W. Tracy Parnell

Not with regard to Veciana's LHO story. Take out LHO and it's a big nothing burger. Phillips is an interesting character though, I'll agree on that.

Michael, My problem is with the "late August-early September" thing which has morphed into "the first week in September." The reason it morphed is because Fonzi thought the best window of time for the meeting was early September on the 6th through the 9th. So I disagree with you that no morphing took place. And they are not saying "it could have been" or using other qualifying language. It is very clear that Veciana could not remember the date of the meeting with that level of detail. For example, in his HSCA testimony he only said it was "three months before the Kennedy assassination." But now, his memory has improved and it was "the first week in September." As far as the number of meetings, I am not even convinced there was a "Bishop." Veciana's motive for potentially lying? Fonzi identified it himself-fear of prosecution for his anti-Castro activities. BTW, the real "bad guy" here is not Fonzi IMO but Veciana. Fonzi is only guilty of being too trusting which is the reason I mention lack of objectivity.

It's kind of strange that everyone seems more concerned that I said Fonzi lacked objectivity than they are about the fact that I showed he basically lied or exaggerated if you prefer. I included the objectivity thing more as an explanation as to why he would exaggerate than anything. How far do I take it? I look at it this way Paul. We have all heard Veciana's side of the story for years, so I will eventually make the case for the other side. The key to the whole thing is even if Phillips WAS Bishop, without the connection to LHO it is meaningless. We know that the CIA wanted to get rid of Castro as did private US citizens. So Philips running someone like Veciana who could supposedly help in that regard would be normal. The only surprising thing would be Phillips being in the field doing that type pf work (especially in the early 70s when he was higher up) in such a haphazard manner as to expose himself in a meeting like this. Even Harold Weisberg expressed skepticism regarding this idea.

The only "evidence" they have ever offered is the statement of Louise Robertson that "Harvey" was scheduled to have mental tests at Jacobi Hospital in NYC. But the mental tests were a cover for a mastoid operation. Of course, all of this ignores the fact that Jacobi did not exist at the time. This new theory comes from Hargrove as Armstrong never mentioned to his readers that the exhumation disproved the H&L theory.

I understand the point you are making and it is a good one. My point is as a choice for an investigator for the Church C. or the HSCA, I think Fonzi was not good and Blakey agreed. He was too willing to believe the things Veciana was spinning. I have been looking at this for the past two months and I can tell you that the whole Veciana story doesn't pass the smell test. And his book, which I should have Tuesday, appears to be a fairy tale by what I have read in the online preview. Here is the problem with the way the Veciana story has evolved as I see it. You have "summer of '63" and that turns into "late August or early September" and that turns into "toward the end of the first week in September." But there is absolutely no support in the primary documents for any of this as I point out. Similarly, the location of the alleged Bishop-LHO meeting went from being in downtown Dallas "at a bank or insurance company" to "probably the Southland Center" to "the Southland Center." And then you have people creating theories based on the "fact" that the meeting was there when Veciana never said that until recently and only then because he probably read it in conspiracy books. And now you have people like Wynne Johnson and Judyth Baker "confirming" these "facts." I happen to know that there are at least three members here who are very skeptical of the Veciana story. I won't mention who they are because I don't want to embarrass them for believing something a LN does. I am trying to get researchers to stop and think for a minute about Veciana's story and maybe take a more skeptical look.

Fonzi said referring to his encounter with Specter, "I went from an agnostic to a conspiracy believer.” Not an objective investigator as Blakey said. And the fact that he created "facts" to fit a theory proves it.

OK-Fonzi and myself both lack objectivity. But that doesn't change the facts I have presented. BTW, Fonzi admitted his lack of objectivity as I show in the article.

