails to mention me and my work in the entire 607 pages of his work; but he does drag me into the fray with a footnote on page 468. In so doing, he erroneously cites my book, JFK, the CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, by simply referring to it as JFK. (This little device confuses his readers who discover there is no book by that name.)

However he proves that he has read it by citing "p.306. The implication [by Prouty] is that some intelligence agency, probably the CIA, released an early, prepackaged set of details about the assassin to the media." These are his words, and -- as a mark of his profession -- they are false. No where on those pages, 306-309, or elsewhere in my book, did I make such a comment whatsoever. He fabricated that lie in an attempt to categorize my work as biased and incorrect.

Further Posner used a typical lawyer's game to characterize me incorrectly; so that anyone who wished to seek information about me from the U.S. Army or the Intelligence community could not find it, because there would be none. He cites me as "a mysterious intelligence officer" and as "an ex-Army colonel." I never served as either and have claimed neither.

Then he continues his lies with, "the chief Pentagon liaison officer to the CIA." I never had such a job.

Proof of the fact that he created these lies on purpose is the fact that he has my book with my biographical data correctly available to include photographs, bits of my biography and all.

Next he plays a game with the Christchurch New Zealand Star newspaper that was shown being read by Sutherland (Man X) in the film JFK. He says "Prouty claimed that the local newspaper published an extra." That was no casual "claim." It is a positive fact. I bought the paper in New Zealand, and I still possess that same copy. It's a fact, not simply a claim as he embellishes his story.

Then he fabricates the timing sequence of the press time of the newspaper. To be accurate, he confuses "press time", i.e. that time when the paper was ready for the press, and the time I gave when I had purchased it on the street, i.e. "around noon time." That difference itself could be one to two hours, and the arrest of Oswald is not when reporters learned he was suspected of killing the President. At that time he was arrested on the suspicion of Tippet's murder. There was a big time difference.

Here again he creates a purposeful lie to obfuscate my main point concerning the content of that paper. It published a section about Oswald with his biographical material that had been written by the conspirators before the Dallas Court had charged him with the crime. This is the time when the reporters on the scene first knew that Oswald was a suspect.

You may recall that there had been a printed news report that "a suspect" had been picked up in Fort Worth. The reporters would not have begun to go after that story until then and that was after the news was already on the streets in New Zealand. That is important.

There was a long gap between the time the police arrested Oswald on the suspicion of murder of Tippet, and his arraignment as the suspected murderer of JFK. Yet the paper in New Zealand received a copy of the conspirators' cover story that had been collated and written before he was charged with the crime. This is important, and Posner is attempting to bury it with contrived, misleading data.

With this important fact in mind, there could not have been any substantive attempt to delve into the skimpy records of Oswald. It was only after his arraignment that they began that search in earnest. Therefore, the very fact that the Star carried a complete, well researched account of Oswald's life before he had been arraigned is most significant. It should be noted that the Star also carried a fine, studio photo of Oswald that was rarely seen anywhere else. How did the Star and other papers around the world get such information by newswire unless it had been collated, written and transmitted before Oswald had been charged, perhaps even before Nov 22?

Then Posner continues to embellish his lies by closing with "the Star managed to get a thin extra on the street within three hours." It's a small, but significant point. Posner says he quotes me for that statement. I never said it was a thin extra. In other words it was not some casually whipped up supplement to the day's news. I have the paper today. It is the normal 36 pages including all the routine locals news, sports news, etc. of a regular, well constructed daily paper.

I go into this detail because of the significance of the Posner slander. He is a lawyer. He is accustomed to tearing apart his opposite's story. In this case, as sole writer of the book, he plays both sides. He characterizes me untruthfully, he attacks the film, he quotes my book wrong. He is dishonest -- as are so many others who work to maintain the "dead dog" cover story.

In this business, this is an important part of the story. Now to proceed with other questions, as listed.

It is these authors who attack us. They attack all of us who have informed the public of the fact and nature of the conspiracy. They are very creative, and they are cowards. They will never debate publicly. They, and their sponsors, cannot permit the destruction of their scenario. This is big business; and it is one of the major responsibilities of the leadership of the Coup d'etat that took over the reins of government immediately following Kennedy's death.

