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

Author Topic: Newman's Into the Storm  (Read 3215 times)

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2019, 10:44:27 PM »

"Harvey & Lee" although I had quite a bit of help with that.

What part of "Harvey & Lee"?  The notion of two Oswalds goes back long before John Armstrong's research. Furthermore, you're claim was in the plural and this would be just one.

Offline W. Tracy Parnell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2019, 11:41:09 PM »
What part of "Harvey & Lee"?  The notion of two Oswalds goes back long before John Armstrong's research. Furthermore, you're claim was in the plural and this would be just one.


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.

Offline W. Tracy Parnell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2019, 08:41:49 PM »
Part 3 of my review of Newman's book looks at Veciana's "lost" testimony, Veciana and the Army and Zabala's Revelation.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/04/into-storm-part-3.html

Offline Mark A. Oblazney

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2019, 12:15:55 PM »
Part 3 of my review of Newman's book looks at Veciana's "lost" testimony, Veciana and the Army and Zabala's Revelation.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/04/into-storm-part-3.html

Well said, sir+

Offline W. Tracy Parnell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2019, 02:08:30 PM »
Well said, sir+


Thanks very much for your interest Mark.

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2019, 09:14:17 PM »
Part 3 of my review of Newman's book looks at Veciana's "lost" testimony, Veciana and the Army and Zabala's Revelation.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/04/into-storm-part-3.html
Another solid piece. Thanks Tracy.

As you pointed out, Newman shows that Veciana has been curiously reluctant to discuss his contacts/relationship with the US Army during this period in question. 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. No more of those attacks on Soviet ships. 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. Certainly not to allow them to attack foreign owned ships in Cuban harbors.

At this point, I think we can fundamentally dismiss anything Veciana says. His credibility is just shot.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2019, 01:07:35 AM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline W. Tracy Parnell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2019, 11:37:54 PM »
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.

Offline Tom Scully

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 859
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2019, 12:05:04 AM »
.....

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:


Quote
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.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2019, 12:15:53 AM by Tom Scully »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2494
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2019, 10:24:56 PM »
To the casual guests and readers...Bear in mind there are other sides to a story....
Quote
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?
 

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Newman's Into the Storm
« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2019, 02:45:36 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 02:50:58 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

 

Mobile View