W. Tracy Parnell

My point is simply that he states that he has now read the "declassified record" which you referred to in your first post. And he has visited 19 archives so I would call that a well-researched book. As I indicated, I'll have more to say when I have actually finished the book.

He has now read the files and was not impressed. As far as where he went for research, he visited 19 different archives.

You are right-Phillips' and his brother had a falling out. His brother didn't respect what he did. But, here is the story told by the document I mentioned. I understand that some theorists believe this ties Phillips to the assassination, but Joan Mellen admits that it places him in Mexico during that time. From Spartacus: [Quote on] Miami is informing its Mexico City station that one "Henry J. Sloman," an alias for longtime CIA asset Anthony (Tony) Sforza, would be arriving in Mexico on November 22nd ... In Mexico City, Sloman/Sforza was to meet the wife of an agent designated as AMHALF-2, and retrieve a message regarding the "Martime Exfil of headquarters asset" who was to arrive in Mexico "on 22 November," and may have been Fidel Castro's sister, Juanita. Sloman was ordered to contact Phillips, mentioned here under his longtime alias "[Michael] Choaden," on the next day and pick up the information that had arrived from "[02] Exit-3." [quote off] Mellen writes in "A Farewell to Justice," "If Phillips was down in Mexico, as he would be expected to be, waiting for Sloman, he was not in Texas." Of course, I don't believe Phillips had anything to do with the assassination. But my point is if he did, he would not be so foolish as to place himself at the scene of the crime. Phillips was an executive not a soldier. He had a close call in Cuba in 1959 and after that he operated out of the cozy confines of an office.

Thanks David.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/ I'll have a review at my blog in a few days.

Phillips, of course, was stationed in Mexico at the time. There's a document that places him there at the time of the assassination (don't have a link right now). Common sense says that If Phillips had been involved in a plot to kill JFK he would have been as far away from Dallas as he could get. The story is just one of those things that gets started and developed a life of its own.

David, Who was Bishop then in your view?

I have thought about it and here is my final speculation on what Newman will likely say. This isn't in my blog article because I just thought of it. Newman will probably follow the path of least resistance say that both Fonzi and the HSCA members were unaware of the arranged early release of Veciana. This release was arranged by the Pentagon plotters through a federal judge that they had in their pocket. (Note that the plotters had the power to arrange the release in just 2 weeks time). Veciana (who the plotters somehow had total control over) was "weaponized" to draw attention away from the plotters and create a false trail to the CIA through the Maurice Bishop story. Although Fonzi suspected that something was wrong, his belief in the CIA-did-it theory wouldn't allow him to pursue that angle. Newman's proof of all of this? The statement of Felix Zabala that he suspected Veciana was let out early to tell his story (even though he admitted that was speculation). It's also possible Newman has the name of the judge that signed Veciana's release. In that case, he will try to show some connection between the judge and the plotters.

Admittedly, I am speculating. We will have to wait to see what Newman says. Of course, I am not saying that Fonzi was aware of the JCS plot to kill JFK that Newman is alleging.

Yes, I think they would have been glad to see Castro go.

As best I can tell, Newman is going to say that the Joint Chiefs did in JFK. Veciana was a tool who they "weaponized" in furtherance of the plot and arranged for his early release from prison. Part of the basis for his theory is the evidence that shows Veciana was associated with the Army and not the CIA as he claimed. The Maurice Bishop story was a diversion to direct attention away from the JCS. And Fonzi was either duped or in on this plot. Newman is also hinting at a war between his followers and the Fonzi followers. My detailed take on the Veciana aspect of this: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/02/newmans-new-paradigm.html

I don't see anything new here other than the nice painting. Veciana could not have met Phillips in Cuba in 1959 or 1960. Newman is correct but that is not new. I guess he is saying a war is still brewing between the Fonzi faction and his own followers who evidently believe that the JCS did it. Should be interesting. Also, we'll see if he can prove his claim that Veciana was released from prison early (presumably by the JCS through a judge or something). The only evidence I have seen for that is a statement by Zabala which he admits was speculative. If he was released early, his motive to lie about seeing LHO with Bishop-Phillips would be obvious.

I know all about those statements James. His ability was in the eye of the beholder. To the Marines, most of whom presumably had no Russian speaking ability at all, he seemed to be reading and speaking Russian. Same with Quinn-what was "well" to her is relative. The real test was when he arrived in Russian and met up with native speakers. Jim's post above describes what they thought. I would like to do an article on LHO's Russian ability. A comprehensive study is sorely needed. But I am swamped right now.

There are no words for someone still promoting that nonsense. Or maybe there are, but I don't want to be banned.

Clearly, he had no Russian fluency when he arrived there. He obtained his ability, which as Jeremy points out, was far from perfect, over time from speaking it every day. Thank you Jim for providing all of these examples of what the critics have been saying all along. LHO could barely speak Russian when he first arrived.

Too funny. Jim Hargrove complains about Jeremy and then proceeds to post "the same old stuff" himself that he has dumped here time and time again (and has been debunked time and time again).

Translation: any photo that appears to refute the H&L theory is suspect. Any photo that seems to confirm it is authentic.

Perhaps he omitted it from his book because during preparation for that work, he reviewed the evidence and realized he was wrong.

Because seven years has passed and he simply got his timeline mixed up.

That is correct and Robert certainly believed it or he wouldn't have testified to it. The same may be said for all of the "witnesses" to Stripling. They probably all acted in good faith. And the same may be said for the more than 2000 individuals who said they saw prison escapees Matt and Sweat (made famous by the Showtime docudrama) in various places in New York and elsewhere that later evidence proved was not possible. Human nature being what it is, human beings will make all sorts of claims for various reasons.

Very good report Mark and good luck with your ongoing research.

Sounds more like Hargrove.

Just wondering-isn't there some kind of forum rule against posting the same thing over and over again? Is that your idea of making an argument? Posting the same thing over and over until the other side gives up? These points have been answered a million times and that will be true no matter how many times you repeat them.

Dr. Norwood, could you add this to your list of complaints to the moderators please?

Exactly. I've often said that using the H&L logic there could be a hundred Oswalds if you consider all of the discrepancies and false sightings.