JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: W. Tracy Parnell on February 04, 2020, 02:33:26 AM

Title: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on February 04, 2020, 02:33:26 AM
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
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 04, 2020, 04:28:49 AM
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   ;)
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on February 04, 2020, 12:32:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 04, 2020, 03:14:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on February 04, 2020, 03:57:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 04, 2020, 04:12:08 PM
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
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 06, 2020, 03:41:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 06, 2020, 02:18:31 PM
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  ;)
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 06, 2020, 02:21:32 PM
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 tries very hard to prove to the other so-called experts in attendance (like Peter Dale Scott, Bill Simpich, and nose-pickin' James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio) that Nosenko was a false defector, and that Nosenko's nemesis, Anatoliy Golitsyn, was ... yup ... a true one.

I totally agree with Newman's March 2018 position.

Has he totally flip-flopped on Nosenko, now?

LOL

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 06, 2020, 08:30:55 PM
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.
What evidence is there that Fonzi's work was influenced by Joannides? What evidence is there that he committed perjury and was part of a coverup?

Yes, it was dishonest for the CIA and Joannides to not inform the committee that he was assigned to handling the DRE. But what does that have to do with Fonzi's work? He was working on the Veciana angle. And Veciana's group, Alpha 66, had nothing to do with the DRE or Joannides. These were, as I see it, two entirely different roads.

Newman's work on the alleged Veciana/Phillips relationship is pretty strong. He shows that it wasn't plausible that Phillips (as Bishop) could have traveled around Cuba in late 1950 and openly recruited assets like Veciana. Veciana claims that Bishop visited him in broad daylight at Julio Lobo's National Bank. That's just not plausible to me (Lobo was being watched by Castro's people). Castro was cracking down on opponents and Phillips had to be withdrawn in 1960 because of it. It was simply getting too dangerous from 1959 onward to operate there.

Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: Tom Scully on February 06, 2020, 08:36:50 PM
There is no "upside" to engaging this malignant, petulant, forum participant.... Consider I "set this off" as a result of posting one sentence!

This Bagley fellow, agitated, crafty crafter of opinions?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=199814&relPageId=5

Scully,

Are you suggesting that Tennent H. Bagley, whom John Newman points out was on the fast track to becoming DCI until false-defector Nosenko started rocking CIA's boat two months after the assassination, was "agitated" when he conveyed the above information to Sam Papich right after the assassination?

That he was a "crafty crafter of (CIA/FBI) opinions"?

You sound as though brainwashed-by-Mangold-and-Wise, Kisevalter-loving Jefferson Morley has gotten to you.

Aren't you describing your "class warfare"-oriented, propagandistic self, here, Scully (but your audience, of course, is comprised of people who are already predisposed to hating the evil, evil, evil CIA, the evil, evil, evil FBI, the evil, evil, evil NSA, etc)?

Do you know anything about the former East German intelligence operative mentioned in the memo, Gurnter Schulz, aka FBI's "Tumbleweed"?

You do realize, don't you, that the NKVD got several of their agents into the OSS and the CIA (and the FBI, evidently) by letting  them be captured by the Germans during WW II, and (unsuccessfully) "turned" by, or otherwise assimilated into, the easily-duped Gehlen Organization? 

Alexandr "Sasha" Karpatzky (aka Igor Orlov) comes to mind.  Factoid: I think Bagley's thwarting / counterproductive "helper" in interviewing Nosenko in Geneva in June 1962 and in January 1964, George Kisevalter, was Golitsy's mole,"Sasha," instead.

Rhetorical question:  What led the FBI and CIA to tentatively conclude that Kostikov was "Department 13," as is mentioned in the memo?

Answer:  The KGB triple-agent who duped Hoover for fifteen years, Aleksey Kulak (aka "Fedora" -- look him up) told the FBI that "Tumbleweed's KGB handler in the U.S., Igor Brykin at the U.N., was ... gasp ... "Department 13, and "Tumbleweed," himself, told the FBI that he and Brykin had met with Kostikov in Mexico City to get instructions for a sabotage mission in the U.S.!

In other words, Hoover was fooled (yet again) by a KGB triple-agent in the FBI ("Fedora"), and Hoover, in turn, misled CIA into believing that a (poor Russian-speaking / poor English-speaking) "Oswald" impostor had been told on October 1, 1963 (over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line) that he ("Oswald") had met with made-radioactive-by-now "Kostikov" on Saturday, September 28.

D'oh

--  MWT   ;)

…..
Scully,
…..
Aren't you describing your "class warfare"-oriented, propagandistic self, here, Scully (but your audience, of course, is comprised of people who are already predisposed to hating the evil, evil, evil CIA, the evil, evil, evil FBI, the evil, evil, evil NSA, etc)?

D'oh

--  MWT   ;)

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jul/03/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-target-saying-3-richest-have-much-w/
(http://jfkforum.com/images/TrumpSandersPolitifactThreeFamiliesWealth.jpg)
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 06, 2020, 09:12:18 PM
What evidence is there that Fonzi's work was influenced by Joannides? What evidence is there that he committed perjury and was part of a coverup?

Yes, it was dishonest for the CIA and Joannides to not inform the committee that he was assigned to handling the DRE. But what does that have to do with Fonzi's work? He was working on the Veciana angle. And Veciana's group, Alpha 66, had nothing to do with the DRE or Joannides. These were, as I see it, two entirely different roads.

