Free eBook The Bishop Hoax

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Chapter 21 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/21-such-man-did-not-exist.html

Highlights:

Jack Anderson and "Mr. X."
Fonzi pursues J. Walton Moore as a Bishop suspect.
Ross Crozier and Bishop.
John McCone and Bishop.
Barney Hidalgo and Bishop.
Rufo López-Fresquet and Bishop.
The truth about the 1979 Veciana assassination attempt.

Tracy, quick question that I can't find answered: Didn't Veciana himself tell Fonzi that the sketch that was done based on his description didn't look like Bishop?

FWIW, it does somewhat look like what perhaps an older Moore might look like, doesn't it? If this is indeed Moore during WWII. If Fonzi had O'Reilly try to get a photo of Moore that was unbelievably dumb.

[Gerry Down]

Tracy, quick question that I can't find answered: Didn't Veciana himself tell Fonzi that the sketch that was done based on his description didn't look like Bishop?

FWIW, it does somewhat look like what perhaps an older Moore might look like, doesn't it? If this is indeed Moore during WWII. If Fonzi had O'Reilly try to get a photo of Moore that was unbelievably dumb.

Is that a photo of J. Walton Moore? Where did you get that?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Tracy, quick question that I can't find answered: Didn't Veciana himself tell Fonzi that the sketch that was done based on his description didn't look like Bishop?

Yes, he did.

FWIW, it does somewhat look like what perhaps an older Moore might look like, doesn't it? If this is indeed Moore during WWII. If Fonzi had O'Reilly try to get a photo of Moore that was unbelievably dumb.

I guess Fonzi thought it looked enough like Moore to pursue the matter. He also suspected, de Mohrenschildt, Paul Bethel and several others that he didn't name.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Is that a photo of J. Walton Moore? Where did you get that?

Found after exhaustive research. Or just Google images "J.Walton Moore". I suggest the latter.

Here is below, if these are actually him, a better series of photos. On second thought, he really didn't look like the sketch much at all; at least in the '63 photo. Completely different ears and set of eyes. But again, as Tracy noted, Veciana himself said the sketch didn't look like Bishop. So what good is it?

Or if I was a conspiracy knucklehead researcher I could argue there were two Moores.

 

[Gerry Down]

Found after exhaustive research. Or just Google images "J.Walton Moore". I suggest the latter.

Here is below, if these are actually him, a better series of photos. On second thought, he really didn't look like the sketch much at all; at least in the '63 photo. Completely different ears and set of eyes. But again, as Tracy noted, Veciana himself said the sketch didn't look like Bishop. So what good is it?

Or if I was a conspiracy knucklehead researcher I could argue there were two Moores.

 

Thanks.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Very sad. Another labored, misleading effort to deny the truth.

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/antonio-veciana-mystery-man-in-jfk-assassination-part-1/

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/antonio-veciana-mystery-man-in-jfk-assassination-part-2/

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yes, he did.

I guess Fonzi thought it looked enough like Moore to pursue the matter. He also suspected, de Mohrenschildt, Paul Bethel and several others that he didn't name.

Another followup if I may: Did Fonzi try to contact - or did he? - Lobo about any of this? It seems to me that any CIA agent trying to recruit one of Lobo's people would go through him first? To see if the person was suitable for recruitment? Phillips said he did meet with Lobo about one potential asset.

It's a reach to me that a CIA agent like Phillips would go to Lobo's bank unannounced. In the middle of the day, with Castro's agents operating full tilt during that period in 1959. Lobo was suspected of aiding the CIA. He certainly opposed Castro's policies, his expropriation of Cuban property. It's just not logical that Phillips would do something this risky. Particularly after the cattlemen meeting.

You've documented the latter. So has Newman. It simply doesn't add up.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Very sad. Another labored, misleading effort to deny the truth.

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/antonio-veciana-mystery-man-in-jfk-assassination-part-1/

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/antonio-veciana-mystery-man-in-jfk-assassination-part-2/

If I recall correctly, you've said that you believe Garrison's claims that the CIA - through Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald and others - murdered JFK. Am I right?

But Newman says in the above that Veciana's story about being directed by the CIA is false. Newman believes that Veciana was ordered to direct attention to the CIA and away from the real murderers of JFK which was the Pentagon. The problem being, of course, that Veciana said Bishop was not Phillips and he wasn't sure that Bishop was with the CIA.

You seem to believe - if you do believe Garrison's claims - whatever latest conspiracy theory you come across. Was it Shaw and the CIA? Or Lemnitzer and the Pentagon? If you believe Newman then it wasn't the CIA because he argues it was elements of the military (because, inter alia, of Laos and JFK's supposed cancellation of a second invasion of Cuba).