23-03-2013, 04:54 PM
IF you read the reissue version of John's wonderful book, Oswald and the CIA, you will see that he names James Angleton as the guy running the mechanics of the plot.
He said he felt he owed his readers that much since he had been asked that question a lot. And previously had not answered it.
John Newman is not and was not a spook in the normal sense of that term. In other words, he was never an operative. He was always an analyst for the NSA. Which is what the NSA was and is as opposed to the CIA.
His is a professor also at Maryland. As was Peter Scott before he retired.
Peter also worked in the State Department for the Canadian government. We all know that State Departments are known for providing cover for intel operatives. Does this make Peter a "spook"?
Peter created the term "negative template" for branding certain works by the WC and HSCA and other gov't agencies as including less than they should. And what was left out told us much about them.
In this case, I would argue that Newman's two books go beyond what Peter ever contributed in those two areas. That is, in the field of Kennedy's intent to withdraw from Vietnam, and the manipulation of intel asset Oswald in advance of the assassination.
So one could argue, just as easily, that it is Newman's work that indicates a negative template in Scott's previous work. And after also, with that all so silly, "barium meal" stuff that Scott tried to use in regards to Oswald and Mexico City.
Newman's two books are excellent and valuable contributions in their own right. And, in my view, neither has been surpassed in their area since. And considering the fact that JFK and Vietnam came out in 1992, that is saying something.
John has since retired from the field. We are all the poorer for that absence. In my opinion, no writer ever burned as brightly or illuminated as much in such a short time. I could never have written what I did about Oswald in my current book without John's milestone work.
He said he felt he owed his readers that much since he had been asked that question a lot. And previously had not answered it.
John Newman is not and was not a spook in the normal sense of that term. In other words, he was never an operative. He was always an analyst for the NSA. Which is what the NSA was and is as opposed to the CIA.
His is a professor also at Maryland. As was Peter Scott before he retired.
Peter also worked in the State Department for the Canadian government. We all know that State Departments are known for providing cover for intel operatives. Does this make Peter a "spook"?
Peter created the term "negative template" for branding certain works by the WC and HSCA and other gov't agencies as including less than they should. And what was left out told us much about them.
In this case, I would argue that Newman's two books go beyond what Peter ever contributed in those two areas. That is, in the field of Kennedy's intent to withdraw from Vietnam, and the manipulation of intel asset Oswald in advance of the assassination.
So one could argue, just as easily, that it is Newman's work that indicates a negative template in Scott's previous work. And after also, with that all so silly, "barium meal" stuff that Scott tried to use in regards to Oswald and Mexico City.
Newman's two books are excellent and valuable contributions in their own right. And, in my view, neither has been surpassed in their area since. And considering the fact that JFK and Vietnam came out in 1992, that is saying something.
John has since retired from the field. We are all the poorer for that absence. In my opinion, no writer ever burned as brightly or illuminated as much in such a short time. I could never have written what I did about Oswald in my current book without John's milestone work.