JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: W. Tracy Parnell on March 10, 2022, 08:54:24 PM
-
I am pleased to announce that my eBook The Bishop Hoax: Fonzi, Veciana and the Making of a Conspiracy Myth will be released on March 21st free of charge on my blog. Four chapters (out of 30 total) will be released initially followed by one per week thereafter. The book, which consists of more than 110,000 words with over 1000 footnotes, is the result of five years of research and three years of writing. Stay tuned!
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-bishop-hoax-to-be-released-march.html
-
I am pleased to announce that my eBook The Bishop Hoax: Fonzi, Veciana and the Making of a Conspiracy Myth will be released on March 21st free of charge on my blog. Four chapters (out of 30 total) will be released initially followed by one per week thereafter. The book, which consists of more than 110,000 words with over 1000 footnotes, is the result of five years of research and three years of writing. Stay tuned!
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-bishop-hoax-to-be-released-march.html
Sounds good. Are you making it available as a physical book too by any chance?
-
Sounds good. Are you making it available as a physical book too by any chance?
I may Gerry. What happened was I originally planned to publish the book traditionally but for various reasons went against that idea. I like the eBook format as I can link to documents so it is great for the reader. But we'll see what happens when I am finished releasing the eBook which will take about six months at one chapter a week.
-
I may Gerry. What happened was I originally planned to publish the book traditionally but for various reasons went against that idea. I like the eBook format as I can link to documents so it is great for the reader. But we'll see what happens when I am finished releasing the eBook which will take about six months at one chapter a week.
A bit like "State Secret" in it's format so. It would be nice as a physical copy too seeing how you put in so much work.
-
I am pleased to announce that my eBook The Bishop Hoax: Fonzi, Veciana and the Making of a Conspiracy Myth will be released on March 21st free of charge on my blog. Four chapters (out of 30 total) will be released initially followed by one per week thereafter. The book, which consists of more than 110,000 words with over 1000 footnotes, is the result of five years of research and three years of writing. Stay tuned!
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-bishop-hoax-to-be-released-march.html
Thanks, I will definitely take a look.
Btw I like how you are keeping DiEugenio honest over at the ED Forum, the way that guy is day after day non stop spruiking Oliver Stone's documentary is embarrassingly over the top and DiEugenio's methodology for gauging it's success shares the same level of incompetence as his conspiracy beliefs.
JohnM
-
Thanks, I will definitely take a look.
Btw I like how you are keeping DiEugenio honest over at the ED Forum, the way that guy is day after day non stop spruiking Oliver Stone's documentary is embarrassingly over the top and DiEugenio's methodology for gauging it's success shares the same level of incompetence as his conspiracy beliefs.
JohnM
Thank you John.
-
Here is a teaser:
In 1975, David Phillips resigned from the CIA to become an advocate for the agency in the wake of media revelations. Read about the history of the CIA-media relationship from 1960-1975.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/appendix-the-cia-and-media-1960-1975.html
-
The first four chapters of The Bishop Hoax are now available:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-bishop-hoax-released.html
-
Chapter 5 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/5-i-have-never-known-man-of-greater.html
Highlights include:
• Veciana’s “lost” testimony
• Early Bishop suspects
• Creation of the Bishop sketch
• The focus on Phillips as Bishop
• Phillips and the AFIO
• Biography of Phillips 1922-1950
-
Chapter 6 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/6-it-is-close-but-it-is-not-him.html
Highlights include:
• The Bishop Sketch
• Veciana’s initial denials that Phillips was Bishop
• Veciana’s varying description of Bishop
• Other Bishop suspects
• New evidence that Fonzi was aware of Veciana’s Army Intelligence relationship
-
Chapter 7 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/7-few-days-after-jack-ruby-departed-cuba.html
Highlights include:
Why both the 1959 and 1960 scenarios of how Veciana met Bishop are false if Bishop was Phillips as Veciana claimed in 2013
-
Chapter 8 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/8-i-think-it-was-joe.html
Highlights include:
Mr. Melton/Joe Melton/Dick Melton and the CIA training story
Edificio La Rampa
Drexel Gibson and the Berlitz School
John Smith and the truth serum
-
Chapter 9 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/9-unbreakable-will.html
Highlights include:
Biography of Antonio Veciana 1928-1961
-
Chapter 10 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/10-carefully-thought-out-plot.html
Highlights include:
The most detailed report on Operations Patty and Liborio yet published.
