Jump to content
The Education Forum

VIDEO - Oswald & Bishop


Recommended Posts

Thanks for that Gil.

Does anyone know any NLP? What little I've read indicates that an eye movement from center to upper right is a "created" memory. Vecianan seems to be doing this when he mentions Oswald and Dallas.

I've read the opposite, eye movement up and to the left is created scenarios (lies).

I don't know if it matters if the person is right or left handed.

Either way I wouldn't consider it particularly reliable.

Though I would try not to look up and to the left if I was in a big meeting with my boss or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Gil.

Does anyone know any NLP?

I would try not to look up and to the left if I was in a big meeting with my boss or something.

The question that occurs to me seeing/listening to Veciana is: Would I buy a used car from this man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question that occurs to me seeing/listening to Veciana is: Would I buy a used car from this man?

Apparently Gaeton Fonzi would....

Fonzi spends considerable time discussing Veciana in his benchmark book, The Last Investigation. He excoriates the HSCA for dismissing Veciana's accounts without adequately investigating them. Fonzi makes a strong case for Veciana's credibility. Fonzi spent a lot of time with Veciana, even visiting him at his home on many occasions.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question that occurs to me seeing/listening to Veciana is: Would I buy a used car from this man?

Apparently Gaeton Fonzi would....

Fonzi spends considerable time discussing Veciana in his benchmark book, The Last Investigation. He excoriates the HSCA for dismissing Veciana's accounts without adequately investigating them. Fonzi makes a strong case for Veciana's credibility. Fonzi spent a lot of time with Veciana, even visiting him at his home on many occasions.

Even Fonzi can be wrong. Didn't he say he thought DeMohrenschildt committed suicide? Now we hear a tape with a burglar alarm going off before the fatal shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Fonzi can be wrong....

So can "James Hepburn."

Didn't he say he thought DeMohrenschildt committed suicide?

This is what he wrote in The Last Investigation, Page 192:

As soon I had confirmed de Mohrenschildt's death, I called Richard Sprague. It was about 7 p.m. Sprague was shocked. He suggested I get on the scene immediately while he attempted to put a team of staff investigators together to help me and contacted the Congressional Committee members to ready subpoenas. From the little I knew then, there appeared to be some elements that needed close checking before we could accept the death as a definite suicide. Sprague said he would get back to me as soon as the team was ready to move. Time was important.

Sprague, however was unable to do anything and he never did get back to me.....As it was no subpoenas were ever served and no testimony was ever taken from at least two important witnesses: de Mohrenschildt's daughter Alexandra and Edward J. Epstein.

Now we hear a tape with a burglar alarm going off before the fatal shot.

No one has studied de Mohrenschildt's life more extensively than Bruce Campbell Adamson. From Oswald's Closest Friend: The George de Mohrenschildt Story, Page 36:

....Anything out of the ordinary would have come to the home's occupants quite quickly. The home was equipped with an alarm system. Anyone trying to open a door or a window causes a "beep" to be heard thoughout the household and on the taping of the soap operas. Throughout the tape one can hear the "beeps" being set off. It sounded like people were coming and going out the back door.

The "beeps" would also appear on Tilton's tape-recording of "Days of Our Lives." Twice the alarm went off when the maid went out the back door and returned with a pail of water. But the worst part of the tape is having to hear Alexandra de Mohrenschildt when she makes the gruesome discovery.

Myra, I know that you are in the process of compiling a timeline. Adamson has compiled a very detailed one.

http://www.ciajfk.com/timeline.html

http://www.ciajfk.com/jfkbooks.html#vol1

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alpha 66's Antonio Veciana tells of seeing Oswald with his CIA case

officer "Maurice Bishop".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YRHh4mOofk

I think we have to be careful when evaluating Veciana's honesty. I've always felt that he was telling a half-truth. I think enough has been established to verify the basic claims Veciana makes; that said, the idea that Phillips would just accidentally have Oswald and Veciana meet up is absurd to me. This would be tradecraft at its absolute worst. The more likely scenario is that Oswald and Veciana were MEANT to meet each other and that this was the part that Veciana left out. I also think it's likely (and to some extent was confirmed by Waldron) that the subject of such a conversation and the basis for the meeting was a Castro assassination attempt. Few have really looked at the Veciana-Oswald-Odio connection. Recall that Odio's father was in prison for harboring a Castro assassin that Veciana (AND BISHOP) supported. My bet is that Veciana was the one who put Oswald and co. up to seeing Odio-- the basic idea being the hope that Sylvia would assist Oswald in getting into the very Cuban underground that her father had once assisted.

