From hater to admirer: Antonio Veciana’s JFK story

“Like many of my exile contemporaries, at the time, in the early 1960’s, I believed John F. Kennedy was a traitor to the Cuban exiles and to this country. Yet, over time, I came to recognize that President Kennedy was not a traitor, but someone who acted in the interests always of the United States of America.”

“In my research of President Kennedy’s life, I came upon the American University speech, which, to me, was one of the greatest speeches ever given by an American president. After studying that speech, I decided I couldn’t go from this world without saying that John F. Kennedy was a great man and a great president who had great vision for this country and the world.” Antonio Veciana

Antonio Veciana – Admissions and Revelations from AARC Library on Vimeo.

30 comments

  1. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    Veciana is a rare bird among the older Cuban exiles with his self-critical approach to Kennedy and even to Castro. He recognizes that JFK wasn´t a traitor to the Cuban cause (it implies Cuban exiles actually incurred in a mistake by thinking on the solution of the Cuban problem through the Americans instead of the Cubans themselves) and he clearly affirms that the CIA plans to destabilize Castro regimen failed because of the overwhelming popular support to Castro.
    Moreover, Veciana gave a hint about the underlying cause of failure regarding Castro assassination attempts: when he states that Cubans are sometimes courageous, but sometimes forget to be so, he is meaning that those who tried to kill Castro also want to see the funeral on television.

  2. Greg says:

    This was the highlight of the entire conference it was a packed room and everybody was quietly listening. Fernald Armand does a great job of translation as Antonio V confirms Maurice Bishop was David Phillips. He tells the story of seeing Oswald with Phillips. Very important.

    • Of course, when introduced to Phillips, he declined to identify him as “Maurice Bishop.”

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt

      Then there is the fact that Oswald was in New Orleans when Veciana claimed to see him in Dallas.

      Veciana’s drug conviction doesn’t enhance his credibility.

      This has been discussed her before. But conspiracy factoids never die.

      • It is as if McAdams did not listen nor comprehend what Veciana said in this presentation.

        But the “professor” can cover it with his perpetual mantra: “This has been discussed her (sic) before. But conspiracy factoids never die.”

        “Of course, when introduced to Phillips, he declined to identify him as “Maurice Bishop.”~McAdams

        Of course! Yes “of course” indeed, Veciana explained in great detail why he waited until Phillips/Bishop had passed away to finally come forward with his definitive identification of the two as actually one man.

        It is beyond tiresome to read this tripe from McAdams day in day out…
        \\][//

        • Greg says:

          “It is beyond tiresome to read this tripe from McAdams day in day out” Willy.

          Willy, you hit the nail on the head, I thought Photon was Mr johnny on the spot, but the ‘professor’ is the new johnny. As I mentioned in a different post, McAdams has no credibility and does not add to the story, he just twists everything. I read most of what you write, and other than our different views on the Z film, I agree with what you say. Happy reading, Greg

        • Of course! Yes “of course” indeed, Veciana explained in great detail why he waited until Phillips/Bishop had passed away to finally come forward with his definitive identification of the two as actually one man.

          Translation: he concocted an excuse for his inconsistent testimony.

          Did he have an excuse for seeing Oswald in Dallas at a time Oswald was in New Orleans?

          • Greg says:

            Twist is some more Professor, Willy is correct, you have not listened to what he said at the presentation or you did not understand. He would not say he saw Oswald if he did not see him. He is a credible witness. Stop twisting.

          • The “Translation” was already made from Spanish to English “doctor”.

            What is your “proof” that Oswald was in New Orleans at the time Veciana saw him with Maurice Bishop in Dallas?

            And don’t send me to your website to trudge through another load of your spinning anal hurlant.
            \\][//

          • He would not say he saw Oswald if he did not see him. He is a credible witness. Stop twisting.

            Why? Because he tells you something you want to believe?

            How plausible is it that he could have seen Oswald in Dallas at a time when Oswald was in New Orleans?

          • Tom S. says:

            Why? Because he tells you something you want to believe?

            How plausible is it that he could have seen Oswald in Dallas at a time when Oswald was in New Orleans?

            This is one of the core issues of “the problem”. If we could all agree that unverifiable, single sourced witness claims
            are not to be accorded great weight, more so it they are inconsistent over time, there might be only half as many comments
            submitted in these “discussions”.

            Before embracing and presenting the otherwise unverifiable claims of single source witnesses, why not contemplate how a
            reasonable person might weigh the claims of such a witness?

            It does nothing for me when I read a comment presenting an assertion that Veciana’s latest unverifiable claims are weighty,
            so consider why such an endorsement is objected to by Dr. McAdams. IOW, why do it? Why waste the time it takes me and other readers to read it? Instead, why not save your endorsement until you can present even detailed circumstantial evidence in support of it?
            There are at least several others places where “did too,” and “did not,” back and forths are welcomed and encouraged.
            This is not one of those places. Emotion and insults manifest themselves to fill the supporting evidence gaps. It gets old.

