In Part II of our discussion with DR. JOHN NEWMAN, Dr. Newman discusses JFK, Oswald, and Cuba. In this episode, Newman and S.T. Patrick address the CIA’s role in the overthrow of Batista, the truth regarding the supposed uprising-that-wasn’t at the Bay of Pigs, the destructive relationship between JFK and his own Joint Chiefs, the June Cobb story, Oswald’s 1963 trips to New Orleans and Mexico City, and who Dr. Newman reads and trusts in the JFK assassination community.
To listen to part I of Dr. Newman’s discussion with S.T. Patrick, download or listen to episode 017 (Dr. Newman on JFK & Vietnam) of the Midnight Writer News Show today.
Dr. John Newman can be followed at jfkjmn.com. His books can be purchased on Amazon.com. He is the author of JFK & Vietnam, Oswald & the CIA, Where Angels Tread Lightly: The Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume I, and Countdown to Darkness: The Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume II.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
It was the Fed Reserve that got Kennedy killed no one else
Jefferson Morely and Dr. John Newman appear to have collabarated in the past on research. Mr. Morely seems to have concluded Nosenko was bona fide whereas Dr. Newman suggests he clearly was not? In fact, Dr. Newman gave me the impression in Episode 023 JFK, Oswald & Cuba, the only reason Nosenko was ultimately accecpted as bona fide was to legitamate Nosenko’s claims about Oswald, and presumably thereby forestall WWIII.
Incidently, Tennent H. Bagley wrote an entire book denouncing Nosenko’s bona fides, “Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games.”
Excellent post, Shane.
Imho, Bagley’s 2007 book “Spy Wars” and his 2014 pdf “Ghosts of the Spy War” are “must reads,” background-wise, for any serious researcher/student of the JFK assassination, and/or the ascendancy to the Presidency of the United States of KGB-boy Vladimir Putin’s mobbed-up “useful idiot,” Donald Trump.
Now, For What It’s Worth:
Bagley did *not* believe the KGB/GRU had killed Kennedy, but *did* believe, based on false-defector Nosenko’s ludicrous and insistent denials that the KGB had interviewed Oswald, that Oswald must have been in contact with the KGB before he “defected” to the USSR in late 1959 …
Thanks for this episode, albeit it’s a bit of a shame about the relatively poor audio quality (IMO anyway) — Newman’s voice is echo-ish, and it generally sounds like he’s in another room — also at times his voice seems slightly garbled, but this could also be because to me he often speaks too quickly.
Anyway, of course Oswald’s alleged defection is well known, as are the anomalies of his return, e.g. the ease of it, how little scrutiny he apparently received despite his behavior in Russia and the sensitive job he held beforehand, as well as the fact he seemed to have close contact with de Mohrenschildt after his return, someone who’s strongly suspected of having been an intelligence asset — I find the theory that the Oswald defection was a ploy by US intelligence to out a Soviet mole very interesting, and entirely plausible — it would also explain a lot of the above.
I was happy to have Dr. Newman on, but he preferred using speaker phone so he could maneuver through his notes. That explains why the audio sounds echo-y. That said, he did a wonderful job, and we were glad to have him.
John Newman is known in the JFKA community as a JFKA expert. He is also known as an expert on JFK and Viet Nam.
I Understand John Newman was trained in the U.S. Army Intelligence School as an Analyst.
John Newman is regarded as an expert on NSAM 263, a national security advice memorandum issued on 5 October 1963.
I disagree with John Newman’s view that the CIA carried out the JFKA.
What I do deal with here are facts:
o Newman has claimed he was trained as a U.S. Army
Intelligence Analyst, MOS 8600.
MOS means “Military Occupational Specialty”.
o Newman never set foot in Viet Nam.
o Newman never ran agents in Viet Nam.
o Newman never had a Vietnamese lover.
o Newman never got shot at in Viet Nam.
o Newman wouldn’t know “Get some.” or “There it is.”
My MOS was 8666: Counterintelligence Officer. I ran agents in Viet Nam. I got shot at. Had some great meals.
Had a lover.
OK. So I probably know more about the war in Viet Nam than John Newman. So What?
Newman’s stated position is that JFK planned to pull U.S. forces out of Viet Nam.
Let’s look at NSAM 263:
6. The following statement be approved as current U.S. policy toward South Vietnam and constitute the substance of the government position to be presented both in Congressional testimony and in public statements.
a. The security of South Vietnam remains vital to United States security. For this reason, we adhere to the overriding objective of denying this country to Communism and of suppressing the Viet Cong insurgency as promptly as possible. (By suppressing the insurgency we mean reducing it to proportions manageable by the national security forces of the GVN, unassisted by the presence of U.S. military forces.) We believe the U.S. part of the task can be completed by the end of 1965, the terminal date which we are taking as the time objective of our counterinsurgency programs.
Read it yourself.
Ask yourself what this means.
Ask yourself whether this text means what John Newman maintains what it says it does.
Newman maintains this text means JFK would pull U.S. forces out of VIETNAM by the end of 1965.
I don’t think this text means it does. I interpret this text to mean the U.S. will pull its troops out of Viet Nam if if SVN is able to resist the Viet Cong by the end of 1965.