W. Tracy Parnell
-
Posts
2,220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by W. Tracy Parnell
-
-
Chapter 15 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/15-you-are-to-remain-within-land-limits.html
Highlights:
Deconstructing Veciana's claims about a press conference allegedly run by Bishop.
Veciana is restricted to Dade County.
A meeting between Veciana and his Army handler Hubbard. -
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
It is quite common for a parent to selflessly sacrifice for their child.
Yes, that would be an exception to my statement.
-
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:
Have you read Our Man in Haiti? The circumstances of DeM’s meeting in NYC and DC are purported by him to be about a possible coup, installing Clemard Charles, his Haitian banker friend and companion for at least one of those meetings, in place of Duvalier, and a business arrangement for a sisal plantation in Haiti. If you haven’t already, take a look at who was at these meetings. Jim’s observation makes a lot more sense than DeM’s explanation. $285K vs $300K - how much money is that in today’s dollars, + or - 10%? Why should the CIA and their MI liaison care about a sisal plantation? Why would DeM care about a Haitian coup? This story begs for more light, yet the identity of the two deep cover CIA people - WUBRINY-1 and -2 - at the NYC meetings was hidden from investigators. I believe they were finally identified. One was a close associate of George Bush btw - Thomas Devine.
I will look at her book but there is no way that George D got that kind of money (285k) from the CIA or anyone. That would be 2.6 million in current funds. He told the WC that he only got 20,000 in cash and the rest toward the plantation as you mention. I'm not sure what he told Epstein but I have his book in the mail. The CIA wouldn't care about a plantation which tells me they had nothing to do with the deal. And George wouldn't care about a coup (although the banker guy was) unless it threatened to ruin his deal with the Haitians. The AI lady had no idea who he was or why he was at the meeting according to the HSCA. But thanks for the suggestion and I will look at it before I write my article on the matter.
-
-
8 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:
Which suggests she was motivated primarily or solely by what she would personally get out of helping Marina and not because of the satisfaction gained from a doing a truly selfless act of charity. That's not sincere, that's selfish.
What in the world is wrong with receiving something in return for doing a good deed. There is no such thing as a "selfless" act of charity. Even an anonymous donor still has the self-satisfaction that their gift provides.
-
36 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:
They haven't been released and aren't available to researchers.
Where are they and how do you know about them?
-
10 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:
You’re missing the point. There are many many documents still to be released that Reynolds would not have access to because no one has access to them. This is the kind of very dishonest reference that you guys make that doesn’t take into account the whole picture, but only that part of the picture which benefits you.
Reynolds has searched the documents that are withheld or redacted in the JFK records collection. Are you or Good claiming there are other records "secret records?" You say that no one has access to them so how do you know about them?
What we are asking for is a source for Good's claim that "dozens" of records are "classified."
-
Take a look at the first installment of my new series which is a critical view of the Max Good film:
The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-Earl Warren ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
1. The source for the 300 K? Douglass, p. 168
Wrong. It says 285K and, once again, I wish that you would try and be more accurate. Pretty soon, someone will be out there saying it is half a million. That is why many do not respect the conspiracy community, although everyone should not be criticized by the lack of specificity of a few, that is human nature.
The larger issue is your representation of the situation in the film. You say that about April of 1963 de Mohrenschildt went to Haiti where he had $300,000 deposited in his account. You go on to say (paraphrasing) that the question then becomes was this money paid to de Mohrenschildt for "escort" services before passing LHO on to Ruth Paine.
What you don't say is the original source for the Haiti money thing is de Mohrenschildt's interview with Epstein (when the former was quite unstable). I don't have The Assassination Chronicles (which Douglass cites as a source), but I pulled out my old copy of Legend. In that, de Mohrenschildt tells Epstein that the money came from a government contract with Haiti for the development of natural resources-not from a payoff by the CIA. In any case, I would doubt the figure unless there is hard evidence because, as I mentioned, George was not well by this point.
BTW, I still don't know what Scott's source for the "secret meeting" George D had with the CIA and Army Intelligence is. If anyone knows, please chime in.
As far as the Oswalds being "destitute" you can use "poor" or whatever word you want. If they weren't bad off, I don't know who was. The Russian community was interested in helping the Oswalds for the same reason anyone would be-they were a young couple who needed it. They changed their tune somewhat after they saw LHO's tricks including his abuse of Marina-firsthand in some cases. Nothing spooky there.
And you still didn't say why you wrote that PJM was "with" the CIA. If I say I am "with" Tesla, people understand that I mean I am employed by them.
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
I much liked David Mamet, I had no such inclination.
