Oliver Stone and Judyth Baker

[Ron Bulman]

On 12/10/2019 at 5:09 PM, S.T. Patrick said:

I consider Rob a friend, as I know Bart does, as well. Rob and I differ a lot on the idea of conferences/gatherings/events etc., but I understand everything Rob is saying, and I understand where he is coming from. There is much good and bad that can be said of gathering. One thing that he absolutely nailed were the numbers. Rob's show and my show have comparable numbers. Yet, Rob is correct, we'll have speakers say "no" to coming on the show (where they'll get heard by thousands of people in the first 4-6 weeks), yet they'll jump at the chance to speak to 150 people in Dallas. And I think he's correct that demographics have a lot to do with that. Older researchers see conference invitations at the top of the research food chain. Younger researchers are more apt to understand the numbers of podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. But numbers are numbers. He's also correct that books are overpriced at the conferences (and by a lot). I discounted the magazines I took to Dallas. I wanted to get it out there. Did I hand them out for free? No. I had to buy them; but I discounted them, and I didn't raise the price for conferences. Rob is correct in a lot of this episode. It's a good one by him, and I say that as someone who finds a lot of value in the conferences.   

I know I'm getting older but I have trouble maintaining attention to audio only after 10-15 minutes.  I wonder how many other listeners don't listen to a whole "show" or podcast but are counted as listeners.  Time to do so is a factor, not in some cases at least a lack of interest.

In the first 15 minutes of Rob's comments he mentions Dr. Newman's presentation on Antonio Veciana not being that important.  I think it is in the big picture.  It brings home the fact that Gaeton Fonzi, and in turn I and many others were misled.    

[David Andrews]

In the first 15 minutes of Rob's comments he mentions Dr. Newman's presentation on Antonio Veciana not being that important.  I think it is in the big picture.  It brings home the fact that Gaeton Fonzi, and in turn I and many others were misled.  

Ron, I'm wondering why this topic doesn't have its own thread already, based on the scuttlebutt about Newman's thesis.  I imagine people want to see video on Newman's presentation first, or read it in some form.

The fact remains that Gaeton Fonzi witnessed David Atlee Phillips get upset and display avoidance behavior when Fonzi brought Veciana to confront Phillips while he was testifying before HSCA.  That in itself speaks of some involvement between Veciana and CIA, and of fear and guilt over it in Phillips.  Perhaps Veciana was involved with CIA through Phillips apart from his being run by military intelligence.

Also, if Fletcher Prouty is correct about CIA's penetration of the military, to the extent that some CIA officers (e. g., Ed Lansdale) held military rank when a military cover was needed, it is possible that Phillips was able to operate through the cover of military intelligence.  However, Phillips did, as far as Fonzi knew, approach Veciana as a civilian, in Veciana's version of the truth.

What say?  Should the mods move this post over to a new thread discussing the Newman research on Veciana?  Are there any EF members who attended Newman's COPA presentation and can summarize his thesis?

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by David Andrews

[W. Tracy Parnell]

39 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Ron, I'm wondering why this topic doesn't have its own thread already, based on the scuttlebutt about Newman's thesis.  I imagine people want to see video on Newman's presentation first, or read it in some form.

I started a thread shortly after the presentation and there didn't seem to be much interest. Perhaps Newman has not presented any evidence for his claim that Veciana was freed from prison to speak to Fonzi (not sure who he is saying did this-Fonzi or the Army). Rob Clark was there (I presume) and he didn't seem to be sure of (or didn't care) what Newman is claiming when I listened to his podcast. I am surprised that someone who heard the presentation has not provided more detail.

This topic is sure to further divide the research community (along with the Stone-Baker debacle) since Fonzi still has many supporters and under Newman's scenario he was (evidently) completely duped and did exactly what the Army brass and Veciana wanted-implicated the CIA to take the heat off them. Equally fascinating is the apparent claim that Veciana was in on the plot with the Army or at least did their biding for some unknown reason. Newman is evidently going to try and show a close relationship between Veciana and the Army. But Hubbard testified that they had little interest in Veciana beyond obtaining an interview with the frogmen who tried to plant a bomb on a Soviet ship during an Alpha 66/SNFE raid and obtaining intelligence from Veciana and other Alpha 66/SNFE members. This "incriminating" relationship had ended by 1966.

