Familiar DGI Faces In Dealey Plaza

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Well, maybe we have caught Robert here.  Robert is so well-read that I suspect he has seen the testimony.  I now know its source, after talking to Gordon I re-checked the actual document and it was clear on its face.

Tim, this is so much malarkey.  First you asserted Veciana testified [to the Church committee] to personal knowledge that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza.  Only after making the assertion did you look for the testimony, which you still don't seem to have found.  After admitting you've not seen the testimony, you retreated and said you'd based your assertion upon a nugget found in a synopsis of Veciana's testimony on Gordon Winslow's web-site.  Now you claim to have "rechecked the actual document and it was clear on its face." 

But guess what, Tim... it's not "testimony" at all.  Oh, I know Winslow titled it "Antonio Veciana Church Committee Testimony 1976," but it's actual title is what appears directly beneath Winslow's false heading, and was written by whomever prepared it: "SUMMARY OF VECIANA INTERVIEWS."  So, I will ask again - and again, no doubt - precisely what I asked originally: please cite Veciana's testimony in which he indicates personal knowledge Diaz was in Dealey Plaza. 

The summary of the deposition was prepared by a staff member of the Church Committee, most likely the attorney who actually took the deposition.  This is almost SOP (for instance, you will find deposition summaries at the front of the depositions included in the "History Matters" web-site).

Sorry, counsellor, but when a deposition is taken, the witness is placed under oath and sworn to testify truthfully.  Any subsequent synopsis of that process will include the date on which the deposition was conducted, the name of the lawyer who conducted it, and the names of others present during the process.  All of the above are missing from the "SUMMARY OF VECIANA INTERVIEWS," and one must wonder why that is, if the document purports to synopsize actual testimony, rather than interviews with Veciana conducted by field investigators. 

Moreover, the quality of the synopsis itself is so slipshod and breezily unconcerned with details that it cannot come from testimony.  Surely, whomever was questioning Veciana would have had a few more queries about the Diaz photograph, and would have elicited from Veciana when and where he thought the photograph might have appeared.  Yet, the synopsis seems to gloss over this potentially provocative detail as though it didn't merit any further attention.

The document posted on Gordon's web-site is an actual document from the Church Committee.  Here is the citation:

NARA RIF 157-10014-10041

Miscellaneous Records of the Church Committee

March 22, 1976

Again, this is not testimony, as you originally claimed.  You assert this is incendiary information.  Yet the writer who prepared it didn't even bother to itemize the dates of which testimony was given, or even if it was, or to even append his or her own name.  And it was deemed so important by the Church committee hierarchy that it ended up in the circular receptical called "Miscellaneous Records."  Now, Tim, perhaps you could explain to us how it is that "testimony" gets filed under "Miscellaneous Records."  This is the quality of the data upon which you rely.  

So Robert, unless you think the staff member of the Church Committee made this up,

What staff member?  Based upon what's presented, how do you even know it was prepared by a staff member?  You have no idea of its provenance, other than it was found in the miscellaneous dump-bin.  Argue on its behalf all you like; it's not the "testimony" you originally claimed, nor even a pale substitute for it.

I guess the members can now at last evaluate who is more likely the truth-teller, me or you. 

"Truth-teller?"  That's rich.  You said Veciana testified to something.  When prodded to prove it, you not only didn't have his testimony at hand, you could cough up only an unsigned, blind memo found in a Church committee miscellany dumpbin.  If that's intended to bolster your veracity here, you either don't know what the word "testimony" means, or you sorely underestimate the intelligence of the audience to which you're playing.

I also found it interesting that you are now stooping to name-calling.  For your information, I believe many members of Gordon's "sewing circle", as you put it, would be more in agreement with your view of the conspiracy than mine.

So?  That proves nothing.

Gordon Winslow has no interest in solving the Kennedy assassination.  His sewing circle and website serve two inter-related purposes:

First, as an anti-Castro propaganda vehicle.  That is his right, but obviously overarching motives render suspect the conclusions reached by those who display the prejudice.  That is as true of him as it is of you.

Second, as a means to keep track of which researchers are studying which aspects of the case.  When you provide Winslow with your contact information and areas of interest in the assassination, you may think that this is to facilitate the free flow of information.  Think again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[David G. Healy]

TimG wrote:

[...]

I guess the members can now at last evaluate who is more likely the truth-teller, me or you.

[...]

more likely? The latter !

