Free eBook The Bishop Hoax

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Chapter 18 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/18-awful-blow-to-cuban-exile-cause.html

This chapter ends the section on Veciana and his time with Alpha 66. Highlights include:
Menoyo's capture in Cuba demoralizes the Revolutionary Alliance.
Veciana resigns from Alpha 66.
Veciana meets with a CIA representative in his third and final attempt to gain agency funding.
Veciana gains employment with US AID.
Summary of Veciana's Alpha 66 years.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Chapter 18 of The Bishop Hoax is now online.
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/18-awful-blow-to-cuban-exile-cause.html

This chapter ends the section on Veciana and his time with Alpha 66. Highlights include:
Menoyo's capture in Cuba demoralizes the Revolutionary Alliance.
Veciana resigns from Alpha 66.
Veciana meets with a CIA representative in his third and final attempt to gain agency funding.
Veciana gains employment with US AID.
Summary of Veciana's Alpha 66 years.

How could Veciana at any time, particularly during the difficult times raising funds and keeping the group together or when they went on missions, not mention this Bishop person who he says was directing their operations? Not once? Or mention this Bishop figure to the CIA people he went to for funds?

As you point out, if Bishop told him he couldn't provide funds because he needed to have "plausible deniability" then why then go to the very CIA (ostensibly) for fund when they needed to maintain this distance? And nowhere in his book do I recall him going to Bishop and asking for funds. Either directly or indirectly.

Menoyo, the military commander of Alpha 66, is organizing/directing raids into Cuba and Veciana doesn't mention this Bishop person who is, according to Veciana, really directing things? So who was running these attacks? Menoyo or Bishop?

You document quite substantively this long series of falsehoods and improbabilities that Veciana told. Messrs. Kelly and Morley believe some, for me, very questionable things but they must have some limit to what they will embrace?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

How could Veciana at any time, particularly during the difficult times raising funds and keeping the group together or when they went on missions, not mention this Bishop person who he says was directing their operations? Not once? Or mention this Bishop figure to the CIA people he went to for funds?

Sure doesn't make sense to me.

Menoyo, the military commander of Alpha 66, is organizing/directing raids into Cuba and Veciana doesn't mention this Bishop person who is, according to Veciana, really directing things? So who was running these attacks? Menoyo or Bishop?

And not one person who knew Veciana intimately such as Menoyo, Nazario or Lopez Fresquet ever mentioned Bishop or any American who was working with Veciana. When asked about Bishop and Veciana's claims of being CIA connected, Lopez Fresquet told the HSCA investigators that it was the first he had heard of it (when he read Anderson's column) and he would have to let Veciana know that he had fooled him since Veciana always claimed it as a badge of honor that they didn't get CIA help.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

In the preface to his book, Veciana writes this: "The man I knew as Maurice Bishop supplied the training. He supplied the money. He supplied the weapons."

But elsewhere in the book, in several places, he says Bishop NEVER provided any money to Alpha 66 because he, Bishop, needed to maintain "plausible deniability." Moreover, Veciana discusses in some detail his desperate effort to obtain funding - traveling around the US and meeting with the exile community, holding boxing matches and other events to raise funds, et cetera. And apparently directing operations and providing weapons wouldn't threaten this deniability.

His entire account of this Bishop person is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

Good original work Tracy. Thanks.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

His entire account of this Bishop person is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

Good original work Tracy. Thanks.

Thanks for reading Steve.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Thanks for reading Steve.

All of this, as you know, is backdrop or a sort of "white noise" to the key issue about Veciana claiming to see Bishop meeting with Oswald in that Dallas office building about two months before the assassination. But it seems obvious (to us) that if all of these other claims - including most important the very existence of this Bishop figure - have no basis then the "Bishop-was-with-Oswald" claim is equally dubious.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

All of this, as you know, is backdrop or a sort of "white noise" to the key issue about Veciana claiming to see Bishop meeting with Oswald in that Dallas office building about two months before the assassination. But it seems obvious (to us) that if all of these other claims - including most important the very existence of this Bishop figure - have no basis then the "Bishop-was-with-Oswald" claim is equally dubious.

Right. I'll give you a little preview of Chapter 30 (conclusions):

"Probably the most consequential conclusion in this book is one that was first provided by Fonzi himself in his HSCA writeup. He wrote, 'No corroboration was found for Veciana's alleged meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald.' Absent such confirmation, the Veciana story goes nowhere."

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Right. I'll give you a little preview of Chapter 30 (conclusions):

"Probably the most consequential conclusion in this book is one that was first provided by Fonzi himself in his HSCA writeup. He wrote, 'No corroboration was found for Veciana's alleged meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald.' Absent such confirmation, the Veciana story goes nowhere."

This is why both Bill Kelly and Jefferson Morley (among others) are not too happy with your work and want to dismiss you as a "conspiracy debunker" (while denying they are conspiracists; neat trick). If this sighting can be dismissed or is unfounded then where is the evidence for the "Oswald was directed by the CIA"? Joannides? Amspell? Where?

As for Fonzi: Well, as you know he certainly changed his mind later about this "nowhere" story. In that long piece in The Washingtonian Magazine (1980) he uncritically repeats Veciana's claim about seeing Oswald in Dallas with Bishop.

Piece is here: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GaetonFonzi/WhoKilledJFK.html