It will be interesting to see what Marie Fonzi and Veciana have to say about all of this.

[Guest]

I was told by a fellow DPUK member who was at CAPA that Newman's presentation was plagued by audio visual problems. And from another source I was told that  the cable was not working and after a 10 min delay he spoke off the cuff. Not defending anyone here just saying.

[Vince Palamara]

37 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

I was told by a fellow DPUK member who was at CAPA that Newman's presentation was plagued by audio visual problems. And from another source I was told that  the cable was not working and after a 10 min delay he spoke off the cuff. Not defending anyone here just saying.

That is what I heard, as well.

(Bart- your You Tube channel is excellent. When you can, please post more videos)

[Ron Bulman]

6 hours ago, David Andrews said:

In the first 15 minutes of Rob's comments he mentions Dr. Newman's presentation on Antonio Veciana not being that important.  I think it is in the big picture.  It brings home the fact that Gaeton Fonzi, and in turn I and many others were misled.  

Ron, I'm wondering why this topic doesn't have its own thread already, based on the scuttlebutt about Newman's thesis.  I imagine people want to see video on Newman's presentation first, or read it in some form.

The fact remains that Gaeton Fonzi witnessed David Atlee Phillips get upset and display avoidance behavior when Fonzi brought Veciana to confront Phillips while he was testifying before HSCA.  That in itself speaks of some involvement between Veciana and CIA, and of fear and guilt over it in Phillips.  Perhaps Veciana was involved with CIA through Phillips apart from his being run by military intelligence.

Also, if Fletcher Prouty is correct about CIA's penetration of the military, to the extent that some CIA officers (e. g., Ed Lansdale) held military rank when a military cover was needed, it is possible that Phillips was able to operate through the cover of military intelligence.  However, Phillips did, as far as Fonzi knew, approach Veciana as a civilian, in Veciana's version of the truth.

What say?  Should the mods move this post over to a new thread discussing the Newman research on Veciana?  Are there any EF members who attended Newman's COPA presentation and can summarize his thesis?

 

Well I thought of it. Started to.  What the heck.  Wish I knew ho to link yours Bart's and Vince's comments on it.

[Ron Bulman]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I started a thread shortly after the presentation and there didn't seem to be much interest. Perhaps Newman has not presented any evidence for his claim that Veciana was freed from prison to speak to Fonzi (not sure who he is saying did this-Fonzi or the Army). Rob Clark was there (I presume) and he didn't seem to be sure of (or didn't care) what Newman is claiming when I listened to his podcast. I am surprised that someone who heard the presentation has not provided more detail.

This topic is sure to further divide the research community (along with the Stone-Baker debacle) since Fonzi still has many supporters and under Newman's scenario he was (evidently) completely duped and did exactly what the Army brass and Veciana wanted-implicated the CIA to take the heat off them. Equally fascinating is the apparent claim that Veciana was in on the plot with the Army or at least did their biding for some unknown reason. Newman is evidently going to try and show a close relationship between Veciana and the Army. But Hubbard testified that they had little interest in Veciana beyond obtaining an interview with the frogmen who tried to plant a bomb on a Soviet ship during an Alpha 66/SNFE raid and obtaining intelligence from Veciana and other Alpha 66/SNFE members. This "incriminating" relationship had ended by 1966.

It will be interesting to see what Marie Fonzi and Veciana have to say about all of this.

That would take someone asking.  I don't think either one of them post on social media.  Both are a bit older than even me. 

[Pat Speer]

Yes, there were technical problems with John Newman's presentation.

For the last two years or so, Newman has been looking into Veciana's background, and has been surprised to discover that the paper trail re Veciana leads to military intelligence and not the CIA. He has taken from this that Veciana had no relationship with the CIA or Phillips--and that Veciana was convinced by military intelligence to say there was a relationship. I presume from this that he thinks Veciana was fed info about Phillips to point the HSCA in Phillips' direction, and thereby ensure the CIA would stay mum about the assassination. 