          • Bogman says:

            You’ll have to explain Veciana’s motives for lying about this for 40 years. It sure isn’t money – I don’t believe his book ever did come out. It sure isn’t notoriety or publicity — he got shot in the head for his troubles but survived. He also withheld the real name of his CIA contact for decades in hopes, I would assume, of resuming the war.

          • ‘there are at least several others places where “did too,” and “did not,” back and forths are welcomed and encouraged.
            This is not one of those places. Emotion and insults manifest themselves to fill the supporting evidence gaps. It gets old.’

            Should this not stop every commenter in their tracks to carefully consider how he or she engages on this site? Is the participation meant to advance the inquiry or to stall the debate for another decade?

          • Veciana claimed to see Oswald with “Bishop” in August.

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=957&relPageId=480

            But Oswald didn’t leave New Orleans until September 25.

            Of course, you could claim the CIA flew Oswald to Dallas to meet with Phillips.

            But why? If Phillips was flying around the country, why not just fly to New Orleans?

          • There are at least several others places where “did too,” and “did not,” back and forths are welcomed and encouraged.
            This is not one of those places.

            You are lecturing me about that?

            Bizarre.

          • You’ll have to explain Veciana’s motives for lying about this for 40 years.

            Was this a lie?

            (172)When Veciana was shown a photograph of David Phillips by Schweiker’s investigator, he did not provide an absolutely conclusive response.(158) For that reason, it was decided that Veciana be given the opportunity to observe Phillips in person.(159) Schweiker arranged for Veciana to be present at a luncheon meeting of the Association of Retired Intelligence Officers in Reston, Va., on September 17, 1976.(160) Phillips was one of the founders of the association. Veciana was introduced to Phillips prior to the luncheon.(161) . . . According to Schweiker’s investigator, there was no indication of recognition on
            Phillips’ part.(163) Following the luncheon, Veciana had the opportunity to speak with Phillips in Spanish. (164) Veciana asked Phillips if he was in Havana in 1960 and if he knew Julio Lobo.(165) Phillips answered both questions affirmatively and then asked Veciana to repeat his name.(166) . . . Following the encounter of Veciana and Phillips, Schweiker’s investigator asked Veciana if David Phillips was Maurice Bishop.(171) Veciana said he was not. [emphasis addes](172)

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt

          • Jean Davison says:

            Veciana didn’t have to be lying, Bogman.

            Was the woman who was sure she’d seen Oswald working on a Norwegian ship lying? Was the person who “saw Oswald” in a Midwest camera store lying? Or those who saw him in a variety of other unlikely places? IMO, it makes more sense that these people saw a person who resembled Oswald in their memories, but was actually someone else.

            Veciana was shot in the head in 1979, three years after he’d talked to the HSCA.

            http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/belligerence/veciana-9-22-79.htm

            Evidently the cover-up crew had a big backlog.

          • “But Oswald didn’t leave New Orleans until September 25.
            Of course, you could claim the CIA flew Oswald to Dallas to meet with Phillips.”~McAdams

            I am not going to claim anything “professor”, but I will say it is entirely possible that Oswald was flown to Dallas to meet with Phillips.
            So Your “Fact” that Oswald was in New Orleans on that day is not a fact at all, it is as much a supposition as thinking Oswald might have been flown to Dallas for the meeting.

            Veciana is admitting to being involved in some very sinister activities in the time period he covers in this presentation. Accordingly I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
            \\][//

          • Greg Arious says:

            McAdams- if you have a daily accounting of LHO’s actions in September of 1963, then you need to provide it.

            Otherwise, you’re offering nothing.

          • I am not going to claim anything “professor”, but I will say it is entirely possible that Oswald was flown to Dallas to meet with Phillips.

            Why? Phillips didn’t live in Dallas.

            He could fly to New Orleans. Why have both fly to Dallas for a meeting.

          • McAdams- if you have a daily accounting of LHO’s actions in September of 1963, then you need to provide it.

            Actually, Veciana said August or early September.

            The Clay Shaw trial testimony of Marina:

            Q: Now, Mrs. Oswald, during the time that you and Lee Harvey Oswald were living here in New Orleans, did you ever know him to stay away from home for any period of time?

            A: Only once when he spent the night in jail.

            Q: Only once when he spent the night in jail?

            A: Yes, sir.

            Q: Do you remember the date or the approximate date of that?

            A: No, sir.

            Q: Do you recall any other nights that he was not at home during the period that you were living here?

            A: Not at all.

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/marinash.htm

          • david thurman says:

            Like Oswald couldn’t have made a day trip from New Orleans to Dallas?

      • James Feldman says:

        As usual, John McAdams presents no evidence that “Oswald was in New Orleans when Veciana claimed to see him in Dallas.” As is always the case, when the evidence goes against McAdams–as it inevitably does–he attempts to attack the evidence. And when that deception doesn’t succeed, he makes stuff up.

