W. Tracy Parnell

While she does not specifically mention Todd, she does say "I was able to discern the initials representing the chain of custody of item CE399." That chain would neccessarily include Todd.

I hate to be rude but you again say "they" formed the AFIO after I gave you three sources that say otherwise including the organization itself. The footnote above (which cites Bill Kelly's notes of his interview) is in error. EDIT-now that I look at it again, Kelly's statement that "they formed the AFIO is actually unsourced. In other words, he made it up. I have Kelly's notes (which were originally posted here at EF-do a search) and they say nothing about McLendon being a co-founder of AFIO. I wouldn't make an issue out of it, but I have two problems. One, this is an attempt to create the impression that the relationship between the two men was closer than it was to support conspiracy memes. Two, there is more than enough misinformation about Phillips out there-we don't need any more. Here is what Phillips said about McLendon: DAP: "I met Gordon McLendon in Washington D.C. about 1940. He was a college student, and I met him at a college prom here in Washington in 1940. We both then went back to Texas, and I didn't see him again, although he was quite well known in Texas. He became what someone called the Old Dutchman. He was really only about 25 years old when he came up with the concept of recreating baseball games, pretending they were live, but they weren't. And he made so much money doing that he bought 100 radio stations, and so forth, became very wealthy." "I saw him, I really didn't see him during all that period until about 1977 or something like that, when he joined the AFIO." So McLendon was a member of the group but not a "co-founder." Kelly also noted: I asked Phillips about his attempt to produce a CIA TV series on CBS with Gordon McLendon that was suppose to be like the FBI show. "I never completed the TV series on the CIA," he said. It just got bogged down in the network beauracracy. So, unless Kelly has been holding out on us, that should be the end of that myth. EDIT: here is the link to Kelly's notes of his interview (scroll down about halfway):

Litwin says "much of the content" originiated with Garrison's office-not all of it.

There goes Jim D. again misrepresenting what Fred Litwin says. Here is a quote from a blog post: "While Garrison disavowed the [Quick] article, it is quite clear that much of the content had to have originated from his office." Jim Garrison Does it Again - Claims Oswald and Ruby were Homosexuals... (onthetrailofdelusion.com) It is much different to say the content "originated from his office" than to say he himself wrote it which neither Litwin or Hoch do. See the link in my first post for a list of articles by Fred regarding Garrison and the homosexual angle he persued for a time.

Jim D. has been posting all sorts of things recently about Fred Litwin and his supporters. On Facebook, He posted a list of questions for Litwin and Alecia Long that they susposedly refuse to answer. Fred just posting a great article answering many of these questions and debunking various DiEugenio claims. This post by Fred also features a handy index of previous articles debunking claims by DiEugenio. With the release of the Stone "documentary" everyone should bookmark this. The Scholarship of James DiEugenio (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Wrong. Phillips formed the group on his own. From the AFIO website: "CIA officer David Atlee Phillips took early retirement in 1975 to respond to the growing sentiment that the CIA was a “rogue elephant.” As part of this effort, Phillips founded this organization, known then as the Association of Retired Intelligence Officers (ARIO)." "From its inception in Dave Phillips’ living room and a few hundred members in 1975, AFIO has grown to over 5000 members, with 24 active chapters across the United States." AFIO - About Us Also see The Night Watch, p. 271 and The Last Assignment: David Atlee Phillips and the Birth of CIA Public Relations.

I would say he wanted attention. BTW, I am told Fred answered this question back in February: Did Dean Andrews admit that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

No, but then Dean Andrews said so many things to any number of people that he really has no credibility at this point.

Typical.

Fred Litwin and Alecia Long at the Louisiana Book Festival (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Finally after all these years! I won't let it go to my head though.

No, because it is just an allegation made by a far-left activist with an axe to grind.

Thank you Jonathan. Yes, there is no chance of any crazy story that remotely supports the Armstrong narrative being "buried." I just believe that the claim regrading the alleged cryptonym is much too speculative to be included at a prestigious site like MF.

