W. Tracy Parnell

My latest article on Antonio Veciana and the Maurice Bishop story covers the following: How and why Veciana planned and created the Bishop story Veciana’s cocaine conviction New information on “Fabiola” The Castro letter revisited Another example of Veciana using Lee Harvey Oswald to draw the attention of authorities Why David Phillips was not Bishop http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/05/vecianas-game.html

Since Newman believes the evil force behind the assassination was Lansdale and the military brass, presumably that was who made the deal with Veciana for his early release. I wonder what his proof of all of this is? Maybe someone can clarify?

Part 3 of my review of Newman's book looks at Veciana's "lost" testimony, Veciana and the Army and Zabala's Revelation. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/04/into-storm-part-3.html

Part two of my series takes a look at Newman's treatment of "Joe Melton" and "Fabiola." http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/04/into-storm-part-2.html

Fred sent me the following via email: "The Bloomfields had their own table at my bar mitzvah. Clay Shaw flew up from New Orleans and he held court for hours with his stories of Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie. Earl Ruby also flew up as did Bernard Weissman - they recreated the famous meeting with J.D. Tippit in the Carousel Club. Heady stuff for a 13-year-old."

What does this indicate to you, assuming it is true?

Part 1 of my review of Newman's Into the Storm as it relates to Antonio Veciana is online. There will be at least 2 parts and possibly 3. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/03/into-storm-part-1.html

I would recommend Case Closed for a short course such as this. Bugliosi's book is more complete but too long and complex for these purposes. You also might want to check out McAdams' book called Assassination Logic. I believe he might have used this in his course work. David Von Pein's website (and McAdams') is a great resource as well.

Newman has done a good job in this book of knocking down some of Veciana's tales. Despite the fact that some individuals think Veciana a CIA "agent" he was nothing of the kind. He was an "asset" of sorts and was approved for use in anti-Castro operations by the agency. But due to various reasons, which Newman tries to document, those operations did not happen and Veciana soon lost his POA. He then approached the Army through an intermediary (Jordan Pfuntner) and started working with them. Of course, all of this was essentially already known to researchers and Veciana was confronted at the 2014 AARC conference by Malcolm Blunt and others with some of this information which he sidestepped. But probably the main revelation from Newman's book is that shortly after his initial interview with Fonzi in 1976, Veciana told his friend Felix Zabala that he needed to "publicly establish himself as a former CIA operative." The reasons for this were not revealed to Zabala. Veciana then asked Zabala to use his sister, who was married to a highly placed Cuban official, to transmit a letter to Castro describing Veciana's involvement in a CIA backed 1971 plot to kill the Cuban leader. Zabala was to tell his sister that he had a falling out with Veciana and was taking the action as a form of revenge. Veciana believed that the hot-headed Castro would take to the airwaves and reveal this plot and Veciana's involvement, thereby establishing him as a former CIA operative as he desired. Zabala was an FBI informant, so all of this is documented. The bottom line is all of this shows that Veciana was plotting to establish himself as a former CIA operative when his primary association was actually with the Army. The timeframe for this is important to remember and was in 1976 after his initial interviews with Fonzi but before his HSCA testimony. In other words, he was attempting to establish a false CIA legend for himself, probably to bolster his Oswald-Bishop story. What he expected to gain from that canard other than notoriety is unclear at this point. Newman apparently believes that Veciana did have an association with David Phillips but it happened in the seventies rather than beginning in 1959 as he now claims. We will see if Newman can document this in his forthcoming books.

Into the Storm excerpt: https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/02/05/antonio-veciana-mystery-man-in-jfk-assassination-part-1/

The two in the middle are obviously not LHO. But the first photo (hunter photo) falls under the "that doesn't look like you" criteria I mentioned before. For an explanation of the photo see: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html

Of course, you are right Francois but the H&L people pretend not to know these facts. How many times when looking at family photos does someone remark "that doesn't look like you"? This is especially true with photos taken in the good old days of film only which most here are old enough to remember.

