Since Joe opened a line of questions, I have a couple for Mr. Johnson.

- In an early video, other than #4, I believe that you stated that "Vicky"'was a pseudonym, and that she wished to not be named. Video 4 shows a picture of her, yet she is identified as Vicky. I am confused as to wether her name IS Vicky, because, with the photograph being shown, she is, or will be, no longer anonymous. Can you clarify?

-Also, the ID of DAP at the dance should be something that can be verified by other sources. Do you expect that to happen?

Cheers,

Michael

8 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am starting to doubt that you have actually read my article Michael. ........

Why does this matter? Because people are developing theories based on the Southland Center (Robert Oswald had an attorney there). And Wynne Johnson is wasting everyone's time by "verifying" the "fact" that it was Southland. Veciana didn't remember the building although he could be expected to remember the prominent Southland building.

Tracy, Wynne's account is first-hand account and can hardly be described as a waste of time. The veracity of Wynne's account is what matters and the credibility of that account can be the subject of debate; It's importance cannot be debated.

Cheers,

Michael

1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am starting to doubt that you have actually read my article Michael.:) It can be assumed. It can be deduced. But everyone is presenting it as a fact which it is not. In his book, Veciana says it is hard to mistake the Southland Center. Why then did he never say it was that building until years and years later. In fact, if someone can provide a citation for when he first mentioned Southland it would be helpful but I don't think it was until after the year 2000.  His first description on the record was a “big bank or insurance company” but he didn’t remember “whether it was blue or white.” Why does this matter? Because people are developing theories based on the Southland Center (Robert Oswald had an attorney there). And Wynne Johnson is wasting everyone's time by "verifying" the "fact" that it was Southland. Veciana didn't remember the building although he could be expected to remember the prominent Southland building.

Tracy, I did read your article. It did not get the attention that could be described as a study, I am sorry to say. I will look it over more carefully. 

Regards, Michael

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

OK, fair enough. I just ask people to be a little more skeptical considering the facts I have presented in my article especially with the Veciana book coming out:

· 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.

Tracy, with regard to Vecania's description of the building, it can fairly well be said that it is the Southland Center. He described a blue tile facade, and described it as a large office building. It was the largest office building west of the Mississippi at the time.

I am assuming that I have this ID and source correct. I don't have it in front of me.

Cheers,

Michael

24 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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.

Tracy, from the above, and prior comments, it sounds like you are willing to accept that the meeting occurred, if it did not include LHO. Yet, If LHO is said to be there, then you have numerous objections, including objections to the facts that allow You to believe the possibility or likelihood of a meeting between Bishop and Vecania; and even allowing Bishop to be DAP.

When a LN'er stumbles as hard as you are stumbling here, Tracy, it makes the opposite case much stronger than if he or she had not attempted to do damage to the story in the first place.

Best Regards,

Michael

With all due respect Tracy, like Paul Trejo's exasperated defense of Ruth Paine, it is my opinion that your methods and efforts do discredit Fonzi's and Veciana's claim that this meeting did occur, only serves to add credibility to the story.

Regards,

Michael

34 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I understand the point you are making ......

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." ....

.....

 

Tracy, Thanks for rigorusly testing the veracity of this important story.

I do want to point out, however, that, with regard to the time of year, you are seeing or describing discrepancies where there are none. There's no morphing of a story here. Those accounts are consistent and non exclude one of the others. Summer ends by Sept 21, except to kids, teachers and folks who work at vacation hot-spots.

May I ask, Tracy, if you believe that Antonio Veciana met Bishop dozens of times? 

Cheers,

Michael

14 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Michael:

Here are some of the basic facts of the chronology of the investigation......

----------------------------

I realize you put in some time, and came up with a hypothesis. I’m simply pointing out the very serious deficiencies of that hypothesis, and why I think it is incorrect.

 

DSL

4/14/2017 - 6:25 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Thanks David. Like photo-analysis, I admittedly shy away from getting into the nitty-gritty task of accounting for minutes and seconds. This is not due to laziness. It is simply because I doubt my own accounting, accuracy and ultimately the ability to creating a meaningful scenario or argument based on such minutia.