Sounds to me like Varnell and Jim D. are trying to change the subject here. This thread is about Veciana and Fonzi and these are the facts: Veciana did not originally believe that Bishop worked for the CIA or the government at all but rather a private organization. · Veciana was far from sure about key details such as Bishop’s first name. · The “late August, early September” time frame for the meeting was a Fonzi invention created to fit his own assassination theory. · The Southland Center as the meeting place was another Fonzi invention designed to fit conspiracy theories.

First of all, this article has nothing to do with the SBT. It is about Fonzi's lack of objectivity and the facts that he made up. I mention why it matters regarding the Southland Center-some CTs are making hay out of that "fact" which is not a fact at all. I mention the Last Investigation-it's in the endnotes. The whole point of the article which Jim D. apparently missed is Fonzi lacked objectivity which left him open to Veciana's tales. And the late August-early September timeline at the Southland building was created by Fonzi. Veciana never said that-only "summer" or July or August and said he couldn't be more specific regardless of what he is saying these days. This matters because you have people like Wynne Johnson coming out of the woodwork to "verify" these "facts" and I believe researchers should know this.

Good job with that Michael and it shows one man clearly as you say.

Right, that's exactly what you see in the photo by Robert. it is a terrible image, but that is the haircut he would have had after boot camp in 1957 not 1958 as Armstrong claims. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html

As we've all pointed out, their test for what evidence to believe seems to be if it fits the H&L theory or not. Jim H. just said the photos have been "seriously messed with" and he doesn't trust the FBI, HSCA or the WC. Yet the theory relies on all of those.

Tommy, If the photos could be accurately dated, then they could be classified as "Harvey" or "Lee." They have a pretty tight timeline so it would be possible.

Cliff, What I meant was that as a conspiracy believer, he was not an objective investigator. He didn't believe the SBT, ok-that is his right. But it makes him a poor choice to be an investigator for the HSCA or Church as others also believed.

This article, which is the first in a series on the Maurice Bishop affair, will show that Fonzi was not an objective investigator by the time of his interviews with Veciana. Using primary sources, I will also demonstrate that Fonzi shaped facts to fit his own CIA-did-it theory of the JFK assassination. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/gaeton-fonzi-and-veciana-allegations.html

If the photographic record has been "seriously messed with" how do you know which photos you can trust? Answer-those that support H&L.

Here is a list of who would have been in on the plot to fake the exhumation: Michael Eddowes, who paid for the exhumation, would have had to somehow be in on the plot to fake it. Strange though since he was the one who wanted it because he thought it would prove his theory. Marina Oswald The four doctors whose dental and mastoid examination confirmed each other. The doctors assistants. A witness I spoke to who saw the exhumation video (commissioned by Marina) and said it confirmed what the doctors reported. So either he was lying or the video commissioned by Marina was faked. Additionally, the numerous photos taken that day would have to have ben faked. Let me know if Hargrove and Josephs are making the same claim as you Sandy. If they are, I can add the above to my list of who was in on the H&L plot.

Yes you can as long as the objects are close together and on the same basic plane as is the case with LHO leaning on the railing. If one object is farther back from another then no.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html

What regarding the mastoid operation are you not sure about? There are several major instances of evidence pointing against the theory and many minor ones. 1. mastoid operation 2. handwriting analysis 3. photo evidence http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html

Just a misunderstanding I guess because we agree on this point.

But you say Armstrong saw the empty canister so anyone could go there and see it and reveal the plot. Just get rid of it all and say it's lost.

Good catch DVP, I didn't even notice it. Only makes sense if they were going to get rid of the microfilm why not just get rid of everything? Why put an empty spool and box into evidence?

Regarding the appearance of the mastoid defect: As we examined the skull, the small hole in the left mastoid process leapt out. Its man-made edges were rounded and smooth, healed but not natural. It was an old lesion that couldn’t be faked. DiMaio, Dr. Vincent; Franscell, Ron. Morgue: A Life in Death (p. 118). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.

But Kirk testified that one would be accurate and the other off. "if it is an actual recording of his true height, then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size." Which is exactly what we see in the photo. Right height-wrong head size.