W. Tracy Parnell

Newman's exact quote from the video: "He [Veciana] may have been involved with Phillips but it certainly wasn't in 1960 in Cuba and it certainly wasn't in 1959." Which is what I said above and in the article on my website. I understand that Newman still believes Veciana was with Phillips at some point and my article makes that clear. But Newman is at least skeptical of some of Veciana's story and understands that Veciana has not been truthful on everything. Morley seems to accept just about everything and that was my point.

I would hardly call that a "take-down." My whole thing with Morley was that as a journalist, he should be more skeptical. His friend John Newman apparently is just that and flat out states that Veciana's 1959 and 1960 scenarios of meeting Bishop (who he now says is David Phillips) are not true. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2018/07/john-newman-on-veciana.html

You are obviously receptive to the Armstrong information. My advice would be to look at the other side of things while you are studying the Armstrong theory. There are several extensive threads right here at EF if you do a search. I would also recommend my own site (click on sitemap) as well as Greg Parker's and Jeremy Bojczuk's: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/

My statement was based on an informal poll we did here at EF a few years back-admittedly not anything scientific.

OK, fair point at least on that production I see he was an associate producer.

The fact that he helped Mr. Armstrong promote his nonsensical theories which are not believed by the majority of researchers even at the EF, may say more about him than anything.

Jim, you are free to disagree with Gary and his beliefs. What I take exception with is the silly, hyperbolic and over the top rhetoric in the "review" posted on your site. But I shouldn't be that surprised when, in one of the above linked articles, you refer to Gary as "Mack/Dunkel" because he changed his name. What does that have to do with anything? It all looks like an attack on an individual who can no longer defend himself. And I don't really see how that helps your cause. But, it's a free country and you can do as you wish. As far as mistakes Gary may have made, he was not perfect. But regarding any programs he participated in, he was normally a consultant and did not control the program and may not have agreed with everything. And I believe he answered critics on many of these issues. If he were here, he could provide specifics I am sure.

This "review" is actually a hit piece on Gary Mack. Far from being "the sixth floor's official hit man" who used "psychological warfare" Gary was an outstanding person and an expert on the case who was always available to help researchers of any persuasion. Of course, he was originally a conspiracy researcher and after accepting the position at TSFM he understandably put that on a back burner. And I think a lifetime of studying the evidence turned some of his views around. But, to my knowledge, he always leaned toward conspiracy-even at the end of his life. So, I find this "review" with its over the top rhetoric as very unfortunate and inaccurate.

It's easy to make such an accusation. Now let's see you prove it.

OK, thanks for the information. I look forward to Newman's book.

Bart, What was the event where Newman was speaking and are the handouts from this available?

Although you may not be referring to this, it was at a great personal cost both in legal fees and in the abuse that he had to endure.

Here is the complete document which is the rough notes of Fonzi's third interview with Veciana: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5wX09_LoMiSdDlIZ3VXbUVnSkU/view

He requested CIA money to the point of annoyance, but I'm only aware of the one time he actually got it. If you find something else let me know.

The only evidence of the $253,000 was Veciana's own story. The HSCA asked him to produce evidence of it and when he protested for alleged fear of income tax prosecution, they advised him that he had been given immunity. He still would provide no proof of receiving that sum.

There is some debate on this subject, but for the purposes of discussion let's define an agent as a regular employee of the CIA. An asset is someone they used who may or not have been paid. There is evidence that Veciana was chosen as an asset (a sabotage man) for the Bay of Pigs operation although he never was used in that capacity and he admitted he never worked on that. He was paid $500 at one point, but there is no evidence, save for his own assertions, that he was a regular CIA employee.

