Didn't----I believe in knock at the post-not the poster. Disagreement is with ideas. I read through the stuff about Antonio Veciana. It was boring. Sorry. Because he was convicted of drugs doesn't mean anything. Iran Contra was all about coke running. The mercs in the agency was up to their necks in dirty deeds. Loran Hall was indicted for speed but never served time. He knew all about plots to kill Kennedy. His HSCA testimony remains sealed--Why?
So even if you can say that Tony Veciana was a fabricator...doesn't mean there was not a conspiracy to off JFK.
Anyway- because the list of possible conspirators was said to be "a work in progress" I would say wrong direction.
The problem I had with the Harvey and Lee stuff was that the hard core claims--well -they weren't footnoted.
Where was the supportive info? Without support...it is fake news. So even if you say that Armstrong ran out in left field with his research and stepped on his own face there...doesn't mean there was not a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and Oswald got set up.
OK, glad to hear this isn't intended as an "attack thread." Veciana's drug conviction is relevant because he always had maintained his innocence and the fact that the evidence shows he was guilty goes toward his general credibility IMO. I am re-reading Fonzi's book and it is obvious to me that he didn't do any checking on the drug thing and merely accepted Veciana's word. I say this because Fonzi makes the flat statement that Barres was the only witness against Veciana. But that is not true, there were four witnesses and other evidence against Veciana. Additionally, Pomares, the other conspirator, confirmed what Barres said in his confession. He later tried to retract that but it is common for lawyers to try and do that.
If there are any specific H&L things you want sources to, I would be glad to try but I am not going to spend a whole lot of time on it. As far as the "H&L Who Would be Involved" list, it is based on my reading of the book and I admit that Jim Hargrove did not agree with everything. And I agree that a debunking of either the H&L and Maurice Bishop theories would not disprove a conspiracy. But it is a start.
