Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lone Gunman podcast: L. Fletcher Prouty a xxxx?


Recommended Posts

On 10/12/2020 at 1:44 PM, Rob Clark said:

I would suggest you go read the ARRB notes and interview of L. FLetcher Prouty, he didn't even put up a fight!

Having just made it through this thread and the AARB interview summary with Prouty, I have to ask... Has anyone ever transcribed the audio? Certain passages of the summary seem a bit odd and it would be interesting to hear the full context of Prouty's responses. I do not see even the out of context summary as particularly damaging to Prouty.

Here's an example of what I mean...

Tape 1, Side 2; 32:47: Asked by Wray about the number of Secret Service agents that Prouty believes should have been in Dallas that day, according to procedure: (Very agitatedly) See, were overdoing this. I went to Mexico City once, so I would know the business. I have no idea how they run their business. And the difference between Dallas and Mexico City... I dont think you would have comparable units. No way... I shouldnt be giving you anything that misleads you, because I only went to Mexico City with the senior man of that group, and stayed there a few days with him; but I went there for logistics purposes, not to learn all about the system. I cant extrapolate that into a nationwide system, because I have never had any Secret Service [training]. What appalled me is the fact that the Secret Service was not in Dallas. Thats the point thats important.

 

He had in fact seen the basics of presidential protection enough to have suspicions about something as obvious as open windows over a motorcade route. That the interviewers should be so hostile to the point of making Prouty agitated over the rather basic point he was making is a little odd to me.

 

And if what Newman apparently said about Landsdale in Dallas is accurate, then it's too bad the AARB didn't follow up on this exact point. It seems like it may have yielded fruit.

While a search of travel records from Lansdales office or his personnel file might verify or disprove this allegation, the small likelihood of successfully finding such records, as well as the relative unimportance of these records, the fact that finding them might not clarify much of anything, and the limited amount of time and resources the ARRB has remaining would indicate that these records are not worth our checking out. No action is recommended

Edited by Dennis Berube
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The AARB was trying to close doors/windows (not open up new ones).  My experience with whistleblowers (as Prouty was treated) is that they are in a lose-lose proposition.  Even when they are right (and validated), the end result of their testimony is painful and unproductive. They become pariahs and unfulfilled.  I suspect that Prouty was trying to get in and out of the interview with as little damage and pain as possible. No one was going to take on those powers that are implicated ... many of whom were already dead, with the key events almost 20years in the rear view mirror. The AARB wanted to close out his allegations as unsubstantiated, with no basis in fact, which is what they did. The fact is, they missed an opportunity to shine a light on the true perpetrators. How would one ever expect the plotters to leave a prosecutable record?  His interview was in September 1996 (Prouty passed away five years later).  Vietnam was over 20 years earlier, and the assassination was past its 30-year anniversary.  His AARB interview seems to be perfunctory (imho).  So, I wouldn't judge him too harshly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

The AARB was trying to close doors/windows (not open up new ones).  My experience with whistleblowers (as Prouty was treated) is that they are in a lose-lose proposition.  Even when they are right (and validated), the end result of their testimony is painful and unproductive. They become pariahs and unfulfilled.  I suspect that Prouty was trying to get in and out of the interview with as little damage and pain as possible. No one was going to take on those powers that are implicated ... many of whom were already dead, with the key events almost 20years in the rear view mirror. The AARB wanted to close out his allegations as unsubstantiated, with no basis in fact, which is what they did. The fact is, they missed an opportunity to shine a light on the true perpetrators. How would one ever expect the plotters to leave a prosecutable record?  His interview was in September 1996 (Prouty passed away five years later).  Vietnam was over 20 years earlier, and the assassination was past its 30-year anniversary.  His AARB interview seems to be perfunctory (imho).  So, I wouldn't judge him too harshly. 