But I'm not entirely convinced--yet. Apparently, John believes there was no Bishop. I'm more inclined to believe there was a Bishop and that Phillips was Bishop--and even that Veciana knew Bishop--but that he never actually saw Bishop meet Oswald. 

 

P.S. John told me he was waiting to finish his deep dive before contacting Veciana.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

That is what I heard, as well.

(Bart- your You Tube channel is excellent. When you can, please post more videos)

Vince, I upped 200 vids this year. When I have more then will do so.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, there were technical problems with John Newman's presentation.

For the last two years or so, Newman has been looking into Veciana's background, and has been surprised to discover that the paper trail re Veciana leads to military intelligence and not the CIA. He has taken from this that Veciana had no relationship with the CIA or Phillips--and that Veciana was convinced by military intelligence to say there was a relationship. I presume from this that he thinks Veciana was fed info about Phillips to point the HSCA in Phillips' direction, and thereby ensure the CIA would stay mum about the assassination. 

But I'm not entirely convinced--yet. Apparently, John believes there was no Bishop. I'm more inclined to believe there was a Bishop and that Phillips was Bishop--and even that Veciana knew Bishop--but that he never actually saw Bishop meet Oswald. 

 

P.S. John told me he was waiting to finish his deep dive before contacting Veciana.

Veciana's head is not where it used to be any more, so good luck interviewing him.

[Rob Clark]

On 12/16/2019 at 10:35 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I know I'm getting older but I have trouble maintaining attention to audio only after 10-15 minutes.  I wonder how many other listeners don't listen to a whole "show" or podcast but are counted as listeners.  Time to do so is a factor, not in some cases at least a lack of interest.

In the first 15 minutes of Rob's comments he mentions Dr. Newman's presentation on Antonio Veciana not being that important.  I think it is in the big picture.  It brings home the fact that Gaeton Fonzi, and in turn I and many others were misled.    

You click play or download an episode, that counts as a listen. Whether or not you listen to the entire episode doesn't matter. Secondly, Antonio Veciana is not important when it comes to the Kennedy Assassination in my opinion. Whether or not Fonzi chose to believe a "story" without any evidence or corraboration, whether or not he was used by Veciana to get out of prison, and whether or not YOU chose to believe the insinuation by Fonzi that Phillips was Bishop...the one common thread here is that none of it can ever be proven one way or the other. We're spinning our wheels on a dead end street.

[Larry Hancock]

I'm going repeat myself a bit here........Army contact with Veciana and Alpha 66 is nothing new, we have had documents revealing that for years,  including the ones showing he was a designated Army source.  Those documents clearly show the Army interest in him and Alpha 66 as a group was intel on Cuba and on Russia inside Cuba, including on Russian weapons. They also show that the Army was giving them some supplies including explosives and that at that point Alpha 66 trusted them more than the CIA - of course by that point most of the Cuban groups including DRE felt the same way about the CIA.   I wrote about his Army connection back in 2006. 

We also know that the CIA had sources feeding them information on Alpha 66 and we have a document with Morales stating that Alpha 66 would be surprised at the extent of the information that CIA had on their missions, they knew about them in advance and apparently chose to let them proceed without being interdicted.  They also chose not to interdict DRE missions although they appear to have been much more clueless about DRE military activities.

Then in 1963 we have a memo from an Army staff member of the SGA expressing interest in using Alpha 66 operationally (given that their missions were generally more successful than many of the CIA's own) but a response from CIA speaking against that because Alpha 66 was uncontrollable. This was in the spring of 1963 after Mongoose when everybody was stumbling around trying to reset some plan against Castro...and at a time when that was occurring in a much broader group than just CIA. It was also a period in which JFK had opened the door to DOD becoming involved in covert ops against Cuba.

Of course none of that has to do with what anybody  else did with Veciana, including years later. Nor has anybody really put all the pieces together on what Phillips did with a variety of individual exiles in what appear to have been unsanctioned efforts against Castro for over a decade. If Veciana did follow Phillips to Chile with an AID job it would seem to speak more to Phillips than the Army so I'll be interested with what John does with Veciana from 1963 on. 

