Jump to content
The Education Forum

W. Tracy Parnell

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,220

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by W. Tracy Parnell

    Free eBook The Bishop Hoax

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    38 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

    I just can't picture someone being up on a hot tar roof in those kinds of weather conditions. It just never did ring true to me.

    Thanks Steve. This is one of many reasons to disbelieve Johnson which include the fact that he has added David Ferrie, Malcolm Wallace and a second sighting of Phillips to his story. I would love to get a copy of the 100-page version of his story that Marie Fonzi had.

    Free eBook The Bishop Hoax

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by W. Tracy Parnell

    1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

    I've been to John's presentations and have talked with him in person about this stuff, and he seems convinced Veciana was letting Fonzi think Bishop was Phillips to cover up who he was really working for: Army intelligence. This is actually worse than Phillips' being Bishop, IMO. It's easy for people to think the CIA was off the rails and that true believers like Phillips were in on the assassination. But the possibility being pursued by Newman--that it was in fact a military coup using the CIA as a patsy--is far more problematic, IMO. Particularly in light of the subsequent expansion of the war in Vietnam. 

    So I guess my concern is that you'll use Newman to suggest Phillips was not Bishop, and thereby get Phillips and the CIA off the hook, without examining the bigger picture including that Phillips' not being Bishop might actually be worse. 

    EDIT: Yes, I think Newman is right that Veciana went along with Fonzi's CIA-did-it ideas. But I lay out some evidence that Fonzi knew about the Army angle and mostly ignored it.

    ............................

    I'll have to wait for Newman's next book to comment fully, but (as I understand it) he is trying to say that Veciana was working for the Army and his mission was a “a campaign of misdirection" the goal being to "place blame on the CIA and direct attention away from the Pentagon.” 

    I discuss this theory of Newman's here:

    Newman's "New Paradigm" ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

    To summarize my contention, Veciana came out of jail and did not blame the CIA at all. He first told Fonzi that Bishop was “working for a private organization, not the government.” Well over a year later, Veciana was still telling Fonzi's assistant Al Gonzales that he “never said that Bishop was CIA” but believed that he was with “some sort of intelligence agency or with a powerful interest group.” Over two years after first speaking to Fonzi, Veciana testified before the HSCA and again stated "I always had the opinion that Maurice Bishop was working for a private firm and not the government." It was years before Veciana himself started saying or at least hinting that Bishop was CIA although that didn't stop Fonzi who published his famous article in 1980 implying that Phillips was Bishop.

    So, I have a problem with the theory and don't see any evidence for it. Or put it this way, if Veciana was trying to blame the CIA, he went at it in a very roundabout manner. We'll have to see Newman's next book to see what his evidence is but right now it seems to consist of the opinions of some of Veciana's friend who maintained he was released from jail early to speak to Fonzi and the HSCA. As you may know, Newman has filed suit to see the Veciana court documents.

    BTW, I see nothing much in Veciana's relationship with the Army. He was an informant along with Menoyo and Nazario. But his handler Hubbard (Patrick Harris) mostly blew off his requests for aid. The Army's main interest was in debriefing the frogmen that had attempted to plant a bomb on a Russian ship. Once they did that, not much else happened and it looks to me like a one-sided relationship in favor of the Army. Veciana was an informer for about four years as I recall, 1962-1966 if memory serves.

    Free eBook The Bishop Hoax

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

    Are you claiming Phillips wasn't Bishop, or that there never was a Bishop? It's been awhile, but I seem to recall that Fonzi was able to place Phillips in a number of international locations where Veciana claimed he'd met Bishop. At least on the surface, the odds of that being a coincidence would be extremely small. 

    I'm saying there was no Bishop as Veciana described him. And I have someone who now agrees with me. John Newman recently said, “at best [Bishop] would be a composite of several people that played roles in the saga.” Fonzi was not able to place Phillips in any specific location other than to say he was in South America at the same time Veciana was or that he was able to travel so he could be just about anywhere. For example, the best evidence shows that Phillips was in Mexico City when he (generally) was supposed to be meeting with Veciana in Dallas.

    The whole problem with Veciana, Pat is that there is no corroboration for anything he told Fonzi. There is not one other person in the world who knew of Bishop's existence much less one who could verify his alleged meeting with Oswald (I don't count Wynne Johnson since he is absolutely not credible). And Veciana could not produce one single document or any other piece of supporting evidence. It looks like Veciana duped everyone. But I will be covering all of this, and I don't want to give the whole book away.

    JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    44 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

    I get it.  If you can't refute Oliver Stone's documentation of the JFK assassination conspiracy, simply change the subject.

    Try to convince poorly informed people that he's Quixotic or homophobic, eh?

    Does this kill-the-messenger crap never end? 🤥

    The skepticism of the interviewer regarding Stone's "questionable assertions" demonstrates what is still the main problem for Stone and DiEugenio in my opinion. His film JFK at least was judged as homophobic back in the day, and they wisely avoided most references to Garrison and his homophobic investigation in their current work.

    What Ever Happened to Jim Garrison? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

    Plenty of refutations of the current film here:

    Oliver Stone's JFK Revisited ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

×
×
  • Create New...