W. Tracy Parnell

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tracy, you did not read it carefully, which is no surprise since you are as agenda driven as he is.

He read Irvin--the xxxx-- Dymond's files.

LOL.  Those were turned over to the ARRB  a long time ago. They were part of the Wegmann files.  The Wegmanns ran the defense, not Dymond.  He was just a hired gun.

 

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.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

And he admits he did not read the declassified record the first time around.

So he does he go to? Harry Connick--the guy who incinerated many of Garrison's files--and the work  of Irvin Dymond. 

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

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

I see. Fair enough.

Does your story dismissal also include the claim that Phillips and his brother did indeed have a very strained relationship?

Not trying to distract from the thread with my Phillips questions, just curious about the story as it did make it to some published venue obviously.

And if it isn't even more frivolous ( if so, just ignore this question ) what about Phillip's similar occupation counterpart E. Howard Hunt's end of life recorded claim of LBJ/Cord Meyer involvement in the "Big Event" with Hunt refusing an offer to be more involved than simply a "Bench Warmer" role?

And Hunt's similar denial of being in Dallas himself on 11,22,1963?

Your common sense logic regards Phillips not wanting to be in Dallas for reasons of implication should also apply to Hunt, yes?

Yet, after some fair amount of under oath litigation scrutiny ( documented ) in his lawsuit against Mark Lane ( won but later tossed ) Hunt's claim of being back at home in Virginia with his wife and kids on 11,22,1963 seemed very weak with even two of his children disputing their father's claim of being there.

I guess my take is that in their career field ( Phillips and Hunt) lying about so many things is a trained, accepted and expected part of their trade craft. A patriotic duty. So, wouldn't common sense tell you to question everything they say and claim, even under oath?

 

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.

3 hours ago, David Boylan said:

Hi Tracy. Bill Simpich provides some good background on the plots to assassinate Castro in the summer of 1961.

Jim Bouling was Jim Pekich. Pekich organized the networks that still existed in Cuba.

Carl Hitch was Cal Hicks. Hicks was a paramilitary officer that worked on the Cuba Project/BOP. He worked with some of the Cuban recruits in the New Orleans area along his assistant Guy Vitale. Hicks was Veciana's CO up until 1962 when Veciana lost his POA and joined up with Eloy Gutierrez-Menoyo's SFNE.

 In 1962 Hicks and Vitale would work for Bill Harvey as part of the PM staff for Task Force W.  Hicks would be promoted to Chief, WH/4/Paramiltary replacing Col. Art Maloney in 1964. Hicks later went to work for David Phillips as part of Phillips Intelligence Watch group.

Harold Bishop was likely their supervisor during the Cuba Project/BOP.

Thanks David.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/

I'll have a review at my blog in a few days.

20 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Any thoughts about the credibility of the story of David Phillip's death bed confession made to his estranged brother stating he ( Phillips ) was in Dallas on 11,22,1963?

 

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. 

32 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

The thing is Veciana did tell some truths. He and some of his compatriots were recruited by "Bishop" and did try to assassinate Castro. It just wasn't Maurice Bishop and it wasn't David Phillips. I suspect that he had quite a bit of extra funds that he raised as part of his Alpha-66 activities and needed an explanation as to how he got(kept) these funds of $263,000 and claimed that Maurice Bishop gave him that sum. Was he really that valuable? Heck the CIA only paid Gustavo Villoldo $30,000 and he helped capture Che as a "technical advisor" to the Bolivian Government.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=191363#relPageId=4&tab=page

 

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.

10 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

Fonzi possibly "in on this plot" ? Always great to attack the dead, especially when you have no evidence. And I am certain that John is NOT

suggesting that Fonzi was in on it. Please.

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.

12 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Tracy, I will agree with you that Newman was pointing the finger at JCS. However, he clearly states JFK and RFK renewed their efforts against Castro. Of course, if you read between the lines, the President and his brother wanted Castro “deposed”. Is that how you see it? 

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

11 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Tracy, I'm still trying to make sense of what Dr. Newman is alluding to.

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.

5 hours ago, James Norwood said:

You haven't done your homework, Tracy.  Multiple Marines witnessed Oswald reading Russian-language materials.   Rosaleen Quinn, the aunt of one of Oswald's Marine buddies, was teaching herself Russian through the Berlitz language system and was interested in conversing with Oswald.  In her Warren Commission deposition, Quinn asserted that “Oswald spoke Russian well.”  The meeting of Oswald and Quinn occurred in 1959.  Also, prior to leaving for the Soviet Union, Oswald was administered an Army exam in Russian proficiency and answered the majority of the questions correctly.

Your statement above is blatantly inaccurate.

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.

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Oswald did not have a 13-inch head.

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

3 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Clearly, Oswald tried to hide his Russian fluency while in the Soviet Union.

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.

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I underestimated Mr. Bojczuk.  He has posted the same old stuff about the mastoidectomy three times in the last 24 hours. 

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).

8 hours ago, James Norwood said:

Tony,

Over the years, I have seen too many students of the JFK case get suckered into drawing false conclusions based exclusively on photos.  I would not for a minute begin to draw any conclusions about the three photos with the pearls without first understanding in detail the provenance of each photo.

It is not enough to merely accept as bona fide evidence the notation "original photo."  Who is saying that photos #1 and 2 above are "original."  That needs to be demonstrated by careful research to understand when and where the photo was taken and whether it is genuine evidence.  I don't care if the photos are original, but I do care that they are authentic.

For these reasons, in the Oswald case, I don't wade into photos...as fascinating as they are!

James 

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

16 hours ago, James Norwood said:

The critic has failed to offer a plausible explanation for why Robert would identify Stripling on multiple occasions to the press and to the Warren Commission, then omit it in his book.   

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

52 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know how anybody can argue with a straight face that Robert thought his brother attended Stripling.

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

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Nothing anyone can say or do can alter the obvious facts that Robert Oswald told the local newspaper before the assassination and swore to the WC after the assassination that LHO attended Stripling School.  

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. 

22 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

When taken in totality (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d.), all of the information which makes the entire story is nothing more than a literal handful of people with stories stretching across 30 years which all tell different stories being strung together based on very flimsy and dubious details. It is hardly the unequivocal story of Oswald attending Stripling as presented by Armstrong and supported by his followers.

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

14 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Where do you get off DEMANDING answers to questions already answered in multiple threads, multiple websites, books and in digital form

Sounds more like Hargrove.

12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

OK boys, back by popular demand, here is the Overwhelming Evidence that LHO attended Stripling School....

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.

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

You're being funny, right Robert... cause nobody that ignorant.

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

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

That makes six or maybe seven Oswalds!

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.