John Newman's "New Paradigm"

[W. Tracy Parnell]

John Newman has authored what associate Alan Dale refers to as a “new paradigm.” This theory postulates that “a campaign of misdirection [was] launched by Antonio Veciana the day he walked out of the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in February 1976.” The purpose of this misdirection campaign, achieved through the “sudden early release of Veciana,” was to “control the narrative of the unfolding congressional investigations” and to "place blame on the CIA and direct attention away from the Pentagon.” Carl Sagan wisely said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But what proof exists for Newman’s audacious statements?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/02/newmans-new-paradigm.html

[Thomas Graves]

John Newman has authored what associate Alan Dale refers to as a “new paradigm.” This theory postulates that “a campaign of misdirection [was] launched by Antonio Veciana the day he walked out of the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in February 1976.” The purpose of this misdirection campaign, achieved through the “sudden early release of Veciana,” was to “control the narrative of the unfolding congressional investigations” and to "place blame on the CIA and direct attention away from the Pentagon.” Carl Sagan wisely said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But what proof exists for Newman’s audacious statements?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/02/newmans-new-paradigm.html

Thanks, Tracy.

Does Professor Newman (who finally, as of March 2018, correctly believes that Angleton's and Bagley's and Newton "Scotty" Miler's, et alls, bugbear Yuri Nosenko, was a false defector, and that my hero Anatoliy Golitsyn was a true one) still believe that evil, evil, evil Angleton was the assassination mastermind?

--  MWT   

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Thanks, Tracy.

Does Professor Newman (who finally, as of March 2018, correctly believes that Angleton's and Bagley's and Newton "Scotty" Miler's, et alls, bugbear Yuri Nosenko, was a false defector, and that my hero Anatoliy Golitsyn was a true one) still believe that evil, evil, evil Angleton was the assassination mastermind?

--  MWT   

Newman thinks that Lansdale, Lemnitzer, Lemay and Burris were the core plotters. Not sure if Angleton fits into the new theory or not. EDIT: I just remembered that Newman is making noises about having some new stuff on Nosenko, so stay tuned for that Tommy.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

John Newman has authored what associate Alan Dale refers to as a “new paradigm.” This theory postulates that “a campaign of misdirection [was] launched by Antonio Veciana the day he walked out of the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in February 1976.” The purpose of this misdirection campaign, achieved through the “sudden early release of Veciana,” was to “control the narrative of the unfolding congressional investigations” and to "place blame on the CIA and direct attention away from the Pentagon.” Carl Sagan wisely said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But what proof exists for Newman’s audacious statements?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/02/newmans-new-paradigm.html

Interesting. I guess <g>. Not you Tracy, but Newman's theory that Veciana is part of the coverup.

It was clear from his last book that he believed that the Pentagon - and military types such as Lansdale - was behind the assassination. He laid out a case that they were increasingly angry with JFK's refusal to send troops to SE Asia and to harden his stance on Cuba. Then he weaved in Lemnitzer and the "Operation Northwoods" controversy (it makes sense at least on the surface; but many theories make sense here - JFK had a lot of enemies - but they fall apart when examined closely). He was just scathing in his denunciations of Lemnitzer.

The question is then about any role of the CIA? Again from his latest work shows he didn't think they had much of any.  So explain Veciana? It should have been obvious that a conspiracist is going to then weave Veciana into his conspiracy; that his claims were diversions away from the Pentagon.

But as you point out, Veciana was explicit early on in saying that he had a relationship with US military types not the CIA. In fact, you quote him saying numerous times that he said he didn't think Bishop worked for the CIA but perhaps some private entity. So that's not leading Fonzi - who was going there anyway - to the CIA; that is leading someone towards the military.

Well, I guess the next step is to say Fonzi was part of this diversion? I mean, nothing at this point surprises me when it come to JFK conspiracy believers. Some conspiracists have this problem of believing anything and everything proves their conspiracy. Up is down and down is up and both up and down are behind the conspiracy anyway.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Interesting. I guess <g>. Not you Tracy, but Newman's theory that Veciana is part of the coverup.

It was clear from his last book that he believed that the Pentagon - and military types such as Lansdale - was behind the assassination. He laid out a case that they were increasingly angry with JFK's refusal to send troops to SE Asia and to harden his stance on Cuba. Then he weaved in Lemnitzer and the "Operation Northwoods" controversy (it makes sense at least on the surface; but many theories make sense here - JFK had a lot of enemies - but they fall apart when examined closely). He was just scathing in his denunciations of Lemnitzer.

The question is then about any role of the CIA? Again from his latest work shows he didn't think they had much of any.  So explain Veciana? It should have been obvious that a conspiracist is going to then weave Veciana into his conspiracy; that his claims were diversions away from the Pentagon.

