Bishop

[Michael Clark]

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - I'm more inclined to think the 'meeting' was accidental. Did you watch Veciana when he finally stated publicly that Bishop was Phillips?

Paul, I have read and saw much of what Veciana has said.

Allow me to qualify that most of my observations (I won't call it research) were in the early part of my last 6 months, since I have started digging into this case. In the beginning I was just starting to sort out who folks like VA, DAP, and Angleton were. So, no; I have no informed understanding of Veciana's story. 

Also, I have recently formed my own pet theory. My response to your post is informed by that theory.

Surely, that meeting raises as many questions as does provide answers. Most of those question arise in the form of "why the he'll would he (DAP) do that?

My answer, and I am not expecting you to accept it, is that he wanted it to happen. That explanation is simple and self-evident, and I am thinking that it is correct. It was no mistake.

What purpose did it serve? Today it is evidence that CIA and Anti Castro Cubans were involved, jointly, in a plan to assassinate JFK. At around 3PM on 11-22-63, it was evidence that Anti Castro Cubans were involved in a plan to assassinate JFK.

It's elegant, and probably true.

Cheers,

Michael

[Thomas Graves]

On 4/11/2017 at 5:56 PM, Michael Clark said:

Testimony of George Senator.

Senator is being asked, name-by-name, if he recognizes any names written in Jack Ruby's address book...

Mr. GRIFFIN. It looks like Donald Wiley. Do you recognize that name?
Mr. SENATOR. No.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I will read you the other names on here. Pauline Foch.
Mr. SENATOR. No.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Etheridge?
Mr. SENATOR. I don't know.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Ray Hawkins?
Mr. SENATOR. No.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Sue Blake?
Mr. SENATOR. No; I don't know her.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I am not going to hand you the next exhibit, which is 5305-0, because there are no names written on there of any persons. And I am not going to hand you Exhibit 5305-P. I will take that back. I will hand you that. There is a name "Bishop" written there. Does that name mean anything to you?
Mr. SENATOR. I think I have heard of the name, but I don't know who it is. I don't know what that is. I believe I have somewheres heard of that name.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, I am going to read to you from Exhibit 5305-Q, and tell me if .....

 

"Bishop" is the only name that is transcribed in quotes....

"Bishop" is the only name that is transcribed in quotes....

Interesting.

Nice catch.

Since the transcript doesn't say, "There is a name quote, Bishop, unquote written there," one can only wonder whether or not Griffin used "air quotes."

If he didn't, how would the person writing down the testimony (like a court reporter) know to put that name and only that name in quotes?

--  Tommy

[Michael Clark]

5 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

"Bishop" is the only name that is transcribed in quotes....

Interesting.

Nice catch.

Since the transcript doesn't say, "There is a name quote, Bishop, unquote written there," one can only wonder whether or not Griffin used "air quotes."

If he didn't, how would the person writing down the testimony (like a court reporter) know to put that name and only that name in quotes?

--  Tommy

Yup. I thought of that. I did compare it to other sources (Marquette vs some other source) and it is consistent.

I am summing that Griffin said.... "quote xxxxxx unquote" or there must be some convention used.... IDK?

Cheers,

Michael

Edited April 13, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

10 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

"Bishop" is the only name that is transcribed in quotes....

Interesting.

Nice catch.

Since the transcript doesn't say, "There is a name quote, Bishop, unquote written there," one can only wonder whether or not Griffin used "air quotes."

If he didn't, how would the person writing down the testimony (like a court reporter) know to put that name and only that name in quotes?

--  Tommy

I was poking around in the DPD archives today. Ruby's address book is there, in photostat form. I did not search for that particular entry.

Cheers,

Michael

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Bump, as it relates to two current threads.

Dear Mike,

Looks like there are some words missing from the middle of that Larry Hancock quotation.

Could you please fill it in and make it whole?

Thank you!

--  Tommy

PS  It does look like an important post, btw, Mike.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I looked twice, and a third time where I made the text in bold. I didn't see it. If you cue me in, I'll make the changes.

Cheers,

Michael

I just now looked at it again and realized it would make more sense if the words "alias beginning in Cuba while" were changed to "alias beginning in Cuba where."

--  Tommy

Edited April 15, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

On 8/28/2013 at 6:17 PM, Larry Hancock said:

To weigh in on this is a bit more detail, in SWHT I present what I think is an extremely strong circumstantial case that Phillips did use the Bishop alias beginning in Cuba while

he was for years after that. Phillips admitted to using an alias in Cuba and to working with a rebel group wanting to assassinate Castro, a perfect fit for the known

Veciana contact inside Cuba. Keep in mind that in his undercover position any alias Phillips used could well have been local, not a CIA crypt or even necessarily a formal

assigned alias - he was deep undercover, not using a backstopped cover of any sort, say as Morales was doing at the same time in Havana, assigned to the U.S. embassy.

But the connection goes years beyond that, with a strong case that Phillips continued to use both Veciana and Luis Posada in Castro assassination projects in Latin

America, even after he moved into much higher positions as a country station chief and then division chief for the region. Veciana is on record that he was amazed that

as a legally restricted exile, restricted to Florida, someone managed to get him a job down there, and with AID for that matter. Its going to take Phillips to do that sort

of thing...