Francois, Several sources I found online state the date as August 21 and the cameraman as Mike Lala. None of these are what I would call "original" sources if that is what you are looking for. One is Denis Morisette's edited version of Shackleford's work. But I think if the date were wrong in Shackleford's original, he would probably know and change it. The other is a letter from Johann Rush to Harold Weisberg from 1982 listing the dates of various films and again, I think Rush would know. Perhaps others will have more specific information.

Could you let us in on more detail please?

Right Sandy-who knows what amazing conspiracies "they" have perpetrated in the past? But "they" must have been really something because the conspiracies before (or after) JFK remain undetected yet you guys have "easily" uncovered the JFK "conspiracy." Or perhaps you believe in 911 conspiracies and the like and these are in the process of being uncovered as well?

Agreed.

I will just say that Perry speculated without having all of the information which he shouldn't have done. But I don't really debate the medical evidence at this point in time. I have narrowed my research focus to LHO's life and related issues. David Von Pein has done a fantastic job at his site and I will refer you there.

The articles you posted do indeed "document" Robert Oswald's assertion about Stripling. However, the newspaper did not attempt to verify his statement but rather merely reported it. I have already explained why he was in error. So, just because something is documented does not make it a fact.

I believe all the wounds were from the rear.

I guess the evil CIA kept individuals on a contingency program Francois for whatever evil purpose they would be needed for. And to answer your question, no nothing like this ever happened before or since.

Yes, you are right testimony is evidence. But not all evidence is created equal. In this case, Robert was never challenged on his statement by the WC simply because it wasn't necessary. They knew that LHO moved to NYC and never attended Stripling. So just because Robert said it doesn't make it a fact. He was testifying honestly but was mistaken in this instance and a few others times in his testimony and later statements. EDIT: It should also be noted that Robert left for the Marines in July 1952. So by September 1952 (the period in question) he could not have seen LHO at Stripling (or anywhere else) firsthand. Attendance there by LHO was simply an assumption on his part.

There is no "barrage" of evidence, only a few people speaking years and years after the fact with no documentary evidence. As far as Robert goes, it is a shame that the WC didn't confront him with the evidence because if that happened he certainly would have reversed his opinion. But they had better things to do and couldn't imagine that someone would cook up the H&L nonsense. The whole Stripling thing is silly. How could the evil CIA know that someone wouldn't photograph or otherwise document LHO and ruin their plans? This happened at another school (can't remember which off the top of my head) when LHO was photographed for the yearbook talking to a classmate. If he had been at Stripling, there would be hard evidence of that fact, but there is none.

There is nothing to explain. Sandy is not qualified to make the observations he is. If and when a forensic dental expert reviews the material and thinks there is merit to it then Sandy will have something to talk about.

Ok, I had forgotten about that article. I should have said that he never stated in his WC testimony that LHO attended Stripling.

Actually, no it isn't. Evidence would be documentary such as a yearbook photo or any photo of LHO such as those that do exist from other schools that he did attend. Most of the witnesses are simply remembering Robert years and years later but a few may be lying for reasons known to them-people lie all the time, a fact that H&L supporters seem to be unaware of. Frank Kudlaty never said a word to anyone about the FBI confiscating records or his suspicions that LHO attended Stripling. Not until his friend Jack White told him about Armstrong's "research" that is. Then he "remembered" the story that Armstrong is promoting. But it's the same old story-all anyone would need is one piece of documentary evidence, which undoubtedly would exist, and produce that evidence to show that the WC was lying about LHO's background. But all that exists are unverified reports. But this type of evidence is what the H&L theory is built on and is the reason that it can exist. BTW, Robert Oswald never said LHO attended Stripling, only that during that time period "he would be" at Stripling, which he would have been had they not moved to NYC. But I am not going to hijack this thread any further. Lurkers can do a search for more information and also check out Greg Parker's site.