So -- one thing must be understood. When the cover story bubble has been burst the game is up. I have carefully examined this subject in my book about JFK . Turn to page 292 where I quote the century old legal definition of conspiracy where, among other things it states that: "circumstances are stronger than positive proof." This is most important and accepted in courts.

Now for more questions:

1. The second question asks about any evidence I may have about the professional "Hit team that killed JFK." Of course I have no evidence concerning the identity of those men -- as individuals -- and no one will ever have it. However the clear imprint of their profession is everywhere. And the fact that not one of them has ever been apprehended defines their work. I covered that carefully in my book.

   In 1956 Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence sent me and one of his key people on a round-the-world trip to visit a number of his CIA-Chiefs of Station. It was an elaborately orchestrated trip. During that trip I was conducted to a place where such professionals live, are trained and concealed. I was given a complete briefing on that business.

   As a result of the fact that the JFK murder was accomplished with such total professionalism and that no "killers" have ever been apprehended and tried, it is clear that they were selected professionals from such a place and that they will never be identified and tried by the resultant "victors" of this coup d'etat. There never has been a trial of this case -- and never will be.

   Furthermore, as I report in my book, LBJ said the same thing in 1973, "We had been operating a damned Murder Inc. . . . " What more do we need? Johnson also "expressed his belief that the assassination in Dallas had been part of a conspiracy".[2] That's the former President, and a man who was under those same guns in Dallas. What more does anyone need?

   Furthermore I worked on cases similar to the "JFK" case. I know how it is done. And one thing I know very well is that the "Cover Story" is bigger and more important than the act of the crime itself -- it survives and must live for years.

2. This next question is important and needs to be discussed and understood. Let's look at the facts:
   1. The Secret Service and the FBI reported that they found three cartridge cases at the scene. (Actually they were found by Craig of the Dallas Sheriff's Office.

   2. This information was given to the Warren Commission and it became their "Ball and Chain." They were forced to work within those parameters, i.e. three bullets and three bullets only. So let's account for them.
      One bullet hit JFK in the back. The best evidence of this exists in the form of his suit coat and shirt.

      One bullet hit JFK in the head. This evidence is found in the Zapruder film, and attested to by numbers of witnesses.

      One bullet hit Connally.

      One bullet missed. This bullet caused a fragment to hit Tague. The Warren Commission admitted this fact of the missed shot. This forced them into the "Magic Bullet" scenario that combines the back shot and the Connally hit.

      We all know that there were four bullets fired -- at the very least. We all know the precise timing of the shots by means of the Zapruder record. We all know that the indisputable "fourth" bullet means at least one more gunman.

We could end everything here. Four bullets in the time available means at least two gunmen. Two, or more, gunmen mean a conspiracy. There is the pin that bursts the balloon of the contrived cover story. From here on out the discussion is academic, relatively trivial and contrived. It's all over with "Four bullets, Two gunmen." But I'll continue with the questions simply because they have been asked.

3. This question asks about the Christchurch Star and its account of the "getaway" car . . . "What getaway car?" All I can say is that the first paper printed in Christchurch that day includes that statement. When I returned from New Zealand and had access to all the news and reports available to me in the environment of my office in the area of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon, I found that similar news had been flashed around the world; but that U.S. papers had all but ignored it.

I wish to make something clear about the Christchurch Star and its role in my accounts of this case. First of all, that is where I was and it was the first and only paper I could get; so I quote from it. This leads to an interesting development that has confused a lot of improperly motivated writers.

When I worked on the film JFK, I let Stone's film experts use my original newspaper that I have carefully preserved during these three decades. They copied only parts of it for use in the airport scene with Sutherland. That was a movie-type newspaper, i.e. the Front Page looked like the original. Hundreds were printed, and given away. Of course the people who got those copies believed they had exact copies. They were not. For certain reasons the paper was "cut and pasted" much differently than the original, so when these "researchers" scan their copies they do not realize that they do not have a true and complete copy of the original.

This has led them into errors, and then they blame me for "misquoting" the paper. In fact, I have the only complete original. There are no complete copies. What the paper says, in fact is:

NBC Radio reported that a car believed to be the getaway car of the assassin had been seized in Fort Worth, Texas. A suspect had been taken into custody.

