DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS

[Randy Bednorz]

Yo! Bob, Ken, Douglas and Bruce! This thread deserves a long life and some prominence on this Forum.Here's my judgment and my thoughts as to why. I had posted similar remarks in the wake of "50th Anniversary" frustrations in other threads -- which you can find here.The problem -- an Achilles Heel -- plaguing us all along is the proliferation of theories in the assassination, a wide field of speculation about those culpable, and simply the fact that the research community has no legal standing. This allows authors and researchers to put the proverbial cart before the horse -- an approach used by prosecutors to construct their legal case. First, we find a suspect. Then, we fabricate a theory. Once we have the theory, we selectively pick evidence to support it. After that, and within some book publications, DiEugenio has noted (per his review of Waldron's book) where authors begin using words like "if" and "probably," or we find conclusions beginning with the phrase "I believe . . . " And as I said in another thread, the propaganda hit like a Tsunami wave this year. I should've anticipated it. The documentaries were dominated by weak arguments to keep the lone-nut myth alive, and celebrity Bugliosi's argument that "there isn't any evidence to support conspiracy." Well, sorry, Vince, but it doesn't wash. And there must be power, influence or money behind the lone-nut defenders.Consider this. Either Oswald did it alone -- as the Warren Report and its defenders suggest -- or there was a conspiracy. Before the Warren Report, they had a suspect right away, the theory was simple enough, and the evidence gathered in haste to promote the theory. Then, there was "judicial notice" with the Commission, and that's the end of it. The lone-nutters suggest that the conspiracy milieu has just turned into an "industry" spinning tall tales. We have an innate "psychological basis" for wanting a conspiracy explanation, they say. And the strength of their argument is the number of theories being promoted by the conspiracy side. This is where things went wrong with NIgel Turner in 2003. Turner wanted to document all points of view (other than the Lone-Nut view). In so doing, he accepted the Mac Wallace theory and the fingerprint artifact promoting it. The fingerprint only turned up in 1998, and when you look at the news frenzy obscuring the ARRB releases during the 1990s, its timing almost seems unmistakable. And in our eagerness to find the top of the pyramid in a conspiracy, we -- and Barr McClellan -- have introduce a political charge in the "industry." So people comfortable with the old Communist Lone-Nut myth chose to suppress the entire Nigel Turner series, just because it includes the likely disinformation of the Mac Wallace theory.The Mac Wallace theory doesn't dovetail in any known or substantive way with the Dave Phillips angle. Fingerprint or no, I have argued many times that there is a "confession" of sorts in published books -- by Phillips. I have identified people who Phillips implicates in those books, and they don't include Mac Wallace or LBJ. Instead -- they include someone at a high level on the opposite end of the political spectrum. I am even generous in explaining that the Phillips implication of that person portrays him as a sort of telephone answering service -- that he doesn't figure into the actual portrayal of the assassination -- insofar as you can judge it to be a portrayal.We are now lucky to have signed statements of Antonio Veciana posted at CTKA. This would have been the acknowledgement sought by Fonzi during the HSCA interviews and hearings. So we have substantial reason for accepting Phillips as "Bishop" according to Veciana. Instead, what if Phillips himself acknowledges that he was both "Bishop" and "Knight?" But at the same time, he's telling a bald-faced lie to Bugliosi in the letter I had discovered at Library of Congress (and Bob -- thanks for the acknowledgement.) He was telling Bugliosi that he was not "Bishop" -- the very basis of his lawsuit against London Observer.I have posted before -- and will attempt to post again -- this time at CTKA (when I've finished some writing) -- why the responsible assassination research community should focus their attention only on people and theories which include David Phillips at the center. This at least admits the possibility that Phillips himself was a sort of "lone nut" who got into CIA by mistake. I suggest we accept that possibility while looking more carefully at others "in Phillips' vicinity.Oliver Stone had said last year in the "Untold Story" series: "We may never know . . " who killed JFK. This year, interviewed by Piers Morgan, the latter asked him "Who do you think did it?" Stone looked pensive, his eyes seemed to wander along the table between him and Morgan. He said "we should look at Howard Hunt . . . . [lowering his voice a little] . . . Dave Phillips is another one . . . . Dave Morales is . . also an interesting character."

[Bob]

GREAT to hear from you again, Randy. Excellent insight as always.

[Randy Bednorz]

I wondered when you would check the Forum, Bob! Happy Holidays out there in Florida.One of the problems I'd had with Wim's website was the posting of pictures, and an expiration of them. Just as well -- because my insight has improved on my focus of interest.Someone should post that police-artist's drawing of "Bishop" [Phillips] that Senator Schweiker had identified when Fonzi presented it to him. Few people I know will argue that there is much disparity between the drawing and the photos.Here's some trivia: Lee Harvey Oswald's favorite TV series of 1953 to 1956: "I Led Three Lives" about Herbert A. Philbrick, variously called "I Was A Spy for the FBI."Oswald's favorite movies and books: James Bond movies, and the books by Ian Fleming.Phillips' favorite author: Richard CondonPhillips' favorite movie: "Manchurian Candidate."On the "up" side, we got a signed statement from Antonio Veciana confirming Phillips as "Bishop."On the down side, Nigel Turner's series has been suppressed. Nowhere to be found except as used media -- Amazon shows some asking prices at around $150.00.

[Bob]

Here you go, Randy...The photo to the left is the sketch of Bishop. The center photo is the man who resembles DAP at LHO's midnight press conference. The photo on the right is actually DAP.

[Randy Bednorz]

I had always taken "with a grain of salt" the stories that Phillips was in Dallas that day! Maybe I had even seen that middle photo before. But it also looks like a "dead ringer."He wouldn't have to be in Dallas to be the chief architect of the assassination. But it says something: he may have been "entertaining" himself and others.This is another "cherry-picking" example, where people have ignored observations provided by a thorough analysis. Another one was Posner's failure to acknowledge Ruby's presence and answer at the video-taped press conference at Dallas PD.Another thing I had noticed, and it doesn't really detract much from my own "history of ideas" approach to the assassination as a "psy-war" project: Phillips remarks in "Night Watch" that he was planning to leave CIA and "start another career." The only other career that would be was acting. In this remark, he notes that he was taking a plane to New York. And at that time, Frankenheimer was in the casting phase for the big movie. I had noticed that the first picture -- of a relatively young Phillips -- is posed and coiffed to match that of another American actor. So as I leave this as a trivia exercise, let me hint that he wasn't trying to resemble Liz Taylor. Instead, look up a 1973 movie with Taylor to find her leading man. The movie title matches the title of Phillips' first book.Perhaps the younger generation is only familiar with the remake of "Manchurian Candidate" -- which obscures the Cold War era and the use of movies as propaganda. Kids! Dig a little deeper! You can still buy the reissued movie with a warm chatty interview between Frankenheimer, Axelrod and Frank Sinatra.