Mamet was not a destitute individual living in a new country where he did not speak the language. Marina was exactly that so there is no equivalence there.
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:As described in the film by myself and Peter Scott, George left for Haiti in April, had a briefing in the DC area with the the CIA and military intelligence and then had 300 K deposited into his account. As I ask in the film: was this for Mission Accomplished?
I would love to know your source for this. There is no source for the 300k allegation at all. The "source" displayed on the screen while Scott is speaking is a newspaper article which is available:
It says nothing about any "secret meeting."
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:PJM always denied she was with the CIA. She once even threatened to sue Jerry Policoff over this. Its a good thing she did not because as Max shows in the film, the ARRB pretty much sealed the deal on her. And he shows the documents.
Johnson McMillan was never employed by the CIA which is what your term "with" implies. She applied for a job there but was turned down. The documents you talk about show she was a "witting collaborator" which simply means she supplied them with information from time to time. Nothing more, nothing less. But you should be more careful in your wording because people see what you write and place stock in it although why they do this is beyond me.
-
10 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:
How about the records that remain withheld and unseen by anyone? What is your (and Greg’s) source?
Reynolds searched for withheld and redacted records and found one. We are asking for Max Good to provide the "dozens" of non-tax records that are withheld or redacted. If he can't do that, he should issue an apology to Mrs. Paine.
-
I contacted Robert Reynolds and he was kind enough to provide this information for the forum. For those who don't know, Reynolds is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at National Chi Nan University in Puli, Taiwan. He is an expert on the JFK Assassination Records Collection. His website is:
jfkarc.info | Notes on the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
I asked Robert about his research regarding the Paine files and here is his response:
[quote on]
I looked for the total number of files related to the Paines that are still withheld or redacted. My basis for this was the most recent update of the JFK database from NARA (May 2021). Here's how I looked for Paine-related files. I checked records where the title, subject, series name, comments or "file number" fields had the string "PAINE" anywhere in them. I then checked the same fields for the names "HYDE" (Ruth's family name), and for "HOKE" (the family name of Ruth's brother-in-law, John Hoke, who married Ruth's sister Sylvia). I also did the same for the name "Bielefeldt," a CIA employee who was apparently a friend of John Hoke's father. Finally, I checked FBI records for all docs with the case file numbers for Ruth Paine (105-126128) and Michael Paine (105-126129)
Leaving out the withheld in full tax returns (these were all in the Warren Commission numbered files under RIF prefix 179-), here are the results of my search:
I found lots of records using the name Paine, but only one document with the name Paine which still had redactions. This was a 12/05/63 memo. There are several copies of this memo in the ARC, here is an example: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=150359. There is only one name redacted in this memo, someone on the CIA's Counterintelligence staff who provided info to the FBI about Ruth's father which they obtained during a 1950s investigation. That's it.
For the name Hyde, only the 12/05/63 memo mentioned above came up with redactions.
For the name Hoke, one more relevant record came up in the updated JFK database. Ruth's brother-in-law John Hoke applied for a position at the CIA and his application papers are in the ARC (104-10218-10011). This doc is a poor quality copy, but we can see that Hoke was not hired. The only redactions in this record are the names of a couple of CIA staff members who reviewed his application.
Searching on the case file numbers for the Paines, there are four FBI records still redacted; three on the Paines' 1064 tax returns and one on their 1957 tax returns. These are redacted, not withheld in full according to the JFK database, so some of this material may be accessible. All the other records with the Paine case file numbers are released: "open in full".
After my original post, I also found three more records relating to John Hoke that still have redactions, but which did not turn up in the Paine/Hyde/Hoke searches. These are 104-10120-10303 to 10305. These are all requests from CIA technical services to consult with Hoke, who at the time was employed in the Agency for International Development. To talk to him, they had to first get approval, and on these three forms the name of the person(s) who approved the request to consult with Hoke is redacted.
Total: Ruth Paine: one document (multiple copies) has one name redacted. Michael Paine: zero documents redacted. John Hoke: four docs have CIA employee names redacted. All other documents for the Paines which are still redacted/withheld are tax related.
The updated JFK database is still not one hundred percent accurate. Those who doubt whether specific records are available can of course request them from NARA. I am very curious about cases where records said to be open in the updated database are not. Let me know if you find something. There may also still be other records on RHP or related to her family which are redacted but did not turn up in my keyword/name searches. I would be very curious to know of those as well.
Max Good claims that there are dozens of withheld/redacted records on the Paines and Ruth specifically. If he knows this is true, he should know what the records/RIFs are. Please provide! If these are records which are withheld but are not in the JFK collection, please give details. [emphasis added by W. Tracy Parnell]
[quote off]
-
3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
The Warren Report debunks that provenance of the metal file boxes as a false rumor.
