W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 15, 2017 Author Share Posted April 15, 2017 46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: No connection between Phillips and Oswald? Phillips was running the anti FPCC campaign in the CIA for God's sakes. Some Nothing burger. These guys always leave out the key, declassified points. To them, there is no ARRB declassified record. What's your evidence that Phillips was running the DRE other than Hunt's statement? And what is your evidence that LHO's contact with the DRE was at the behest of the CIA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: It's kind of strange that everyone seems more concerned that I said Fonzi lacked objectivity What's really strange is the claim that a guy lacks objectivity because he made an objective (agnostic) observation. Your bias is bare for all to see, Tracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 Tracy Okay so he wanted Fonzi to help him so he started talking. If you want help to stay out of jail you do not start by lying to the man who you think can help you. You say that he was trying to hide the fact that he was part of anti Cuba activities. We have already discussed that and it is not credible since you realized the folly of your reasoning. You seem to be jumping all over th place and it is difficult to keep up with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 15, 2017 Author Share Posted April 15, 2017 Just now, Cliff Varnell said: What's really strange is the claim that a guy lacks objectivity because he made an objective (agnostic) observation. Your bias is bare for all to see, Tracy. I could be the most biased person in the world Cliff, but a fact is a fact and Fonzi altered the facts of what Veciana told him which I suspect many people already know and have not bothered to reveal. He probably felt the end justified the means. But as I said earlier in this thread, the real "bad guy" here is Veciana who has been misleading people for years. But my article is about the altered facts rather than objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 15, 2017 Author Share Posted April 15, 2017 4 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said: Tracy Okay so he wanted Fonzi to help him so he started talking. If you want help to stay out of jail you do not start by lying to the man who you think can help you. You say that he was trying to hide the fact that he was part of anti Cuba activities. We have already discussed that and it is not credible since you realized the folly of your reasoning. You seem to be jumping all over th place and it is difficult to keep up with you. No, I am not saying he was hiding his anti-Castro activities-those were a matter of record. He was looking for someone to share the blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: No, I am not saying he was hiding his anti-Castro activities-those were a matter of record. He was looking for someone to share the blame. Or, more likely, trying to save his life. Phillips wasn't the top of the food chain. Naming Phillips would suggest the complicity of whoever handled Phillips. AV's implying that those above Phillips could be revealed if he, Veciana, were killed, may have been a gambit to save his own life. Veciana would not be looking to out a high level CIA officer to share the blame for his own involvement in a drug conviction, legitimate or not; that's a sadly weak assertion. Cheers, Michael Edited April 15, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Not with regard to Veciana's LHO story. Take out LHO and it's a big nothing burger. Phillips is an interesting character though, I'll agree on that. Alpha 66 and Phillips is a nothing burger unless Oswald was seen with them? No way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 15, 2017 Author Share Posted April 15, 2017 1 minute ago, Michael Clark said: Or, more likely, trying to save his life. Phillips wasn't the top of the food chain. Naming Phillips would suggest the complicity of whoever handled Phillips. AV's implying that those above Phillips could be revealed if he, Veciana, were killed, may have been a gambit to save his own life. Veciana would not be looking to out a high level CIA officer to share the blame for his own involvement in a drug conviction, legitimate or not; that's a sadly weak assertion. Cheers, Michael I just say he was looking to share the blame, I don't think he knew who that was going to be at first. I think he went along with the CIA after he realized that Fonzi and others were amenable to the concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 15, 2017 Author Share Posted April 15, 2017 3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: Alpha 66 and Phillips is a nothing burger unless Oswald was seen with them? No way No, Bishop as Phillips means nothing without LHO. He's just a CIA guy trying to kill Castro. Don't believe me? Here's how Fonzi put it: The committee's interest in the relationship between Antonio Veciana and Maurice Bishop is of course predicated on Veciana's contention that he saw Bishop with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas a few months before the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 Tracy So now Veciana wants to share the blame not stay out of jail. So he lied. Does that make sense to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 15, 2017 Author Share Posted April 15, 2017 2 hours ago, George Sawtelle said: Tracy So now Veciana wants to share the blame not stay out of jail. So he lied. Does that make sense to you. George, I'll eventually be doing a piece to discuss Veciana's possible motivations. I believe Fonzi had it partly right when he wrote this: Veciana felt that by revealing his association with Bishop to an official representative of the U.S. Government, he would be providing himself with an element of security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) Tracy Upon hearing for the first that Veciana met Bishop in the company of Oswald in Dallas Sept 1963, Fonzi said the following ... As much as the substance of the information itself, it was absolutely coincidental and credible way it came up, which so stunned me. First impressions are inherently circumstancial judgments, but I had no doubt then - and have none now - that Veciana was simply and truthfully revealing what he knew. Edited April 16, 2017 by George Sawtelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 10 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: No, Bishop as Phillips means nothing without LHO. He's just a CIA guy trying to kill Castro. Don't believe me? Here's how Fonzi put it: The committee's interest in the relationship between Antonio Veciana and Maurice Bishop is of course predicated on Veciana's contention that he saw Bishop with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas a few months before the assassination of John F. Kennedy. My take on this quote is of course that 'the committee' was dead wrong on this. You need to read some other books, and put this paper thin argument you are making to bed while you catch up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 16, 2017 Author Share Posted April 16, 2017 8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: My take on this quote is of course that 'the committee' was dead wrong on this. You need to read some other books, and put this paper thin argument you are making to bed while you catch up. Of course, "the committee" in this case was Fonzi so it is his argument as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: What's your evidence that Phillips was running the DRE other than Hunt's statement? And what is your evidence that LHO's contact with the DRE was at the behest of the CIA? Please note what TP has done. Right out of the John McAdams cardsharp page. I said that Phillips was running the CIA's anti FPCC campaign. He replies with the above. To those who can see through the shell game, the evidence of Phillips--along with McCord-- running the CIA's anti FPCC campaign is right in John Newman's book, as are the documents showing that. This perfectly sets up the reasons for the association and also the meeting at the Southland Center. In fact, one can go as far as saying that some of the flyers Oswald was passing out that summer originated from the 1961 CIA purchase. Edited April 16, 2017 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now