Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Newman's "New Paradigm"


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, David Josephs said:

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

 

 

I agree with Mr. Josephs. It’s not either/or Military or CIA, it’s both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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.

Ah I understand and thanks for clarifying. I'd say that it also depends on what you yourself take to be "extraordinary". Dr Craig may have implied that winning the lottery would itself (or could) be categorized as an extraordinary event given the odds? (I could be wrong). His writing on the subject matter (written form):

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/do-extraordinary-events-require-extraordinary-evidence/

To quote his concluding thoughts on the matter:

Quote

What is really at issue is the meaning of the term “extraordinary.” Sceptics seem to equivocate on its meaning in order to mislead people into thinking that an enormous or unusual amount of evidence is required in order to establish an event which has a high prior improbability.

 

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

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I agree with Mr. Josephs. It’s not either/or Military or CIA, it’s both. 

I agree with Mr. Josephs and Mr. Brancato.

MKNAOMI was a CIA operation involving military men, run out of Army Special Operations Division out of Fort Detrick,  For example.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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.

The issue is the mix up (of Vols 3 and 4) and I already explained that Pease responded way too early as a defence mechanism without actually and fully knowing what is to be brought to the table. I thought that was pretty clear and by the sound of it you fell in the same trap. Once the book is out with all  proof then it may be worthwhile to discuss it.

And no I am not some fanboy. I have not even read Vols 1 and 2 yet. Nice try tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

The issue is the mix up (of Vols 3 and 4) and I already explained that Pease responded way too early as a defence mechanism without actually and fully knowing what is to be brought to the table. I thought that was pretty clear and by the sound of it you fell in the same trap. Once the book is out with all  proof then it may be worthwhile to discuss it.

And no I am not some fanboy. I have not even read Vols 1 and 2 yet. Nice try tho.

Never accused you of being a "fanboy" and if you'll read my post I was merely asking if that were the case. I can't know the position of every person on this board on every issue. The only reason I asked is that I know you post documents from Malcolm Blunt who is a friend of Newman.

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

8 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I agree with Mr. Josephs and Mr. Brancato.

MKNAOMI was a CIA operation involving military men, run out of Army Special Operations Division out of Fort Detrick,  For example.

 

 

To be clear, Newman evidently agrees with all of you to some extent. He is going to say that while the Pentagon was the prime mover, CIA elements were involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny you refer to precise terms as in being a fan vs fanboy. Yet you publish an article of which the evidence still needs to be presented in the author's forthcoming book. Which if I recall correctly will be early 2021. 

And just because I collect bags of documents from M.B. who also shares his docs with JN on spook matters, which I have no huge interest in. Is as far as the connect goes.

Perhaps you should have waited with your piece once the book and its footnotes have been released. This whole post is a non-issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Perhaps you should have waited with your piece once the book and its footnotes have been released. This whole post is a non-issue.

There is an interest in what Newman is doing and not just by me. As I explained in my article, I think there is enough detail in Newman's and Dale's Facebook postings to determine what is going on. We should know for sure by April (his next presentation) if not sooner-no need to wait for the book. If I have anything wrong, I'll do an update.

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

Quote from Tracey Parnell’s recent post on Dr. John Newman’s bizarre theory of Veciana. 

In conclusion, John Newman believes that Veciana was ordered to run a “misdirection campaign” to both control the congressional investigations and take heat off the Pentagon-based murderers of JFK and place it on Langley. The most logical way for Veciana to accomplish this feat was to gain the ear of the credulous Gaeton Fonzi, who was very amenable to the idea of CIA complicity in the death of JFK. But while Veciana indeed told Fonzi about his mysterious mentor “Maurice Bishop,” he inexplicably refused to characterize Bishop as CIA in every relevant discussion of him between 1976 to 1979 when the “misdirection campaign” was supposedly at its peak. It wasn’t until years later that Veciana began to hint at CIA involvement and finally took that to the next stage in 2013 with his “identification” of Phillips

Tracey for lack of a better analogy, Dr. Newman is taking a Bicycle and trying to build the Space Shuttle with it. All this “Oswald was being directed to get it in the record” nonsense by Dr. Newman Is pure speculation on his part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think so Steve. First, Newman has to prove (not just suggest it was possible) that Veciana was released early and what entity accomplished it. Even if Veciana did obtain an early release, Newman then has to prove it was for a sinister reason and not the logical reason-for the investigators to hear what he might know about the Cuba angle.

I believe Veciana made up the story about Bishop. And if that is true and he was released early, his Bishop story makes even more sense because he then had to "give them something" and Bishop's meeting with LHO accomplished that nicely. But the early release theory doesn't make sense to me, mostly because of the actions of Fonzi. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Newman has to prove (not just suggest it was possible)

followed by

Quote

I believe Veciana made up the story about Bishop. And if that is true and he was released early, his Bishop story makes even more sense because he then had to "give them something" and Bishop's meeting with LHO accomplished that nicely. But the early release theory doesn't make sense to me, mostly because of the actions of Fonzi. 

 

You understand what I am getting at W. Tracy Parnell? 

You have to prove that and not just suggest it was possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m just going to wait until book 4 is out, then read the first three volumes again, as I’ll likely have forgotten what is in them by late 2021. Judging by a thread JN posted on Facebook, he’s just as occupied now with Lemnitzer as he is with all the Veciana stuff, so book 4 will hopefully show what he thinks was going on.

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...