Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Newman on Lisa Pease's challenges to his research


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I remembered a conversation Larry Hancock and I had in the Forum back in 2017 about JFK's, Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23631-foreign-intelligence-advisory-board/

Larry and I had some pretty good exchanges, I think.

 

The Minutes of those meetings make for pretty interesting reading.

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1062

At the time I was struck by the minutes of the meeting on September 12-13, 1963

 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1960

 

Steve Thomas

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Anthony Mugan said:

It is probably a mistake to think of this in terms of 'the CIA' or 'the army' or 'the mob' rather than as a network of individuals that came together to do this, centered, at an operational level around a core group of anti-Castro Cuban exiles, many of whom seem to have been in Operation 40 or very closely associated with that, supported by individuals such as Morales, Robertson, Martino, Roselli etc who were also closely connected into operations out of Miami against Cuba. The very short connection path from Roselli (and Giancarna) to Ruby via the Chicago mob is highly persuasive of how that side of things came together.

 

Anthony - see our past threads for the ins and outs of our thinking.  Larry, and founder John Simkin, have been influential in getting us to consider things non-monolithically and recognize congress of interest within and across organizations.  Past topics have considered cross-purposes and rivalries, even in the cover-up.  We slip into shorthand sometimes, yet we have this history to draw on.  I'm sure John Newman's eventual publication will recognize fine distinctions and not slip into a Manichean dualism of DoD vs. CIA.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David and Steve make good points about the long history of discussions on this forum; there have been some highly educational dialogs over the years and sometimes they tend to get lost in the past (and my own memory). 

And Steve illustrates a very important discussion,  exploring the fact that there are actually a number of compartmentalized intelligence and security functions not only among agencies and services but within each.   I've always been impressed that the Foreign Intelligence Board almost always gave much more accurate roll up estimates on "CIA operations than came from within Plans/Operations itself.   I recently came across Bissell defending the intel on the landings in Cuba by saying they had consulted the higher level intel estimates - without noting that said estimate was highly negative about the chance of success in ousting Castro or triggering a broad revolt against him.  Of course anybody listening to Bissell would have been advised to keep both hands on their wallet.

We also forget that even the NSC had its own intelligence advisory staff, independent of the rest. 

To say that intel collection was fragmented in the sixties (and often highly competitive) would be accurate; of course that pales in comparison to what it is today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2019 at 11:15 AM, David Andrews said:

Anthony - see our past threads for the ins and outs of our thinking.  Larry, and founder John Simkin, have been influential in getting us to consider things non-monolithically and recognize congress of interest within and across organizations.  Past topics have considered cross-purposes and rivalries, even in the cover-up.  We slip into shorthand sometimes, yet we have this history to draw on.  I'm sure John Newman's eventual publication will recognize fine distinctions and not slip into a Manichean dualism of DoD vs. CIA.

 

Okay. But hasn't Newman already claimed that Veciana did NOT work for the CIA, and that he lied about seeing Oswald and David Phillips together?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite the sophisticated discussion thread, amongst the true experts in this case.  At the risk of rushing in where angels dare not tread, I would add that: (a) putting stock in what Antonio Veciana states or admits to is a big leap of faith; and (b) there is not a clear distinction between military/DOD and CIA (in my experience, they are one and the same).   Therefore, to debate whether Alpha 66 was run by Army Intelligence vs. CIA is (imho) a distinction without a difference (i.e. a logical fallacy). 

Also, with all due respect to Douglas, I would not characterize Lisa Pease as "the protégé of Jim DiEugenio who always echoes what he promulgates".  That is not appropriately respectful of two excellent researchers and authors, who have done more to push the truth forward in these complex stories than anyone on the planet.  Life and reality is much more complex than just (as Larry states) attributing decisions/actions to the Mafia,  White Supremacists,  the Radical Right, CIA,  Military, Fascists, etc. 

Happy New Year!

Gene

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

This is quite the sophisticated discussion thread, amongst the true experts in this case.  At the risk of rushing in where angels dare not tread, I would add that: (a) putting stock in what Antonio Veciana states or admits to is a big leap of faith; and (b) there is not a clear distinction between military/DOD and CIA (in my experience, they are one and the same).   Therefore, to debate whether Alpha 66 was run by Army Intelligence vs. CIA is (imho) a distinction without a difference (i.e. a logical fallacy). 

Also, with all due respect to Douglas, I would not characterize Lisa Pease as "the protégé of Jim DiEugenio who always echoes what he promulgates".  That is not appropriately respectful of two excellent researchers and authors, who have done more to push the truth forward in these complex stories than anyone on the planet.  Life and reality is much more complex than just (as Larry states) attributing decisions/actions to the Mafia,  White Supremacists,  the Radical Right, CIA,  Military, Fascists, etc. 

Happy New Year Gene.  Well said.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay. But hasn't Newman already claimed that Veciana did NOT work for the CIA, and that he lied about seeing Oswald and David Phillips together?

 

Wait for Newman - he can't possibly draw and quarter the business as we fear he will.

NB that Gaeton Fonzi witnessed that Phillips recognized Veciana at the HSCA and fled the room rather than talk to him.  I believe Fonzi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Andrews said:
9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay. But hasn't Newman already claimed that Veciana did NOT work for the CIA, and that he lied about seeing Oswald and David Phillips together?


Wait for Newman - he can't possibly draw and quarter the business as we fear he will.

NB that Gaeton Fonzi witnessed that Phillips recognized Veciana at the HSCA and fled the room rather than talk to him.  I believe Fonzi.

 

Good point.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...