W. Tracy Parnell

To be clear, Newman evidently agrees with all of you to some extent. He is going to say that while the Pentagon was the prime mover, CIA elements were involved.

Never accused you of being a "fanboy" and if you'll read my post I was merely asking if that were the case. I can't know the position of every person on this board on every issue. The only reason I asked is that I know you post documents from Malcolm Blunt who is a friend of Newman.

The fact that any number in the lottery comes up is not an extraordinary event. Everybody knows one number will be picked (eventually) and they know why. Anyway, "extraordinary" (in the sense I was using it) refers to a new claim that goes against what is previously known and accepted. If Newman wants to make such a claim, he has to prove it-to me anyway and the CIA-did-it people probably feel the same way.

And that is what I was referring to when I said: "Some guy on Facebook offered to buy her a copy of Newman's book. She agreed, but I don't know if he came through or not. " So, what is the point of this discussion really? Maybe you are a Newman fan (I don't know) and just want to give me a hard time because I don't buy his theory. If so, let me know what your problems with my article are and we can have a discussion.

That is correct, thank you.

She might end up as co-chair at the next JFK conference.

I was referring to his last book.

Some guy on Facebook offered to buy her a copy of Newman's book. She agreed, but I don't know if he came through or not.

John Newman has authored what associate Alan Dale refers to as a “new paradigm.” This theory postulates that “a campaign of misdirection [was] launched by Antonio Veciana the day he walked out of the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in February 1976.” The purpose of this misdirection campaign, achieved through the “sudden early release of Veciana,” was to “control the narrative of the unfolding congressional investigations” and to "place blame on the CIA and direct attention away from the Pentagon.” Carl Sagan wisely said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But what proof exists for Newman’s audacious statements? http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/02/newmans-new-paradigm.html

One quick follow-up question Mr. Johnson if you would be so kind. You state in your latest reply to me that "it is not unthinkable" that Malcolm Wallace was there at Southland to meet with David Phillips, although you concede that you do not know this to be a fact. Just to be sure I have it right, this was a man near the elevator and seperate from the other three men? In other words, Phillips was to meet with Oswald, Veciana and Wallace that day?

No, other than it was evidently a racial incident (or threat of one).

Thank you Stephen.

Thank you for your reply.

This page has a link to Johnson's Vimeo videos and an overview of his claims: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/wynne-johnson.html

There are several problems with the sketch business. Fonzi had about a dozen suspects before he settled on Phillips, including George DeMohrenshildt, Paul Bethel and J. Walton Moore. When Schweiker told him it looked like Phillips, he hit the jackpot. Not only did Phillips fit his preferred theory that the CIA did it, but he could be plausibly placed just about anywhere in the world at any time. But I looked at 14 relevant individuals (CIA and others) who saw the sketch and only three thought it looked like Phillips. One was Phillips himself, one was Schweiker and one was Joseph Burkholder Smith. Phillips thought that Fonzi fed a description of him to the sketch artist and used this as a defense in his suit against Fonzi and the Washingtonian Magazine. Phillips ultimately lost because he had become a public figure for legal purposed by then. In any case, a sketch is subjective and not proof of anything. Of course, it is impossible to know if Phillips lied or not. Certainly, Phillips would have known Veciana's name "back in the day" but may have simply forgotten it by 1976 and there are indications he drank heavily. Another possibility is that once he was aware of what Fonzi and Veciana were trying to pull at the Reston meeting, he decided not to cooperate with them. That wouldn't be too surprising given the situation. Why? I've seen these amazing proofs that are supposed to "exactly match" and they really do no such thing with the exception that he said Bishop was from Texas and that was in the early accounts. As I said, Phillips can be plausibly placed just about anywhere at any time because they can say he simply flew wherever. But Veciana gives no specific times or dates (September 7 was a Fonzi invention), especially in the early accounts. He could have seen what was happening (Fonzi liked Phillips for Bishop) and filled in the details which were publicly available. One example is the supposed meeting at the La Floridita in Havana. Besides all of the incongruities pointed out by Newman, there is the fact that the earliest reference to this by Veciana was not until after Phillips had published his book in which he mentioned that hangout. No, I think he made it all up and I expect Newman to eventually say the same thing unless he is too fearful of losing book sales and in that case, he might modify it somewhat. But he will say that Veciana never saw Oswald with Phillips. Anyway, I like to see both sides of the story presented and that really was not happening until I came along. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-maurice-bishop-story.html

He never said Phillips was Bishop in the early years and denied it until 2013. In fact, he was also adamant in his original interviews with Fonzi and in an interview with Fonzi's assistant Gonzales (you can find it in Larry Hancock's online files) that he never said Bishop was CIA but could have been with an organization that had ties to the CIA or some other intelligence group. The CIA was Fonzi's idea as much of the story was. As to why he made up Bishop, the original motive (as Fonzi himself stated in his book) was to avoid prosecution. Once he had made up the story, he was stuck with it and just did with it as he pleased through the years. The stuff in his book is his attempt to write history the way he wants it. Unfortunately for him, even some in the conspiracy community are calling him out now.

