Discussion:
Response to Morley
(too old to reply)
W. Tracy Parnell
2017-06-15 16:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Morley has written a piece critical of my Veciana work:

http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/

My response:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
John McAdams
2017-06-15 17:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Some thoughts:

Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.

Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.

You say:

"The question is premature since we only have Veciana’s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."

Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?

Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.

Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
W. Tracy Parnell
2017-06-15 23:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana’s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This document states that Veciana contacted the CIA 3 times for assistance
and was offered no encouragement. It also says that Veciana had "no agency
relationship."

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49346&relPageId=135&search="veciana"
John McAdams
2017-06-15 23:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15 Jun 2017 19:00:25 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana’s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This document states that Veciana contacted the CIA 3 times for assistance
and was offered no encouragement. It also says that Veciana had "no agency
relationship."
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49346&relPageId=135&search="veciana"
Interestingly, Fonzi wrote that.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt

It seems there was a "responsible Fonzi" who had to write stuff that
would pass muster with the HSCA, and another one, who could let his
imagination run wild.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
W. Tracy Parnell
2017-06-17 03:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 19:00:25 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana’s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This document states that Veciana contacted the CIA 3 times for assistance
and was offered no encouragement. It also says that Veciana had "no agency
relationship."
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49346&relPageId=135&search="veciana"
Interestingly, Fonzi wrote that.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt
It seems there was a "responsible Fonzi" who had to write stuff that
would pass muster with the HSCA, and another one, who could let his
imagination run wild.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You are exactly right about that. In my research, I saw several instances
where Fonzi, still wearing his investigator's hat, seemed skeptical of
some of Veciana's assertions and questioned him further. He also sought
independent verification of some of the claims. In some cases, Veciana
stonewalled him and he ended up accepting what he said. Veciana had an
annoying habit of changing the subject when asked a direct question. As
you say, Fonzi knew his final report had to pass the smell test to others
at the HSCA and his writing reflects that reality. But after the HSCA was
over, Fonzi was free to explore his theories and that started with the
1980 Washingtonian article.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 23:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana’s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This document states that Veciana contacted the CIA 3 times for assistance
and was offered no encouragement. It also says that Veciana had "no agency
relationship."
That's right. It just supported the organization that he was part of.
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49346&relPageId=135&search="veciana"
W. Tracy Parnell
2017-06-15 23:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana’s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
See also:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=101075&search=%22veciana%22#relPageId=2&tab=page

I am working on a more detailed rebuttal of Morley's assertions.
John McAdams
2017-06-15 23:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15 Jun 2017 19:00:42 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana’s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=101075&search=%22veciana%22#relPageId=2&tab=page
I am working on a more detailed rebuttal of Morley's assertions.
These are assertions from the CIA. I'm sure the buffs will say the
CIA was lying about this. But I think the onus in on them to prove
some closer association.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
s***@yahoo.com
2017-06-15 23:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana’s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John: Re CIA and any contact/relationship with Veciana. I believe Tracy is
referring to the HSCA chapter on Veciana: Volume X, section III.

Here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1212#relPageId=41&tab=page

Relevant quote: "In a review of its own files on March 15, 1978, the CIA
noted that Veciana had contacted the Agency three times-in December 1960;
July 1962; and April 1966-for assistance in plots against Castro.
According to the CIA: "Officers listened to Veciana, expressed no
interest, offered no encouragement and never recontacted him on this
matter. There has been no Agency relationship with Veciana."
John McAdams
2017-06-15 23:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana’s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John: Re CIA and any contact/relationship with Veciana. I believe Tracy is
referring to the HSCA chapter on Veciana: Volume X, section III.
Here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1212#relPageId=41&tab=page
Relevant quote: "In a review of its own files on March 15, 1978, the CIA
noted that Veciana had contacted the Agency three times-in December 1960;
July 1962; and April 1966-for assistance in plots against Castro.
According to the CIA: "Officers listened to Veciana, expressed no
interest, offered no encouragement and never recontacted him on this
matter. There has been no Agency relationship with Veciana."
That's nice. You are quoting to me something I have on my site:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt

You've outed my dirty little secret: I don't begin to remember all
the stuff I've posted. :-(

