W. Tracy Parnell

No, you or I wouldn't confuse the two for sure. But a non-English speaking woman new to this country might.

Why would he? What possible relevance does Steve Roe's business have to his JFK research?

This was mentioned by Greg D. in his piece-no one is trying to hide it. If Jim had read what Greg wrote he might understand the point that Greg is making. Marina confused the CIA and the ACLU.

Well said Steve.

It could be low-tech, but do spies generally try to conceal their activity or not?

You're right Jonathan. The article reference above alleges that Ruth's behavior "overlapped every characteristic of a CIA infiltrator" because she was taking notes etc. But a true "CIA infiltrator" would do nothing to call attention to themselves and would do their information gathering using undetectable methods. BTW, Jones and Wheaton are exactly the type of individuals that Greg D. warned about-conspiracy people who have already made up their minds about Ruth long ago. Their "information" is worthless for anyone seeking the truth about the matter.

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

Excellent report-thanks for doing it. Di Eugenio and Wheaton should be ashamed, but they likely are not.

Response to Kelly re: "HSCA Evidence of Conspiracy" ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

I already commented on that Larry. He had what he wanted-all the TV cameras and newspapers in the world were focused on him. No need to confess with a death penalty in Texas.

Perhaps you would like to discuss the book and your problems with it?

He wasn't suicidal Richard. With the death penalty in Texas, he wasn't about to admit his culpability. He had what he wanted; the eyes of the world were upon him. But that is just my opinion based on my study of his life.

I never commented about their opinion that right-wingers killed JFK. Makes sense that it would be their first reaction though. LHO had plenty of motive, the biggest of which (IMO) was he wanted to be big and JFK did that for him instantly. It didn't matter that he liked JFK (although that is overstated IMO). JFK was a means to an end.

Well, even Quakers have their limits. And yes, they disliked LHO.

Because knowing Oswald as they did, it all made sense.

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

Greg, I appreciate your continued defense of the Paines. Max Good tries to make himself out to be a neutral narrator, but he is really promoting the conspiracy angle. Because without that he has no film. No one would want to see a film that debunks the various claims about the Paines, as unfortunate as that reality is, even though such a film would be very welcome.

He was there for part of Oswald's visit only. He was on temporary duty in Miami and DC (if I recall correctly) preparing for his new job for part of that time. What Phillips is trying to say regarding photos is they he (and I believe Robert Shaw) made a diligent search for photos of LHO after the assassination and came up empty. Now, I know that will never convince those who think photos were destroyed. Watch for my chapter on MC in The Bishop Hoax coming in a few weeks.

The program the American Assassins was first broadcast in November of 1975: The American Assassins | Dan Rather (danratherjournalist.org)

September 1977 was when the debate between Lane and Phillips occurred. The interview above mentions that Phillips is retired so it would have occurred after May of 1975 but still in that year since it was broadcast then.

Everything you said here is very unfair Sandy. You have not read the WR and you are one of its biggest critics? That doesn't seem right. The junior lawyers that essentially created the report had no bias as many of them have explained (see Willens' book). Not logically thinking? two of the best books were by lawyers (Bugliosi and Posner) and they certainly think logically. As far as the article mentioned by Greg, it has hyperlink citations and anyone can check them out to see if they back up what the author is claiming. I just wrote a book rebutting the Maurice Bishop matter and the book that was based on (Fonzi) has no citations whatsoever. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

Thank you.

BTW, would someone please be kind enough identify the name and year of this broadcast?

I think one of the truths of the assassination story is that people like Phillips and Win Scott wanted to believe that they had acted exactly as they should have when faced with the prospect of LHO in MC. But with the benefit of hindsight, they probably could have done better although Phillips wasn't even in MC for part of Oswald's visit. Watch for Chapter 26 of my eBook, The Bishop Hoax.

I don't see anything unreasonable about what Phillips is saying in this interview. He says: Oswald was at the Cuban embassy. There is plenty of evidence that LHO was in MC. I believe Bugliosi identified fourteen points of evidence in this regard. Oswald was rebuffed in his efforts to secure a visa. No photos. Again, this jibes with the evidence. The photographic coverage was not continuous and glitch-free. Phillips says he is not sure if Oswald physically visited the Soviet compound. This is presumably because that was not his area of responsibility, so he didn't want to say.