Free eBook The Bishop Hoax

[W. Tracy Parnell]

His entire account of this Bishop person is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

Good original work Tracy. Thanks.

Thanks for reading Steve.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Thanks for reading Steve.

All of this, as you know, is backdrop or a sort of "white noise" to the key issue about Veciana claiming to see Bishop meeting with Oswald in that Dallas office building about two months before the assassination. But it seems obvious (to us) that if all of these other claims - including most important the very existence of this Bishop figure - have no basis then the "Bishop-was-with-Oswald" claim is equally dubious.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

All of this, as you know, is backdrop or a sort of "white noise" to the key issue about Veciana claiming to see Bishop meeting with Oswald in that Dallas office building about two months before the assassination. But it seems obvious (to us) that if all of these other claims - including most important the very existence of this Bishop figure - have no basis then the "Bishop-was-with-Oswald" claim is equally dubious.

Right. I'll give you a little preview of Chapter 30 (conclusions):

"Probably the most consequential conclusion in this book is one that was first provided by Fonzi himself in his HSCA writeup. He wrote, 'No corroboration was found for Veciana's alleged meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald.' Absent such confirmation, the Veciana story goes nowhere."

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Right. I'll give you a little preview of Chapter 30 (conclusions):

"Probably the most consequential conclusion in this book is one that was first provided by Fonzi himself in his HSCA writeup. He wrote, 'No corroboration was found for Veciana's alleged meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald.' Absent such confirmation, the Veciana story goes nowhere."

This is why both Bill Kelly and Jefferson Morley (among others) are not too happy with your work and want to dismiss you as a "conspiracy debunker" (while denying they are conspiracists; neat trick). If this sighting can be dismissed or is unfounded then where is the evidence for the "Oswald was directed by the CIA"? Joannides? Amspell? Where?

As for Fonzi: Well, as you know he certainly changed his mind later about this "nowhere" story. In that long piece in The Washingtonian Magazine (1980) he uncritically repeats Veciana's claim about seeing Oswald in Dallas with Bishop.

Piece is here: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GaetonFonzi/WhoKilledJFK.html

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Chapter 19 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/19-no-hes-not-him.html

This chapter begins the last section of the book and focuses on Phillips and the Maurice Bishop allegations.

Highlights:

Fonzi conducts an unauthorized experiment by bringing Phillips and Veciana together. But the results are not what he had hoped for.

Veciana hatches a scheme to "confirm" his Maurice Bishop bona fides.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Chapter 19 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/19-no-hes-not-him.html

This chapter begins the last section of the book and focuses on Phillips and the Maurice Bishop allegations.

Highlights:

Fonzi conducts an unauthorized experiment by bringing Phillips and Veciana together. But the results are not what he had hoped for.

Veciana hatches a scheme to "confirm" his Maurice Bishop bona fides.

Tracy: A couple of questions.

1) When did Fonzi first come across the name/idea that David Phillips was Bishop and/or that he was the main or key CIA figure behind their role in the assassination. Did it predate the Veciana interview/meetings,
correct? Or was it the sketch done on Veciana's description? I understand that his boss Richard Schweiker pushed this but was he the source for the idea? Fonzi then took it from there?

I don't have the Fonzi book but the Washingtonian magazine piece - which as I understand it was the basis for the book - is very thin on how this connection came about.

2) Did you come across any information that Phillips would be involved in such paramilitary/guerilla type activities? Of the type claimed by Veciana? My understanding is that he was more of a "desk" agent, one involved in propaganda/information warfare and counterintelligence and not in any way a field agent? Certainly not one who knew much about military type strategies. Yes? No?

Thanks again.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Tracy: A couple of questions.

1) When did Fonzi first come across the name/idea that David Phillips was Bishop and/or that he was the main or key CIA figure behind their role in the assassination. Did it predate the Veciana interview/meetings,
correct? Or was it the sketch done on Veciana's description? I understand that his boss Richard Schweiker pushed this but was he the source for the idea? Fonzi then took it from there?

I don't have the Fonzi book but the Washingtonian magazine piece - which as I understand it was the basis for the book - is very thin on how this connection came about.

Schweiker was indeed the source of the idea that Phillips was Bishop. Fonzi had previously entertained the idea of other Bishop suspects such as de Mohrenschildt and J. Walton Moore. Schweiker told Fonzi that he thought the Bishop sketch looked like Phillips on April 11th-just over a month after the first Fonzi-Veciana interview.

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/5-i-have-never-known-man-of-greater.html

The description of Bishop for the sketch was provided by both Veciana and Fonzi.

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/6-it-is-close-but-it-is-not-him.html

2) Did you come across any information that Phillips would be involved in such paramilitary/guerilla type activities? Of the type claimed by Veciana? My understanding is that he was more of a "desk" agent, one involved in propaganda/information warfare and counterintelligence and not in any way a field agent? Certainly not one who knew much about military type strategies. Yes? No?

Thanks again.

Especially later in his career, Phillips was mostly a higher-up who managed others. But even then (Mexico City years for example IIRC) I believe he still managed a few agents or assets on the side. But there is no indication in his records (at least the ones we now have) of anything that supports the Maurice Bishop story.