It does indeed. These rumors and false statements have made up a significant part of the CT lexicon since the sixties. Many have been debunked-sometimes by other CTs. This allegation is just another one of these as Greg has shown.
For a lesson on how these get started, just look at the coverage of the Texas school shooting. I'm not going to go into details, but I can't remember the number of times me or my wife said, "they are changing their tune on that issue." The difference is, once something is corrected regarding the Texas matter, it is usually accepted. In the JFK case, once a genie is out of the bottle, it becomes a "fact" regardless. Of course, as I mentioned, this is not the case with all CTs and some (Pat Speer, Jeremy B., Greg Parker) have actively sought to clarify the record on certain issues.
-
6 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
There is no "obvious reason" why you should be advising Max Good to refuse to identify a source for a published erroneous claim that has not been retracted. Unless that source was you. Was it?
Of course, Greg is 100 percent correct. There is no "obvious" reason for Good to not answer regardless of who the questioner is. The source likely was Jim D or another Paine critic.
-
Chapter 14 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/14-fall-in-line-or-drop-out.html
Highlights include:
Veciana's role in the breakup of Alpha 66
Veciana and Army Intelligence -
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Well, like Fred LItwin, GD did not like that. So Fred changed the memo. GD did not like it either so he followed suit. He now says that McDonald, who had the files in front of him, was wrong. Fred and he--who had no files in front of them-- are right.
A clarification is needed here. Fred changed nothing-he published the raw memo. What he did was note that the memo could be in error since it was in error about other matters. The documents that the CIA sequestered (and that McDonald and/or his staff based their review on) are available and so far, no one has produced anything that mentions "contract source."
Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
-
Chapter 13 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/13-grandiose-cuban-exile-schemes.html
Highlights include:
Proof that Alpha 66 was not CIA funded or backed.
Alpha 66's first raids. -
Chapter 12 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/12-there-were-never-any-66-men.html
Highlights include:
• The formation of Alpha 66
• How Alpha 66 was conceived as a front for SNFE
• The truth about Veciana and the CIA
• Cellula Fantasma -
Chapter 11 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/11-one-of-bravest-men-i-have-ever-known.html
Highlights include:
Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo and Alpha 66
-
-
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:
Yes, start from this page and a few pages following: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96443#relPageId=4 .
(I see why you asked the question, the original link I gave was not working but I have fixed that now above.)
Thanks Greg.
-
15 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
This arises solely out of an account of two students who met Michael Paine
Do you have a link to the statements of the students?
-
49 minutes ago, David Boylan said:
Tracy,
Pujols did not meet with Droller/Bender. Escalante got this wrong. Pujols met with Jim Peckich, Cal Hicks and "Bishop."
Thanks David, I'll add your information to the book.
-
Chapter 10 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/10-carefully-thought-out-plot.html
Highlights include:
The most detailed report on Operations Patty and Liborio yet published.
"The Assassination & Mrs. Paine" comes out this month
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Wrong, we do know. I'll let Robert Reynolds explain:
[quote on]
Two possible answers [to the allegations of "other" documents]. They may be thinking of documents which are NOT held in the JFK collection at NARA. I can't say anything about those. It's a big world out there with lots of paper in it to write things down on.
IF they are thinking of documents in the JFK collection, that is a different story. The collection is known. It is numbered like the tribes of Israel in the Book of Numbers. Not every word in the collection is accessible to the public, but every word IS accessible to the people at NARA who have charge of the collection. (None of these people work for the CIA.)
What is not accessible to the public? There is a lot of confusion about this. There are documents withheld and documents missing and documents redacted. 515 records in the Collection are withheld. In full. With the exception of the Manchester interviews with JBK and RFK, all of these docs have been seen multiple times by the WC, the HSCA, the ARRB and those lucky dogs at NARA. They are almost all tax records.
There are 33 records in the collection that are "missing." There is a page up at NARA on these. If you believe NARA, nothing Paine related is there. If you don't believe NARA, please explain why. But you have to buy me a six pack of beer first.
NARA also says there are 14,236 records with redactions in the collection. People need to get this straight. These records are OPEN to the public in copies that have bits blanked out. Almost all of these were put online 2017-2018. You can look at them any time. I've looked at all of the CIA ones, some of the FBI ones. It was incredibly boring. The blanked bits are for the most part single names or locations. There is nothing there on the Paines. The bit blanking leaves more than enough context to show this. Look for yourself.
[quote off]