        The meeting with David Atlee Phillips, Lee Oswald, and Antonio Veciana took place at the Southland Building in Dallas on or about September 7, 1963.

        Although there is some evidence that Oswald had been living in New Orleans in August and September 1963, Dallas was only about 8 hours away from New Orleans and Oswald could have easily made the trip to Dallas. And there is no evidence to place Oswald in New Orleans during the time frame of the meeting that could possibly conflict with Veciana’s statements.

        We know that Oswald borrowed “From Russia With Love,” by Ian Fleming (which JFK enjoyed immensely and was a favorite of his at the time, as was commonly known at the time), “The Sixth Galaxy Reader” and “Portal of Tomorrow,” by August Derleth, from the New Orleans Public Library on August 22, 1963. We also know that on August 26, 1963, someone returned “The Treasury of Science Fiction Classics,” which Oswald had taken out earlier. We also know that on September 5, 1963 that someone returned some books that he had previously taken out.

        Then, critically, there is then a gap in Oswald’s library transactions during the September 7, 1963 meeting in Dallas, leaving plenty of time for Oswald to travel from New Orleans to Dallas for his meeting with Phillips at the Southland Building on or about September 7, 1963.

        Two days after the meeting, Oswald was back in New Orleans. He borrowed “Bridge Over the River Kwai,” by Pierre Boulle, the “Big Book of Science Fiction” and “Ben Hur,” by Lewis Wallace on September 9, 1963. Then, on September 19, 1963, Oswald borrowed “Moonraker” and “Goldfinger,” by Ian Fleming, and “Ape and Essence” and “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley.

  3. Jim says:

    I’ve never posted anything on the internet about this subject but have read this and other sites regularly ever since learning of the still-secret files on the assassination. I can remember the moment I learned of Kennedy’s death; where I was sitting, who was talking to me and what the subject of the discussion was, the emotions I felt on hearing the news and so many other details of the following days. Over the decades since I have always been interested in any new developments regarding the event. The purpose of writing now is to ask a question of this community regarding Cuba and Kennedy’s assassination. On listening to the above recording, and others that are available from that meeting, I am intrigued by President Obama’s trip to Cuba that begins today in light of what must be known by the government regarding any Cuban or Cuban exile role in the assassination. There are over 3000 secret files that appear to contain information pertinent to the assassination. Let’s say that President Obama has at least been briefed on their contents. I don’t think that he would normalize relations with Cuba if the files in any way implicated Cuba’s government in the assassination. I can’t imagine that he would visit Cuba without knowing the content of the files to be released the year after he leaves office, and I can’t imagine him making the visit unless the files make it plain that a visit would never be criticized in hindsight. There’s more to my opinion than I’m writing but wish to know other ideas as to whether or not the visit to Cuba now reflects on what might be known/revealed in 2017 after the files are released (if they are).

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Interesting first post Jim. It seems logical that if there was still evidence in the files that Castro/Cuba was involved in JFK’s assassination someone would have said Mr. President you can’t go do this.

    • Mike Rush says:

      Watching Air Force One landing in Havana today I thought immediately of JFK’S arrival in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963. Two airplanes, two presidents, Cuba’s future on many minds.

  4. This is absolutely fascinating information from Antonio Veciana, verifying from a completely new angle many of the points I have found on other tracks. Many things now fit together more seamlessly than ever.

    One highlight of Veciana’s construction makes very clear that CIA are “professional conspirators”, something that is obvious to those who study their activities, but a term rarely used.
    . . .

    I disagree with Veciana’s final outburst supporting realpolitik. “Whether we want to accept that or not”~Veciana _ and I do not accept it.
    \\][//

  5. kennedy63 says:

    Spooks, spies, dupes, patsies, puppets and puppet masters; rogues, hitmen, assassins, saints and sinners, charlatans and talking heads; the rich and powerful, the maligned and the infamous, the dead, the sheep, and the mournful living. It can be said that we are among jokers to the right clowns to the left; yet, we’re stuck in the middle with them (until 2017).
    Veciana may have found contrition, but we can not absolve him. He may have informed us as to Maurice Bishop’s true ID, but does he advance the narrative of why JFK had to die and who set that assassination in motion?

    • “but does he advance the narrative of why JFK had to die and who set that assassination in motion?”~kennedy63

      Yes, in fact he does. he states clearly that Bishop and his Cuban exiles were involved, and that the assassination of Kennedy was a coup d’etat.
      \\][//

  6. Bogman says:

    Veciana also added an intriguing detail to the historical record of the assassination in that talk… DAP asked him if a person could get approved to travel to Cuba from Mexico City without a visa… Veciana said ‘no’ and so DAP apparently sent LHO down MC on that mission knowing it would be fulfilled.

    • Bogman says:

      meant to say: Veciana said ‘no’ and so DAP apparently sent LHO down to MC on that mission knowing it would NOT be fulfilled, hence the memorable ‘scene’ in the embassies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more