 I think John has done a fine job of deconstructing Veciana's book, the book is highly sensationalized and goes way beyond anything he claimed before it came out - which was originally limited to having made contact inside Cuba with somebody he suspected to be CIA and then having also beem in contact with that person once he came out.  Given that Veciana's group was involved in an assassination attempt on Castro and the fact that Phillips admitted working, under cover and in disguise, with a group inside Cuba I don't see how we can write off at least some minimal contact inside Cuba between Phillips and Veciana.  Nor do I see how Veciana would become a key player in the Dallas conspiracy.

I had my own questions about Veciana's reliability before the book and the book demolished his credibility for me; I don't know that I would believe much of anything he would say at this point...the book itself appears to be more than a bit of scam to me, even if he did have some contact with Phillips in Cuba or later.  I'm certainly interested in what John does find out about Veciana, and about who may have manipulated Alpha 66 in general.  There is an indication that the Army focused them on Russian targets and given the successes of their missions  its always been a question if they were getting special intel from some source other than their own contacts inside Cuba.

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 12/4/2019 at 11:52 PM, Larry Hancock said:

What Bart said...grin..   For the record though, I was only confirming that Frazier had been asked some questions about the doorway photo and repeating what I had heard him say.  Personally I think there are things that he knows that he is not telling us...could be any number of things, some of them quite serious.  I doubt it wold be to his advantage to say such things at this point in time and am skeptical that we will ever hear more from him than he has said up to this point.

Bumping this for Rob.

[Rob Clark]

15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Bumping this for Rob.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Hancock's statement! For more, see my thread on Frazier....

[Paul Jolliffe]

On 12/5/2019 at 12:52 AM, Larry Hancock said:

What Bart said...grin..   For the record though, I was only confirming that Frazier had been asked some questions about the doorway photo and repeating what I had heard him say.  Personally I think there are things that he knows that he is not telling us...could be any number of things, some of them quite serious.  I doubt it wold be to his advantage to say such things at this point in time and am skeptical that we will ever hear more from him than he has said up to this point.

Larry,

Can anyone here ask Buell Wesley Frazier what he thinks about the fact that Warren Commission document 1546, page 140, has him driving "Oswald" to the rifle range weeks before the assassination? I know that Buell Wesley Frazier did no such thing, but the remarkable fact remains that two men pretended to be "Frazier" and "Oswald" at the gun range! Garland Slack told the FBI that "Oswald" was driven to the Sports Drome Rifle Range by "Frazier".

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11941&relPageId=146&search=frazier

Further, the Oak Cliff mechanic, Robert Taylor, gave a statement to the FBI that he bought a rifle from "Oswald" in April of 1963. What interests me is that Taylor believed that "Oswald" was driven to the gas station in a 1959 Chevy (with battery problems!) by a 20 year old man with dark hair and a thin face. 

Since Buell Wesley Frazier drove a 1959 Chevy with battery problems, was about 20, had dark hair, a thin face and lived a few blocks away, I believe that not only was our "Oswald" being impersonated, but so too was Frazier!

Finally, remember that Captain Fritz tried like hell to browbeat Frazier into some sort of a confession to abetting "Oswald" on Friday night. According to Frazier, Fritz was "red faced" and storming mad when Frazier refused to sign a pre-written "confession." 

https://www.richmond.com/buell-wesley-frazier-a-commute-with-oswald-then-a-harsh/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html

Slack's statement, Taylor's statement, and Will Fritz's actions on Friday night would all seem to be evidence of a plan to implicate Frazier with "Oswald" as co-patsies. (This would have been prudent on the conspirators' part - the assassination would likely require multiple patsies to cover all the shooting angles needed to kill JFK.!)

What does Buell Wesley Frazier think of the evidence that a plan to frame him as a co-conspirator with "Oswald" was in place?

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I'm not  in touch with Frazier - I just had the opportunity to speak with him briefly a few times at the Lancer conferences and at this point I don't think Debra is in contact with him either.  Apparently someone is because he continues to appear at conferences; I just don't know who that might be.