I find that generally the cryptonym database at Mary Ferrell's site is pretty accurate. There are a few that are questionable but the vast majority are accurately caregorized. But I believe it is a mistake to include this completely uncorroborated assertion even though it is labeled "speculative."

Working here.

Try This: JFK Asaassination witness page (jfk-assassination.net)

I know Jim has me on ignore, but I'll reply for the benefit of the rest of the forum. It's more than that. He is saying that Veciana was let out of prison specifically by acolytes of the JCS for the purpose of shifting attention away from them and toward the CIA. Unfortunately, Veciana did no such thing after his release and never said that anyone let him out of jail early for any reason. This article discusses Newman's theory: Newman Says Phillips Was Not Bishop ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com) BTW, Newman has filed suit to gain access to Veciana's release recrods: Update on John Newman ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com) Something like a sketch is subjective. Here is a list of 14 relevant people that Fonzi showed the sketch to. Only 3 of these thought it looked like Phillips. One was Phillips himself who believed that Fonzi had manufactured the sketch resembling him. The second person was Schweiker and the third was Joseph Burkholder Smith. But Smith's "identification" of Phillips is tainted by the fact that he and Fonzi were discussing Phillips just before he saw the sketch. The Bishop Sketch-Who Did it Look Like? ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com) CIA people like McCone thought that a Bishop had worked at the agency. Carmine Savastano found that several had: Regarding Maurice Bishop — TPAAK Barney Hidalgo said he knew Bishop and he was not Phillips. I deal with Crozier in my book.

In his review, Jim D. writes: "The next year, 2013, Marie asked Antonio to identify Bishop. She did not mention Phillips in that request." But according to a presentation Mrs. Fonzi gave at the 2014 AARC Conference, she admitted that she "solicited" the "revelation" about Phillips. Marie Fonzi and Veciana's "Revelation" ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com) BTW, Jim D's review merely restates Fonzi's assertions as fact. Anyone can read Fonzi's rough notes of the three original interviews and see that Fonzi's assertions often do not jibe with the record as I have been reporting since 2017. Old myths die hard it seems. There will be much much more in my forthcoming book: Gaeton Fonzi and the Veciana Allegations ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com) Newman should be congratulated for some of the work he has done. Unfortunately, he is trying to relpace one conspiracy with another.

Veciana first said he met Bishop in mid 1960. Later, he said 1959. The problem is neither date works (if you believe Bishop was Phillips) as Newman explained in his book.

Hw also reffered to Bishop as possibly being "Jim" or "John" a fact that has somehow escaped the attention of the conspiracy people. After a 13-year relationship, wouldn't Veciana know what alias his contact used? How did he refer to him -"hey you"? One person says so-Veciana. Unless you still believe Wynne Johnson that is: My Final Word on Wynne Johnson ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

New site address: JFK / McAdams's Kennedy Assassination Home Page (jfk-assassination.net)

I stand by my assertion that scientists and professional investigators would not agree with the methodology of the H&L supporters. I am not going to take it to them just to satisfy you since they (nor anyone else) should not have to spend a minute on nonsense. As for "reviewing and critiquing" the H&L theory, that is what I have done since the nineties. Thankfully, I don't spend much time doing that anymore since a group of responsible CTs who are concerned that the theory is hurting legitimate inquiry into the assassination has taken on that job.

No, I have polled no specific individuals. But I believe I am on solid ground by saying that these people would tell you that the theory that there were two boys is remarkable. As such, it would only be considered after other simpler explanations had been ruled out. But Jim and other believers use discrepencies in the record to make a case for 2 Oswalds while ignoring other explanations.

No, the simplest explanation is not to assume there were two boys. Any investigator or scientist would tell you that is illogical. It depends on how you read the records. There is more than one way to do that and as Jonathan has pointed out, Greg Parker has provided an alternate explanation. Additionally, there are other explanations such as the records contain errors which the Armstrong supporters use to their advantage.

Actually, it was 7-so what? Nick Nalli Reviews Josiah Thompson's Last Second in Dallas (onthetrailofdelusion.com)