Excuses....excuses...is all I hear from Prouty supporters.  The bottom line is he contradicted everything he had said over the years in correspondence,in articles, in books, and on film. He could have easily walked in there and maintained his story. The problem is the ARRB had access to documentation and individuals that could directly make a fool out of Prouty...which is exactly how it went with Col. Reich. He got the CIA a boat when they needed a boat, he arranged for AF transport when needed by the CIA. He wasn't sitting in on the Johnson and Joint Chiefs meetings when writing NSAM's, Lansdale didn't send him to Antarctica, he knew squat about Presidential protection, the trip wasn't unusual, the NZ newspaper stuff was just early reporting mistakes that still happen today...examples of the exact same articles in US papers on Nov. 22 & 23rd with the same exact mistakes are available today, his ID of "Lansdale" in DP means nothing without accompanying documentation he was even or near in Dallas on Nov. 22, 63. Hunt denies knowing him, Reich denies knowing him...he was a fraud. And that hurts some people because Prouty checks some boxes for them that fit into their theory that the big bad CIA was behind the assassination. The mother's milk of the JFK movie that got them interested in the case was spoiled with lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Rob Clark said:

Excuses....excuses...is all I hear from Prouty supporters.  The bottom line is he contradicted everything he had said over the years in correspondence,in articles, in books, and on film. He could have easily walked in there and maintained his story. The problem is the ARRB had access to documentation and individuals that could directly make a fool out of Prouty...which is exactly how it went with Col. Reich. He got the CIA a boat when they needed a boat, he arranged for AF transport when needed by the CIA. He wasn't sitting in on the Johnson and Joint Chiefs meetings when writing NSAM's, Lansdale didn't send him to Antarctica, he knew squat about Presidential protection, the trip wasn't unusual, the NZ newspaper stuff was just early reporting mistakes that still happen today...examples of the exact same articles in US papers on Nov. 22 & 23rd with the same exact mistakes are available today, his ID of "Lansdale" in DP means nothing without accompanying documentation he was even or near in Dallas on Nov. 22, 63. Hunt denies knowing him, Reich denies knowing him...he was a fraud. And that hurts some people because Prouty checks some boxes for them that fit into their theory that the big bad CIA was behind the assassination. The mother's milk of the JFK movie that got them interested in the case was spoiled with lies.

Rob,

     There are many false statements in your post (above) that have already been thoroughly debunked on this thread-- e.g., the bogus claim that Prouty was only a pilot, that he wasn't involved in formulating JFK's NSAM 263 policy, (and the McNamara/Taylor Report) that Lansdale didn't arrange to send Prouty to Antarctica in November of 1963, that the assignment wasn't somewhat unusual in the context of Prouty's active involvement in reviewing the intel used in Honolulu to draft LBJ's NSAM 273 on November 21st, that Prouty was a "fraud" who knew nothing about Presidential security protocols, etc.  All bunk.

     Rather than repeating the facts, my suggestion is that you go back and re-read this thread, and finally read Prouty's book about JFK, the CIA, and Vietnam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

 Rather than repeating the facts, my suggestion is that you go back and re-read this thread, and finally read Prouty's book about JFK, the CIA, and Vietnam.

Read the book...read the book...read the book.....anybody can write anything, it doesn't make it so...(see Judyth Baker) My suggestion to you is that you need to prove what you say. Do a little research, show me something tangible...documents. Prove the Pentagon liaison to the CIA helped formulate NSAM's, prove Lansdale sent JFK to Antarctica, he said in his own words it wasn't unusual...that it was routine, according to him he wasn't even in country on Nov. 21st to draft anything, and he admits he knew knowing nothing about Presidential protection and wasn't involved in coordinating it as he previously claimed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Rob Clark said:

Read the book...read the book...read the book.....anybody can write anything, it doesn't make it so...(see Judyth Baker) My suggestion to you is that you need to prove what you say. Do a little research, show me something tangible...documents. Prove the Pentagon liaison to the CIA helped formulate NSAM's, prove Lansdale sent JFK to Antarctica, he said in his own words it wasn't unusual...that it was routine, according to him he wasn't even in country on Nov. 21st to draft anything, and he admits he knew knowing nothing about Presidential protection and wasn't involved in coordinating it as he previously claimed.

Rob,

    Prouty wasn't just "anybody writing a book." He was the principle Joint Chiefs' liaison to the CIA in 1963, and he had worked closely with the CIA (and Lansdale) on Special Ops for many years.

    Does any serious (non-CIA funded) historian deny that Prouty worked with General Victor Krulak on the drafting of the September 1963 McNamara/Taylor Report?  He describes that history in considerable detail.

     I'm not going to re-write my comments about Prouty's character and credibility, in contrast with his various detractors, including Lansdale.

     As for the Antarctic assignment, when was it created, and by whom?