I appreciate your taking the time to provide the above data and will juxtapose it with my beliefs, understandings and suppositions and re-evaluate my fluid theory.

Cheers,

Michael

28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And now for what I REALLY said:

It's a methodology I apply to everything re. the JFK assassination. I trust the authorities only when:

     1.  There is no incentive for them to lie. And...

     2.  What they report is evidence against the official story they are trying to push.

Walton conveniently leaves off the part I underlined here in his attempt to discredit me.

(BTW, notice that I didn't state that everything else the authorities say is a lie. I merely said I don't trust it to be the truth.)

 

As an academic excercise when it comes to what the Government is telling me, I ALWAYS assume that I am being lied to. Then look at whether that assumption makes any sense and adjust beliefs accordingly.

It's really important. iMHO

18 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

I question the basic logic, or premise, of your argument.  Your post states: "At 12:35, with Oswald dead, no-one could rationally, or responsibly, assume, and act on the assumption that there were no more shooters."  Oh really?  But just a minute: this ignores a basic fact of the record.  From the moment he was arrested at the Texas Theater, to just minutes before he was murdered two days later, Oswald denied the crime.  Vociferously and repeatedly.  On public media, he can be heard saying, "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir." And: "I'm just a patsy." And, on Saturday, 11/23, quite angry in a hallway scene, and in remarks directed at reporters, "I don't know what dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges; I have committed no act of violence." (per my recollection).  If this took place inside the reality of a normal police investigation (i.e., one with integrity), then I can easily imagine a scene in which the top officials at the DPD say to one another, and to their boss: "This fellow claims he didn't do, Chief.  We'd better keep this investigation open, and in fact double down on just who the heck did murder the President, and do so ASAP!"  But no, noto in this case: even with a live Oswald, repeatedly denying the crime, no such thing occurs.  Yet you seem to be claiming that  a "dead Oswald"  would only serve to "close" the investigation.  Huh?  Among the several questions a "dead Oswald" would raise would be: "Who killed him?" But that's just the beginning.  There's a whole raft of "other" questions; e.g., since so many bystanders thought shots came from the area of the grassy knoll and railroad yards, etc., how come the Police Dispatcher was directing the entire investigation to the TSBD, and nowhere else?  What happened to the accounts of all these other witnesses, who were seen running --en masse--towards the front (e.g., see Willis Slide 7).  Why did none of that filter to the dispatch room of the Dallas Police Department? etc.

No, I'm sorry. But IMHO, the only discernible "intense" effort made in this case was to "find the perp" once Oswald--somehow--slipped out of the building, and got away from Dealey Plaza, and that ended with the absurd situation of a "calling all cars!" type of investigation which ended up at the Texas Theater, and the arrest of the perp, who, once back in the police car, tells the arresting officers that no, he didn't need to hide his face, because "I'm not ashamed of anything" that he had done. (approx, from memory).

DSL

4/13/2017, 5:50 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Roger that David. Thanks for your explanation.

I made a short statement of what I was thinking, above. Paul took the time to ask some questions and invited me to respond, which I did, expanding on things a bit. Whenever I do that I almost always make things less clear than what I said or intended to say. I see from your reply that I did not do a very good job. So allow me to go to my original statement and actually make an even more breif account of my thoughts.

I think that LHO's flight from the TSBD caused all, on nearly all, resources to be focused on finding him. It was a distraction that let the real perps get away. I think that that is exactly what was meant to happen.

Cheers,

Michael

41 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - I don't understand your comment. What I perceive is that after a few months of intensive reading on the subject, at least on this site, you've formulated a theory, and now, as many of us are wont to do, you are viewing everything through the lens of what appears to you to be the most logical way to view the event. However, from my vantage point, on this single issue your position is not logical. If Oswald had been killed on the spot, there would have been no need to set up the dragnet you refer to. It would have been case closed. It was quite a struggle for the government and the WC to arrive at the lone nut explanation, which would not have been the case if Oswald had been killed in the tsbd.

of course, feel free to argue your case. 