You must not confuse this statement with the Oswald biographical data that were in a totally different section. The main news item at the top of the page is attributed to N.Z.P.A-A.A.P. news services. All of that extensive news coverage does not even contain the name Oswald. You can see that the newsmen who were working on this case did not even know about Oswald -- at the time they were filing their news reports. They did know about the getaway car and a suspect in Fort Worth. Quite obviously Oswald was not in the car, did not drive it, and did not go to Fort Worth.

Therefore, the Oswald part of this story had been provided to the Star separately and is a separate item on the lower left-hand quarter of the page. Oddly, this special story adds:

Reuter said a Secret Service agent had also been shot from the same distance as the President but no details of this shooting were immediately available.

The same story adds:

Tippet was shot dead as he ran into the cinema, British United Press said.

You can see that the world press was being fed information that had been put together as a cover story, and did not agree with the basic news of the day.

In the basic news it was reported in large print:

Three bursts of gunfire, apparently from automatic weapons, were heard.

Secret Service men immediately unslung their automatic weapons and pistols.

We all know from the abundant photos of the time, that not a single Secret Service man there, and there were few enough, "Unslung his automatic weapon or pistol." Here is contrived, cover story news again.

The very first CBS nationwide news carried the "three bursts of automatic gunfire" also. This was "on the scene" spot news, and was most likely accurate.

4. Next is about Nixon being in Dallas: "Are you suggesting that Richard Nixon had some involvement with the JFK Assassination?" It totally missed my point. It had been arranged by the conspirators that Nixon be in Dallas on that significant day. The purpose was to cloud his career with that fact -- and what could have been made of it, and thereby to control him when and if he became President -- as was planned for the future.

   Nixon did not have a memory problem about where he was. After all he told most of his four different stories to reporters in the same time frame, i.e. in 1963. He fabricated them. It just seems important to note that he chose to tell four important reporters for four important publications -- including books -- that he was in four different places that day, at that time. He never did tell the reporters that he was still in Dallas at the time JFK was shot. They don't call him "Tricky Dick" for nothing. (I have all four of the publications.) In final analysis, Nixon was a victim of Dallas also. He was not shot; but from that date on he was under control. This is a characteristic of Coup d'etat planning -- control them all.

5. Then about "Presidential Protection." It is in this area of official activity that made me so certain JFK had been killed by a conspiracy -- so many commonplace rules were neglected or broken. When I first saw that radio-photo of the Texas School Book building in the Star, and noted how many windows had been left open right over the Presidential motorcade route, I knew something was wrong in Dallas. A Congressman was with me. We both agreed.

One of the problems with the writers of most of the JFK books is that they are young and inexperienced in this subject. I was in Cairo and Teheran in 1943 during those major WWII conferences that involved Roosevelt, Churchill, Chiang Kai-shek, and Joe Stalin. I worked in that heavy security environment then.

Some time before the Cairo trip, I was contacted by the civilian air crew that had been selected to fly Roosevelt's party to Cairo. (He went most of the way by ship.) We made early plans for their protection and assisted the British with the local Cairo responsibilities. When I went to Teheran, I flew the Chinese delegation there, and noted that the city was totally encircled by a high curtain with armed men all along it. The Russians were responsible for that task. Again a heavy security environment.

On Sept. 2, 1945, the day of the formal Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay on the battleship Missouri, I flew a planeload of elite corps Marines to Japan. They were to serve as Gen. MacArthur's personal guard there. I know writers have taken me to task for my "Presidential Protection" statements; but I'll challenge any of them to compare their experience with mine.

That was 50 years ago. As a young man I was working on military duties among units protecting these world leaders. Needless to say, in such a situation, you learn a lot and quickly.

More significantly, during my Pentagon years (1955-1964) I was Chief of Special Operations and again was involved in the area of Presidential Protection. (See Appendix I of my book The Secret Team that is an official record of my work while assigned to the office of the Secretary of Defense, i.e. the office of Special Operations.) I knew the units. I knew about their training at Ft. Holabird, MD, and was familiar with the business. It is a very strict responsibility -- when done correctly.

While in this duty I would be called about Presidential Protection matters and during a planned visit to Mexico City by President Eisenhower in 1958, I flew the plane that carried Secret Service and Military men to Mexico City weeks before the visit to make plans for that operation.

We completely covered the route he would take and made the plans for what would be done. We worked from a manual that established what would be done. I have mentioned it in my book. We joked about it, as I wrote. But it was done with care.