     Let us know if you have any factual basis for disagreeing with Prouty's view of the subject (posted above on my post with the quote from his book.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Does any serious (non-CIA funded) historian deny that Prouty worked with General Victor Krulak on the drafting of the September 1963 McNamara/Taylor Report?  He describes that history in considerable detail.

I wish I was CIA funded...:afro  Here's the truth about the way the McNamara/Taylor mission and report went down...So unless Prouty went to Vietnam and Honolulu with the Generals (he didn't) and helped them draft the report on the plane (he didn't), then the answer is he had absolutely nothing to do with drafting the report.

Drafting the report

After a one-day stopover in Honolulu to prepare their report, McNamara and Taylor arrived back in Washington on October 2. The report was written hurriedly on the plane trip back to Washington. Forrestal described the report as a "mishmash of everything."[2]:375 During the 27-hour flight, Bundy managed only to get two hours of sleep between his writing and later opined that "neither their draftsmanship nor judgment is likely to be at its best under such working conditions.[2]:375 They promptly met with the President and the National Security Council. Their report concluded that the "military campaign has made great progress and continues to progress." On the other hand, it warned that the serious political tensions in Saigon due to the Buddhist crisis and the increasing unpopularity of Diệm and Nhu as a result of their anti-Buddhist activities could stoke the dissent of some ARVN officers and erode what they believed was favourable military progress. Taylor and Maxwell reported to having seen no evidence of a successful coup being prepared, and felt that American pressure would probably only further harden the Ngô family's attitudes. Nevertheless, "unless such pressures are exerted, they [Diệm-Nhu] are almost certain to continue past patterns of behavior."[1]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rob Clark said:

I wish I was CIA funded...:afro  Here's the truth about the way the McNamara/Taylor mission and report went down...So unless Prouty went to Vietnam and Honolulu with the Generals (he didn't) and helped them draft the report on the plane (he didn't), then the answer is he had absolutely nothing to do with drafting the report.

Drafting the report

After a one-day stopover in Honolulu to prepare their report, McNamara and Taylor arrived back in Washington on October 2. The report was written hurriedly on the plane trip back to Washington. Forrestal described the report as a "mishmash of everything."[2]:375 During the 27-hour flight, Bundy managed only to get two hours of sleep between his writing and later opined that "neither their draftsmanship nor judgment is likely to be at its best under such working conditions.[2]:375 They promptly met with the President and the National Security Council. Their report concluded that the "military campaign has made great progress and continues to progress." On the other hand, it warned that the serious political tensions in Saigon due to the Buddhist crisis and the increasing unpopularity of Diệm and Nhu as a result of their anti-Buddhist activities could stoke the dissent of some ARVN officers and erode what they believed was favourable military progress. Taylor and Maxwell reported to having seen no evidence of a successful coup being prepared, and felt that American pressure would probably only further harden the Ngô family's attitudes. Nevertheless, "unless such pressures are exerted, they [Diệm-Nhu] are almost certain to continue past patterns of behavior."[1]

 

I'm not disagreeing (yet), just asking: where does that account come from?  Prouty's story has repeatedly been that he and Krulak wrote the report to JFK's specifications, had it printed and leather-bound, and then handed it to McNamara and Taylor upon their return, to deliver to the president.  In other words, they were to present Kennedy with the report he had predetermined and wanted to receive as the "official" findings of the trip.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I'm not disagreeing (yet), just asking: where does that account come from? 

In this book, according to Forrestal...

Jones, Howard (2003). Death of a Generation: how the assassinations of Diem and JFK prolonged the Vietnam War. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505286-2

The Krulak mission happened before McNamara/ Taylor were sent...two totally different missions and reports.

The Krulak–Mendenhall mission was a fact-finding expedition dispatched by the Kennedy administration to South Vietnam in early September 1963. The stated purpose of the expedition was to investigate the progress of the war by the South Vietnamese regime and its US military advisers against the Viet Cong insurgency. The mission was led by Victor Krulak and Joseph Mendenhall. Krulak was a major general in the United States Marine Corps, while Mendenhall was a senior Foreign Service Officer experienced in dealing with Vietnamese affairs.

The four-day whirlwind trip was launched on September 6, 1963, the same day as a National Security Council (NSC) meeting, and came in the wake of increasingly strained relations between the United States and South Vietnam.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

In this book, according to Forrestal...