Will do Paul. If LHO had been killed, say, by Baker, at 12:35, then the full-force of the DPD would not have been looking for Oswald for the next hour or so. At 12:35, with Oswald dead, no-one could rationally, or responsibly, assume, and act on the assumption that there were no more shooters. Scores of people and police scrambled up and into the parking lot and reports were made of shots coming from there. At 12:35, with one gunman dead, the case could not be made that It was a lone-nut operation. It would take the full force of the Federal government, and an "esteemed" Presidential Comission to discount the testimony of witnesses and officers, and formulate an absurd lone nut theory. It could not be done at 12:35 on 11-22, with a single dead shooter. A wide-spread dragnet for possible accomplices would have to have been ordered.

But, having a specific suspect, with a name and description, known to have slipped away from the scene, all efforts could be brought to bear on that one man, LHO, for the next hour or so. By the time LHO was finally arrested, the possibility of spreading a net for, and focusing on, unknown conspirators would have been largely lost and a LN scenario could take shape.

To be sure, this isn't even integral to my evolving pet theory. It just seems self evident to me.

A single dead-guy, at 12:35 in Dealy Plaza, on 11-22-63 does not make a case for calling the investigation closed or making any conclusions, at 12:35.

Cheers,

Michael

Worthy of note Is that when Dulles got word that Harry Truman was preparing his 12-22-63 statement, in which he laments his creation of the monster that the CIA had become, he (Dulles) scrambled to Truman's home, begging that the statement offer him a reprieve from criticism; Truman Acquiesced.

Limit CIA Role To Intelligence by Harry S Truman

The Washington Post
December 22, 1963 - page A11

Harry Truman Writes:
Limit CIA Role 
To Intelligence

By Harry S Truman
Copyright, 1963, by Harry S Truman

---

    INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
    I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.
    Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.
    But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
    Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations.
    I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.
    Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."
    For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
    I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
    With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.
    I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
    But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
    We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

In my estimation, Oswald's escape from the TSBD was critical to the plan.

Oswald's escape allowed a focus of all resources to look for one person; the identity of, and a description of whom, had immediately been established.

If LHO had been killed immediately, there would be no reason to refrain from setting-up a dragnet to locate and arrest possible conspirators. 

Cheers,

Michael

John Simkin opened this thread with the following:

In the early 1960s the KGB was involved in a “honey trap” operation involving politicians based in London and Washington. This operation was identified by the intelligence agencies in both countries. However, instead of breaking up the operation, the intelligence agencies decided to use this information in order to manipulate these politicians.

Tommy, when Bill is done with your tape, may I please borrow it? I'll get it back to you ASAP!

8 years, tons of data, can't dig in to it now.......   Bump!

10 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

"Bishop" is the only name that is transcribed in quotes....

Interesting.

Nice catch.

Since the transcript doesn't say, "There is a name quote, Bishop, unquote written there," one can only wonder whether or not Griffin used "air quotes."

If he didn't, how would the person writing down the testimony (like a court reporter) know to put that name and only that name in quotes?

--  Tommy

I was poking around in the DPD archives today. Ruby's address book is there, in photostat form. I did not search for that particular entry.

Cheers,

Michael

5 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

"Bishop" is the only name that is transcribed in quotes....

Interesting.

Nice catch.

Since the transcript doesn't say, "There is a name quote, Bishop, unquote written there," one can only wonder whether or not Griffin used "air quotes."

If he didn't, how would the person writing down the testimony (like a court reporter) know to put that name and only that name in quotes?

--  Tommy

Yup. I thought of that. I did compare it to other sources (Marquette vs some other source) and it is consistent.

I am summing that Griffin said.... "quote xxxxxx unquote" or there must be some convention used.... IDK?

Cheers,

Michael

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - I'm more inclined to think the 'meeting' was accidental. Did you watch Veciana when he finally stated publicly that Bishop was Phillips?