A further question asks, "Who was in charge of security for the President on that day?" I have written many times that the man who ought to have been in charge had received a call and had been informed that his unit -- one of many -- would not be needed in Dallas that day. As a result there was no one in charge. The unit did not go to Dallas. (I talked with members of his unit after my return from New Zealand and was shocked to learn this.) Another move of the Conspiracy game.

Then another, "Couldn't that person be asked why established procedures were ignored?" What good would it have done? He had no way to know that one of the other units had not been sent to Dallas -- until after the fact.

6. This next is about "Forest Sorrels of the Secret Service." I can see no merit to this question. The dog is dead. Why beat it any longer? It wasn't Sorrel's fault.

7. Another asks about the units not being on duty in Dallas. I've given the answer above. Of course the key calls, the ones that told those unit leaders they would not be needed that day had to have come from a highly placed office that had, or appeared to have, the authority and the responsibility for making those calls -- only in this case the caller acted on the orders of the conspirators and called off the protection. No one will ever know who that was because the conspirators took over the government and there never will be any trials and prosecution -- as we have learned over the past 30 years.

8. Next there is some reference to an author named Ziebel about the Secret Service's Manual and its rules. I have no idea who Ziebel is. I have not read his book. I only know that he must not have done any research. When I say I assisted Presidential Protection people in 1943, and when I say that I was in Mexico City with Secret Service men in 1958, and when I say that my work during 1955-1964 brought me into contact with that work, I am talking about real military experience at the highest level, i.e. Office of the Secretary of Defense. The total of this work, 1943 to 1964 is supported by Official orders. The Secret Service quite obviously made mistakes on Nov 22, 1963, and no doubt did improve its Manual. Who wouldn't? But that doesn't mean that they did not have one earlier. That 130 year old organization had plenty of good policies in 1963. Some one finessed them out of using them then.

   If anyone prefers to believe Ziebil, that's his option. If I were in your place the least I would do is ask for his credentials -- other than "myth-maker."

9. Now for the "marksman" question and the Posner fables. There is no reason to be concerned with whether or not a man could shoot and hit JFK from the 6th floor through a tree with three shots and do the other damage he did. We know there were at least four shots so that argument is contrived by those who wish to keep the cover story alive. Note how this type of hypothetical scenario creeps into the case all the time. It's like all of the "autopsy" business. Of course it might be important, if it were relevant.

   Forget it. There were four shots -- or more. That fact, and that fact alone destroys the "No conspiracy" cover story.

10. Now about the Cabinet on the way to Tokyo. The significance of that episode is that, because someone had the clout to cause that to happen, we get another peek at the pervasiveness of the machinery of the conspiracy. That could never have happened by itself. Naturally we'll never know who did it. Asking any member of the Cabinet that question would have been about as productive as the time I asked the Sphinx if she would like to go to dinner. The real issue is that after JFK was killed the way he was, you couldn't have asked a Cabinet officer the time of day. Bullets create sudden learning.

11. About the JFK cabinet being ordered to Japan, many newspapers in the USA, and around the world printed the speeches those Cabinet members made when they got to Japan. Of course they never did get to Japan. They ordered the plane to return to Honolulu and then went right on to Washington. Their PR people had sent the speeches on to Japan before they left and had provided copies to the News Services. No one thought to stop them. Few people knew that they had actually gone on that aborted trip. It is a crazy scene all the way.

Anyone with a real interest in this period, i.e. August-November 1963, should know that there is a marvelous book printed by the GPO in the Foreign Relations of the U.S. (FRUS) series, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Volume IV, Vietnam August-December 1963. It has everything, in detail, about this unusual period. It is new. It is absolutely the best source book available.

12. I'll skip the Connally bullet fragment question. That's just another one of those contrived scenarios that the "Cover Story" fabricators adore. It's irrelevant, except to the "Magic Bullet" theme.

13. More on the Christchurch Star. All kinds of historical fabricators have played with that bit of the drama. When they term the paper a "Thin Extra" one is able to see through their game. They had somehow managed to get a copy of the movie production of that paper. That movie paper, which included excerpts from many papers, was "thin." The true Star of November 23, 1963 is a full 36 page paper. In other words it was not some quick handout only a few pages in size.