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 23:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana’s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John: Re CIA and any contact/relationship with Veciana. I believe Tracy is
referring to the HSCA chapter on Veciana: Volume X, section III.
Here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1212#relPageId=41&tab=page
Relevant quote: "In a review of its own files on March 15, 1978, the CIA
noted that Veciana had contacted the Agency three times-in December 1960;
July 1962; and April 1966-for assistance in plots against Castro.
According to the CIA: "Officers listened to Veciana, expressed no
interest, offered no encouragement and never recontacted him on this
matter. There has been no Agency relationship with Veciana."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt
You've outed my dirty little secret: I don't begin to remember all
the stuff I've posted. :-(
LOL. Frown face. How do you do that?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 23:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana???s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John: Re CIA and any contact/relationship with Veciana. I believe Tracy is
referring to the HSCA chapter on Veciana: Volume X, section III.
Here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1212#relPageId=41&tab=page
Relevant quote: "In a review of its own files on March 15, 1978, the CIA
noted that Veciana had contacted the Agency three times-in December 1960;
July 1962; and April 1966-for assistance in plots against Castro.
According to the CIA: "Officers listened to Veciana, expressed no
interest, offered no encouragement and never recontacted him on this
matter. There has been no Agency relationship with Veciana."
That's cute,but unresponsive.

Do admit or not that Vecciana was a Cuban Exile and his GROUP was
supported by the CIA?
s***@yahoo.com
2017-06-17 17:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana???s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John: Re CIA and any contact/relationship with Veciana. I believe Tracy is
referring to the HSCA chapter on Veciana: Volume X, section III.
Here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1212#relPageId=41&tab=page
Relevant quote: "In a review of its own files on March 15, 1978, the CIA
noted that Veciana had contacted the Agency three times-in December 1960;
July 1962; and April 1966-for assistance in plots against Castro.
According to the CIA: "Officers listened to Veciana, expressed no
interest, offered no encouragement and never recontacted him on this
matter. There has been no Agency relationship with Veciana."
That's cute,but unresponsive.
Do admit or not that Vecciana was a Cuban Exile and his GROUP was
supported by the CIA?
The issue is Veciana and Phillips and Oswald NOT Alpha 66.

Nobody cares whether the CIA supported Alpha 66. The question is whether
there is evidence that the CIA - through Phillips - had a relationship
with *Veciana*.

From there, then, the question is whether he's credible when he says he
saw Philips with Oswald.

If Veciana never mentioned the Oswald allegation we wouldn't even be
talking about him or Alpha 66.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-18 18:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana???s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John: Re CIA and any contact/relationship with Veciana. I believe Tracy is
referring to the HSCA chapter on Veciana: Volume X, section III.
Here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1212#relPageId=41&tab=page
Relevant quote: "In a review of its own files on March 15, 1978, the CIA
noted that Veciana had contacted the Agency three times-in December 1960;
July 1962; and April 1966-for assistance in plots against Castro.
According to the CIA: "Officers listened to Veciana, expressed no
interest, offered no encouragement and never recontacted him on this
matter. There has been no Agency relationship with Veciana."
That's cute,but unresponsive.
Do admit or not that Vecciana was a Cuban Exile and his GROUP was
supported by the CIA?
The issue is Veciana and Phillips and Oswald NOT Alpha 66.
Nobody cares whether the CIA supported Alpha 66. The question is whether
there is evidence that the CIA - through Phillips - had a relationship
with *Veciana*.
Can you admit that the CIA supported Alpha 66?
The control agent can change from year to year. Maybe that year Phillips
was too busy running the Mexico City station.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
From there, then, the question is whether he's credible when he says he
saw Philips with Oswald.
I don't think he is.
But I think he saw Oswald with Maurice Bishop.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
If Veciana never mentioned the Oswald allegation we wouldn't even be
talking about him or Alpha 66.
Oh please, how rude. Why can't we ever talk about Alpha 66? Why was it
named Alpha and why 66? Let's talk about the fake name Brigade 2506.
Should have been Battalion 120.
Robert Harris
2017-06-16 14:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Going after unproven/uncorroborated conspiracy theories is easy. It's
like grabbing the low hanging fruit.

The real test is going after conspiracy conclusions that *have* been
proven and corroborated in a multitude of ways.

Let's talk about the *fact* that one of the early shots was inaudible to
most witnesses, and the other, not loud enough to provoke visible
startle responses.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you have to the best of my
recollection, *never* addressed that issue.

Do you think it was a coincidence that "most" of the witnesses only
heard one of the early shots?

Do you think it was a coincidence that *all* of the surviving limo
passengers only heard one of the early shots?

The earliest shots would have been the loudest, to the limo passengers
if it had been fired by Oswald.

How is it possible that he fired those shots?


Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana???s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
W. Tracy Parnell
2017-06-17 03:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
Going after unproven/uncorroborated conspiracy theories is easy. It's
like grabbing the low hanging fruit.
The real test is going after conspiracy conclusions that *have* been
proven and corroborated in a multitude of ways.
Let's talk about the *fact* that one of the early shots was inaudible to
most witnesses, and the other, not loud enough to provoke visible
startle responses.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you have to the best of my
recollection, *never* addressed that issue.
Do you think it was a coincidence that "most" of the witnesses only
heard one of the early shots?
Do you think it was a coincidence that *all* of the surviving limo
passengers only heard one of the early shots?
The earliest shots would have been the loudest, to the limo passengers
if it had been fired by Oswald.
How is it possible that he fired those shots?
Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana???s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
My view is that you know you are making progress when a conspiracy person
accuses you of debunking only "low hanging fruit." This is an effort to
distract you away from the work you are doing and obviously making
progress with and has happened to me on other forums. I participate in the
threads that I want to. If I want to discuss your theories there is ample
opportunity to do so and many others have debated various issues with here
you. So, thanks for the invitation and I'll keep it in mind. But you are
not going to distract me from what I an working on.
John McAdams
2017-06-17 03:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16 Jun 2017 23:32:14 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
Post by Robert Harris
Going after unproven/uncorroborated conspiracy theories is easy. It's
like grabbing the low hanging fruit.
The real test is going after conspiracy conclusions that *have* been
proven and corroborated in a multitude of ways.
Let's talk about the *fact* that one of the early shots was inaudible to
most witnesses, and the other, not loud enough to provoke visible
startle responses.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you have to the best of my
recollection, *never* addressed that issue.
Do you think it was a coincidence that "most" of the witnesses only
heard one of the early shots?
Do you think it was a coincidence that *all* of the surviving limo
passengers only heard one of the early shots?
The earliest shots would have been the loudest, to the limo passengers
if it had been fired by Oswald.
How is it possible that he fired those shots?
Robert Harris
My view is that you know you are making progress when a conspiracy person
accuses you of debunking only "low hanging fruit." This is an effort to
distract you away from the work you are doing and obviously making
progress with and has happened to me on other forums. I participate in the
threads that I want to. If I want to discuss your theories there is ample
opportunity to do so and many others have debated various issues with here
you. So, thanks for the invitation and I'll keep it in mind. But you are
not going to distract me from what I an working on.
Harris thinks that nothing is worth discussing except his theory that
nobody agrees with.

He's been berating people for 20 years trying to browbeat them into
accepting his theory, and he's batting zero.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-18 03:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
Post by Robert Harris
Going after unproven/uncorroborated conspiracy theories is easy. It's
like grabbing the low hanging fruit.
The real test is going after conspiracy conclusions that *have* been
proven and corroborated in a multitude of ways.
Let's talk about the *fact* that one of the early shots was inaudible to
most witnesses, and the other, not loud enough to provoke visible
startle responses.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you have to the best of my
recollection, *never* addressed that issue.
Do you think it was a coincidence that "most" of the witnesses only
heard one of the early shots?
Do you think it was a coincidence that *all* of the surviving limo
passengers only heard one of the early shots?
The earliest shots would have been the loudest, to the limo passengers
if it had been fired by Oswald.
How is it possible that he fired those shots?
Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
On 15 Jun 2017 12:49:20 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
Morley puffs Fonzi as an investigator, but Fonzi believed silly
things.
Such as nine (? I think that was the number) CIA spooks infiltrating
Garrison's staff.
"The question is premature since we only have Veciana???s word that he
worked for the CIA and agency documents report there was no
connection."
Can you provide the cite for the relevant documents? Maybe a link?
Of course, Morley seems to ignore the fact that Veciana's story
constantly changed.
Or the fact that, in late August or early September 1963 Oswald was
not in Dallas. Phillips could fly anywhere he wanted. If he wanted
to meet Oswald, he could fly to New Orleans.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
My view is that you know you are making progress when a conspiracy person
"Conspiracy person"? Do you mean a person who is in favor of consiracies?
Post by W. Tracy Parnell
accuses you of debunking only "low hanging fruit." This is an effort to
distract you away from the work you are doing and obviously making
progress with and has happened to me on other forums. I participate in the
threads that I want to. If I want to discuss your theories there is ample
opportunity to do so and many others have debated various issues with here
you. So, thanks for the invitation and I'll keep it in mind. But you are
not going to distract me from what I an working on.
Why should you be discussing anything with him? Have some respect for
yourself and don't sink to his level.
Condemn from on high.
Loading...