Paul, I have read and saw much of what Veciana has said.

Allow me to qualify that most of my observations (I won't call it research) were in the early part of my last 6 months, since I have started digging into this case. In the beginning I was just starting to sort out who folks like VA, DAP, and Angleton were. So, no; I have no informed understanding of Veciana's story. 

Also, I have recently formed my own pet theory. My response to your post is informed by that theory.

Surely, that meeting raises as many questions as does provide answers. Most of those question arise in the form of "why the he'll would he (DAP) do that?

My answer, and I am not expecting you to accept it, is that he wanted it to happen. That explanation is simple and self-evident, and I am thinking that it is correct. It was no mistake.

What purpose did it serve? Today it is evidence that CIA and Anti Castro Cubans were involved, jointly, in a plan to assassinate JFK. At around 3PM on 11-22-63, it was evidence that Anti Castro Cubans were involved in a plan to assassinate JFK.

It's elegant, and probably true.

Cheers,

Michael

"The curiouser and curiouser it gets!

Thanks Wynne!

Cheers,

Michael

5 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Paul, if the story was that "the others got away." that would result in an extensive investigation into the other shooters present in the plaza. That could lead to the identity of the real shooters. It seems odd to me that their plan would allow loose ends like that. I'm sure you considered this already, what do you think of the issue?

The lightening fast identification of LHO as a suspect was crucial in letting the assassins get away. It gave an excuse to not lock down roads and airports in an effort to catch a team of conspirators. Lee probably followed instructions to leave the scene ASAP. it kept a dragnet looking for one guy, on foot, who doesn't drive, rather than stopping, questioning, and searching suspicious cars or hideouts.

Cheers,

Michael

37 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

I still find it quite amazing that in all these years we've NEVER heard about a Kleins Carcano with any one of the other 99 serial numbers.  You'd think that would have been quite a find... and would prove they existed.

 

Absolutely, they would be collectors items.

On 7/24/2014 at 6:12 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Yes that was useful. The real question we should move on to is what was Phillips up to with Oswald.

I wrote this on another thread and copied it here.

--------------------

"The Veciana/Oswald meeting is now looking to me as a sort of sheep-dipping of the Anti-Castro Cubans. Clandestine cameras or photographers may have taken pictures of AV and LHO together, or  coming and going at the same time. Perhaps DAP was taking the pics.

These photos could be used to implicate the Ant-Castro Cubans as part of the conspiracy, blowing the plan to blame it on Commie-Cubans. Once LHO became news on the afternoon of 11-22-63, Vecania would have known that they were double-crossed.

A Similar situation/scenario probably happened with Ruby and the Mob."

-----------------------

The above post came from the following thread, which is a brainstorming thread for my developing CT.

Cheers,

Michael

On 7/23/2014 at 9:33 AM, Larry Hancock said:

Paul, it was well publicized earlier and I've posted and blogged on it before....thought most who had been following this would recall it. The former officers name is Glen Carle and his book is "The

Interrogator" or something close to that. You can find it on Amazon. Early on in remarks about the book he mentioned knowing Phillips - who had helped recruit him - had used the name Bishop. We

asked him questions about that and he obviously didn't want to talk about it at that point; the initial remarks may still be on his site or may have been removed.

I looked up Glenn L. Carle last night and found his web page. I was curious if his middle name might be "Lincoln", and if he might be the "Lincoln Carle" in the Mark Lane hosted video, "Two Men in Dallas" featuring an interview with DPO Roger Craig. I sent him an e-mail and he quickly replied. He said that his name is Glenn Lincoln Carle, but he was unrelated to the Lincoln Carle who did the Roger Craig interview.

Apart from the focus of this thread, who here knows how to, and is comfortable contacting spooks? I am trying to connect some dots and I don't want to just set-off into a stupid venture. PM me please.

****** edit, I went-ahead and stuck my foot in it, whatever IT is.......

Cheers,

Michael