That does not mean that the two men who were with Oswald hadn't already started giving some thought to the possibility that the plot could be turned on JFK.

If one studies the context, the CIA had largely removed itself from the "get Castro" game by the time Veciana made his revelations about Bishop without prompting. My bet is that Veciana hoped that by floating *part* of the Bishop-Oswald story, and leaving out the really juicy parts that also implicated Veciana, he could blackmail Bishop and the CIA back into a more overtly anti-Castro position. Once Veciana met Philips (and I believe Phillips was Bishop) and learned that he was retired, he abandoned that approach for fear that it would jeopardize his life unnecessarily.

Lots of speculation above, I admit. But it explains quite a bit.

-Stu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alpha 66's Antonio Veciana tells of seeing Oswald with his CIA case

officer "Maurice Bishop".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YRHh4mOofk

I think we have to be careful when evaluating Veciana's honesty. I've always felt that he was telling a half-truth. I think enough has been established to verify the basic claims Veciana makes; that said, the idea that Phillips would just accidentally have Oswald and Veciana meet up is absurd to me. This would be tradecraft at its absolute worst. The more likely scenario is that Oswald and Veciana were MEANT to meet each other and that this was the part that Veciana left out. I also think it's likely (and to some extent was confirmed by Waldron) that the subject of such a conversation and the basis for the meeting was a Castro assassination attempt. Few have really looked at the Veciana-Oswald-Odio connection. Recall that Odio's father was in prison for harboring a Castro assassin that Veciana (AND BISHOP) supported. My bet is that Veciana was the one who put Oswald and co. up to seeing Odio-- the basic idea being the hope that Sylvia would assist Oswald in getting into the very Cuban underground that her father had once assisted.

That does not mean that the two men who were with Oswald hadn't already started giving some thought to the possibility that the plot could be turned on JFK.

If one studies the context, the CIA had largely removed itself from the "get Castro" game by the time Veciana made his revelations about Bishop without prompting. My bet is that Veciana hoped that by floating *part* of the Bishop-Oswald story, and leaving out the really juicy parts that also implicated Veciana, he could blackmail Bishop and the CIA back into a more overtly anti-Castro position. Once Veciana met Philips (and I believe Phillips was Bishop) and learned that he was retired, he abandoned that approach for fear that it would jeopardize his life unnecessarily.

Lots of speculation above, I admit. But it explains quite a bit.

-Stu

______________________________________

Stu,

I wish everyone on this Forum was as fluent (grammar-wise, syntax-wise, vocabulary-wise, spelling-wise, etc) in the English language as you obviously are, and that they were as cogent in their arguments as well. Excellent post. P.S. I too think that "Bishop" was Phillips. I base my conclusion on the fact that the infamous sketch of "Bishop" depicts him with several warts, wens, moles and/or "marks" on the left side of his face, and that photos of David Atlee Phillips show him with exactly the same kinds of "things" on the left side of his face.... [As Shakespeare said, "Aye, there's the rub," and, oh yeah-- "Out, out damned spot," (or words to that effect). (I say, "The 'Devil' is in the details....") lol]

Thanks,

--Thomas

______________________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fonzi spent a lot of time with Veciana, even visiting him at his home on many occasions.

And in all that time Veciana never breathed a word to Fonzi of what he has now told Waldron (Ultimate Sacrifice), namely that "Oswald" talked about assassinating Castro in Veciana's presence.

It would be interesting to hear Evan Marshall's views on the relationship Fonzi cultivated with Veciana (or is it vice-versa?), but it strikes me in reading THE LAST INVESTIGATION that Fonzi got much too close to the witness (or allowed the witness to get much too close to him) to maintain the kind of objectivity that a homicide investigator should.

As I mentioned on another of the many Veciana threads recently, I read Fonzi to say that Veciana is generally a reliable witness, except when he is testifying under oath.

Such a witness will normally be laughed out of court.

If Veciana was yanking Fonzi's chain, as the overall evidence suggests, then the real question becomes: Who sent Veciana on this mission? Was Howard Hunt lurking anywhere in Veciana's background, perchance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Gil.

Does anyone know any NLP? What little I've read indicates that an eye movement from center to upper right is a "created" memory. Vecianan seems to be doing this when he mentions Oswald and Dallas.