-
Chapter 11 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/11-one-of-bravest-men-i-have-ever-known.html
Highlights include:
Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo and Alpha 66
-
Chapter 12 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/12-there-were-never-any-66-men.html
Highlights include:
• The formation of Alpha 66
• How Alpha 66 was conceived as a front for SNFE
• The truth about Veciana and the CIA
• Cellula Fantasma
-
Looking forward to making my through all this to see what you've managed to unearth.
-
Looking forward to making my through all this to see what you've managed to unearth.
Thanks Gerry.
-
Chapter 13 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/13-grandiose-cuban-exile-schemes.html
Highlights include:
Proof that Alpha 66 was not CIA funded or backed.
Alpha 66's first raids.
-
Chapter 12 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/12-there-were-never-any-66-men.html
Highlights include:
• The formation of Alpha 66
• How Alpha 66 was conceived as a front for SNFE
• The truth about Veciana and the CIA
• Cellula Fantasma
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/180-10144-10153.pdf
Pages 3 and 4, Cogswell ...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CogswellLeslieRiceGodoy1961.jpg)
Interlock: Art, Conspiracy, and the Shadow Worlds of Mark Lombardi
Patricia Goldstone · 2015
https://books.google.com/.... (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Interlock/DN8REAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="equipped+with+what+historian+stephen+birmingham"&pg=PT98&printsec=frontcover)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CogswellRiceMathey_1of2.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CogswellRiceMathey_2of2.jpg)
-
Chapter 14 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/14-fall-in-line-or-drop-out.html
Highlights include:
Veciana's role in the breakup of Alpha 66
Veciana and Army Intelligence
-
Chapter 15 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/15-you-are-to-remain-within-land-limits.html
Highlights:
Deconstructing Veciana's claims about a press conference allegedly run by Bishop.
Veciana is restricted to Dade County.
A meeting between Veciana and his Army handler Hubbard.
-
Chapter 16 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/16-second-war-for-independence.html
Highlights:
Alpha 66 merges with SFNE and MRP to form the Revolutionary Alliance.
Plan Omega.
For those interested in my series on the film "The Assassination and Mrs. Paine," the next article will be released Monday.
-
Chapter 17 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/17-we-get-nothing-from-united-states.html
Highlights:
Veciana, Menoyo and Nazario become informants for Army Intelligence.
Speculation about the launch of Plan Omega and the location of Menoyo increases.
-
Chapter 18 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/18-awful-blow-to-cuban-exile-cause.html
This chapter ends the section on Veciana and his time with Alpha 66. Highlights include:
Menoyo's capture in Cuba demoralizes the Revolutionary Alliance.
Veciana resigns from Alpha 66.
Veciana meets with a CIA representative in his third and final attempt to gain agency funding.
Veciana gains employment with US AID.
Summary of Veciana's Alpha 66 years.
-
Chapter 18 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/18-awful-blow-to-cuban-exile-cause.html
This chapter ends the section on Veciana and his time with Alpha 66. Highlights include:
Menoyo's capture in Cuba demoralizes the Revolutionary Alliance.
Veciana resigns from Alpha 66.
Veciana meets with a CIA representative in his third and final attempt to gain agency funding.
Veciana gains employment with US AID.
Summary of Veciana's Alpha 66 years.
How could Veciana at any time, particularly during the difficult times raising funds and keeping the group together or when they went on missions, not mention this Bishop person who he says was directing their operations? Not once? Or mention this Bishop figure to the CIA people he went to for funds?
As you point out, if Bishop told him he couldn't provide funds because he needed to have "plausible deniability" then why then go to the very CIA (ostensibly) for fund when they needed to maintain this distance? And nowhere in his book do I recall him going to Bishop and asking for funds. Either directly or indirectly.
Menoyo, the military commander of Alpha 66, is organizing/directing raids into Cuba and Veciana doesn't mention this Bishop person who is, according to Veciana, really directing things? So who was running these attacks? Menoyo or Bishop?
You document quite substantively this long series of falsehoods and improbabilities that Veciana told. Messrs. Kelly and Morley believe some, for me, very questionable things but they must have some limit to what they will embrace?
-
How could Veciana at any time, particularly during the difficult times raising funds and keeping the group together or when they went on missions, not mention this Bishop person who he says was directing their operations? Not once? Or mention this Bishop figure to the CIA people he went to for funds?
Sure doesn't make sense to me.