Newman's work on the alleged Veciana/Phillips relationship is pretty strong. He shows that it wasn't plausible that Phillips (as Bishop) could have traveled around Cuba in late 1950 and openly recruited assets like Veciana. Veciana claims that Bishop visited him in broad daylight at Julio Lobo's National Bank. That's just not plausible to me (Lobo was being watched by Castro's people). Castro was cracking down on opponents and Phillips had to be withdrawn in 1960 because of it. It was simply getting too dangerous from 1959 onward to operate there.

I have no interest in Veciani. Pointless, rabbit hole stuff.

Joannides covered up. Lied. End of story.

Fonzi investigated many people. Besides Veciana. Including, the CIA. The Last Investigation covers many topics. You are paining with an overly large, broad brush when you focus on Veciana, in an effort to smear Fonzi, and discredit his work. Look at Clare Booth Luce ,Joannides, all the misdirection. Why ? What were they hiding?

Again, Joannides was there to hide his, and the CIA's actions. That doesn't mean the CIA shot Kennedy. It just shows a cover-up,  in the extreme. And lawbreaking on their part.
Might want to look at Richard Helms, convicted perjurer, I believe because of his actions regarding Allende.
They're spies. They lie. And they don't respect any other authority. Especially the American people.

Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: Margaret Kelly on February 09, 2020, 04:21:33 PM
Joannides covered up. Lied. End of story.

Is there any good book on George Joannides? You have "The Ghost" which Jeff Morley dedicates solely to Angelton, is there any one which covers Joannides? It seems any info on him is suggesting this and that but with no firm evidence. It would be nice to see someone lay out the facts on him.
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 11, 2020, 02:49:52 PM
Is there any good book on George Joannides? You have "The Ghost" which Jeff Morley dedicates solely to Angelton, is there any one which covers Joannides? It seems any info on him is suggesting this and that but with no firm evidence. It would be nice to see someone lay out the facts on him.
The facts are, in 1963, Joannides was the agent handling the DRE, which was run by Carlos Bringuer - he of the New Orleans street fight (possibly staged).
In 1978, Joannides lied and withheld CIA docs that would have revealed  his and the agency's actions in 1963, and before and  after.
And the CIA is still fighting to withhold those documents.
Title: Re: John Newman's "New Paradigm"
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 11, 2020, 03:05:45 PM
There is no "upside" to engaging this malignant, petulant, forum participant.... Consider I "set this off" as a result of posting one sentence!

Scully,

Are you suggesting that Tennent H. Bagley, whom John Newman points out was on the fast track to becoming DCI until false-defector Nosenko started rocking CIA's boat two months after the assassination, was "agitated" when he conveyed the above information to Sam Papich right after the assassination?

That he was a "crafty crafter of (CIA/FBI) opinions"?

You sound as though brainwashed-by-Mangold-and-Wise, Kisevalter-loving Jefferson Morley has gotten to you.

Aren't you describing your "class warfare"-oriented, propagandistic self, here, Scully (but your audience, of course, is comprised of people who are already predisposed to hating the evil, evil, evil CIA, the evil, evil, evil FBI, the evil, evil, evil NSA, etc)?

Do you know anything about the former East German intelligence operative mentioned in the memo, Gurnter Schulz, aka FBI's "Tumbleweed"?

You do realize, don't you, that the NKVD got several of their agents into the OSS and the CIA (and the FBI, evidently) by letting  them be captured by the Germans during WW II, and (unsuccessfully) "turned" by, or otherwise assimilated into, the easily-duped Gehlen Organization? 

Alexandr "Sasha" Karpatzky (aka Igor Orlov) comes to mind.  Factoid: I think Bagley's thwarting / counterproductive "helper" in interviewing Nosenko in Geneva in June 1962 and in January 1964, George Kisevalter, was Golitsy's mole,"Sasha," instead.

Rhetorical question:  What led the FBI and CIA to tentatively conclude that Kostikov was "Department 13," as is mentioned in the memo?

Answer:  The KGB triple-agent who duped Hoover for fifteen years, Aleksey Kulak (aka "Fedora" -- look him up) told the FBI that "Tumbleweed's KGB handler in the U.S., Igor Brykin at the U.N., was ... gasp ... "Department 13, and "Tumbleweed," himself, told the FBI that he and Brykin had met with Kostikov in Mexico City to get instructions for a sabotage mission in the U.S.!

In other words, Hoover was fooled (yet again) by a KGB triple-agent in the FBI ("Fedora"), and Hoover, in turn, misled CIA into believing that a (poor Russian-speaking / poor English-speaking) "Oswald" impostor had been told on October 1, 1963 (over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line) that he ("Oswald") had met with made-radioactive-by-now "Kostikov" on Saturday, September 28.

D'oh

--  MWT   ;)


https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jul/03/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-target-saying-3-richest-have-much-w/
(http://jfkforum.com/images/TrumpSandersPolitifactThreeFamiliesWealth.jpg)

Scully,

Malignant?

Because I believe that either a self-avowed Marxist or the KGB/DGI murdered JFK?

Funny you realize that Trump is in bed with KGB-Mafia boy Putin but are unable to connect the dots as to how the KGB-encouraged anti-CIA and anti-FBI "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theories that arose out of the JFK Assassination dumbed-down and made cynical paranoiac and apathetic our body politic, ultimately enabled Putin's DNC hackers and Internet Research Agency trolls, etc, to have the deleterious effect that they did on our 2016 election.

--  MWT   ;)

PS  Haven't you admitted on these pages that you like to analyze political/social events from a "class warfare" / "class struggle" perspective?