Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Newman's Into the Storm  (Read 1565 times)

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 293
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2019, 02:45:36 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To the casual guests and readers...Bear in mind there are other sides to a story.... From...  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 02:50:58 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2019, 02:45:36 PM »

Offline W. Tracy Parnell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2019, 05:57:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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. 

Online Tom Scully

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #22 on: April 28, 2019, 07:35:39 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To the casual guests and readers...Bear in mind there are other sides to a story.... From...  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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?

Quote
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 07:41:49 PM by Tom Scully »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #22 on: April 28, 2019, 07:35:39 PM »

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1096
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #23 on: April 28, 2019, 09:10:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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?

Offline W. Tracy Parnell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2019, 09:44:43 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2019, 09:44:43 PM »

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1096
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2019, 09:58:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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.

Not believing something is not the same as debunking something. I don't believe in Armstrong's theory as he presents it, but there is definitely something to the multiple Oswald sightings as there are just too many to ignore or debunk.

I don't endorse David Lifton's theory either. In fact, I don't endorse a lot of the conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean that I "debunked" them. Most theories, outside of the ridiculous official one, have something of value to offer whether you agree with it or not.

Until I see it I will assume you haven't really debunked anything. I have never understood why CTers attack peoples' theories as none of us know what happened that day since we were given a cover-up instead of an investigation. What harm is someone's theory going to do? The media, government and educational system mock all theories that don't align with the WC's anyway.

I was hoping since you made a claim that you would support it instead of me having to read article after article to find it. I guess not.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 10:01:38 PM by Rob Caprio »

Online Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2019, 04:12:47 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.
Has everything to do with protecting the CIA. Even if Veciana was completely full of crap ..it doesn't exonerate the notion that rogue CIA operatives were behind offing JFK.
You can focus on Prancer and disavow his credibility as a flying reindeer and therefore smash the whole idea of a Santa and his sled. A silly analogy? That is what I think about Oswald's supposed trip to Mexico...all alone with no apparent funds or support. 
At least two people came forward and said that he was in Dallas at that time. Either way, someone was handling him.
 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2019, 04:12:47 AM »

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 293
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2019, 03:11:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Has everything to do with protecting the CIA. Even if Veciana was completely full of crap ..it doesn't exonerate the notion that rogue CIA operatives were behind offing JFK.
You can focus on Prancer and disavow his credibility as a flying reindeer and therefore smash the whole idea of a Santa and his sled. A silly analogy? That is what I think about Oswald's supposed trip to Mexico...all alone with no apparent funds or support. 
At least two people came forward and said that he was in Dallas at that time. Either way, someone was handling him.
 
Your anecdote has absolutely nothing - not a thing - to do with Tracy's work investigating Veciana's claims.

The topic is about Antonio Veciana. And his allegations that he worked for the CIA and that, most important, his control officer was David Atlee Phillips and that he, Veciana, saw Oswald with Phillips.

Tracy, along with Newman, have shown, to me, that Veciana's allegations simply cannot be true. Or to be more charitable, there is no evidence for them.

Nothing in Tracy's post/writings has anything to do with Dulles. Nowhere does he claim that his work on Veciana - and only Veciana - disproves your entire "the CIA did it" allegations. He's limited things to one specific claim.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 07:30:21 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2019, 03:11:06 PM »

 

Mobile View