Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lone Gunman podcast: L. Fletcher Prouty a xxxx?


Recommended Posts

No surprise that Prouty-- like Garrison, Oliver Stone, et.al.-- has been subjected to various attacks on his credibility.

What does surprise me is that so few people have read Prouty's own, detailed account of his observations as the Joint Chiefs liaison to the CIA during JFK's presidency.

People seem to be looking at every source except Prouty's own primary source material to try to interpret whether he knew whereof he spoke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Just viewed the 2nd half of the JFK film panel discussion.

Prouty doesn't come across to me a disinformation agent, nor less credible than anyone else on that panel.

He does seem to exhibit a slight cognitive decline in hearing and even slighter in his response time to questions presented to him.

Dan Moldea pressed Prouty about what Moldea claimed was Jim Garrison's connection to Carlos Marcello. A paid and controlled one.

All three times Moldea directed this Garrison/Marcello connection claim to Prouty and asked Prouty if this connection gave him any concern.

Prouty totally avoided answering Moldea's Garrison, Marcello

questions.

I do wonder why Prouty avoided answering Moldea's questions regards this supposed organized crime connection to Jim Garrison.

Perhaps Prouty felt the premise on Moldea's part was not worth discussing?

The audience members were rapt in their engagement with the debate forum.

Their questions well informed and sharp.

One younger man pressed Prouty about Prouty's attendance at high intelligence meetings where the murder of foreign country leaders was planned, okayed, whatever.

Prouty assumed a tough military officer tone and said he wasn't going to discuss whether he was or was not in attendance in such meetings.  Pressed further Prouty then mentioned one name only ...Trujillo.

Great discussion video.

In regard to the Moldea questioning of Garrisons link to Marcello, It could also be that Prouty himself could not authenticate this either way, maybe not having the material to defend it, so he was non-committal. That’s what you do in the public domain, you filibuster, slip and slide. Moldea picked up on this the first time so then repeated it as he knew he’d score points with the gallery.
I also think there is another matter in a legal sense when get gets asked about which meetings he sat in, in regard to assassinations. I believe he can answer if something is publicly available knowledge, but, could be prosecuted if it is classified as a national security issue. So he may have sat in dozens of meetings like that but, the only one he felt comfortable saying was Trujillo. 
I was amazed they picked a senator to attend who hadn’t watched the film at all. 

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

No surprise that Prouty-- like Garrison, Oliver Stone, et.al.-- has been subjected to various attacks on his credibility.

What does surprise me is that so few people have read Prouty's own, detailed account of his observations as the Joint Chiefs liaison to the CIA during JFK's presidency.

People seem to be looking at every source except Prouty's own primary source material to try to interpret whether he knew whereof he spoke.

Tis no surprise, we see character assassinations every day in todays media, every person who has spoken out has experienced it. What in your opinion would be Prouty’s best writings on the matter? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Tis no surprise, we see character assassinations every day in todays media, every person who has spoken out has experienced it. What in your opinion would be Prouty’s best writings on the matter? 

Chris,

    The Secret Team and JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy are both fascinating primary source historical narratives.   For example, I learned many things from Prouty -- who wrote a lot of the material in the "Pentagon Papers" -- that I didn't know about the CIA's war in Vietnam (prior to 11/22/63.)  

    It's important to remember that, unlike most writers in the JFKA researcher community, Prouty wasn't merely a historian writing about JFK and the Deep State.  He was PART of that history-- a primary source for historians to study.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

    The Secret Team and JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy are both fascinating primary source historical narratives.   For example, I learned many things from Prouty -- who wrote a lot of the material in the "Pentagon Papers" -- that I didn't know about the CIA's war in Vietnam (prior to 11/22/63.)  

    It's important to remember that, unlike most writers in the JFKA researcher community, Prouty wasn't merely a historian writing about JFK and the Deep State.  He was PART of that history-- a primary source for historians to study.

Thanks a lot ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my personal opinion.  And I will label it as such.  

But let us begin with a fact.  No film in history was ever attacked, actually vilified, as Stone's film was in advance. At least I cannot think of one.  

I think there were three reasons for this.

Stone was indicating that the MSM ignored, actually they sponsored, the hugely problematic Warren Report.

Second, he was actually not doing a hatchet job on Jim Garrison.  A very unusual approach to the DA.

Third, and I think most importantly, he was saying that the likes of David Halberstam, and the rest of the media suck ups, were wrong.  Vietnam was not some kind of inevitable tragedy. LBJ did not continue Kennedy's policy there.  Kennedy was planning on getting out at the time he was assassinated. And Stone not only said this, he had back up for it through Prouty and Newman.