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

This thread was begun by Tim Gratz a few weeks back in his continuing effort to place a Cuban intelligence operative in Dealey Plaza. He has repeatedly asserted this to be true, here and in other threads, and draws sinister inferences from it. Since then, we've engaged in the typical back-and-forth over the quality of the material used to bolster his original assertion that there was such a Cuban intelligence operative in Dealey Plaza on the fateful day. To wit:

I can now report the identity of one person who reported seeing a Cuban spy in a photograph of Dealey Plaza. The man identified the spy as Raul Diaz.

This report came from a man whose other reports (eg his involvement with the CIA) are usually credited by the assassination research committee.

The man who made this report (to the Church Committee) was Antonio Veciana.

Since then, there's been some confusion over whether this allegation originated with Veciana or with his friend Dr. Manuel Abella. [Tim credits the former, based upon a summary of Church Committee interviews with Veciana; HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi, however, states in his book that Veciana told him Abella was the one who had seen the photo published in a magazine. Fonzi's account seems the more likely, if only because Fonzi spent time in a library with both men. Veciana was disinterested in seeking photos of Diaz, while Abella was singularly intent upon that task.]

In the absence of something more definitive, a variety of possibilities exist. Either Veciana or Abella may have seen such a photo and correctly identified Diaz, though this begs the question of why they never bothered to draw this to the attention of the authorities. Or either man may have seen such a photo and incorrectly guessed it was Diaz, though this begs the very same question.

Irrespective of which man originally asserted that Raul Diaz was in Dealey Plaza, it seems peculiar that no such photo has surfaced. Given the amount of energy expended by anti-Castro exiles - and CIA and its various shills and apologists - trying to implicate Castro as the author of the Dallas deed, how can it be that no such photograph has ever been produced to bolster this contention?

Obviously, the absence [to date] of such a photo doesn't definitively demonstrate that no such photo ever existed. There are any number of hypothetically plausible rationales for suppressing such a photograph. However, if Veciana told the Church Committee about such a photograph, and it and HSCA counsel both had many other good reasons to seek same, one wonders why no such photo has emerged in the past 40-plus years. Surely, it can't be for want of trying, or lack of resources.

So, dismissing for now whether this issue began with Abella or Veciana, I have a simple question for Tim about the purportedly "Familiar DGI Face in Dealey Plaza:"

Where's the photo?

[Tim Gratz]

Robert, a well-written post and perhaps you are now recognizing that I did not make up this whole thing (which would have been a rather silly thing for me to do with such an indefagitable researcher as you on my case). If you look up the Hemming deposition in the HistoryMatters web-site you will find that a similar summary appears in front of his deposition. I think you will find for most of the depositions but I have not checked. It does not say who prepared the summary. It may have been the attorney who took the deposition. However, in law firms it is often a non-licensed law clerk who prepares the summary.

In trials, these summaries were used so the attorney cross-examining a witness could easily find a contradictory statement in the deposition. For the assassination committees, I'm sure it was done so the committee members could quickly read the salient points without the drudgery of reading the entire deposition.

Now days, in trial practice, of course, as I understand it, depositions are put on CDS or hard drives and can easily be searched for names or key phrases by software.

In answe to your specific question, Diaz, of course, is the "badgeman". My Cuban sources have positively identified him. The facial characteristics are identical. So if it is not Raul Diaz it must be his twin brother Hector.

That was just a joke, ladies and gentlemen. (I have no idea if Diaz had any siblings.) So in response to your question, I have no idea how hard the committees looked for these photos. With respect to Mr. Fonzi, whose book is, of course, a great read, I think he was more interested in tracking down Maurice Bishop than he was in locating Castro agents in Dealey Plaza.

And the interesting thing is--if Hemming is telling the truth--it was not Bishop that Veciana saw with LHO in Dallas but Jake Esterline. (Hemming says Esterline himself told him this.) Now the timing might not have cooperated in terms of when Hemming's deposition was taken, but it is interesting to contemplate the different avenues the investigation may have taken had the Committee asked Hemming about the Veciana story.

Edited July 7, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

In answe to your specific question, Diaz, of course, is the "badgeman". 

Is this what Veciana stated?  Or Abella?  If so, where can we find confirmation for same?  If not, on what basis have you reached this conclusion?  No offense, but this seems like a bait-and-switch tactic: unable to locate a photo in which either Veicana or Abella might have seen Diaz, we now have another source for that putative ID, but this one is not identified.  And that's the least of your problems.