Menoyo, the military commander of Alpha 66, is organizing/directing raids into Cuba and Veciana doesn't mention this Bishop person who is, according to Veciana, really directing things? So who was running these attacks? Menoyo or Bishop?
And not one person who knew Veciana intimately such as Menoyo, Nazario or Lopez Fresquet ever mentioned Bishop or any American who was working with Veciana. When asked about Bishop and Veciana's claims of being CIA connected, Lopez Fresquet told the HSCA investigators that it was the first he had heard of it (when he read Anderson's column) and he would have to let Veciana know that he had fooled him since Veciana always claimed it as a badge of honor that they didn't get CIA help.
-
In the preface to his book, Veciana writes this: "The man I knew as Maurice Bishop supplied the training. He supplied the money. He supplied the weapons."
But elsewhere in the book, in several places, he says Bishop NEVER provided any money to Alpha 66 because he, Bishop, needed to maintain "plausible deniability." Moreover, Veciana discusses in some detail his desperate effort to obtain funding - traveling around the US and meeting with the exile community, holding boxing matches and other events to raise funds, et cetera. And apparently directing operations and providing weapons wouldn't threaten this deniability.
His entire account of this Bishop person is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.
Good original work Tracy. Thanks.
-
His entire account of this Bishop person is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.
Good original work Tracy. Thanks.
Thanks for reading Steve.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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.
My understanding on Phillips was that Fonzi seized on him or was suspicious of him in part because of the overthrow of Allende and the report that Phillips was the CIA's man in charge of those efforts to remove him. This was the 1970s era where the CIA was being attacked - often fairly but sometimes not - for the revelations about the "Family Jewels" et cetera.
But again, those efforts were, as I've read, involved funding of the Chilean opposition/propaganda efforts and had nothing to do with paramilitary operations. I don't see anything in Phillip's background indicating he was involved in or knew about such strategies. He was an ex-newspaperman.
Added: Okay, John Newman characterizes Phillips as having a: "Long history of PP (Paramilitary and Psychological Warfare) work for the Agency." But elsewhere in the account (in "Countdown to Darkness") he says PP was "psychological and propaganda" activity not "paramilitary." Anyway, I don't see the paramilitary work but Newman knows more about this stuff than I do.
Anyway, thanks again.
-
Chapter 20 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/20-gun-camouflaged-into-television.html
Highlights:
Several versions of the 1971 Castro assassination plot that Veciana says he participated in are deconstructed.
-
Chapter 20 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/20-gun-camouflaged-into-television.html
Highlights:
Several versions of the 1971 Castro assassination plot that Veciana says he participated in are deconstructed.
How you untangle all of this is remarkable. I won't and can't excuse/defend those abuses by the CIA but your work shows that the people they worked with had their own interests, their own moral agency, and often did things on their own without US/CIA direction or approval. The Cold War wasn't hot but it was a war. And US and Soviet surrogates often fought one.
Couple of points.
1. It's hard to believe that Lobo would not have been involved in any CIA-Veciana relationship/connection: either recommending him for the CIA or having the CIA going to him asking about Veciana's character/recruitability. Particularly during that 1959 period when Castro's agents were everywhere and cracking dissent down. Phillips testified that he did talk with Lobo and that Lobo did recommend one person as a possible asset.
2. It's also hard to believe that Phillips would not have heard of Veciana's name during the missile crisis especially since Alpha 66 was causing so many problems with their attacks on foreign ships in Havana harbor. JFK himself ordered the CIA/State and Justice Departments to crack down on them. But Phillips never heard of his name? Granted, time may have led to him forgetting it; but he never heard of him? Cuba was Phillips main task; I would think he'd know all of those anti-Castro groups.
-
How you untangle all of this is remarkable. I won't and can't excuse/defend those abuses by the CIA but your work shows that the people they worked with had their own interests, their own moral agency, and often did things on their own without US/CIA direction or approval. The Cold War wasn't hot but it was a war. And US and Soviet surrogates often fought one.
Couple of points.
1. It's hard to believe that Lobo would not have been involved in any CIA-Veciana relationship/connection: either recommending him for the CIA or having the CIA going to him asking about Veciana's character/recuitability. Particularly during that 1959 period when Castro's agents were everywhere and cracking dissent down. Phillips testified that he did talk with Lobo and that Lobo did recommend one person as a possible asset.
