W. Tracy Parnell

Jim, First, I am a member in good standing here and I can post whatever I like as long as it doesn't violate forum rules. I post here (and on other forums) infrequently as the case is solved to my satisfaction. And I find that as I get older I don't enjoy debate like I used to. Second, we have a nine page thread here which consists of mostly (if not all) comments that are supportive of Thompson. I check this forum every day and I have found that there are several individuals who represent themselves as CTs that are at least open to opposing opinions. I provided the link to Girdler's article for their information. And if the article raises some valid points (which I feel is the case) what is the difference where it is hosted?

A critical review of Thompson's book: LABYRINTH.pdf (mu.edu)

No, I don't speak for David and he can chime in anytime. But when putting together my Palmer McBride piece I used some posts that he made to newsgroups. So, if I used them you can bet they were pretty much anti-Armstrong and I feel that his overall opinion of the theory is likely unfavorable.

That is correct.

I may have I don't remember. I don't think I delve into Menoyo's time in Spain very much in my work since it isn't really relevant to the points I try and make. Do you have a particular theory about Menoyo and Skorzeny?

Thanks for the document Paul. I think it is safe to say that Menoyo played both sides of the fence while he was in Cuba.

I'll be discussing those three in my book.

No, I don't believe so. Zabala said that "he, Veciana and the CIA agent Bishop began planning the assassination of Castro." But Zabala's admission that he never met Bishop indicates to me that he is mixing what Veciana told him later with his memories of the plot (assuming that he really participated). Additionally, there is not one other relevant person who said they knew Bishop and Veciana never indicated that there was. Menoyo, Nazario and all the men from SNFE knew nothing about it. Lopez-Fresquet was amazed when he heard about Veciana's allegations and said something to the effect of "well, he hid his involvement with the CIA very well because I never knew about it."

You and me both. Newman says that Veciana remained a source for Army Intelligence until 1965. But I agree that Newman is exaggerating Veciana's involvements with the Army. Once they saw that the weapons that Pfuntner promised were nothing impressive, their main focus was interviewing the frogmen who they felt could provide useful intelligence. But Zabala was just repeating what Veciana told him as far as Bishop goes. He admitted in another document that "he never actually met this man [Bishop]. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=197144&search=bishop#relPageId=28&tab=page Another problem with Zabala claiming that he was in on the 1971 plot is that Veciana never said much about him in regards to that.

A report on Newman's presentation: Newman Says Phillips Was Not Bishop ~ W. Tracy Parnell

New review by Posner for the open-minded among you: On the Trail of Delusion—A Review – Quillette

Thank you Anthony.

I see "legal battles are underway behind the scenes" but nothing about documents. But let's assume you are right and Newman obtains court documents. What would these documents prove in your opinion?

"Wild Stallion" (a friend of Veciana's) "suspected" that Veciana was released so he could tell his Bishop story. Zabala said the same thing but admitted it was just speculation. This is proof of nothing. It would be the best thing in the world if this could be proven since Veciana's motive for the Bishop story would be obvious. There are a couple of problems though. If Veciana was released at the behest of the HSCA (legitimately) wouldn't they want something in return? And I don't just mean his testimony-I am referring to verification of his Maurice Bishop story. And they wouldn't send Fonzi to do that-they would have the FBI or someone do it. And his release would be contingent on him producing verifiable evidence for his claims which he never did. Because of this pesky fact, I believe Newman is going to follow the path of least resistance and say that one of the evil Pentagon plotters or a CIA man who worked with the plotters (or whoever) ordered a judge (who they happened to have in their pocket) to release Veciana. But there is still a problem. As I document here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/02/newmans-new-paradigm.html Veciana sure did a bad job of implicating the CIA right out of the gate. He went out of his way over and over to say that Bishop was not with the CIA but worked for another intelligence agency or a powerful special interest group. That's what you do when you tell a lie-you make it non-specific enough so you don't paint yourself into a corner. Veciana never started the nonsense about himself and Bishop being CIA agents until late in life. The truth is that Veciana told his story in order to gain a powerful ally (Fonzi) who could place doubt in the minds of everyone about Veciana's drug conviction. Veciana could plausibly say that Castro set him up or that the CIA set him up. And since he was giving Fonzi (and others) what they wanted to hear, they would say "well maybe that is true-he was setup." Another reason was that he simply liked the notoriety. He enjoyed being in the national spotlight during his years with Alpha 66 and this gave him a chance to return to that, albeit in a different way. Of course, he probably never imagined that he would someday be 86 years old and sitting in a banquet hall full of researchers telling him how great he was and hanging on his every word. And a few years later, he would be peddling a book full of nonsense about his life that he wished were true but really wasn't. Anyway, Newman needs some real evidence and this isn't it.

I must admit, Sandy is one amazing guy. First, we discover he is a forensic dentistry expert. Now, we find he is an ophthalmologist as well.

Clay Shaw eloquently makes the case for LHO as lone assassin in a letter to Sylvia Meagher: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/sylvia-meagher-and-jim-garrison-part-one

My review is now online: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/10/book-review-on-trail-of-delusion.html

No.

Fortunately David, you are just an honest researcher.

Mexico City unless I am missing something. Sforza was also involved in Track II Chile in 1970 as a contact man.

Yes, and I was right-it is self-published and the research was done with his own funds.

Yes, some of the files are online of course. But you're not even going to read the book? Just review my review?

I don't know of too many lazy people that go to 19 archives. I believe this book is self-published (he can correct me if I am wrong) so that means that he did all of this on his own dime.

It is very good Steve. I am slowly working my way through and taking notes as I go so I can do a decent review. Excellent new material as well.

Yes-"Teenage Conspiracy Freak."