Moreover, unless there is a clearer shot of "Badgeman" that I haven't seen, I would ask: how it is possible to determine a person's identity when his facial features are completely obscured from view?

Since Jack White, one of the people who first brought "Badgeman" to our attention, is a regular poster here, perhaps we could get some imput from him.  Tim, if you have a photo of Raul Diaz's face, could you please provide it so that we can view it for comparison purposes?  [Gary Mack shares credit with Jack White for the "Badgeman" discovery, and is also a member here, though he doesn't post.  Perhaps he could be persuaded to do so on this issue.]

My Cuban sources have positively identified him.  The facial characteristics are identical. 

That's nice.  Are Veciana or Abella among your "Cuban sources?"  If not, who are your "Cuban sources?"  If we are to trust their "positive identification," it would be helpful to know on what basis they reached their conclusion, and how much effort was undertaken to achieve it.

And, again of course, how it is possible to determine a person's identity when his facial features are completely obscured from view? 

So in response to your question, I have no idea how hard the committees looked for these photos.  With respect to Mr. Fonzi, whose book is, of course, a great read, I think he was more interested in tracking down Maurice Bishop than he was in locating Castro agents in Dealey Plaza.

Think what you like, Tim.  The fact remains that Fonzi tried to help Abella - not Veciana who didn't seem at all interested or involved, you will note - locate a photo of Diaz.  Surely if either Veciana or Abella told Fonzi that Diaz was dressed like a cop and was photographed on the grassy knoll, this would have narrowed the search parameters dramatically.  Neither man seems to have mentioned this salient detail to Fonzi. 

Nor would/could they have, since the "Badgeman" photo enhancement didn't surface until well after Veciana and Abella were quizzed on the topic.  At the time that these two Cubans were providing help to the Church and House Select committees, the only thing seen in the pertinent photograph was a puff of smoke.

And the interesting thing is--if Hemming is telling the truth--it was not Bishop that Veciana saw with LHO in Dallas but Jake Esterline.  (Hemming says Esterline himself told him this.) Now the timing might not have cooperated in terms of when Hemming's deposition was taken, but it is interesting to contemplate the different avenues the investigation may have taken had the Committee asked Hemming about the Veciana story.

If this is true, and Veciana is to be believed, then "Maurice Bishop" must have been Jake Esterline, despite your assertion to the contrary.  Persumably, in the summer of 1963 Veciana would know "Bishop" by sight, having worked with him for several years previous.  One finds it impossible to rationalize how Veciana could have made so basic a mistake.      

The problems raised by this assertion are too numerous to itemize, but even superficially, it is unlikely that the Pennsylvanian-born Esterline had "Bishop"'s Texan accent.  While he undoubtedly spoke Spanish, is there any evidence that Esterline spoke French?  And why, pray tell, would Esterline disclose to Hemming, of all people, that he had been in Oswald's company?  If Esterline disclosed that much, did he also tell Hemming why he was meeting with Oswald just months prior to the assassination?  For a guy tasked with running the Miami end of anti-Castro operations, doesn't it seem more than passing strange that he should take time out of his schedule to meet with a nebish like Oswald in Dallas, even if he was there to meet with Veciana?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have appended the sketch of "Bishop"/photo of Phillips/and photo of Esterline for comparative purposes.

Edited July 7, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Tim Gratz]

Robert, "chill out" a bit. My comment that Diaz was the "badgeman" was obviously tongue-in-cheek (at least I thought it was obvious).

Also, if Veciana saw Esterline with LHO, that does not necessarily mean that Esterline was Bishop. Bishop could still have been David Atlee Phillips (as most people think). Once Veciana saw LHO with a CIA officer, he could have claimed it was Bishop just to "even his score" witj Bishop. He was upset with Bishop, as you know.

[James Richards]

Remember that in Dick Russell's 'The Man Who Knew Too Much', Colonel Bill Bishop claimed that he and David Phillips had both served as case officers to Veciana.

When showed the 'Maurice Bishop sketch', Col. Bishop said that Veciana was under enormous pressure and in effect made a composite of Phillips, Col. Bishop and others that Bishop refused to name. Could they have included Esterline and Jack Hawkins?

IMO, the Bishop sketch although looking a lot like David Phillips, did resemble Col. Jack Hawkins.

