Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Newman's "New Paradigm"


Recommended Posts

John Newman has authored what associate Alan Dale refers to as a “new paradigm.” This theory postulates that “a campaign of misdirection [was] launched by Antonio Veciana the day he walked out of the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in February 1976.” The purpose of this misdirection campaign, achieved through the “sudden early release of Veciana,” was to “control the narrative of the unfolding congressional investigations” and to "place blame on the CIA and direct attention away from the Pentagon.” Carl Sagan wisely said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But what proof exists for Newman’s audacious statements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't consider Fonzi's findings on the subject to be too "sacred", as it is called; becoming wedded to any theory is a mistake. If it turned out to be wrong, oh well, that's the way it goes. But the fact remains that Fonzi's investigation produced the most evidence and witnesses to Phillips' and Veciana's actions in the 60s.

I'm aware that Newman has issues with Veciana's memory of a timeline that occurred 60 years ago. My reaction to that is mostly, "so what?" It doesn't somehow negate everything else.

And the Rube Goldberg scenario he is supposedly positing about Veciana being used to blame the CIA is ridiculous, IMO.

Edited by Matt Allison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Gaeton Fonzi's written account of David Atlee Phillips' discomfort at encountering Veciana, of whom he demonstrably (in Fonzi's opinion) had some knowledge.  I wouldn't put it past Veciana, however, to have a motive other than truth telling for agreeing to that encounter, or to do the bidding of an outside motivator.  We have to look at Newman's argument in his own words to evaluate what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Some guy on Facebook offered to buy her a copy of Newman's book. She agreed, but I don't know if he came through or not. :)

That is going to be difficult as the book is not out for at least a year.

But no yack yack yack yack......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I was referring to his last book.

The material Pease is referring to is going to in his next book. Unless I missed the big meeting here.

Hence my first post i this thread 'ere.

Edited by Bart Kamp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

The material Pease is referring to is going to in his next book. Unless I missed the big meeting here.

Hence my first post i this thread 'ere.

Bart-

I think what Tracy is referring to is the particular exchange between Dr. Newman and Lisa Pease on FB where Doug Campbell weighed in on the discussion.  Doug Campbell kept directing Lisa to read Dr. Newman's 3rd book and posted a link. Doug offered to buy the book for her if she would read it.   Lisa Pease responded by saying go ahead and buy it and send it to her.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Greg Kooyman said:

Bart-

I think what Tracy is referring to is the particular exchange between Dr. Newman and Lisa Pease on FB where Doug Campbell weighed in on the discussion.  Doug Campbell kept directing Lisa to read Dr. Newman's 3rd book and posted a link. Doug offered to buy the book for her if she would read it.   Lisa Pease responded by saying go ahead and buy it and send it to her.       

That is correct, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2020 at 6:32 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

and to "place blame on the CIA and direct attention away from the Pentagon.”

Can you name a single key CIA figure in this affair who was NOT in the military (or reporting directly to someone who had been in the military) of some sort prior to service?

Every single recently released document about LUCIEN CONEIN is from the CIA....  except he was ARMY on loan to the CIA with their approvals.

Why is it so hard to accept that the CIA was the guard dog, taking and dealing with the blame while the US Military did whatever it was they wanted...??

889428930_LucienConienLOOKSLIKECIA-butwasARMY.jpg.5885e2f576fa007061bb7eca494e37b8.jpg

1186178853_Coneintostayinmilitarystatus-web.jpg.d23a8403dd304c390f2ec1d68f2ba9a2.jpg

 

1348590161_LUCIENCONEINwasACSIArmy-notCIA-web.thumb.jpg.84355c64c8d04913413b0c9cf3d1a899.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

That is correct, thank you.

 

Nope it is not.

 

The post by JN refers to his work of his up and coming book Vol.4

This is what Pease responded to, along the way it got lost in translation and Doug made mention of Vol 3 and offering sending it to her. To which she replied she'd accept.

 

So:

 

1/She responded to material in part which will be become clearer with the footnoted evidence of Vol. 4. But she got hot and bothered by preliminary research and text from JN.

2/ Pease has not even read vol. 3 yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl Sagan wisely said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

On 2/3/2020 at 6:32 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Carl Sagan wisely said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

I believe that is a commonly mistaken understanding concerning evidence:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HgRWvqf-wM

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Doug made mention of Vol 3 and offering sending it to her. To which she replied she'd accept.

 

And that is what I was referring to when I said:

"Some guy on Facebook offered to buy her a copy of Newman's book. She agreed, but I don't know if he came through or not. "

So, what is the point of this discussion really? Maybe you are a Newman fan (I don't know) and just want to give me a hard time because I don't buy his theory. If so, let me know what your problems with my article are and we can have a discussion.

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Carl Sagan wisely said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

I believe that is a commonly mistaken understanding concerning evidence:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HgRWvqf-wM

The fact that any number in the lottery comes up is not an extraordinary event. Everybody knows one number will be picked (eventually) and they know why. Anyway, "extraordinary" (in the sense I was using it) refers to a new claim that goes against what is previously known and accepted. If Newman wants to make such a claim, he has to prove it-to me anyway and the CIA-did-it people probably feel the same way.

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...