Thanks for the little "thumbs up" David-don't know what I'd do without that. We have lots of information about CIA pseudonyms and aliases but you can look at Mary Ferrell or AARC and (to their credit) you will not see Maurice Bishop under David Phillips. That is because there is no verification of it. Of course, it is possible that Phillips, who used as many as 100 informal aliases, used the name Bishop. But the real question is, was there a "Maurice Bishop" as Veciana described that ran him as an agent for 13 years? We have the work that has been done by Newman that shows that the scenario under which Veciana claims to have met Bishop/Phillips could not be true. We have no CIA records that show Veciana was an "agent" as he is claiming, only that he was authorized to be used as a sabotage man but never was and never received a nickel from the agency-only supplies for Alpha 66. And the verification that Veciana saw LHO with Bishop/Phillips? None unless you believe Wynne Johnson. So, if Phillips used the Bishop alias, it was in some capacity that had nothing to do with Veciana or LHO and is therefore irrelevant. Veciana and the Phillips-Ruiz story is only Veciana's word and call me strange, but I am not accepting his word at this point. As far as the Mexico City thing, I will be looking at Phillips' involvement in my future research-haven't got into it in detail yet.

What trouble? He was hailed as a hero at the AARC conference for saying Phillips was Bishop. And he put his book out in 2017 and that was a big selling point.

Yes, because the only evidence for that relationship is Veciana's statements (unless you believe Wynne Johnson and very few do). Now, could you answer my questions please because I am very interested by the motivations of those who want to hang on to Bishop. What is in it for the people who want Bishop to exist-is it just to vindicate Fonzi or do they believe Bishop fits into the conspiracy somehow?

Since most of the "evidence" that Phillips was Bishop comes from Veciana and you admit Veciana may have lied about Oswald, why would you believe anything he says? Why would you believe he is telling the truth now about Phillips being Bishop? We know that he lied about how and when he met Bishop-Newman has proven that. Also, why does it matter if there was a Bishop or not? Is it just to vindicate Fonzi and his beliefs?

Much was made of Veciana's 2014 "revelation" that Bishop was really David Phillips. But it seems there was a guiding hand behind his announcement: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/01/marie-fonzi-and-vecianas-revelation.html

EDIT: Mr. Johnson, please check the following link before you answer since I am adding new questions as I go: https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/01/wynne-johnson-more-questions.html

Mr. Johnson, Thank you for taking the time to respond to my previous questions. I am researching Veciana’s allegations and your story is naturally of continued interest. I think it would be helpful to me and others evaluating your story if you would reply to just a few more concerns: Do you believe that Vicki is being prevented from possibly confirming your story by her husband? In your opinion, why would the “man in the library” advise Vicki to keep silent? You have said that “it is clear” that Vicki “knew something” before the September 7, 1963 incident. Could you elaborate on what it is she knew and how she could have acquired this information? Do you think that Vicki asked you to bring the camera because of her “foreknowledge” of the meeting? According to your videos, Vicki told you that the men in the lobby “wanted to kill Castro and Kennedy.” Which of the three men was Vicki referring to and how would she know this? Do you believe that members of Vicki’s family also had “foreknowledge” of certain events? If I have it right, the sighting of the man at a party whom you believe was David Phillips occurred in 1965. At the time, Phillips was a highly placed CIA officer stationed in either Mexico or the Dominican Republic (depending on the exact date in 1965). Why would Phillips be concerned with the recruitment of high school/college students as you indicate in the videos? If I understand correctly, you state in your videos that the plotters wanted “friendly witnesses” (in the form of yourself and Vicki) in place at Southland who could be identified and found later. Why were you and Vicki chosen and why did the plotters never seek to use you in this capacity? Just out of curiosity, who was the “researcher and author” who questioned you by phone. You may contact me at wtparnell@hotmail.com if you do not want to give his name publicly or to discuss anything else. According to your videos, an incident involving Marie Fonzi occurred in which you apparently related some dialog that you had not previously reported. Commendably, you endeavored to correct this in a subsequent video. Could you elaborate on how this came about, how the discrepancy was detected and what Mrs. Fonzi’s reaction was? In a similar vein, you describe a situation where Phillips asked Veciana in Spanish, “Is it him?” (referring to yourself). Veciana replied “yes younger.” You now say this is a dream, but did Marie Fonzi ever think you were saying this really happened? You speak of a “dark rumor” that kept you from talking about the JFK assassination until 2014. What is this “dark rumor” and if it is just a rumor, how or why could that make you stay silent? How many JFK conferences have you appeared at to date? Has your story been discussed on any other Internet forums? Do you see the recent wave of skeptics of the Veciana story (even among members of the conspiracy community) as detrimental to the prospects of your own story being accepted?

Evidently, he is going to say that the Pentagon were the prime movers but specific CIA individuals may have helped.

Thanks very much Wynne. In the interest of fairness, I'll put a link to your video in my "Wynne Johnson" article.