With this last tenet, Stone was not just going up against the MSM, but the historical establishment. How could all of those academics have missed this?  I mean, my God, in the Gravel version of the Pentagon papers there is a section entitled "Phased Withdrawal". Does this mean our historical establishment did not do its homework? Or that they did not have the guts to swim against the tide?  After all the war went on for ten years, killed 58,000 Americans, disabled 375,000 more, and eventually killed almost 4 million Vietnamese.  Could everyone have been so wrong, and JFK was right?

They did not want to admit that.  And they sure as heck did not want to ask the follow up question: did the reversal of policy have something to do with Kennedy's assassination?  The reason for this resistance is that it supplies a dramatic and visible reason for a high level plot. Which is what Stone was insinuating.  And the MSM did not want to contemplate.

Its not like this subject had not been broached previously. It had by people like Prouty, Peter Scott, Arthur Schlesinger at the trial of Dan Ellsberg, and Bobby Kennedy said it himself before he died. Jim Garrison was the first critic to say it. But all this had been more or less swept under the rug..  But now you had a mass market, Oscar nominated movie dramatizing that thesis, with many additional facts to back it up.  Followed by the first full length book on the subject. This all made the MSM and academia look like a bunch of lemmings who swallowed Johnson's propaganda. Namely that he was just continuing what Kennedy had planned.

The capper is this: it was Stone's film that produced the evidence that showed LBJ was lying his head off about this matter in order to cover his own tracks.  And it was this secrecy which allowed him to get away with this for all those years.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add one last point on the Vietnam angle as to why the film was so bitterly attacked.

As I suggested earlier, I now think--and can argue persuasively--that Johnson had planned on reversing Kennedy's policy and escalating the war at a very early date.  He then, step by step, executed that plan.  To give but one indication that many people know: the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was written two months before the incident happened.  To give another, NSAM 288, issued in March of 1964, included many of the targets that were hit in the air attack LBJ ordered after the Tonkin Gulf incident in August. 

Let me add this:  the very writing of NSAM 288 would seem unimaginable under Kennedy. And that is not me saying that.  Its Roger Hilsman of the State Department. Because 288 was written up by the Pentagon.  Kennedy told Hilsman, who was undersecretary for Asia, he did not want the Pentagon guys even VISITING Vietnam unless it was cleared by him. But now LBJ had allowed them to draw up the plans for a large scale attack upon the north.  In other words, something Kennedy had not allowed in three years, LBJ now paved the way for in three months.

So here is my question: how the heck did all those scholars and all those reporters--and David Halberstam--miss this key point for all those years, even decades?  Was it ignorance? Or just bias? Either way, they did not look good with the exposure of Stone's film.

In fact, as we now know, LBJ had a secret committee working on the planning of  his escalation of the war.  And  the target date was keyed around his inauguration. The committee decided the war would begin in February right after that ceremony. 

They missed it by one month.  The first troops arrived at Da Nang in March.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim D.

Any thoughts on the John Judge story of his Pentagon employee mother working on a 10 year long Viet Nam troop commitment, death and injury count study before the war was even begun? One that turned out to be uncannily accurate?

If Judge's story is true wouldn't this have proven a highest level planned Viet Nam build up and war behind JFK's back?

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always felt "the Best and Brightest" was a disingenuously slanted book. Abbie Hoffman said it was his favorite book, which makes me think he was just as disingenuous.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me add one last point on the Vietnam angle as to why the film was so bitterly attacked.

As I suggested earlier, I now think--and can argue persuasively--that Johnson had planned on reversing Kennedy's policy and escalating the war at a very early date.  He then, step by step, executed that plan.  To give but one indication that many people know: the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was written two months before the incident happened.  To give another, NSAM 288, issued in March of 1964, included many of the targets that were hit in the air attack LBJ ordered after the Tonkin Gulf incident in August. 

Let me add this:  the very writing of NSAM 288 would seem unimaginable under Kennedy. And that is not me saying that.  Its Roger Hilsman of the State Department. Because 288 was written up by the Pentagon.  Kennedy told Hilsman, who was undersecretary for Asia, he did not want the Pentagon guys even VISITING Vietnam unless it was cleared by him. But now LBJ had allowed them to draw up the plans for a large scale attack upon the north.  In other words, something Kennedy had not allowed in three years, LBJ now paved the way for in three months.

So here is my question: how the heck did all those scholars and all those reporters--and David Halberstam--miss this key point for all those years, even decades?  Was it ignorance? Or just bias? Either way, they did not look good with the exposure of Stone's film.

In fact, as we now know, LBJ had a secret committee working on the planning of  his escalation of the war.  And  the target date was keyed around his inauguration. The committee decided the war would begin in February right after that ceremony. 