Of course, anything's possible but after considering everything the evidence leads me to the conclusion that there was no Bishop at least as Veciana described him. The main points against Phillips as Bishop are the Reston meeting where Phillips showed no reaction upon seeing Veciana (nobody's that good of an actor). The other thing is Veciana never said Phillips was Bishop. That was Schweiker's idea. And when it came time to go under oath, he said Phillips was not Bishop.
2. It's also hard to believe that Phillips would not have heard of Veciana's name during the missile crisis especially since Alpha 66 was causing so many problems with their attacks on foreign ships in Havana harbor. JFK himself ordered the CIA to crack down on them. But Phillips never heard of his name? Granted, time may have led to him forgetting it; but he never heard of him? Cuba was Phillips main task; I would think he'd know all of those anti-Castro groups.
Phillips may have heard of Veciana and simply forgot. But what I think happened is that once Phillips realized what was happening (Fonzi was trying to pin something on him), he decided it was safer to deny that he remembered Veciana in any form.
-
Chapter 21 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/21-such-man-did-not-exist.html
Highlights:
Jack Anderson and "Mr. X."
Fonzi pursues J. Walton Moore as a Bishop suspect.
Ross Crozier and Bishop.
John McCone and Bishop.
Barney Hidalgo and Bishop.
Rufo López-Fresquet and Bishop.
The truth about the 1979 Veciana assassination attempt.
-
Chapter 21 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/21-such-man-did-not-exist.html
Highlights:
Jack Anderson and "Mr. X."
Fonzi pursues J. Walton Moore as a Bishop suspect.
Ross Crozier and Bishop.
John McCone and Bishop.
Barney Hidalgo and Bishop.
Rufo López-Fresquet and Bishop.
The truth about the 1979 Veciana assassination attempt.
Tracy, quick question that I can't find answered: Didn't Veciana himself tell Fonzi that the sketch that was done based on his description didn't look like Bishop?
FWIW, it does somewhat look like what perhaps an older Moore might look like, doesn't it? If this is indeed Moore during WWII. If Fonzi had O'Reilly try to get a photo of Moore that was unbelievably dumb.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-waWzIcgd_Xk/URLD2XPv9JI/AAAAAAAAX7w/fgLwmqkd0QY/s1600/jwaltonmoore.jpg)
-
Tracy, quick question that I can't find answered: Didn't Veciana himself tell Fonzi that the sketch that was done based on his description didn't look like Bishop?
FWIW, it does somewhat look like what perhaps an older Moore might look like, doesn't it? If this is indeed Moore during WWII. If Fonzi had O'Reilly try to get a photo of Moore that was unbelievably dumb.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-waWzIcgd_Xk/URLD2XPv9JI/AAAAAAAAX7w/fgLwmqkd0QY/s1600/jwaltonmoore.jpg)
Is that a photo of J. Walton Moore? Where did you get that?
-
Tracy, quick question that I can't find answered: Didn't Veciana himself tell Fonzi that the sketch that was done based on his description didn't look like Bishop?
Yes, he did.
FWIW, it does somewhat look like what perhaps an older Moore might look like, doesn't it? If this is indeed Moore during WWII. If Fonzi had O'Reilly try to get a photo of Moore that was unbelievably dumb.
I guess Fonzi thought it looked enough like Moore to pursue the matter. He also suspected, de Mohrenschildt, Paul Bethel and several others that he didn't name.
-
Is that a photo of J. Walton Moore? Where did you get that?
Found after exhaustive research. Or just Google images "J.Walton Moore". I suggest the latter.
Here is below, if these are actually him, a better series of photos. On second thought, he really didn't look like the sketch much at all; at least in the '63 photo. Completely different ears and set of eyes. But again, as Tracy noted, Veciana himself said the sketch didn't look like Bishop. So what good is it?
Or if I was a conspiracy knucklehead researcher I could argue there were two Moores.
(https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2016/248/66094659_1473067948.jpg)
-
Found after exhaustive research. Or just Google images "J.Walton Moore". I suggest the latter.
Here is below, if these are actually him, a better series of photos. On second thought, he really didn't look like the sketch much at all; at least in the '63 photo. Completely different ears and set of eyes. But again, as Tracy noted, Veciana himself said the sketch didn't look like Bishop. So what good is it?
Or if I was a conspiracy knucklehead researcher I could argue there were two Moores.
(https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2016/248/66094659_1473067948.jpg)
Thanks.
