Douglas Caddy

John Newman: Countdown to Darkness available soon

61 posts in this topic

Lance, I don't want to sound combative or argumentative, I respect your input and your intelligence. I am just following up on a few point because that is what we do here.
 
 
"lu·na·tic fringe
ˈˌlo͞onəˌtik ˈfrinj/
noun
noun: lunatic fringe; plural noun: lunatic fringes
  1. an extreme or eccentric MINORITY within society or a group"
CT'ers are not a minority. They have and always have been the Majority.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just add here a reference to John Newmanns WW3 virus theory. It gets little mention on this forum and that surprises me. It is a plausible explanation as to why the SBT and LN theory was accepted so quickly. Indeed, it proposes that the LN theory was manufactured and planted months in advance such that it would bear fruit at the time of the assassination. I won't link the version I did find because it is a difficult to follow transcript of a presentation that Newman made years ago. I hope that someone has, finds and will share a better source for that theory.

Cheers,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, could you elaborate, certainly John has written at length about a poison pill and about planting information in MC that would force the highest levels of government to back off a real conspiracy investigation...Peter Dale Scott, Bill Simpich and I have all pursued that idea in our writings.  But I don't recall John writing about manufacturing and planting the Lone Nut scenario itself months in advance, just the apparent connections that would force that story after the assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, I will look for that transcription again. 

I, here, tried to elaborate but kept deleting my sentences because it is pointless for me to recall from memory something I read when I first delved into this whole thing a few months ago.

Briefly, Algleton deliberately ("diabolically") inserted information into Oswald's file which would, at the time of the assassination, lead to two choices... WW3, or a cover up of a conspiracy, because of intelligence failures involved. I can't say that the LN scenario was specifically envisioned.

Would you, please, direct me to some of the reading that you mention? I have been looking for a more accessible source for Newman's transcribed presentation; It includes all the "er"'s "ahh"'s "ahem"'s and directives to the overhead projector operator that make it a difficult read.

I am surprised that I can't just Google "Newman's WWIII virus" and come up with a clean copy of the presentation, essay or blog. I hope my recollection here is not so far off as to render my recollection as purely "making stuff up". I have read it twice, and on several occasions looked for a better copy.

Cheers,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be sure, I have figured-out that I am on a forum that includes great and accomplished writers, researchers, and people with storied backgrounds and experiences. I gravitated to this forum, exclusively, because I got sick of the nastiness of other forums and you-tube commentery. Hopefully I'll have a job again soon and won't be interjecting myself so frequently in a debate among the accomplished heavy-hitters that make this such a great place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James DiEugenio said:

LP: With all due respect - and I mean that - this again is conspiracy logic.  It's the classic "post hoc" ("confusing cause and effect") fallacy.  Yes, many different people and groups benefitted from the assassination of JFK.  This is why a host of different conspiracy theories are plausible.  The logical fallacy is to assume that because these people and groups benefitted from the assassination, one or more of them must have caused the assassination.  It assumes a connection that is not necessarily there.  I can't tell you how many people have said to me, "Want to know who killed JFK?  Look at who benefitted."  Wrong.  Your post is one small example, but most of the conspiracy theories are riddled with this "dot connecting" logical fallacy.

What a bizarre reaction.  I did not say or even imply any such thing.  What I was attempting to do was simply move the conversation back to John's excellent, milestone book on Vietnam, rather than talk about something that has nothing to do with this forum. One of the focal points  of John's wonderful book, JFK and Vietnam, is that LBJ differed from Kennedy on this policy from the very start--in 1961.  And he proves that point.  Further, that LBJ, somehow, was getting the secret intelligence reports about how badly the war was really going, instead of the lying rosy scenarios.  And that when JFK was killed, he sent McNamara to get the real reports, so he could use those to ramp up the war and send in American mass involvement based on his own provocation, i.e. the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