But as you point out, Veciana was explicit early on in saying that he had a relationship with US military types not the CIA. In fact, you quote him saying numerous times that he said he didn't think Bishop worked for the CIA but perhaps some private entity. So that's not leading Fonzi - who was going there anyway - to the CIA; that is leading someone towards the military.

Well, I guess the next step is to say Fonzi was part of this diversion? I mean, nothing at this point surprises me when it come to JFK conspiracy believers. Some conspiracists have this problem of believing anything and everything proves their conspiracy. Up is down and down is up and both up and down are behind the conspiracy anyway.

Thanks for your always welcome comments Steve. My guess is that Newman will say specific CIA individuals were assisting the Pentagon plotters in some way because they hated JFK. I think most of his reason for this will be to pacify the CIA-did-it crowd and make it look like he has considered all avenues. As I mentioned to Tommy, he will also evidently use people like Nosenko to confirm his theory. My own opinion is that saying Fonzi had a more active role rather than just a "sixth sense" that he was being used would be a bridge too far for Newman. Then he would have to go through Fonzi's book line by line to decide what was fit this theory and what Fonzi must have fabricated. And any suggestion that Fonzi lied would just alienate Fonzi's followers. Much easier to just say Fonzi was aware of Veciana's intention to help the Pentagon plotters even though he developed doubts about some of Veciana's story. But you never know as you point out.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Thanks for your always welcome comments Steve. My guess is that Newman will say specific CIA individuals were assisting the Pentagon plotters in some way because they hated JFK. I think most of his reason for this will be to pacify the CIA-did-it crowd and make it look like he has considered all avenues. As I mentioned to Tommy, he will also evidently use people like Nosenko to confirm his theory. My own opinion is that saying Fonzi had a more active role rather than just a "sixth sense" that he was being used would be a bridge too far for Newman. Then he would have to go through Fonzi's book line by line to decide what was fit this theory and what Fonzi must have fabricated. And any suggestion that Fonzi lied would just alienate Fonzi's followers. Much easier to just say Fonzi was aware of Veciana's intention to help the Pentagon plotters even though he developed doubts about some of Veciana's story. But you never know as you point out.

Right, my "Fonzi was part of the coverup" claim was mostly tongue in cheek. But, boy, you never know anymore.

I just checked Fonz's piece in the Washingtonian magazine, that 8000+ word opus on who killed JFK. There isn't a single reference to Lansdale, Lemnitzer, the Pentagon or any other US military figure.

Re Nosenko: If you read the account, his explanations as to their handling of Oswald were all over the place. He said Oswald was never watched by the KGB, then he said he was watched; he said Oswald was never questioned and then he said he personally questioned Oswald. It's a complete mystery as to what he was all about.

But Golitsyn, who the CIA also believe was legitimate (Angleton certainly did), told the CIA a number of falsehoods. He said the Soviet/China split was a ruse done to lull the west asleep. We know that it was a real, deep divide between the two nations. It wasn't a cover.

For those readers unfamiliar with it, the Fonzi piece can be read here: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GaetonFonzi/WhoKilledJFK.html

[John Tonkovich]

Newman seems to gone off the deep end, out where the buses don't run.

Fonzi did great work. Certainly made mistakes, but, had to work for Blakey, unfortunately, and be thwarted by Joannides, a liar, perjurer, cover-up artist etc.

[Thomas Graves]

Thanks for your always welcome comments Steve. My guess is that Newman will say specific CIA individuals were assisting the Pentagon plotters in some way because they hated JFK. I think most of his reason for this will be to pacify the CIA-did-it crowd and make it look like he has considered all avenues. As I mentioned to Tommy, he will also evidently use people like Nosenko to confirm his theory. My own opinion is that saying Fonzi had a more active role rather than just a "sixth sense" that he was being used would be a bridge too far for Newman. Then he would have to go through Fonzi's book line by line to decide what was fit this theory and what Fonzi must have fabricated. And any suggestion that Fonzi lied would just alienate Fonzi's followers. Much easier to just say Fonzi was aware of Veciana's intention to help the Pentagon plotters even though he developed doubts about some of Veciana's story. But you never know as you point out.

Tracy,

It will be interesting if Newman tries to use Nosenko to prove his new theory, because in his two-part youtube "Spy Wars" presentation of March 18, 2018 (based on Tennent H. Bagley's fine 2007 book by the same name),
Newman comes right out (and tries to prove tothe other so-called experts in attendance like Peter Dale Scott, Bill Simpich, and nose-pickin' James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio) and says that he now believes Nosenko was a false defector (and Golitsyn a true one).

--  MWT