John Newman on Lisa Pease's challenges to his research

[Douglas Caddy]

John Newman posted this on Facebook today:

This post is only ostensibly directed at Lisa Pease The details illustrate a perfect example of what I said yesterday: “So many have for so long been invested in an orthodoxy that it is only natural that it will take time for the change to take place. That is normal. That is the nature of orthodoxies when the time comes to overturn them. I am not interested in heated arguments and will not participate in them.”

On three separate occasions recently, Lisa has challenged my contention that Alpha 66 did not work for the CIA. Her posts were neither heated nor personal attacks. And so, I will do Lisa the honor of answering her objections—this time. Before I begin, I must point out that Lisa was not present for my 11/23/19 presentation in Dallas, and her various protests do not show evidence of having read the Veciana chapters in Volume III (“Into the Storm”).

For example, Lisa said: “I’m curious why people are so convinced Alpha 66 had nothing to do with the CIA when it was the CIA telling the Army, State and FBI what Alpha 66 was up to. I brushed off Peter Dale Scott when he came to me with that.”

The facts, however, do not show that the Alpha 66 group told the CIA what it was up to. OF COURSE, there were some members—most likely who had been previous and/or concurrent members of the MRP—who were CIA informants. The fact is that the head of Alpha 66, Antonio Veciana, told the Army that he lied to the CIA on the numerous occasions when they tried to learn about the plans of Alpha 66 (see document #6). I learned long ago not to brush off Peter Dale Scott without checking my facts VERY CAREFULLY.

In Cuba, Veciana had been chief of sabotage for the CIA-backed People’s Revolutionary Party (MRP). But after he came to Miami, Veciana broke away from the CIA and founded Alpha 66 in Puerto Rico in May 1962. Shortly after that, in early July, the CIA station in San Juan “emphasized” that the Alpha 66 “project” was “not an MRP activity” but that its leader, Manuel Ray, had given Alpha 66 his “blessing.” (See document #0). A few days later, Task Force W, PA-PROP officer Martha Tharp informed the chief, William Harvey that there was “no record” in Veciana’s CIA file “whether he was ever used or established contact.” (See document #1)
Lisa referenced a highly redacted document from the CIA’s reading room (https://www.cia.gov/.../readingroom/docs/DOC_0000386756.pdf) and argued that it does not support my “thesis.” You can see the document in full from the MFF site. (See document #2) In this case, a CIA source in San Juan received information from some senior Alpha 66 members—Geronimo Estevez and Alejandro Ojeda—about Alpha 66 activities.

This does NOT undermine my contention that Alpha 66 did not work for the CIA. What this document and others like it (see documents #3, #4 and #5) clearly demonstrate is that Bill Harvey, who was the CIA’s chief for Operation Mongoose, was worried about what Alpha 66 was up to and, as a result, was broadcasting all of the details about the group in his possession to every agency in Washington. In fact, Harvey instructed the CIA stations in Puerto Rico and Panama City to contact their local OBIDEX (U.S. Army) contacts report on Alpha 66 activities (document #4).

On 22 October 1962, a three-page overview of Alpha 66 and its activities from CIA Deputy Director of Plans, Dick Helms, was sent all over Washington. The message, which asked for information on Alpha 66, did not state or even hint that Alpha 66 worked for the CIA. (See document #7.)

On 30 October 1962, in the intense heat of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy ordered DCI McCone to “stop Alpha 66 actions during the next several days.” (See document #8). As McCone told his deputy (General Carter) later that same day, “The president was informed by the DCI we have no contact with or control over Alpha 66.” Nonplused, Kennedy told McCone try and stop them anyway!

I am not going to continue to debate this subject. I have only scratched the tip of a much larger iceberg. I dropped a hint to Lisa earlier related to this subject (Alpha 66 working with the Army and Lansdale instead of the CIA) and how Bill Harvey might fit—disturbingly—into the picture behind the scene. It didn’t work and, at this point, it will have to await the publication of Volume IV (“Armageddon”).
The four attached photos pertain to doc #1; docs #2, 3 and #4; #6; #8’ respectively.
All these documents can be found on the MFF site:
Document #0: 104-10181-10205
Document #1: 104-10181-10203
Document #2: 104-10181-10202
Document #3: 104-10181-10201
Document #4: 104-10181-10200
Document #5: 104-10181-10199
Document #6: 194-10003-10417
Document #7: 104-10181-10197
Document #8: 104-10306-10020

Edited December 26, 2019 by Douglas Caddy

[Steve Thomas]

Deleted

 