-
Very sad. Another labored, misleading effort to deny the truth.
https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/antonio-veciana-mystery-man-in-jfk-assassination-part-1/
https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/antonio-veciana-mystery-man-in-jfk-assassination-part-2/
-
Yes, he did.
I guess Fonzi thought it looked enough like Moore to pursue the matter. He also suspected, de Mohrenschildt, Paul Bethel and several others that he didn't name.
Another followup if I may: Did Fonzi try to contact - or did he? - Lobo about any of this? It seems to me that any CIA agent trying to recruit one of Lobo's people would go through him first? To see if the person was suitable for recruitment? Phillips said he did meet with Lobo about one potential asset.
It's a reach to me that a CIA agent like Phillips would go to Lobo's bank unannounced. In the middle of the day, with Castro's agents operating full tilt during that period in 1959. Lobo was suspected of aiding the CIA. He certainly opposed Castro's policies, his expropriation of Cuban property. It's just not logical that Phillips would do something this risky. Particularly after the cattlemen meeting.
You've documented the latter. So has Newman. It simply doesn't add up.
-
Very sad. Another labored, misleading effort to deny the truth.
https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/antonio-veciana-mystery-man-in-jfk-assassination-part-1/
https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/antonio-veciana-mystery-man-in-jfk-assassination-part-2/
If I recall correctly, you've said that you believe Garrison's claims that the CIA - through Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald and others - murdered JFK. Am I right?
But Newman says in the above that Veciana's story about being directed by the CIA is false. Newman believes that Veciana was ordered to direct attention to the CIA and away from the real murderers of JFK which was the Pentagon. The problem being, of course, that Veciana said Bishop was not Phillips and he wasn't sure that Bishop was with the CIA.
You seem to believe - if you do believe Garrison's claims - whatever latest conspiracy theory you come across. Was it Shaw and the CIA? Or Lemnitzer and the Pentagon? If you believe Newman then it wasn't the CIA because he argues it was elements of the military (because, inter alia, of Laos and JFK's supposed cancellation of a second invasion of Cuba).
-
It's just not logical that Phillips would do something this risky. Particularly after the cattlemen meeting.
You've documented the latter. So has Newman. It simply doesn't add up.
What's this about the "cattlemen meeting"? I've never heard this. Which book and what page of Newman's and Parnell is this discussed in?
-
Another followup if I may: Did Fonzi try to contact - or did he? - Lobo about any of this? It seems to me that any CIA agent trying to recruit one of Lobo's people would go through him first? To see if the person was suitable for recruitment? Phillips said he did meet with Lobo about one potential asset.
It's a reach to me that a CIA agent like Phillips would go to Lobo's bank unannounced. In the middle of the day, with Castro's agents operating full tilt during that period in 1959. Lobo was suspected of aiding the CIA. He certainly opposed Castro's policies, his expropriation of Cuban property. It's just not logical that Phillips would do something this risky. Particularly after the cattlemen meeting.
You've documented the latter. So has Newman. It simply doesn't add up.
I could find no evidence that anyone contacted Lobo regarding Veciana. I believe he was in Spain by the time of the SSCIA-HSCA investigations so that may have been a factor.
-
What's this about the "cattlemen meeting"? I've never heard this. Which book and what page of Newman's and Parnell is this discussed in?
Chapter 7 in my book:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/7-few-days-after-jack-ruby-departed-cuba.html
Page 72 in Newman (Into the Storm).
-
Newman discusses ("Into the Storm") the supposed visit to Lobo's bank here:
"The visit by Veciana's notional [i.e., theoretical] Phillips to Lobo's bank in mid-September 1959 would have taken place at the very moment the Havana station and CIA HQS were struggling to ensure that the work of the real Phillips for the CIA would not come to the attention of Cuban intelligence. Lobo's bank and counterrevolutionary associates - including Veciana - had been under tight surveillance for quite some time. Only a few month later, Che Guevara summoned Veciana to two meetings in which he attempted - unsuccessfully - to recruit Veciana to penetrate and report on Lobo's anti-Castro activities."
I was not aware - and his source for this is thin - that Veciana himself was under surveillance at the time of the supposed Bishop meeting. Newman also says that Lobo vouched for Veciana's bona fides in late 1960 when he, Veciana, appealed to the US Embassy for a visa to go to the US. Which raises the question: If Veciana was working for Phillips then why did he need to go to Lobo to prove his bona fides to obtain a visa? Wouldn't Phillips do that? That is, vouch for him?
