Newman's Into the Storm

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Another solid piece. Thanks Tracy.

As you pointed out, Newman shows that Veciana has been curiously very reluctant to discuss his contacts/relationship with the US Army during this critical period. Except for that one mention in (I believe) Fonzi's book, he never discusses it. It's nowhere in his book. Very odd.

It seems pretty clear that Veciana simply didn't want to work with the CIA because he'd have to give up too much control over his group to the US. And the CIA wasn't going to work with his group unless they had greater control over it. So the relationship was a no-go from the start. I think after the missile crisis in particular that the CIA simply wasn't going to let some of these groups have a free rein.

At this point, I think we can fundamentally dismiss anything Veciana says. His credibility is just shot.

Thanks for reading and commenting Steve. Watch for my next piece which will discuss Veciana's possible motive assuming he made up the "Maurice Bishop" thing.

[Tom Scully]

.....

Armstrong acolyte Joseph summed up his approach to discerning the weight of evidence. I'll post it after I find it.

I don't anticipate this is an exclusive approach, but it seems hypocritical, not to mention the integrity of the resulting research.:

The  quote below was prompted by my presentation of this point, highlighted in black brackets:

David Josephs said:
07-15-2015 08:58 PM

.....I proceed under the assumption that as a conspiracy, EVERYTHING related to the incrimination of Oswald is suspect. The hiding of the real murder as well as the ancillary operations that needed hiding leads me to conclude that what we are offered as Evidence pertains more to the cover-up of info and was therefore "created/improved/altered" for that reason.

That the DoD card may have not been in Nagell's possessions means it was either added to the pile later to connect the men, or that the evidence to prove the connection (of which so many of these connections were severed once the Commie Conspiracy became the Lone Nut) was made to disappear so it would be harder to prove the Nagell/Oswald connection...
or it was done for reasons we simply cannot comprehend at this point.

Translation,  (heads I win, tails...you guessed it...) the truth is what I discern it to be, impervious and unresponsive to all counter argument or any of its supporting evidence.

[Jerry Freeman]

To the casual guests and readers...Bear in mind there are other sides to a story....

Parnell says that Veciana has "exaggerated his place in history" by simply saying he met his intelligence case officer and the patsy in the assassination of the President in Dallas a few months before the assassination. What kind of place in history is that?

From...  http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/11/veciana-identiies-phillips-as-bishop.html
There are a lot of related threads here ie- The CIA Was Involved and Was Oswald Really in Mexico? Now, if you say yes to the one and no to the other  well shame on you. Always noteworthy is- Kennedy asked for Allen Dulles resignation ...think there was any tearful exCIA director at the JFK funeral? And why did Johnson really put him on the commission?
 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

To the casual guests and readers...Bear in mind there are other sides to a story.... From...  http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/11/veciana-identiies-phillips-as-bishop.html
There are a lot of related threads here ie- The CIA Was Involved and Was Oswald Really in Mexico? Now, if you say yes to the one and no to the other  well shame on you. Always noteworthy is- Kennedy asked for Allen Dulles resignation ...think there was any tearful exCIA director at the JFK funeral? And why did Johnson really put him on the commission?

If the reader follows Tracy's pieces he or she will see that he addresses some of these claims about CIA involvement in the assassination, i.e., "the other side" as presented by Veciana. He quotes directly from Veciana's testimony/depositions about the matter, e.g., who this Maurice Bishop person was, and shows how what Veciana claimed happened simply couldn't be true. Or at least the documentation for it simply isn't there. Tracy also cites John Newman's work; Newman is a conspiracy theorist. Newman too argues that Veciana's claims about a long term relationship with the CIA simply isn't supported by the evidence.

So the "other side" - at least as claimed by Veciana is addressed in great detail by Tracy (and Newman).

As to Dulles and the commission, I have no idea what that has to do with Veciana and his claims. Which is what Tracy is focused on.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

If the reader follows Tracy's pieces he or she will see that he addresses some of these claims about CIA involvement in the assassination, i.e., "the other side" as presented by Veciana. He quotes directly from Veciana's testimony/depositions about the matter, e.g., who this Maurice Bishop person was, and shows how what Veciana claimed happened simply couldn't be true. Or at least the documentation for it simply isn't there. Tracy also cites John Newman's work; Newman is a conspiracy theorist. Newman too argues that Veciana's claims about a long term relationship with the CIA simply isn't supported by the evidence.

So the "other side" - at least as claimed by Veciana is addressed in great detail by Tracy (and Newman).

As to Dulles and the commission, I have no idea what that has to do with Veciana and his claims. Which is what Tracy is focused on.

Thanks again Steve. I will say this-if there was a Bishop (and I don't believe there was at this time) he wasn't as described by Veciana. Newman has successfully deconstructed both Veciana scenarios of how he allegedly met Bishop in Cuba. They simply didn't happen the way Veciana said they did. And there is no evidence that Veciana worked for the CIA. He was approved for use as a sabotage man with the MRP, but that never came off. He apparently did work with Army Intellegence however. The trick is figuring out why he was so adamant on being known as a CIA agent and I am working on that now. Anyway, it is not just LNs like me that are becoming skeptical of Veciana as Steve points out. 

[Tom Scully]

To the casual guests and readers...Bear in mind there are other sides to a story.... From...  http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/11/veciana-identiies-phillips-as-bishop.html
There are a lot of related threads here ie- The CIA Was Involved and Was Oswald Really in Mexico? Now, if you say yes to the one and no to the other  well shame on you. Always noteworthy is- Kennedy asked for Allen Dulles resignation ...think there was any tearful exCIA director at the JFK funeral? And why did Johnson really put him on the commission?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/7yzt04KkXlw
On 30 Sep 2014 21:47:34 -0400, Jean Davison
wrote:

? show quoted text ?
I have the book at work, so I can find the citation.

There is a quote that buffs always use that has Willie Morris
reporting Dulles saying something negative about John Kennedy.

Of course, that?s not inconsistent with Bobby (or John) liking Dulles.
Does anybody here know anything about that?

.John

"That little Kennedy..." page 38: (Click on "Look Inside" at top left)
https://www.amazon.com/New-York-Days-Willie-Morris/dp/0316583987#reader_0316583987

[Rob Caprio]

The exhumation of LHO in 1981 debunked the 2 Oswald theory of Michael Eddowes. It also debunked H&L before it was even devised. I have over twenty articles that help to debunk minor theories associated with H&L. But you don't need to ask me about this here (unless you are just trying to start something), you can read the articles and judge my work for yourself. Thanks for your interest.

Beside yourself, who else thinks that you have debunked anything? Most people aren't going to read your articles so they won't know if you are telling the truth or not.

What did you supposedly debunk in regards to the H&L theory?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Beside yourself, who else thinks that you have debunked anything? Most people aren't going to read your articles so they won't know if you are telling the truth or not.

What did you supposedly debunk in regards to the H&L theory?

I have been thanked privately by members of the conspiracy community for my work. I wouldn't wish to violate a trust by revealing any names. Anyone can read my articles (or ignore them if they prefer) and decide for themselves if I have debunked anything or not. At this time, I personally consider the theory debunked and have moved to other areas of research. The most common attitude I have encountered among CTs is that they appreciate the work of Armstrong but do not necessarily agree with his thesis of two Oswalds. However, CTs such as Greg Parker, David Lifton and Jeremy Bojczuk have written extensively against the theory.