W. Tracy Parnell Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 In this article, I look at the evidence that Veciana worked for the CIA per Morley and other critics: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/07/veciana-and-cia.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Cearfoss Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Parnell: 'As Morley says, two CIA employees did indeed say that they thought Phillips used the name Bishop. However, both later recanted. In a HSCA deposition, former CIA director John McCone stated that he thought that a Maurice Bishop had worked for the agency. [8] However, just over a month later in a letter from the CIA’s office of Legislative Council, McCone recanted.'[9] So where should we put the weight, on the original statement or the recantation? Just because somebody recants does not mean the original assertion was untrue. After all, 30 years after the assassination, in Posner's book, some of the Parkland doctors disavowed their November 22, 1963 assertions regarding the JFK head wound. And we all know what nonsense that was. As a matter of fact, original statements are usually given freely, and we may surmise that a later about-face could very well be the result of intimidation or coercion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Steve, agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted July 5, 2017 Author Share Posted July 5, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Steve Cearfoss said: Just because somebody recants does not mean the original assertion was untrue Correct. I am just pointing out alternatives. Edited July 5, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) I can't get into cases now, but I suspect from my own studies that the cognomen "Bishop" was used by more than one person at CIA for forays into the field. I suspect Tracey Barnes used "Bishop:" also when out of the office. Check the past threads for other research on this. Edited July 6, 2017 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 9 hours ago, David Andrews said: I can't get into cases now, but I suspect from my own studies that the cognomen "Bishop" was used by more than one person at CIA for forays into the field. I suspect Tracey Barnes used "Bishop:" also when out of the office. Check the past threads for other research on this. Kind of like Nagell and possibly others may have used Hidell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 22 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: Kind of like Nagell and possibly others may have used Hidell? On a lower operational level, but yes. My sense is that there were migratory field names at CIA, and they were used to confuse field contacts and destroy culpability, but perhaps also to certify persons dropping the name ( e. g., "Bishop") to other persons observing an op at CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 2 hours ago, David Andrews said: On a lower operational level, but yes. My sense is that there were migratory field names at CIA, and they were used to confuse field contacts and destroy culpability, but perhaps also to certify persons dropping the name ( e. g., "Bishop") to other persons observing an op at CIA. Agreed, the name,"Bishop" may have been more the name of a title or position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 27 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: Agreed, the name,"Bishop" may have been more the name of a title or position. Maybe more like planned confusion? Obfuscation? Bishop was Phillips. Phiilips was Barnes. Barnes was Bishop. Bishop was Smith or Jones. Phillips was Bishop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 18 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: Maybe more like planned confusion? Obfuscation? Bishop was Phillips. Phiilips was Barnes. Barnes was Bishop. Bishop was Smith or Jones. Phillips was Bishop? Planned confusion and obfuscation are what code-names are all about, right? David Andrews' observation struck a chord with me. I think there is something going on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Veciana was cut a check for what...$250,000? Which in today's dollars would be well over $1,000,000? Nobody pays that large a sum to someone who they feel has done them a great deal of harm. That was such a huge amount at the time. How does this fact play in the larger picture of Veciana's credibility or his truthfulness in all that he has said and written since then? I don't know...but handing someone in Veciana's covert field that kind of dough ( without it being hidden ) means something important in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 16 hours ago, Michael Clark said: Agreed, the name,"Bishop" may have been more the name of a title or position. Remember that Howard Hunt was, allegedly, once going by "Knight." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted July 8, 2017 Author Share Posted July 8, 2017 6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said: Veciana was cut a check for what...$250,000? Which in today's dollars would be well over $1,000,000? Nobody pays that large a sum to someone who they feel has done them a great deal of harm. That was such a huge amount at the time. How does this fact play in the larger picture of Veciana's credibility or his truthfulness in all that he has said and written since then? I don't know...but handing someone in Veciana's covert field that kind of dough ( without it being hidden ) means something important in my mind. Remember, there is no independent confirmation for the $250,000. It is just his word and as I show at my site, what he is saying now doesn't match what he said in the early versions of his story. So I would be skeptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Bishop...Knight...and Ozzie was just a Pawn. Check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Mark Knight said: Bishop...Knight...and Ozzie was just a Pawn. Check. Mate. I thought it was "only" 200 K not a a full quarter million (how much in todays money, again?). But I don't remember the part about Phillips writing him a check. Something about a bag of cash comes to mind. I'm probably wrong again or it's just my imagination runnin' away with me, again. Pawn does not take out King without assistance of Bishop and Knight. 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