-
Newman discusses ("Into the Storm") the supposed visit to Lobo's bank here:
"The visit by Veciana's notional [i.e., theoretical] Phillips to Lobo's bank in mid-September 1959 would have taken place at the very moment the Havana station and CIA HQS were struggling to ensure that the work of the real Phillips for the CIA would not come to the attention of Cuban intelligence. Lobo's bank and counterrevolutionary associates - including Veciana - had been under tight surveillance for quite some time. Only a few month later, Che Guevara summoned Veciana to two meetings in which he attempted - unsuccessfully - to recruit Veciana to penetrate and report on Lobo's anti-Castro activities."
I was not aware - and his source for this is thin - that Veciana himself was under surveillance at the time of the supposed Bishop meeting.
Newman's logic seems to be that if Lobo was under surveillance, Veciana would be by default. But you're right, it is thin. I have no doubt that Lobo was a CIA asset but beyond that who knows? I do agree that recruiting Veciana at the bank would be the last thing Phillips would want to do.
Newman also says that Lobo vouched for Veciana's bona fides in late 1960 when he, Veciana, appealed to the US Embassy for a visa to go to the US. Which raises the question: If Veciana was working for Phillips then why did he need to go to Lobo to prove his bona fides to obtain a visa? Wouldn't Phillips do that? That is, vouch for him?
Yes, Phillips would just vouch for him if the Bishop story was true. Similarly, why would Veciana need to go to the CIA on three occasions asking for help when Bishop/Phillips was supposedly providing what he needed?
-
Chapter 7 in my book:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/7-few-days-after-jack-ruby-departed-cuba.html
Page 72 in Newman (Into the Storm).
Thanks.
-
Chapter 22 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/22-i-accuse-you-of-assassination.html
Highlights:
David Phillips engages in a personal and legal battle with conspiracy authors.
Fabiola-Delores Cao allegations.
Virginia Prewett.
Phillips debates Anthony Summers.
Jim Hougan-Frank Terpil story.
Phillips and the Orlando Letelier murder.
-
Chapter 23 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/23-single-mans-monomania.html
Highlights:
Fonzi's 1980 article "Who Killed JFK?" draws critical reaction from peers and others in the know.
-
Chapter 23 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/23-single-mans-monomania.html
Highlights:
Fonzi's 1980 article "Who Killed JFK?" draws critical reaction from peers and others in the know.
I've always thought of Fonzi of being essentially a honest but misguided person determined to capture his white whale ("Let faith oust fact; let fancy oust memory; I look deep down and do believe") but this is pretty damning. He was, well, corrupt.
They so much believe in their cause that they lose all bearing. Is that a defense? Or an excuse?
Side question: In your Kelly link he says that Phillips lied to the HSCA and that they were preparing to indict him for perjury. Is this the Tanenbaum issue about the tapes in MC being delivered? Phillips said they were erased and no tapes were delivered. Tanenbaum quotes that mistaken Hoover memo (he got from Mark Lane) saying they were. Thus the perjury allegation.
-
I've always thought of Fonzi of being essentially a honest but misguided person determined to capture his white whale ("Let faith oust fact; let fancy oust memory; I look deep down and do believe") but this is pretty damning.
They so much believe in their cause that they lose all bearing. Is that a defense? Or an excuse?
Side question: In your Kelly link he says that Phillips lied to the HSCA and that they were preparing to indict him for perjury. Is this the Tanenbaum issue about the tapes in MC being delivered? Phillips said they were erased and no tapes were delivered. Tanenbaum quotes that mistaken Hoover memo (he got from Mark Lane) saying they were. Thus the perjury allegation.
Other than the Phillips-Veciana confrontation, which was Fonzi's word against Phillips, I've never been able to pinpoint exactly what anyone thinks Phillips lied about. He was mistaken about some of his actions in Mexico City (that is coming in Chapter 26), that is true. But the purpose of his second testimony was to clarify those issues. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if someone testifies and clears up a matter from a previous testimony that is not perjury. They just don't like Phillips so it has always been a fantasy that he should have been charged.
The other thing is there has to be intent. That is the person has to know that they are giving false information. I think that would have been hard to prove in the case of Phillips. Others may disagree.
