Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ray McGovern (former-CIA) Interview


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is so much incorrect information here I don't even know where to begin. Greg, don't believe everything you read, if there are some living witnesses besides Hemming, follow up.

Oh pleeeeze!

Scott, I have read everything that has been declassified on the subject. You don't seem to be familiar with the Cuban Study Group's report or the Inspector General, Lyman Kirkpatrick's report, either. There are dozens of oral histories by eyewitnesses to the event.

As for living witnesses, Hemming has been dead for nearly a decade.

As for those eyewitnesses that I have interviewed and /or knew very well, the list is rather long, but include, Colonel L Fletcher Prouty USAF (Chief of Special Operations Office of the JCS) who was responsible for obtaining and outfitting all of the Brigade's modified B-26 bombers, among other things. HIs office was literally two doors down the hall from the office used by the Cuban Study Group investigation. Many of the witnesses stopped by to chat with him about it both before and after they gave their testimony. I also spoke extensively to my own father, who was a Special Aid to Eisenhower. It took me decades to confirm what he and Prouty reported because the documents were classified top secret or higher for so long. Upon release, the documents bore out what these witnesses reported quite well.

Your witnesses are telling you what they believe to be true from their perspective. But, they were not on the inside of the US military intelligence apparatus like Colonel Prouty and my father were.

Very impressive resume Greg, I'm especially impressed that you were able to speak to your father. I was told my first words were da-da, what was yours?

"Were," Scott, "were."

Unless you think Greg's first intelligible utterance consisted of just one word.

--Tommy, the Grammar Gestapo :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo is correct that the CIA wasn't involved in the killing.

I believe that the CIA was almost certainly involved, in what McGovern calls the "deep state" (as he defines it) that killed JFK.

I know that you have said that the CIA is too obvious a suspect. How that is supposed to eliminate them from consideration is something I still can't quite fathom.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much incorrect information here I don't even know where to begin. Greg, don't believe everything you read, if there are some living witnesses besides Hemming, follow up.

Oh pleeeeze!

Scott, I have read everything that has been declassified on the subject. You don't seem to be familiar with the Cuban Study Group's report or the Inspector General, Lyman Kirkpatrick's report, either. There are dozens of oral histories by eyewitnesses to the event.

As for living witnesses, Hemming has been dead for nearly a decade.

As for those eyewitnesses that I have interviewed and /or knew very well, the list is rather long, but include, Colonel L Fletcher Prouty USAF (Chief of Special Operations Office of the JCS) who was responsible for obtaining and outfitting all of the Brigade's modified B-26 bombers, among other things. HIs office was literally two doors down the hall from the office used by the Cuban Study Group investigation. Many of the witnesses stopped by to chat with him about it both before and after they gave their testimony. I also spoke extensively to my own father, who was a Special Aid to Eisenhower. It took me decades to confirm what he and Prouty reported because the documents were classified top secret or higher for so long. Upon release, the documents bore out what these witnesses reported quite well.

Your witnesses are telling you what they believe to be true from their perspective. But, they were not on the inside of the US military intelligence apparatus like Colonel Prouty and my father were.

Your witnesses are telling you what they believe to be true from their perspective. But, they were not on the inside of the US military intelligence apparatus like Colonel Prouty and my father were.

You're right, what was I thinking? I am wrong, after all, wasn't the intelligence apparatus as you put it pencil pushing desk jockeys? While my witnesses as you put it "were" on the frontlines?

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already had a nervous breakdown, and gone though a bad depression, my doctor has had me on lamotrigine 50mg and this is all due to the information I've been uncovering and writing in my second book. I just couldn't stop writing. I've been going through a depression state.

Scott,

Sorry to hear of your health issues. I've been a volunteer at a Behavioral Hospital for many years. A typical therapeutic dosage for Lamotrigine is 100mg, so if your doctor is increasing the dosage incrementally you will almost certainly be feeling better as the dosage is increased. If you've been on this dosage for a while and your doctor is planning to keep you at 50 mg, although depression certainly sucks, at least yours is not as bad as it could be.