The image below shows Esterline on the left and Hawkins on the right.

James

[Tim Gratz]

James, it does look a lot like Hawkins!

Quite extraordinary!

Thanks!

[Tim Gratz]

James, do you have any other photographs of Hawkins?

[James Richards]

James, do you have any other photographs of Hawkins?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do, Tim, but they are not scanned. I am having major printer and scanner type problems which is frustrating to say the least.

As to Maurice Bishop look-a-likes, there is also J.C. King. There is an image of him at the photo archives in the CIA section.

I guess the point needs to be made that a common practice for Intelligence agents and assets is to share names and identities. It is possible that Maurice Bishop may indeed have been a composite of David Phillips, John O'Hare and who knows else.

As we have all come to expect in this case, things are not always cut and dry.

James

[Tim Gratz]

Another way to put it is that in this case things are not always as they seem!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert, "chill out" a bit.  My comment that Diaz was the "badgeman" was obviously tongue-in-cheek (at least I thought it was obvious).

No, Tim, I will not "chill out."  Despite what you clearly fancy yourself to be, you are not funny, and to the vast majority of people who post here, there is little funny about the murder of the President.  Your propensity for glibness in the face of a historical tragedy marks you as a dabbler of no serious character or fortitude.   

You have always freely engaged in speculation and musing, where one might hope to see the presentation of something akin to evidence.  Yet when faced with a most obvious question for which you have no answer, you resort to schtick.  You were asked a very direct question.  Try answering it.  Or acknowledge that you cannot.

Better still, stop making assertions if you don't have the evidence or intellectual heft to back it up. 

Also, if Veciana saw Esterline with LHO, that does not necessarily mean that Esterline was Bishop.   

Again, you confuse the most basic facts.  According to your pal Hemming, Esterline told him he was the man seen by Veciana with Oswald.  Veciana swore under oath that he had seen "Bishop" with Oswald.  Now, if Hemming and Esterline are truthful in this [for which there's no guarantee], then you must claim Veciana lied under oath. 

But, wait a minute... Veciana's your witness, isn't he, counsellor?  You know, that whole Diaz-in-Dealey deal that you can't seem to find the slightest evidence for...  Now you again impeach your own witness?  Like I said, Tim, a dabbler.   

Bishop could still have been David Atlee Phillips (as most people think).Once Veciana saw LHO with a CIA officer, he could have claimed it was Bishop just to "even his score" witj Bishop.  He was upset with Bishop, as you know.

False imprisonment and a gunshot to the head tend to do that to people.

However, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't really care about any of this.  Bishop could be anyone, for all you care, as could the killers.  Fact is, it's all just one long wankathon for you.  Your interest in this subject is a mile wide and an inch deep, so long as it allows you to cherry-pick a few tellingly insignificant crumbs for use in your pathological obsession with Castro.  Your lack of substance or a serious contribution here is a continuing insult to all the good people here who've devoted significant portions of their lives to seeking redress of an historical wrong.  Your problem with Castro requires professional help.

So, again, Tim:  You've had forty years in which to find it.  Where's the photo of Diaz in Dealey Plaza?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Robert, "chill out" a bit.  My comment that Diaz was the "badgeman" was obviously tongue-in-cheek (at least I thought it was obvious).

No, Tim, I will not "chill out."  Despite what you clearly fancy yourself to be, you are not funny, and to the vast majority of people who post here, there is little funny about the murder of the President.  Your propensity for glibness in the face of a historical tragedy marks you as a dabbler of no serious character or fortitude.   

You have always freely engaged in speculation and musing, where one might hope to see the presentation of something akin to evidence.  Yet when faced with a most obvious question for which you have no answer, you resort to schtick.  You were asked a very direct question.  Try answering it.  Or acknowledge that you cannot.

Better still, stop making assertions if you don't have the evidence or intellectual heft to back it up. 

Also, if Veciana saw Esterline with LHO, that does not necessarily mean that Esterline was Bishop.   

Again, you confuse the most basic facts.  According to your pal Hemming, Esterline told him he was the man seen by Veciana with Oswald.  Veciana swore under oath that he had seen "Bishop" with Oswald.  Now, if Hemming and Esterline are truthful in this [for which there's no guarantee], then you must claim Veciana lied under oath. 

But, wait a minute... Veciana's your witness, isn't he, counsellor?  You know, that whole Diaz-in-Dealey deal that you can't seem to find the slightest evidence for...  Now you again impeach your own witness?  Like I said, Tim, a dabbler.   