-
Other than the Phillips-Veciana confrontation, which was Fonzi's word against Phillips, I've never been able to pinpoint exactly what anyone thinks Phillips lied about. He was mistaken about some of his actions in Mexico City (that is coming in Chapter 26), that is true. But the purpose of his second testimony was to clarify those issues. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if someone testifies and clears up a matter from a previous testimony that is not perjury. They just don't like Phillips so it has always been a fantasy that he should have been charged.
The other thing is there has to be intent. That is the person has to know that they are giving false information. I think that would have been hard to prove in the case of Phillips. Others may disagree.
The Landau book on the Letelier assassination can be downloaded and/or read online here:
https://ia801803.us.archive.org/16/items/assassination-on-embassy-row/Assassination%20on%20Embassy%20Row.pdf
I don't see anyone resembling Phillips. But that's pretty very meaningless. I would think that after Phillips died in 1988 that Landau could have alleged, implicitly if not explicitly, that Phillips was one of the people involved in disseminating those claims about Letelier and his relations with Cuba and the Eastern Bloc nations.
-
The Landau book on the Letelier assassination can be downloaded and/or read online here:
https://ia801803.us.archive.org/16/items/assassination-on-embassy-row/Assassination%20on%20Embassy%20Row.pdf
I don't see anyone resembling Phillips. But that's pretty very meaningless. I would think that after Phillips died in 1988 that Landau could have alleged, implicitly if not explicitly, that Phillips was one of the people involved in disseminating those claims about Letelier and his relations with Cuba and the Eastern Bloc nations.
Thanks for that link. So Landau never mentioned Phillips at all in his book (i just did a quick search for his name in the PDF with nothing turning up)?
-
Thanks for that link. So Landau never mentioned Phillips at all in his book (i just did a quick search for his name in the PDF with nothing turning up)?
Right.
-
Chapter 24 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/24-i-would-have-told-them-to-go-to-hell.html
Highlights:
Phillips and Chile.
Plan Centaur.
-
Chapter 25 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/25-we-never-subordinated-ourselves-to.html
Highlights:
Jefferson Morley's claims about David Phillips and the DRE are discussed.
-
Chapter 26 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/26-only-on-two-occasions-did-i-think.html
Highlights:
Phillips and the "missing" Mexico City Oswald transcript.
Assertions by Jefferson Morley and others regarding Phillips and Mexico City are discussed.
The Shawn/James Phillips story is discussed.
-
Chapter 26 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/26-only-on-two-occasions-did-i-think.html
Highlights:
Phillips and the "missing" Mexico City Oswald transcript.
Assertions by Jefferson Morley and others regarding Phillips and Mexico City are discussed.
The Shawn/James Phillips story is discussed.
Re the alleged phone call that Anna Tarasoff said she heard where Oswald (in English and not broken Russian) asks for money in exchange for "useful information": Oleg Nechiporenko, one of the three Soviet Embassy/KGB persons who talked to Oswald, never mentions in his book (or elsewhere as far as I know) him discussing the need for money or offering useful information in exchange. His description is one of a desperate erratic Oswald begging for a visa because his life was threatened, that the "notorious FBI" was after him. But nothing about needing money or having information.
I would think that a desperate Oswald would try (again?) to entice a visa with promises of information as alleged in a call? Or that the three KGB agents would be told - then or later - about Oswald making a previous offer? Something, anything? But again, Nechiporenko never mentions anything about this supposed offer. Neither did the Cubans for that matter.
And, for what it's worth, the KGB documents that Boris Yeltsin gave Clinton back in 1999 never mention Oswald making such an offer. Granted, those are very limited documents - none of the other calls are mentioned and none of the KGB files on the monitoring of Oswald in Minsk were included - so I'm not sure that this means much.
The Yeltsin papers are here: https://ia803107.us.archive.org/10/items/jfkjumble/LEEHARVEYOSWALDKGBFILES.pdf
The Nechiporenko book can be read online here: https://archive.org/details/passporttoassass0000nech/page/74/mode/2up
-
Chapter 27 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/27-childish-notions-about-intelligence.html
Highlights:
Veciana's claim that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald meeting with his case officer Maurice Bishop (whom he later claimed was David Phillips) is discussed in detail.
-
Chapter 28 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/28-it-is-tantalizing.html
Highlights:
Several popular conspiracy theories related to Veciana and the Maurice Bishop affair are discussed including:
A comment allegedly made by HSCA staffer Kevin Walsh.
Several assertions made by Gordon Novel.
The AMLASH Legacy.