To see the connections between some of these folks, its necessary to look way beyond just the Cuba secret war projects of the early 60's, their agenda continued for many

years beyond that, possibly sanctioned but in the case of Phillips, very possibly not...

-- Larry

Bumpred again, due to distraction...

Edited April 15, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Thomas Graves]

5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Bumpred again, due to distraction...

Dear Mikey,

You just don't get it, do you.

Unobservant? Dyslexic? Or just stubborn?

I'm trying to help you make your post intelligible, but you refuse to understand.

If you did, and it turns out it was Larry's "typo" to begin with, then you could at least put "(sic)" or "[sic]" after his word "while".

LOL

unbelievabe

You can lead a horse to water...

--  Tommy

And you got a degree in English literature?

[Michael Clark]

22 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Mikey,

You just don't get it, do you.

Unobservant? Dyslexic? Or just stubborn?

I'm trying to help you make your post intelligible, but you refuse to understand.

If you did, and it turns out it was Larry's "typo" to begin with, then you could at least put "(sic)" or "[sic]" after his word "while".

LOL

unbelievabe

You can lead a horse to water...

--  Tommy

And you got a degree in English literature?

Tommy, I filled in, above, that I am unclear as to the etiquette regarding the  editing other people's posts. I was just looking into it. Right now I am looking up "IBID". Sure, it's awkward, and incorrect, but with a double-take the meaning is not lost on the reader. Also, you said that the problem was in the middle of the post, saying there were missing words. I am not seeing that. did YOU make a mistake, and instead of saying "oops, my bad", deflect to an agreement problem in the second paragraph?

Lastly, I'm not a horse, YOU do no not "lead" ME anywhere, and, I have a Moosehead lager in-hand; water is on tap if I need it.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited April 15, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

Tommy, Larry Hancock's post belongs in the Fozi thread. Please, take the lead, and show me how that transfer, with corrections or notations, is done.

Cheers,

Michael

[Thomas Graves]

Just now, Michael Clark said:

Can't we just ignore each-other [sic]?

The ball's not in your court, Mikey.

I give you some humorous and maybe even a teensy-weensie little bit sarcastic but good advice, and you come back with "Can't we just ignore each other?"

LOL

--  Tommy

Must because I'm a laid-back, native southern California beach guy, and you're a wound-up-tight New Yawker.

[Thomas Graves]

19 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

"It's on the Fonzi thread," or words to that effect.  -- T.G.

Dear Mikey,

You mean on this "Fonzi thread"?  Or on some other "Fonzi thread"? -- 

--  Tommy

Edited April 15, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

Tommie, know, thiss un....

 

[Thomas Graves]

On 8/28/2013 at 3:17 PM, Larry Hancock said:

To weigh in on this is a bit more detail, in SWHT I present what I think is an extremely strong circumstantial case that Phillips did use the Bishop alias beginning in Cuba while he [was there in such-and-such years and (?)] was [somehere else(?)] for years after that. Phillips admitted to using an alias in Cuba and to working with a rebel group wanting to assassinate Castro, a perfect fit for the known Veciana contact inside Cuba. Keep in mind that in his undercover position any alias Phillips used could well have been local, not a CIA crypt or even necessarily a formal assigned alias - he was deep undercover, not using a backstopped cover of any sort, say as Morales was doing at the same time in Havana, assigned to the U.S. embassy.

But the connection goes years beyond that, with a strong case that Phillips continued to use both Veciana and Luis Posada in Castro assassination projects in Latin America, even after he moved into much higher positions as a country station chief and then division chief for the region. Veciana is on record that he was amazed that as a legally restricted exile, restricted to Florida, someone managed to get him a job down there, and with AID for that matter. Its going to take Phillips to do that sort of thing...

To see the connections between some of these folks, its necessary to look way beyond just the Cuba secret war projects of the early 60's, their agenda continued for many years beyond that, possibly sanctioned but in the case of Phillips, very possibly not...

-- Larry

Thanks, Larry.

As always, you've given us much "to chew on," here.

--  Tommy

PS  I made a couple of possible "corrections" in the text.  Hope you don't mind.  Just trying to make that first part a little more intelligible.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Larry Hancock]

Hi Thomas, as to the "corrections" Phillips was under cover in Havana from 1958 to 1960, after his departure - under pressure having been identified as an agent - he was assigned in 1961 to the Cuba project first in DC but with an extensive amount of travel.  I normally don't put those sorts of details into posts because  don't trust my memory and that's why I wrote the book...grin. If you have the 2010 version you find these dates on page148. As to Veciana, he was recontacted in Havana by Bishop when Veciana came out in 1961. Bishop focused him and Alpha 66 on raids against Russian targets in 1962.

The exact dates and circumstances for his being outed and warned as well as the process by which he left Cuba is all documented in CIA files so those dates are available to, I cite them and some files should be on my web site associated with Chapter 10 documents.