 This is what John's breakthrough book is about.  The discontinuity between LBJ and JFK on this issue.  While for 30 years all those stupid history professors were saying, LBJ continued Kennedy's policy in Vietnam, John  put a harpoon through all of those terrible books and proved that not only was such not the case, but LBJ reversed Kennedy's policy there.  And Kennedy's death caused the escalation of the war and massive American combat troop involvement.  You can say the assassination was about this specific point--maybe or maybe not.  Who knows for sure?  But there can be little or no doubt that JFK's death allowed LBJ to do something Kennedy would not have done.  That is a fact.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The executive order reversal around the weekend of 11-22-63 has forever been a part of my understand of the explanation for the assassination. It never lapsed from my memory in the 25 years that I had paid no attention to the subject. I am surprised that it seems to be such an obscure subject today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LP: I realize that even mentioning the Lone Nut theory is like waving a red flag in front of a bull around here, but this is one thing that impresses me about the theory - it does flow from point A to B to C with a minimum of speculation and logical fallacies.  

This was bad enough in say 1967, after Salandria, Popkin, Epstein, Lane, Weisberg, Meagher, Field, and Thompson.  Because using just the WC's own evidence, those authors showed that the WR was a dog and pony show.  The Commission tried to hide and disguise all the mounds of evidence that contradicted their ersatz conclusions.  

But today, with the declassifications of the ARRB, to say that the Oswald did it theory progresses from A to B to C with a minimum of speculation and logical fallacies, that is just so much hogwash that not even the hogs will stand for it.  I mean the splits in the evidence from A to B to C are not splits, they are like canyon wide chasms today.  To mention just three:  the destruction of the NAA evidence, which the HSCA used as its lynchpin,  John Hunt's and Gary Aguilar's work which obliterates CE 399,  and Barry Ernest's book which verifies the testimony of Victoria Jackson.

And let me add one more recent point, Bart K. is coming out with a new version of his essay to show that, in all likelihood, the second floor incident did not happen.

My God, and this guy is a lawyer.

 Forgot, lawyers are the people who got us into this mess.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, you found the transcription on Lancer that I was just about to link in for you so you have that.  Things have evolved a good bit from that particular presentation and probably your best and most current source dealing with the whole issue is Bill Simpich's book State Secret.  I wrote a bit about the MC scenarios in NEXUS and then collaborated with Bill while he was working on his book; of course he has talked with and brainstormed at length with Newman as well.

There are a couple of schools of thought (OK, that was understated) but perhaps the simplest take is that links were planted (to a great extent via telephone impersonations) in Mexico City that would have connected Oswald to Cuban or Russian sponsors, exposing that connection would have meant war.  That is a follow up to Peter Dale Scott's early research on Mexico City and give you the WWIII scenario leading to a Lone Nut alternative to prevent war.  A different and even deeper take is that the  telephone impersonation, the taping and the tapes themselves might have revealed that the impersonations were planted to frame Oswald and the Cubans/Russians, but in such a way as to have only been done by insiders - pointing not towards foreign conspiracy but a domestic one involving CIA officers or their agents working with the electronic surveillance in Mexico City.  Rather than going that route, and perhaps destroying the CIA in the process, at the height of the Cold War, it would have been decided to go Lone Nut instead.

Of course you can mix and match both scenarios too.   Hope that helps a bit, Larry

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MC:

The executive order reversal around the weekend of 11-22-63 has forever been a part of my understand of the explanation for the assassination. It never lapsed from my memory in the 25 years that I had paid no attention to the subject. I am surprised that it seems to be such an obscure subject today.

  •  

Mike:  Its not quite a reversal.  What LBJ and Bundy did was to make the OPLAN 34 mission patrols immediately possible with the use of the American Navy. It was that alteration, which Kennedy never saw, that made the De Soto patrols operable in 1964.  This is what caused the Gulf of Tonkin incident and that is what LBJ used to activate the plans the Joint Chiefs had given to him for an all out attack on North Vietnam in March of 1964.  That resolution had been written well in advance of the incident.  And it has been reported that Johnson actually walked around with it in his jacket pocket.  When the so called "attacks' occurred, after the patrols had violated national coastal waters, LBJ slammed the resolution through as if an act of war had happened.  In fact, the real damage was one bullet through one hull.  Johnson went on national TV, and then ordered something like 65 aircraft sorties in retaliation.  And as they say, the March of Folly, was on.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now