Bishop could still have been David Atlee Phillips (as most people think).Once Veciana saw LHO with a CIA officer, he could have claimed it was Bishop just to "even his score" witj Bishop.  He was upset with Bishop, as you know.

False imprisonment and a gunshot to the head tend to do that to people.

However, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't really care about any of this.  Bishop could be anyone, for all you care, as could the killers.  Fact is, it's all just one long wankathon for you.  Your interest in this subject is a mile wide and an inch deep, so long as it allows you to cherry-pick a few tellingly insignificant crumbs for use in your pathological obsession with Castro.  Your lack of substance or a serious contribution here is a continuing insult to all the good people here who've devoted significant portions of their lives to seeking redress of an historical wrong.  Your problem with Castro requires professional help.

So, again, Tim:  You've had forty years in which to find it.  Where's the photo of Diaz in Dealey Plaza?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Gerry Hemming]

Robert, "chill out" a bit. My comment that Diaz was the "badgeman" was obviously tongue-in-cheek (at least I thought it was obvious).

No, Tim, I will not "chill out." Despite what you clearly fancy yourself to be, you are not funny, and to the vast majority of people who post here, there is little funny about the murder of the President. Your propensity for glibness in the face of a historical tragedy marks you as a dabbler of no serious character or fortitude.

You have always freely engaged in speculation and musing, where one might hope to see the presentation of something akin to evidence. Yet when faced with a most obvious question for which you have no answer, you resort to schtick. You were asked a very direct question. Try answering it. Or acknowledge that you cannot.

Better still, stop making assertions if you don't have the evidence or intellectual heft to back it up.

Also, if Veciana saw Esterline with LHO, that does not necessarily mean that Esterline was Bishop.

Again, you confuse the most basic facts. According to your pal Hemming, Esterline told him he was the man seen by Veciana with Oswald. Veciana swore under oath that he had seen "Bishop" with Oswald. Now, if Hemming and Esterline are truthful in this [for which there's no guarantee], then you must claim Veciana lied under oath.

But, wait a minute... Veciana's your witness, isn't he, counsellor? You know, that whole Diaz-in-Dealey deal that you can't seem to find the slightest evidence for... Now you again impeach your own witness? Like I said, Tim, a dabbler.

Bishop could still have been David Atlee Phillips (as most people think).Once Veciana saw LHO with a CIA officer, he could have claimed it was Bishop just to "even his score" witj Bishop. He was upset with Bishop, as you know.

False imprisonment and a gunshot to the head tend to do that to people.

However, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't really care about any of this. Bishop could be anyone, for all you care, as could the killers. Fact is, it's all just one long wankathon for you. Your interest in this subject is a mile wide and an inch deep, so long as it allows you to cherry-pick a few tellingly insignificant crumbs for use in your pathological obsession with Castro. Your lack of substance or a serious contribution here is a continuing insult to all the good people here who've devoted significant portions of their lives to seeking redress of an historical wrong. Your problem with Castro requires professional help.

So, again, Tim: You've had forty years in which to find it. Where's the photo of Diaz in Dealey Plaza?

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

Yeah GRATZ !! Who the hell do you think you are ?? The "Jokester" from the "Fatman and Ruben" movie.

[Hey, I'll loan you my picture of Alfred E. Neuman in DP for only $5]

How dare you NOT take seriously the pontifications of these so very dedicated [for almost a half Century now] "scribb...er..scholars-in-Residence". Oh, I forgot -- you seem to remember Bud Fensterwald's folio file & photos of Col. Morris Bishop, US Army -- yeah, the same dude that the CIA later "c.y.a.'d" as some kind of freelance meddler in Cuban affairs. And, NOT that I coached Tony on what to say to Gaeton on OUR first official HSCA meet -- but, then again, Tony wouldn't talk with Fonzi until I convinced him to do so.

[Check with him, or his daughter Anna. But don't do a Khazar, i.e.: ".....Were you pickin' your toes in Poughkeepsy on the night before you quit beating your wife ??!!

Bud first heard of the visit to Bunker Hunt's office from me in May 1975. I was there. I waited outside while Jake and LHO went in -- and I was damned sure keeping my distance from that snitch suspect.

When I went in much later [and after both had departed] I spent all of 5 minutes chatting with Bob Morris, Bunker, and two others unknown to me. I had made sure to disremember the foregoing until 1970.

