W. Tracy Parnell

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.

Please don't waste any time on the "two Landesberg" thing. There certainly were 2 Steve (Stephen) Landesbergs, but that fact has absolutely nothing to do with LHO or the JFK case: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-hoaxster-and-conspiracy-theorists.html http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/armstrong-evolving-landesberg-theory.html

The photo was actually taken in 1957: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html Another example of believing a witness when it fits the H&L theory. But other times, Robert, who was in on the plot, is a xxxx.

But did these witnesses also think he wore glasses?

Which just proves that you can't believe everything every witness says. You must look at the totality of the evidence. The H&L theory does not do that, it "cherrypicks" what fits and ignores everything inconvenient as in the glasses and lack of resemblance to "Harvey" in this instance. Or perhaps we need a "3 Oswald" theory to explain Mr. Bullock's recollections?

No such book exists. Because of the fact that LHO was accused of shooting JFK, readers pretty much expect the writer to get around to the subject of his guilt or innocence sometime before the end. As an example, Mailer wrote a book that was basically two parts. The first part was a biography of LHO in the Soviet Union. The second part was his speculation about Oswald's role in the assassination. Jim D. and I are in agreement for once-start with the Warren Report, which is available online, and go from there. Appendix 13 is a concise chronological biography with citations.

I agree that LHO, who read many different publications, could have found information about Schweitzer easily.

This simply means that in Jenner's opinion, Ely did not have all the details correct. BTW, I was simply listing some resources that the OP could use without my own editorial comment. But as long as you opened the door, while Armstrong did some good research, his book must be approached very cautiously since the thesis is that there were two Oswalds rather than the one historic Oswald.

Honestly, I would start with Appendix 13 of the Warren Report. Concise and free: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html

Some books that contain biographical information on LHO: WR Chapter 13 Reclaiming History by Bugliosi Marina and Lee by McMillan Harvey & Lee by Armstrong The Interloper by Savodnik Oswald's Tale by Mailer Oswald's Game by Davison Legend by Epstein The Mind of Oswald by Holloway Mrs. Paine's Garage by Mallon Lee by Robert Oswald The Missing Chapter by Swike Russian Episode by Titovets Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War by Parker

Not trying to be a "party pooper," but these facts have been known for years and years. See WC CD 120: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10524 Interesting thread though.

Except for Ana Ziger's statement that her father translated "because he [LHO] spoke Russian poorly." Armstrong quotes from the Ziger's extensively and considers them reliable witnesses when they suit his purposes.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/lho-spoke-no-russian-in-russia.html

"Lee" as well as his mother (the real Marguerite) conveniently disappeared. Armstrong has stated that "Lee" may be "very much alive."

Well, this had been discussed to death in the H&L threads, but for those that haven't seen those I'll repeat it here. Wilcott did indeed say the cryptonym was RX-ZIM when he spoke to HSCA investigators. But under oath, he said he didn't recall what it was. His memory improved a few months later before the Cuban tribunal when he named the cryptonym again. Also, a quick check of the Mary Ferrell database shows no "R" cryptonyms at all and they do not recognize this particular one nor does John Newman. In my research, I found that Wilcott was an extreme left-winger who became disgruntled with the CIA. Since he was a finance officer and had nothing to do with covert ops, his opinions should not be given nay more weight than the anyone else's. Please see: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

You're welcome Tommy. Mytton has indeed done some good work and his talent with graphics far exceeds my own.