They missed it by one month.  The first troops arrived at Da Nang in March.

 

The assumption has to be that all of these smart educated people in the media did not have a blonde moment between Nov 22 63 and the 1992 film release, they acted obediently, complicity, whether out of fear or just looking after their own interests and career advancement. It doesn’t take much imagination to think that ‘Operation Mocking Bird’ could have such a grasp on mainstream media as the decades tick on, all you really need is the top guy at each news network complying. 
it’s funny in our naivety, we talk about Russia or China having no free press, we tell ourselves we are better, their networks being state controlled or biased. We really should take a look from the outside back in at our own countries and have a good think about how they operate and the illusion of democracy we live in. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthony:

People like William Sullivan and Bill Bundy.  The committee itself was not secret, what they did was. It was called the inter agency VIetnam Coordinating Committee.

 

Ron:

Fletcher was wrong about that one in relation to the Bay of Pigs.  Bundy was obeying Kennedy's wishes about no D Day strikes from anywhere except on the island.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2020 at 12:05 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Mark and Rob,

       I owe both of you guys an apology for my somewhat hostile comments on this thread.  I can't delete them, so I must simply apologize for them.

      Your criticisms of Col. Prouty kind of hit a nerve for me. 

      Thinking it over, I realize now that I have put the Colonel on a pedestal of sorts.  

      The first book about the JFK assassination that I ever read (just a few years ago) was Prouty's, JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy.  It shook me up.

      I discovered the book on Amazon, after watching the movie JFK, and learning that Donald Sutherland's character, Mr. X, was largely based on Prouty. 

      Regarding Prouty's motives for speaking out about JFK's murder, my impression is that money and notoriety had nothing to do with it.  For one thing, he was a bank president and a retired colonel.

      I think the guy was a good man and a true patriot who was deeply troubled about what he perceived as a rogue "Secret Team" operating beyond the purview of our elected government officials.

      It bothered me a few years ago when I read some crap on-line (at McAdams.edu, I think) impugning Prouty's reputation by claiming that he was only a pilot/"chauffeur" who was making stuff up about the CIA, etc.  That stuff wasn't consistent at all with his detailed descriptions of his career.

You definitely don't owe me an apology, but appreciated nonetheless.

I do believe that with Prouty many have indeed put him on a pedestal (I actually wrote that in an earlier reply and deleted it) and as such do not question his statements as thoroughly as they have others.

My sentiments regarding Prouty are best summarized by the ARRB and his position is best described by them...

(any emphasis is mine)

Quote

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.

Two things should be emphasized: that this rejection of Prouty does not reflect a rejection or confirmation of any other conspiracy theories; and that the ARRB did not seek out Prouty for the purpose of discrediting him or theories. We had intended on hearing his story and trying to obtain suggestions from Prouty as to where we could find documents to add to the collection. In the face of numerous contradictions, unsupportable allegations, and assertions which we know to be incorrect, we have no choice but to conclude that there is nothing to be gained or added to the record from following up on anything he told us. No evidence was offered to substantiate any of the allegations Prouty has either published in the past or raised during the interview.

I agree with Prouty on many things, but we diverge on the details.

For instance I also believe in a high level cabal, but unlike Prouty I do not believe it is controlled or ran by Israel or "jews."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

You definitely don't owe me an apology, but appreciated nonetheless.

I do believe that with Prouty many have indeed put him on a pedestal (I actually wrote that in an earlier reply and deleted it) and as such do not question his statements as thoroughly as they have others.

My sentiments regarding Prouty are best summarized by the ARRB and his position is best described by them...

(any emphasis is mine)

I agree with Prouty on many things, but we diverge on the details.

For instance I also believe in a high level cabal, but unlike Prouty I do not believe it is controlled or ran by Israel or "jews."

The way I view Prouty is somewhat consistent with the ARRB statement above.

He was a USAF witness and participant in global CIA ops from the 50s through December of 1963.  But he was never a member of Allen Dulles's "secret team," and was not privy to the secret machinations of the Dulles cabal. 

Nor was Prouty a direct participant in all (many?) of the highest level meetings of the Joint Chiefs.  (Curiously, he has very little to say about USAF General Curtis LeMay!)

So, many of his theories about JFK's assassination were based on educated guesses, from his vantage point as the Joint Chief's liaison to the CIA.  In contrast, his observations about US ops in Vietnam were based on direct participant observation.

As for the claims on mcadams.edu about Prouty being anti-Semitic, I don't recall reading about that in the two Prouty books I read.  I could be mistaken, but I thought his comments about a "high cabal" were references to Wall Street, and to the Wall Street lawyers (Dulles, et.al.) who created the CIA.

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...