I give David Von Pein and Francois Carlier a great deal of credit for putting up with these type of attacks in order to attempt to bring some common sense to the debate. I know what it is like because I have been the recipient of this type of thought pattern over the years myself. The fact is, there are many individuals on the CT side of things who demonstrably have devoted more time and energy to the JFK case than David and Francois or anyone on the LN side have (which is not to say these two fine gentleman have not spent a great deal of time because they have). But some of these people seem to have an obsession with the case and indeed apparently work full time on it and have found a way to get paid to do so. One such person is Jefferson Morley who now is writing freelance for left-wing websites and in his spare time writes pro-conspiracy books disguised as biographies that are heavily related to the JFK case. But Mr. McBride, or anyone else here for that matter, doesn't seem too concerned about how Morley makes his living since he is working "for the cause." They also don't seem too concerned that Morley is spreading disinformation as he was when he was promoting Veciana's book and telling everyone that Veciana was a CIA agent when that is demonstrably not the case. At one time, Veciana was approved for use as an asset by the CIA, but was apparently never used in that capacity. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/another-slobbering-love-affair.html So if anyone is making money from the assassination, it is people like Morley (there are others but I am using him as an example here because he is a public figure and can presumably withstand the criticism). Von Pein has written a fine book on the case but, as I'm sure he will tell you, the market for non-conspiracy books is very small. And the evidence that any LN people are doing their work at the behest of the CIA or the "Deep State" is non-existent. BTW, please keep up the good work David and Francois.

Congratulations to Professor McAdams. I for one, will be glad to see him back teaching some common sense about the assassination. His book is required reading. OK, let the attacks begin.

I think it is pretty clear that someone objected to their copyrighted material being made available for free. Obviously, they hope to sell some more copies of their work and don't want it to be considered public domain, yet at least. EDIT BTW, every person whose work was placed on this site should have been consulted before doing so. Perhaps then it would not be necessary to take down the entire site.

It has been a while since I researched my articles Steve, so I am doing this from memory. My position is that the totality of the evidence supporting a Veciana/Phillips/LHO meeting comes from the work of Fonzi, who in his HSCA work, said the date was late August or September. In his book, he states that Veciana told him during their first interview the date was "near the beginning of September, 1963." But when you go back to his original notes from the interviews with Veciana, you do mot find support for Fonzi's statement regarding September, 1963. In fact, Nowhere in the three March, 1976 interviews of Veciana, which are cited by Fonzi as the source of the information, are “late August” or “September” (in any form) mentioned. In fact, in the original interviews Veciana said the date was "summer of 1963" and "July or August." Fonzi described in his book how "late August/early September" came about: Initially, Antonio Veciana told me that it was sometime in late August or early September 1963, when Bishop called and asked him to meet in Dallas. Later, as he gave it more thought, he said it was probably early September, perhaps towards the end of the first week of the month. What I believe happened is that Fonzi decided at some point that the LHO timeline included a date (the weekend you are referring to) that the meeting could have taken place, providing LHO obtained transportation to Dallas from New Orleans which there is no evidence for. Fonzi may indeed have (at some point) discussed with Veciana his theory about when the alleged meeting occurred and Veciana may have agreed. But if you look at the interview notes (available at my site) it is clear Veciana never said the beginning of September and was initially completely unsure about when the meeting was. Specifically to your question, Veciana may indeed have been in Dallas during that general era in time. He did move around a great deal. But the record does not support that specific September timeframe IMO. And I know of no other independent evidence that supports his being there at that time.

It certainly did. :)

I think it is useful to go back and look at the origins of the Veciana/Phillips/Oswald story: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/gaeton-fonzi-and-veciana-allegations.html Wynne Johnson is not to be believed IMO: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/wynne-johnson.html

No, in fact I advise everyone to read the H&L page and then read my site and make up their own minds. IMO, the fact that Armstrong had to reverse himself on some issues related to the Landesberg case should give pause to those who are really after the truth.

I assume you are referring to the claims made by John Armstrong regarding Landesberg. Yes, I believe those claims are completely baseless. I researched the subject and wrote two articles (linked in an above post) explaining why I believe that. It is admittedly quite a slog to go through all of the material there, but perhaps you could skim through it because it is revealing as far as Armstrong's research methods. When I did the articles his reaction was to "double down" and his claims, as I document in "John Armstrong's Evolving Landesberg Theory," became even more outlandish. Ultimately, he was forced to make changes to the H&L website (or Jim H. was) and retract some of the material.

I would be interested to know what your source for this statement is.