I've read the opposite, eye movement up and to the left is created scenarios (lies).

I don't know if it matters if the person is right or left handed.

Either way I wouldn't consider it particularly reliable.

Though I would try not to look up and to the left if I was in a big meeting with my boss or something.

Myra,

I should have been clearer. His right, our left. :-)

A little more research on my part shows that this is indeed an "imagined" or "created" image although it is not 100% but only a trend. So who knows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in all that time Veciana never breathed a word to Fonzi of what he has now told Waldron (Ultimate Sacrifice), namely that "Oswald" talked about assassinating Castro in Veciana's presence.

Veciana told that to Waldron and Hartmann in 1993. This was five years after David Atlee Phillips had died. Maybe he was yanking their chain. Possibly Veciana was quite afraid in the 70's when he talked to the Schweiker subcommittee and Fonzi. As Waldron and Hartman write:

However, Veciana was reluctant to confirm Phillip's use of the Bishop alias for several reasons. After Veciana had a falling out with the CIA in the early 1970s--following a Castro assassination attempt in South America that historians have linked to David Atlee Phillips--Veciana was sent to prison, after he says he was set up on a drug charge. After Veciana was released from prison, numerous Congressional witnesses were killed, or died suddenly, either just before or just after their testimony. The list contains names familiar to the readers of this book: Masferrer, Artime, Prio, Rosselli, Hoffa, Giancana, Nicoletti, and those who were murdered earlier like Richard Cain and Eladio del Valle. When we interviewed Veciana, he said that he had known Eladio del Valle, and mentioned that del Valle had been murdered near Veciana's house.

So we want to make it clear that Veciana did not confirm to us that his CIA contact who used the name Maurice Bishop was indeed David Atlee Phillips. Indeed, given Veciana's cautious Congressional testimony in the 1970s, to do so now could open up Veciana to charges of perjury....

Or as Veciana put it to Fonzi more simply: "I have a lot of information, but I am keeping that to myself because it is my life insurance."

As I mentioned on another of the many Veciana threads recently, I read Fonzi to say that Veciana is generally a reliable witness, except when he is testifying under oath.

Such a witness will normally be laughed out of court.

You read Fonzi to say that. Can you supply a quote or two from him? When Veciana was under oath, he had just finished serving a prison sentence on charges that he says were trumped up, people around him were dropping like flies, CIA assassination plots against Castro had not yet been made public, and the heat was on everywhere. Waldman and Hartmann referred to his testimony as "cautious." If he was less than fully candid at the time, who can blame him for that?

If Veciana was yanking Fonzi's chain, as the overall evidence suggests.....

What evidence would that be?

Anthony Summers, Dick Russell, Waldron and Hartmann, Henry Hurt, Larry Hancock and others have written about Fonzi and Veciana. None of them suggest that Fonzi had beed duped. They all leave the impression that Fonzi was a capable and diligent investigator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Fonzi to say that Veciana is generally a reliable witness, except when he is testifying under oath.

You read Fonzi to say that. Can you supply a quote or two from him?

Fonzi makes it clear that he believed Veciana was lying every time he testified --under oath -- that Phillips was not Bishop. I don't think you need my help to find that throughout THE LAST INVESTIGATION.

Corrollory: If Veciana told the truth under oath, then Phillips is NOT Bishop, and Fonzi's quest was in vain.

Anthony Summers, Dick Russell, Waldron and Hartmann, Henry Hurt, Larry Hancock .... all leave the impression that Fonzi was a capable and diligent investigator.

Fonzi WAS (and as far as I know, still is) a capable and diligent investigator, not to mention that he is also a gifted writer. His articles on the assassination, and especially the early one on Spector, were no doubt influential and will probably be cited by future historians as proof that not all journalists reporting on the assassination were mere parrots of the party line.

But no investigator has ever been infallible, especially when forced to work in isolation, as Fonzi so often was. I re-read THE LAST INVESTIGATION a few weeks ago, and again came away with the impression that, by the time he finished the book, Fonzi himself already suspected that Veciana had been duping him all along. At the beginning Salandria warns Fonzi that "they will keep you very, very busy" and Fonzi repeats that story, with emphasis, at the end of the book, as if to say "somehow those bastard demons succeeded."

If anyone has contact with Gaeton Fonzi, it would be interesting to hear his analysis of the new and improved story of "Oswald's" talk of killing Castro that Veciana never told him, but did tell to Waldron & Hartman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...