Steve Thomas

Edited July 18, 2023 by Steve Thomas

[Douglas Caddy]

John Newman posted the following on Facebook today:

 

Well, the thread yesterday expanded into several that went on most of the day. Gene Koch, Lisa Peas and I actually ended up finishing on a thread Lisa had started at some point:

John Newman Lisa Pease, Gene Koch It's far more complicated than you think. I can't go into all of the details in a FB post. I reported a lot of it in Dallas. Here is just a sliver of an overview about what was going on: Veciana didn't make up his the-CIA-was-behind-everything-in-62 caper until he ...got out of prison in 1976. (I'll have more of the details about this part of it in Vol IV). DURING 1962, Veciana was telling the truth; at that time, he was just like many of the exiles who hated working for the CIA because the Agency wanted total control and obedience. Lansdale actually was interested in keeping Veciana's covert Army channel secret and making it LOOK LIKE AV was working for the CIA and that is the reason the ISR switch to Army was not done until after the missile crisis was safely over. It was Lansdale (and Lemnitzer before him) who had labored to push JFK into a war in Cuba and wanted it to look like the orders for all of A-66 raids were coming from CIA [see the Lansdale-Veciana chart during the missile crisis that I posted], while sitting in the meetings with the president pretending not to know anything about it. It's even more complicated when you throw in what Harvey was up to at the same time--not just how to publicly play his cards on the A-66 raids but also what to do about Cubela--that TFW was recruiting at the same time. Hidden inside of all of this was yet another covert operation--a plan to murder the president and pin it on Castro, who would need to be alive, not dead, for the coverup to hold. I suspect that the idea of blaming JFK and especially RFK for the whole thing was also in train at this point (fall 1962). It's what took place in February 1976--the sudden early release of Veciana from the Atlanta Penitentiary--that allows us to unlock A) the misdirection to control the narrative of the unfolding congressional investigations gearing up then and to superimpose a similar misdirection on the last 14 months of Kennedy's life to help keep the Pentagon clear of the entire saga. Yes, and there were plenty of people at CIA [McCone was not one of them but Helms was] who were in favor of all of this--then and afterward. I'm still working on that.✍️🙏

Gene Koch John Newman Sam Halpern now even more interesting then. Thanks.
Lisa Pease John Newman I really look forward to watching your presentation and catching up on your research - was so focused on RFK for a while I've fallen behind. Thanks, John!

TODAY: That is where we will have to leave matters for now. A lot of new data has unfolded and is continuing to do so. I'll put up my Dallas presentation on my website when I get it.

[Paul Brancato]

I think Pease’s objection is based on her opinion that RFK was silenced because he was compromised deliberately to:that end. This thesis requires RFK being more hawkish than his brother, enough so that he took it on himself to run a covert operation kept secret from JFK because it was counter to Administration policy. This thesis has always struck me as flawed. Didn’t David Talbot investigate this claim and come to the same conclusion?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

It seems the battle lines are being drawn. Pease and others have a great deal invested in the CIA-Did-It narrative. It will be interesting as this plays out.

[Douglas Caddy]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It seems the battle lines are being drawn. Pease and others have a great deal invested in the CIA-Did-It narrative. It will be interesting as this plays out.

Pease is the protégé of Jim DiEugenio and always echoes what he promulgates. Since he is writing the script for Oliver Stone's JFK 2.0 it will be interesting to see if the script takes the CIA-Did-It theory or the Military-Did-It theory. A lot rides on the decision because Stone likely does not want his upcoming TV series to embrace an old orthodox theory of the assassination that is being brushed aside by new evidence discovered and compiled by John Newman about the paramount role of the Military in the killing of JFK.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Douglas Caddy

[David Andrews]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It seems the battle lines are being drawn. Pease and others have a great deal invested in the CIA-Did-It narrative. It will be interesting as this plays out.

Is the Newman scholarship really leaning toward a narrative where Helms, Harvey, Morales, Shackley and Hunt are not involved in the assassination?

Lansdale's virtually the poster boy for cooperation between CIA and military in covert affairs.

Edited December 29, 2019 by David Andrews

[W. Tracy Parnell]

44 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Pease is the protégé of Jim DiEugenio and always echoes what he promulgates. Since he is writing the script for Oliver Stone's JFK 2.0 it will be interesting to see if the script takes the CIA-Did-It theory or the Military-Did-It theory. 

Yes, I agree.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

23 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Is the Newman scholarship really leaning toward a narrative where Helms, Harvey, Morales, Shackley and Hunt are not involved in the assassination?

