John Newman on Antonio Veciana

[Douglas Caddy]

John Newman posted this on Facebook today:

 

In November 2017 at the Lancer conference in Dallas, and again in March 2018 at the conference in San Francisco, I gave a presentation on Antonio Veciana and his claim that Bishop/Phillips recruited and trained him in Havana beginning in mid-1960. In Volume III, ("Into the Storm") coming at the end of 2018, there are a least two major chapters on the Veciana story about his relationship with David Phillips. The attached chart is worth studying; it speaks volumes about Veciana's story and how poorly our research community handled the alleged recruitment in Cuba over several decades (the person who noticed was Cuban intelligence chief, Fabian Escalante, in 1995). I am releasing this chart now because it takes a few months just to begin understanding its ramifications. I hope you enjoy working through them.

[Guest]

Does this thread exist for the so called esteemed researchers who bought his story and spread it as gospel are now coming into this thread to atone for their monumental screw up?

Of course not.............they are real men no doubt!

 

The JFK Doctor is right with his remark "The attached chart is worth studying; it speaks volumes about Veciana's story and how poorly our research community handled the alleged recruitment in Cuba over several decades (the person who noticed was Cuban intelligence chief, Fabian Escalante, in 1995)."

Some people at this forum ought to take note with their 'research and their gospel'

[Steve Thomas]

16 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

John Newman posted this on Facebook today:

 

In November 2017 at the Lancer conference in Dallas, and again in March 2018 at the conference in San Francisco, I gave a presentation on Antonio Veciana and his claim that Bishop/Phillips recruited and trained him in Havana beginning in mid-1960. In Volume III, ("Into the Storm") coming at the end of 2018, there are a least two major chapters on the Veciana story about his relationship with David Phillips. The attached chart is worth studying; it speaks volumes about Veciana's story and how poorly our research community handled the alleged recruitment in Cuba over several decades (the person who noticed was Cuban intelligence chief, Fabian Escalante, in 1995). I am releasing this chart now because it takes a few months just to begin understanding its ramifications. I hope you enjoy working through them.

You can read a copy of The Secret War, by Fabian Escalante online here:

https://ia600401.us.archive.org/20/items/FabianEscalanteSecretWarCubaCIA/Fabian%20Escalante%20Secret%20War%20Cuba%20CIA_text.pdf

 

Steve Thomas

 

[Larry Hancock]

My own current opinion, including taking notes during John's presentation last year in Dallas,  is that Phillips was likely aware of Veciana while in Cuba, as well as the incipient insurgent groups Veciana was associating with...however the very expanded story that Veciana has only recently begun to tell in regard to Cuba (including his being recruiting inside Cuba as an operational CIA special asset of sorts) does not pass the acid test for me - for a number of reasons.

On the other hand, I think there is a possibility of some type of connection between the two men following Veciana's arrival in the United States, primarily dealing with the origins and media promotion of Alpha 66. That connection could well have extended on to Vecian's work in Latin America.  I'll await John's research on that time frame.  There is a good deal of circumstantial information showing that there was some sort of covert manipulation of Alpha 66 but its something also clearly outside standard/known CIA projects.  Morales makes mention of it and strangely enough in 1963 when senior Army members of the Special Group expressed interest in using Alpha 66 there was strong push back from CIA - regional Army intelligence clearly did have an informant relationship with Viciana.

I'm forced to approach both Viciana's self described and very much expanded role - as presented in his book - and Escalante's material very critically.  In terms of Escalante that's because he clearly did take material from prior, published JFK research and also because his book was written with a clear agenda and  its virtually impossible to document some of what's in it beyond taking him at his word.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

I spoke to John Newman about this at both conferences mentioned in his post. And I think John is right to say people should be wary of witnesses whose stories change, but that he is wrong in thinking we should throw Veciana's story out because his story changed. Fonzi accepted Veciana's story because the Bishop in his story ran a near parallel existence to Phillips' real life. He also observed that Phillips' own behavior suggested he was trying to hide something. Those facts don't disappear because Veciana changed his story (or corrected his story, take your pick) over the years.

There's also this. While some have tried to portray Veciana's recent activities as an attempt to cash in and/or smear the CIA for what he viewed as a betrayal, this doesn't wash when you examine the steps leading to Veciana writing a book. As of 2013, he had no intention of writing a book. He was urged to come forward, however, by Marie Fonzi and his own son. He then acknowledged Bishop was Phillips and that he'd known it all along. He then came to Bethesda and both claimed Bishop was Phillips and defended the CIA. That's right. Veciana came to a prominent JFK assassination conference and spent a big chunk of his time defending the CIA.

So, no, he's not some sour grapes guy trying to cash in. So what's left? 

Could he be, gulp, someone who lived a life without writing everything down, who has trouble remembering exactly what happened?

God forbid such a person should exist on our planet, where everyone remembers everything exactly as it happened.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Pat Speer

[Larry Hancock]

It's probably worth noting that Phillips stated that he had never heard of Veciana, even during his HSCA interviews....that is an utter impossibility given his stations and jobs - so its pretty safe to say he had something to cover up.