Allegations by Mark Lane.
-
Chapter 29 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/29-for-sake-of-history.html
Highlights:
Veciana stonewalls the ARRB.
Veciana and Patria Potestad.
Veciana and the Pedro Pan exodus.
Marie Fonzi's role in Veciana's David Phillips "revelation."
Veciana and the AARC conference.
Trained to Kill.
The death of Veciana.
-
Chapter 29 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/29-for-sake-of-history.html
Highlights:
Veciana stonewalls the ARRB.
Veciana and Patria Potestad.
Veciana and the Pedro Pan exodus.
Marie Fonzi's role in Veciana's David Phillips "revelation."
Veciana and the AARC conference.
Trained to Kill.
The death of Veciana.
This is solid, original reporting that will be ignored because it's not promoting a conspiracy. You won't get attention or money by promoting a lone assassin theory. It's a type of Gresham's law: bad assassination research drives out the good research. The next time there's a story about the assassination the media will go to irresponsible people like Morley. And he's grossly irresponsible.
One point on Veciana's claim that Phillips asked him about getting a visa to go to Cuba, i.e., "If one were to go to the Cuban embassy in Mexico, would one be able to get a visa to travel to [Cuba], to which the response was absolutely no.” And from that Phillips allegedly sent Oswald to get a visa knowing he would be turned down. IOW, it was simply a maneuver to "connect" Oswald directly with Havana and not get him into Cuba.
But Oswald didn't request a visa; he asked for an in transit visa, one that he could use on his way to the Soviet Union. He said, according to the Cuban account, that he was headed to the Soviet Union to meet his wife there and that, as a friend of the Revolution, he wanted to stop in Cuba along the way. But he needed that transit visa at that time since his Mexican visa expired shortly. The Cubans, i.e., Silvia Duran, then told him she needed to see his Soviet visa first. From that we had the back-and-forth with him going to the various facilities trying to get one.
If Oswald was instructed to get a visa then why did he ask for an in transit one? And then proceed to try to get a visa from the Soviet Embassy? And act, according to the officials, like an erratic crazy person when turned down? And go back twice? None of that makes sense to me if he was being guided/controlled.
Anyway, this is solid original work that the conspiracists will ignore. At some point you'll be called a "disinformation agent."
-
Anyway, this is solid original work that the conspiracists will ignore. At some point you'll be called a "disinformation agent."
Thank you.
-
Chapter 30 of The Bishop Hoax is now online. It offers my conclusions on the Maurice Bishop matter after 5 years of research and writing.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/30-conclusion.html
I want to thank those who helped with this project:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/dedication-and-acknowledgements.html
Thanks also to those who have taken time to comment on my work.
-
Chapter 30 of The Bishop Hoax is now online. It offers my conclusions on the Maurice Bishop matter after 5 years of research and writing.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/30-conclusion.html
I want to thank those who helped with this project:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/dedication-and-acknowledgements.html
Thanks also to those who have taken time to comment on my work.
This is about as serious and sober of a debunking of any JFK conspiracy claim that I have read. Okay, it's not up there with the exposures of the Garrison nonsense; but it's close. And it's a long list. At this point there is nothing left to Veciana's major allegations; certainly nothing connecting anything he knew, directly or indirectly, with the assassination.
The proverbial icing on the conspiracy cake is your evidence indicating that no one - not a single person - associated with Alpha 66 or related groups ever heard of such a Bishop person. Supposedly the same Bishop who was, according to Veciana, directing their military operations. But he was completely unknown to Menoyo and other top military people? Veciana was never asked why they did attack "A" versus attack "B"? No one asked where the munitions or arms came from? Veciana never mentions a Bishop at all?
As I said before, I thought Fonzi was an honorable man, someone caught up with that 1970s frenzy about the CIA, but basically a honest man. Your work really calls that into question. As one of my favorite writers, Saul Bellow, once observed: "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
But that's a good explanation for nearly all of this conspiracy nonsense.
-
This is about as serious and sober of a debunking of any JFK conspiracy claim that I have read.
Thank you Steve.
-
Chapter 30 of The Bishop Hoax is now online. It offers my conclusions on the Maurice Bishop matter after 5 years of research and writing.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/30-conclusion.html
I want to thank those who helped with this project:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/dedication-and-acknowledgements.html
Thanks also to those who have taken time to comment on my work.
excellent work, thank you+
-
Thanks Mark