Jones, Howard (2003). Death of a Generation: how the assassinations of Diem and JFK prolonged the Vietnam War. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505286-2

The Krulak mission happened before McNamara/ Taylor were sent...two totally different missions and reports.

The Krulak–Mendenhall mission was a fact-finding expedition dispatched by the Kennedy administration to South Vietnam in early September 1963. The stated purpose of the expedition was to investigate the progress of the war by the South Vietnamese regime and its US military advisers against the Viet Cong insurgency. The mission was led by Victor Krulak and Joseph Mendenhall. Krulak was a major general in the United States Marine Corps, while Mendenhall was a senior Foreign Service Officer experienced in dealing with Vietnamese affairs.

The four-day whirlwind trip was launched on September 6, 1963, the same day as a National Security Council (NSC) meeting, and came in the wake of increasingly strained relations between the United States and South Vietnam.

 

All right, but "anybody can write anything," and Forrestal has been accused - in past threads on this forum - of being in the Bundy camp, not in Kennedy's.  Does the McNamara/Taylor report exist to be compared to Forrestal's and Prouty's varying accounts?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

In this book, according to Forrestal...

Jones, Howard (2003). Death of a Generation: how the assassinations of Diem and JFK prolonged the Vietnam War. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505286-2

The Krulak mission happened before McNamara/ Taylor were sent...two totally different missions and reports.

The Krulak–Mendenhall mission was a fact-finding expedition dispatched by the Kennedy administration to South Vietnam in early September 1963. The stated purpose of the expedition was to investigate the progress of the war by the South Vietnamese regime and its US military advisers against the Viet Cong insurgency. The mission was led by Victor Krulak and Joseph Mendenhall. Krulak was a major general in the United States Marine Corps, while Mendenhall was a senior Foreign Service Officer experienced in dealing with Vietnamese affairs.

The four-day whirlwind trip was launched on September 6, 1963, the same day as a National Security Council (NSC) meeting, and came in the wake of increasingly strained relations between the United States and South Vietnam.

 

Rob,

      Prouty writes at length in his book JFK, the CIA, and Vietnam about his involvement with General Victor Krulak in the writing of the McNamara/Taylor Report.

     I don't want to further transcribe the (paperback) book by hand, but there is an on-line transcript of Prouty's March 6, 1990 letter to Jim Garrison, including the following quote...

"In October 1963, JFK ... had just published National Security Action Memorandum #263 saying...among other things...that he was taking 1000 troops home from Vietnam by Christmas 1963 and ALL AMERICANS out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That cost him his life.

JFK came to that... conclusion in the Summer of 1963 and sent Gen Krulak to Vietnam for advance work. Krulak and I (with others) wrote that long "Taylor-McNamara" Report of their "Visit to Vietnam" (obviously they did not write, illustrate and bind it as they traveled). Krulak got his information daily in the White House. We simply wrote it. That led to NSAM #263. This same Trip Report is Document #142 and appears on page 751 to 766 of Vol. II of the Gravel Edition of the Pentagon Papers. NSAM #263 appears on pages 769-770."

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKprouty.htm

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prouty didn't know squat about Secret Service protocol?

I would refer you to Vince Palamara to ask him if Prouty's statements in this regard show Prouty didn't know squat.

I would ask our highly respected resident SS researcher Palamara if those two speed slowing 90% turns into Dealey Plaza violated protocol as Prouty claimed.

I would ask Palamara if Prouty's statements regarding JFK's protection in major city motorcades elsewhere were general knowledge and Prouty's claim of Army intelligence being used as security was simply false.

What about security on building roof tops? Or SS agents staying out late in topless clubs drinking the night before the motorcade?

JFK's Miami motorcade was called off. Miami police were that worried about JFK's security and one assumes the Joseph Milteer tape was actually one reason for this.

I would like to read Palamara's assessment of Prouty's SS claims and see if he thinks Prouty didn't know squat about SS presidential protection protocol.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

JFK's Miami motorcade was called off. Miami police were that worried about JFK's security and one assumes the Joseph Milteer tape was actually one reason for this.

Joe, I think this was a myth.  JFK's visit to Miami began with his arrival at Miami airport & he was to then fly by helicopter to his next appointment at Bal Harbour, only by vehicle if weather was inclement, which it wasn't.  He arrived at Miami airport around 17:00.  There was a very short distance drive by car later.  No motorcade was called off.  Unlike Milteer's warning, the threat was a bomb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...