Lansdale's virtually the poster boy for cooperation between CIA and military in covert affairs.

We will have to see when his presentation becomes available. He states that he had to get approval from CAPA (?) to put it on his website but is promising it is forthcoming. It looks to me like he will walk a fine line and say that Lansdale and the Army brass were the masterminds with help from certain CIA elements. Looks like he will say Veciana lied at the behest of the Army (ASCI specifically) and there was no Bishop. And Fonzi was duped.

[Ron Bulman]

43 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Is the Newman scholarship really leaning toward a narrative where Helms, Harvey, Morales, Shackley and Hunt are not involved in the assassination?

Lansdale's virtually the poster boy for cooperation between CIA and military in covert affairs.

That's the hard part for me in what I've read so far.  I can accept Army Intelligence being involved, dumping on the CIA for cover when the HSCA came about by using Veciana.  Fonzi and virtually all of us since being duped.  

The concept does make me wonder about a lot of things.  You mention Lansdale, Prouty was military as well regarding CIA liaisons.  Morales came from the Marines, was he serving Military Intelligence in his position with the CIA?  It still seems to me Angleton was involved in the Oswald project regarding the USSR , and that he held the most information on him at the time of the assassination.   The training of the Operation Forty Cubans, and more of them involved in the Bay of Pigs was military in nature, the CIA by itself is questionable in it's ability to do so.  MI in Dealy Plaza.  It does get deep. 

[Larry Hancock]

It probably would be really good to wait on some details beyond what John has posted so far....its always easy to speculate but actually connecting the dots in terms of personnel, movements and documented activities is another story.  Otherwise you end up building your case on social networks, and presumed motives - and just one more scenario about how Dallas might have happened rather than how it actually did.

Just a few months ago we were all eagerly awaiting similar details to bolster the case against Skorzeny and a Fascist network - and are still waiting.   John has been straight forward in saying that we need to wait for his work to be published before evaluating it and that seems pretty reasonable. To date the documents he is presenting certainly show military interest in Alpha 66 and of course a military interest in Russian activity in Cuba (including getting intel on deployments and even samples of weapons).  Having read his newer works repeatedly I'm expecting far more detail when he actually gets the next books in print.

Then again, how much fun is just waiting...

Edited December 29, 2019 by Larry Hancock

[Steve Thomas]

I think you need to go back and read your von Clausewitz.

Carl von Clausewitz

https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/clausewitz-war-as-politics-by-other-means

 

24. WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.

We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.

 

The actual assassination of JFK was an act of war. That was the military's role. The political end was the CIA's role.

 

Steve Thomas

[Larry Hancock]

Its awfully easy to make such broad inferences...and I suppose it is satisfying.  However murder is a crime and when making accusations of murder I would say that facts should be offered rather than inferences. I'd hate to see our justice system or for that matter our social system run based on inferences about certain segments or individuals inferred guilt..or for pretty much anything else for that matter. Have we really come that far from demanding facts. Talk about a slippery slope.

 

[David Andrews]

Larry - I hear you about lumping together "Helms, Harvey, Morales, Shackley and Hunt" as a shorthand method, yet remember that - along with Angleton and Lansdale - these names have been Our Beloved Cast of Characters at EF for decades of past threads.  It's not like we haven't differentiated their roles at length, just as in the background political-military spectrum we've differentiated Bundy, Harriman, Lodge, Conein, Michael Forrestal, Lemnitzer, LeMay, etc.

In comparison, only one of the names on this roster is brought up on charges - in disguise - in Stone's JFK, with its "It was in the wind" panglossia of Dallas.  (That would be Lansdale; Bundy and Lamnitzer get mentions there as background color, while Dulles is afforded mastermind status.)

Edited December 29, 2019 by David Andrews

[Larry Hancock]

I have no problems with coming out with names, I expect my final monograph on the subject to be far more specific than I was even in NEXUS.  And roles need to be spelled out in some detail.  But beyond that if you want to really tackle this seriously you have to connect the dots all the way....putting specific people in Dallas, spelling out their roles in a way that fits known facts and literally connecting the dots among all the folks you identify as witting or unwitting participants.  If you can do that then I think this whole effort is making progress.  But if  you stay at the level of inference and just toss aroung terms like the "military", or the "CIA" then we are really on the same level as blaming the "mafia" or the "godfathers" or maybe the "ultra right".  We have been doing that for a very long time and it just does not satisfy me personally, seems like too much of a projection of individual world views and preconceptions onto a crime.  

And we know that is literally always a bad idea.