During late 1970, I was on a land fraud, multiple-murders investigation in Hendersonville, with the local Sheriff threatening physical harm upon moi -- maybe because we were laying claim to the town of Laurel Park, the city center of Hendersonville, NC, and the large properties of NYT's Sulzburger, Roone Arledge, et al. ??!! But, this all faded when the local nasty-ass & vicious moonshiners switched sides with OUR clients, whom they discovered were blood kinfolk. Today, there still are $17 million of Trust Deeds in my name at that courthouse. Not of any worth to me, but check with Roland Braswell, Esq. in Goldsboro about the matter -- and yes, he was one of the 1976 "Marijuana Watergate" lawyers representation a co-defendant of WerBell, Franklin, Bell, Damesworth, Nardi, et al. !!

The second week there, I ran into Jake while he was checking out his future retirement home on Sean Way.

He asked me what I thought of the JFK matter, and did I think that LHO really "dood-da-deed?" Off course I mumbled &^%$# and changed to talking about the late Capt. Tom Chamales, OSS Det #101; and how he was tight with Sinatra & the "Rat Pack" before his divorce from Helen O'Connell and dying in a fleabag.

Ask Jack Hawkins if Jake EVER wanted to talk about ANYTHING after the BOP !!

My goodness gracious Gratz, don't you "unnerstan" that you can't "trip-the-light-fantastic" over such serious and tragic events....wait 'alf a mo !!.. I'm blinded by a tears coming out of my bad eye...NO..not to worry....it was a fly turd !!

How dare you YOU YOU. These Socratic/Talmudic scholars are just about to solve a tragic coup d'etat, treason, MIC/CIA/FBI/SS/YMCA/B'nai Brith/MOSSAD/3rd Reich/BUSH -- conspiracy, cover-up, GWT, Neo-Con, Globalization....anyway, you know -- ASSassyNation !!

And don't you ever mention ANY bad thingys about our dear friends down in Habana, and especially NOT the G.R.U. "Glee-Club" !! Sieg...er..Tovarishin...lend me your ears [you won't be needing them anymore]

Mein freund, don't you know we have vays of making you schutz-up -- Du hast family in "Cherminy?", nicht war ??

Sauerbratten,

GPH

________________________

[Al Carrier]

Robert, "chill out" a bit. My comment that Diaz was the "badgeman" was obviously tongue-in-cheek (at least I thought it was obvious).

No, Tim, I will not "chill out." Despite what you clearly fancy yourself to be, you are not funny, and to the vast majority of people who post here, there is little funny about the murder of the President. Your propensity for glibness in the face of a historical tragedy marks you as a dabbler of no serious character or fortitude.

You have always freely engaged in speculation and musing, where one might hope to see the presentation of something akin to evidence. Yet when faced with a most obvious question for which you have no answer, you resort to schtick. You were asked a very direct question. Try answering it. Or acknowledge that you cannot.

Better still, stop making assertions if you don't have the evidence or intellectual heft to back it up.

Also, if Veciana saw Esterline with LHO, that does not necessarily mean that Esterline was Bishop.

Again, you confuse the most basic facts. According to your pal Hemming, Esterline told him he was the man seen by Veciana with Oswald. Veciana swore under oath that he had seen "Bishop" with Oswald. Now, if Hemming and Esterline are truthful in this [for which there's no guarantee], then you must claim Veciana lied under oath.

But, wait a minute... Veciana's your witness, isn't he, counsellor? You know, that whole Diaz-in-Dealey deal that you can't seem to find the slightest evidence for... Now you again impeach your own witness? Like I said, Tim, a dabbler.

Bishop could still have been David Atlee Phillips (as most people think).Once Veciana saw LHO with a CIA officer, he could have claimed it was Bishop just to "even his score" witj Bishop. He was upset with Bishop, as you know.

False imprisonment and a gunshot to the head tend to do that to people.

However, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't really care about any of this. Bishop could be anyone, for all you care, as could the killers. Fact is, it's all just one long wankathon for you. Your interest in this subject is a mile wide and an inch deep, so long as it allows you to cherry-pick a few tellingly insignificant crumbs for use in your pathological obsession with Castro. Your lack of substance or a serious contribution here is a continuing insult to all the good people here who've devoted significant portions of their lives to seeking redress of an historical wrong. Your problem with Castro requires professional help.

