W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Much was made of Veciana's 2014 "revelation" that Bishop was really David Phillips. But it seems there was a guiding hand behind his announcement: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/01/marie-fonzi-and-vecianas-revelation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 So she convinced him to admit the truth while he was still alive. Seems like a good thing. I have no idea if Phillips met with Oswald in front of Veciana. Wouldn't be shocked if he made that up. But there's plenty of evidence in Gaeton's book as to why Phillips was Bishop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 11 hours ago, Matt Allison said: So she convinced him to admit the truth while he was still alive. Seems like a good thing. I have no idea if Phillips met with Oswald in front of Veciana. Wouldn't be shocked if he made that up. But there's plenty of evidence in Gaeton's book as to why Phillips was Bishop. Since most of the "evidence" that Phillips was Bishop comes from Veciana and you admit Veciana may have lied about Oswald, why would you believe anything he says? Why would you believe he is telling the truth now about Phillips being Bishop? We know that he lied about how and when he met Bishop-Newman has proven that. Also, why does it matter if there was a Bishop or not? Is it just to vindicate Fonzi and his beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Is it your position that there was no relationship at all between Phillips and Veciana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 14 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: Is it your position that there was no relationship at all between Phillips and Veciana? Yes, because the only evidence for that relationship is Veciana's statements (unless you believe Wynne Johnson and very few do). Now, could you answer my questions please because I am very interested by the motivations of those who want to hang on to Bishop. What is in it for the people who want Bishop to exist-is it just to vindicate Fonzi or do they believe Bishop fits into the conspiracy somehow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 If there was no relationship between them, then why do you think Veciana would go to the trouble of making up lies about Phillips? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: What is in it for the people who want Bishop to exist-is it just to vindicate Fonzi or do they believe Bishop fits into the conspiracy somehow? the truth Tracy... open your eyes and use that big brain... Phillips arrives in Mexico on Oct 7th.... on October 8th the fan gets hit pretty hard by the BS flying around and the entire Mexico City charade begins... if one takes a look at SOP for Phillips in the other theaters of operation he performed so well within, it is obvious we see the tell-tale signs of his work in Mexico as well. Y'know Tracy.. CONTEXT... try it some time... Alvarado was a Phillips asset - remember him? $6500 and the red-headed negro with Oswald at the Embassy? Remember Alvarado was identified as a CIA ASSET and that he initially pegged the date as Sept 18th (Nagell)... and why does this Nicaraguan need to have Oswald connected to Cuba for the USA - other than at the direction of Phillips? And who, other than Phillips who was in on the interrogation, could get Alvarado to recant... despite his refusing to do so until physically intimidated.... I have the documentation of course... yet am not sure how much of it you are aware of... seems to me not much. Are you really going to sit here and post that Hunt and Phillips did not use CHESS PIECES as aliases? That Hunt wasn't known as KNIGHT That Phillips wasn't known as BISHOP That both used numerous aliases over their careers.... Here is part of the Veciana transcript.... pretty amazing how Phillips continually is trying to find assets who will help him PROVE Oswald was ever at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico... Phillips suggested to Mr. Veciana that he persuade his relative, Mr. Ruiz, to defect to the United States in exchange for a significant amount of funds on the condition that upon his defection, he publicly declare that Oswald came to the Cuban consulate to discuss with members of the Cuban security forces at the consulate plans to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 4 hours ago, Matt Allison said: If there was no relationship between them, then why do you think Veciana would go to the trouble of making up lies about Phillips? What trouble? He was hailed as a hero at the AARC conference for saying Phillips was Bishop. And he put his book out in 2017 and that was a big selling point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 3 hours ago, David Josephs said: Are you really going to sit here and post that Hunt and Phillips did not use CHESS PIECES as aliases? That Hunt wasn't known as KNIGHT That Phillips wasn't known as BISHOP Thanks for the little "thumbs up" David-don't know what I'd do without that. We have lots of information about CIA pseudonyms and aliases but you can look at Mary Ferrell or AARC and (to their credit) you will not see Maurice Bishop under David Phillips. That is because there is no verification of it. Of course, it is possible that Phillips, who used as many as 100 informal aliases, used the name Bishop. But the real question is, was there a "Maurice Bishop" as Veciana described that ran him as an agent for 13 years? We have the work that has been done by Newman that shows that the scenario under which Veciana claims to have met Bishop/Phillips could not be true. We have no CIA records that show Veciana was an "agent" as he is claiming, only that he was authorized to be used as a sabotage man but never was and never received a nickel from the agency-only supplies for Alpha 66. And the verification that Veciana saw LHO with Bishop/Phillips? None unless you believe Wynne Johnson. So, if Phillips used the Bishop alias, it was in some capacity that had nothing to do with Veciana or LHO and is therefore irrelevant. Veciana and the Phillips-Ruiz story is only Veciana's word and call me strange, but I am not accepting his word at this point. As far as the Mexico City thing, I will be looking at Phillips' involvement in my future research-haven't got into it in detail yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) Alvarado Polygraph Gilberto Alvarado Alvarado file Thanks to Malcolm Blunt, scans by me. Edited January 17, 2020 by Bart Kamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 17 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Thanks for the little "thumbs up" David-don't know what I'd do without that. We have lots of information about CIA pseudonyms and aliases but you can look at Mary Ferrell or AARC and (to their credit) you will not see Maurice Bishop under David Phillips. That is because there is no verification of it. Of course, it is possible that Phillips, who used as many as 100 informal aliases, used the name Bishop. But the real question is, was there a "Maurice Bishop" as Veciana described that ran him as an agent for 13 years? We have the work that has been done by Newman that shows that the scenario under which Veciana claims to have met Bishop/Phillips could not be true. We have no CIA records that show Veciana was an "agent" as he is claiming, only that he was authorized to be used as a sabotage man but never was and never received a nickel from the agency-only supplies for Alpha 66. And the verification that Veciana saw LHO with Bishop/Phillips? None unless you believe Wynne Johnson. So, if Phillips used the Bishop alias, it was in some capacity that had nothing to do with Veciana or LHO and is therefore irrelevant. Veciana and the Phillips-Ruiz story is only Veciana's word and call me strange, but I am not accepting his word at this point. As far as the Mexico City thing, I will be looking at Phillips' involvement in my future research-haven't got into it in detail yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: What trouble? He was hailed as a hero at the AARC conference for saying Phillips was Bishop. And he put his book out in 2017 and that was a big selling point. You say that Veciana, all the way back in 1976, lied about David Phillips. You also say the two of them had no relationship. Explain why Veciana would lie about Phillips in 1976 if he never had a relationship with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Matt Allison said: You say that Veciana, all the way back in 1976, lied about David Phillips. You also say the two of them had no relationship. Explain why Veciana would lie about Phillips in 1976 if he never had a relationship with him. Misdirection. Veciana wasn’t working for CIA he was working for Army Intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: Misdirection. Veciana wasn’t working for CIA he was working for Army Intelligence. As was Morales, for his "previous" employer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 28 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: Misdirection. Veciana wasn’t working for CIA he was working for Army Intelligence. Why would Veciana be chosen to conduct a misdirection? Why would David Phillips be chosen to be targeted for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now