Good luck!

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already had a nervous breakdown, and gone though a bad depression, my doctor has had me on lamotrigine 50mg and this is all due to the information I've been uncovering and writing in my second book. I just couldn't stop writing. I've been going through a depression state.

Scott,

Sorry to hear of your health issues. I've been a volunteer at a Behavioral Hospital for many years. A typical therapeutic dosage for Lamotrigine is 100mg, so if your doctor is increasing the dosage incrementally you will almost certainly be feeling better as the dosage is increased. If you've been on this dosage for a while and your doctor is planning to keep you at 50 mg, although depression certainly sucks, at least yours is not as bad as it could be.

Good luck!

Tom

Thanks, I try to find the humor in everything, before pulling the trigger. I just take one day at a time. I really mean that Tom, thank you.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article, Jim, except for a very important detail. The armed Marines were not a contingency plan to be used in case the invasion failed.

They were a part of the MAIN plan if the Brigade was able to successfully declare themselves a government in exile. Or perhaps a better term would be an interim government. To do that plausibly they needed to control a minimum amount of real estate (beachhead and airstrip), hopefully enlist the help of the disgruntled masses (who actually did not exist), and overcome any resistance from Castro. However, once their sovereignty could be marginally recognized, JFK needed the Marines ready to go.

In that event, they may have needed direct US support but only after we quickly recognized them in the UN. Remember the birth of Israel? We were the first to recognize them as a sovereign state immediately upon their proclamation. If memory serves, it was at midnight.

So the "sending in the Marines" plan is true. But it was NOT a contingency to rescue a failing mission. It was to be a support of the newly recognized government following a successful mission. Such a scenario is the only legal way he could have directly aided the anti-Castro Cubans with US military support.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The importance of that article is that this later scholar could not find the notes at Princeton.

He had to find Lucien V. Luckily he did before he died, and Lucien had the notes and the library request forms. (All sixty pages.)

What clearly happened is that once Lucien V wrote the article, the CIA saw how devastating it was to Dulles and the Agency.

So they went in and fleeced the files.

If it was not for this guy finding Lucien, and Lucien keeping his request form and notes, people like Scott could say, "What notes?"

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The importance of that article is that this later scholar could not find the notes at Princeton.

He had to find Lucien V. Luckily he did before he died, and Lucien had the notes and the library request forms. (All sixty pages.)

What clearly happened is that once Lucien V wrote the article, the CIA saw how devastating it was to Dulles and the Agency.

So they went in and fleeced the files.

If it was not for this guy finding Lucien, and Lucien keeping his request form and notes, people like Scott could say, "What notes?"

Jim,

"Clearly," huh?

Red flags waving, Sirens wailing -- "Warning! Warning!"

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, are you that stupid, or does it run in the family? That Memorandum is dated on April 26, 1961, The Bay of Pigs started April 17, 1961, the war was over when that memorandum came out, again, slaps my forehead! Ouch! That hurts!

And, the cover up of the Bay of Pigs began, just as the cover up of Kennedy's assassination a few years later, began.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The importance of that article is that this later scholar could not find the notes at Princeton.

He had to find Lucien V. Luckily he did before he died, and Lucien had the notes and the library request forms. (All sixty pages.)

What clearly happened is that once Lucien V wrote the article, the CIA saw how devastating it was to Dulles and the Agency.

So they went in and fleeced the files.

If it was not for this guy finding Lucien, and Lucien keeping his request form and notes, people like Scott could say, "What notes?"

people like Scott

Translated, thinking people.

People like Jim, still hasn't rebut the original origin of the debate we had at Deep Politics as pointed out [in this thread], altas, just ignored, as my memory severs me well, and people like Jim's doesn't. The Bay of Pigs was "designed to fail" surely Jim, you must remembered that one, I dragged you through the mud, until I spanked your behind at the end, but God forbid we talk about that.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...