So, again, Tim: You've had forty years in which to find it. Where's the photo of Diaz in Dealey Plaza?

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

Yeah GRATZ !! Who the hell do you think you are ?? The "Jokester" from the "Fatman and Ruben" movie.

[Hey, I'll loan you my picture of Alfred E. Neuman in DP for only $5]

How dare you NOT take seriously the pontifications of these so very dedicated [for almost a half Century now] "scribb...er..scholars-in-Residence". Oh, I forgot -- you seem to remember Bud Fensterwald's folio file & photos of Col. Morris Bishop, US Army -- yeah, the same dude that the CIA later "c.y.a.'d" as some kind of freelance meddler in Cuban affairs. And, NOT that I coached Tony on what to say to Gaeton on OUR first official HSCA meet -- but, then again, Tony wouldn't talk with Fonzi until I convinced him to do so.

[Check with him, or his daughter Anna. But don't do a Khazar, i.e.: ".....Were you pickin' your toes in Poughkeepsy on the night before you quit beating your wife ??!!

Bud first heard of the visit to Bunker Hunt's office from me in May 1975. I was there. I waited outside while Jake and LHO went in -- and I was damned sure keeping my distance from that snitch suspect.

When I went in much later [and after both had departed] I spent all of 5 minutes chatting with Bob Morris, Bunker, and two others unknown to me. I had made sure to disremember the foregoing until 1970.

During late 1970, I was on a land fraud, multiple-murders investigation in Hendersonville, with the local Sheriff threatening physical harm upon moi -- maybe because we were laying claim to the town of Laurel Park, the city center of Hendersonville, NC, and the large properties of NYT's Sulzburger, Roone Arledge, et al. ??!! But, this all faded when the local nasty-ass & vicious moonshiners switched sides with OUR clients, whom they discovered were blood kinfolk. Today, there still are $17 million of Trust Deeds in my name at that courthouse. Not of any worth to me, but check with Roland Braswell, Esq. in Goldsboro about the matter -- and yes, he was one of the 1976 "Marijuana Watergate" lawyers representation a co-defendant of WerBell, Franklin, Bell, Damesworth, Nardi, et al. !!

The second week there, I ran into Jake while he was checking out his future retirement home on Sean Way.

He asked me what I thought of the JFK matter, and did I think that LHO really "dood-da-deed?" Off course I mumbled &^%$# and changed to talking about the late Capt. Tom Chamales, OSS Det #101; and how he was tight with Sinatra & the "Rat Pack" before his divorce from Helen O'Connell and dying in a fleabag.

Ask Jack Hawkins if Jake EVER wanted to talk about ANYTHING after the BOP !!

My goodness gracious Gratz, don't you "unnerstan" that you can't "trip-the-light-fantastic" over such serious and tragic events....wait 'alf a mo !!.. I'm blinded by a tears coming out of my bad eye...NO..not to worry....it was a fly turd !!

How dare you YOU YOU. These Socratic/Talmudic scholars are just about to solve a tragic coup d'etat, treason, MIC/CIA/FBI/SS/YMCA/B'nai Brith/MOSSAD/3rd Reich/BUSH -- conspiracy, cover-up, GWT, Neo-Con, Globalization....anyway, you know -- ASSassyNation !!

And don't you ever mention ANY bad thingys about our dear friends down in Habana, and especially NOT the G.R.U. "Glee-Club" !! Sieg...er..Tovarishin...lend me your ears [you won't be needing them anymore]

Mein freund, don't you know we have vays of making you schutz-up -- Du hast family in "Cherminy?", nicht war ??

Sauerbratten,

GPH

________________________

To John Simkin,

Do you not see what I have been talking about with GPH in the above thread?

Can you imagine what young persons interested in carrying out the assassination research must see in this history wanna-be's post here? How they must be scratching their heads and wondering what they are doing here? Don't we owe it to the young researchers to shield them from America's version of a James Bond fantasy freak like GPH. If he was so important and had so many contacts, what is he still doing around and why would he be here. Certainly not to teach us anything through his minds own criptic babble.

To be offensive, one has to be realistic. GPH is simply obnoxious taking space and chasing away those who chose to learn. For those who follow him and hang on his dribble, they are only clouded by God only knows what he is saying.

Reality is often frightening. Fiction of GPH is becoming laughable. Do you know where to find me too Gerry. I am all a quiver!!!

Al