    Next, they try to make much of the time difference between the USA and NZ. I was there. I could and did look at clocks on the wall. I knew the NZ time. A U.S. Congressman and I were just sitting down to breakfast at 7:30 am when we heard the very first news from BBC. Posner, the worst of sources, fantasizes, "the implication that some intelligence agency, probably the CIA released an early, pre-packaged set of details about the assassin to the media. But there is nothing mysterious about the extra edition of the Star."

    If you'll take the time to compare what I wrote and what Posner contrives that I wrote, you'll see the root of the problem. So many authors, Posner included, simply fabricate things and insert them into their script while attributing them to me. I never said, nor inferred that "probably the CIA, released an early, prepackaged set of details . . . " and I never said it was a "thin" extra edition. Also, he gave my work and job title wrong. He cites my own book where all that appears correctly. Then he massages it to suit his own dirty work. Such action defines him and his work.

My point about the timing of the release of this news in the Star is important. It may have been 9:00am (NZ time) when Oswald was arrested in the theater. OK. According to the news the police did not know whether he was Oswald or Hidell. Most importantly it was after midnight, in Dallas, when Oswald was arraigned as the suspect in the murder of JFK. That was the official time when reporters were told that news. Before that they had no firm basis to dig into distant and nebulous files for news of some 24 year old stranger of that name.

Once they knew Oswald was arraigned as the killer they tore into their files and dug up their stories; but around the world a story about Oswald had already surfaced. This was the early story printed by the Star. When I got back to Washington I went to the Library of Congress and checked papers from all over the world to see how the story broke. Posner and his tribe never did that. It was not just the Star that had the big, in depth Oswald story so quickly. It was the world.

One feature of the story was a fine, studio type photo of Oswald that none of the researchers have been able to identify. How did that photo get flashed around the world before Oswald had been arraigned?

That's the Star story. You can see why the "Cover Story" protagonists, such as Posner, try to warp and distort the facts. The Star is an interesting and important bit of the evidence for what it tells us about the nature of the conspiracy planning.

Back to the question, we see what I think about Posner's intentional distortions. Untruth does not go over too well in history books, although it is all too prevalent.
14. I have no interest in the Ruby side of the story. He got into the Police station because they let him in. What else?

15. Relative to "chance rules our lives." I do not believe it. I have no way to know what JFK thought. If anyone wants to know what JFK was thinking on that day, he ought to read the speech that he planned to make at the Trade Mart in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963. It's all quoted in my book.

What we all need to know is that John F. Kennedy knew only too well that there was always a chance that he would be killed. It may be that most Presidents know that. Despite this, Kennedy had the guts to continue as the leader of this nation and to present himself to his constituents from Coast to Coast and to all comers. He did not simply "take a chance." He was doing his duty as he saw it; and he was going to see that American men were not thrown into battle in Southeast Asia. He had stated his policy and he had planned to re-confirm it on Nov 22, 1963. JFK was a true hero and an outstanding President.

One of my close relatives, a first cousin, was employed by the Kennedy's while Joe was Ambassador to London. Her job was to be their tutoress and general assistant with schooling. She was a Smith College graduate and her family knew the Kennedys. My long awareness of that unusual family dates back to my youth. I was born in Massachusetts a few months before John Kennedy.

I have a pretty good idea of him and of his family. He was undoubtedly one of the most highly qualified men ever to be elected to the office of President. If he had not been killed, and if three decades of lies and character assassination had not followed Dealey Plaza, he would have changed the history of the Twentieth Century.

I provide this for your own utilization as you may see fit. I had written much of it for other purposes; but was so pleased with the VCR that you sent me that I thought I'd respond along the same lines.

Now I'm going to write, essentially this same letter to Patrick and to Tom. I am most interested in your project out there, and want to provide all the support I can.

Incidentally, I play your piano tapes frequently. They are excellent. I thank you for them also.

Sincerely,

L. Fletcher Prouty

---

1. This is a 2-Volume video-taped interview conducted by the author and recorded by Patrick Fourmy in Fletcher's home in August, 1993. Video copies are available from Prevaling Winds Research, Box 23511, Santa Barbara, CA 93121. Audio cassette tape copies are available from rat haus reality press.

2. Leo Janus, "The Last Days of the President, LBJ in Retirement," The Atlantic Monthly, July, 1973, volume 232, p.39