Since the reviewers at mainstream news organizations are studiously avoiding David Talbot’s groundbreaking Devil’s Chessboard, CTKA’s Jim DiEugenio takes up the challenge of explaining why the book is so important.:
“Talbot goes much further than these previous authors in his attempt to excavate just how involved Allen Dulles was in some of the unsavory aspects that helped create and maintain the Cold War state. Many of these aspects were ignored or minimized in the previous books. But Talbot does not shy away from detailing Dulles’ role in attempting to undermine some of America’s allies, like France during the revolt of the French generals in 1961. Beyond that, he goes much further than they do in explaining Dulles’ dismissal by President Kennedy (it was not all about the Bay of Pigs).”
200 thoughts on “Allen Dulles: First CEO of the secret government”
Has anyone ever noticed that some of the CIA agents involved in the Trujillo assassination were also involved in the JFK plot?
Even though the NYT and WaPost have declined to review “The Devil’s Chessboard,” it has received a very favorable review in the DC Bar’s monthly magazine, by Ron Goldfarb.
The link is http://www.dcbar.org/washingtonlawyer/january2016.
It may not be up yet; I received a hard copy today.
“J.F. Dulles was a prime mover of American support for the establishment of the State of Israel after the Holocaust.”
Be careful when you mention the “establishment of the State of Israel.” This sordid tale will shoot your portrait of the Nazi sympathizers, the Dulles brothers down in flames.
JF Dulles was “a prime mover of American support for the establishment of the State of Israel”?
Dulles did work to establish support for a Jewish political entity in Palestine in 1944, when he was a foreign policy advisor to Tom Dewey. Whether this translates into being all GUNG HO! for the establishment of an autonomous Israeli state is a matter of opinion. Once such a state did exist and Dulles was Secretary of State, his attitude towards Israel was notably cool, if not cold, all throughout his tenure. See, just for one example, the 1956 Suez Crisis. He was far more interested in making sure the US had easy access to oil from Arab states, and using countries like Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran in his attempts to form a cordon sanitaire around the Soviet Union — ever hear of the Baghdad Pact, aka METO (Middle East Treaty Organization), aka CENTO (Central Treaty Organization)? JF Dulles organized it, but the US couldn’t formally be a part of it because of pro-Zionist pressure groups lobbying Congress. You think old JFD was any too happy with Israel after that? The Brits had to stand in for us. The whole thing pretty much fell apart when the Hashemite monarchy that ruled Iraq was overthrown in a coup in 1958, and the new regime, radically anti-Western, pulled Iraq out of the treaty. It was around that time the CIA started wooing certain other Iraqi assets, including a gentleman now know to history as Saddam Hussein.
Talk about blowback!
Stephen Kinzer’s “The Brothers” also presents a devastating critique of Allen and John Foster Dulles. Two siblings at the center of American foreign policy http://wpo.st/Xgyz0
There is a 500 word limit for the content of each comment.
Your comment awaiting approval includes 2095 words…
Thank you, sir, completely up to you whether this comment should be the exception, but as I was aiming towards the factual, steering clear of hearsay, which frequently is the case, I hope it is printed, but if not, still a great site!
The one thing I have learned from this site is if Mccadams and Photon are taking an inordinate time to try to discredit something it is very worthwhile.
I know of few historians that have never made errors, and to say one error discredits the whole work is ridiculous on its face. It’s obviously all they have so they will go back to it over snd over.
The fact that Photon and Mccadams keep on going back to one error in the book and when questioned about the rest, the best Photon could respond with was that Talbot hated Dulles, is a book I will finish reading.
Dulles brothers were both Nazi supporters.
What a crock of excrement. Allen Dulles led the move to have his firm give up their lucrative business interests in Berlin out of disgust with the actions of the Nazis. The Dulles brothers were two of the few Americans who actually tried to help German Jews; J.F. Dulles was a prime mover of American support for the establishment of the State of Israel after the Holocaust.
You can criticize the brothers for their political stands, but libeling them with false claims of Nazi sympathies is moral bankruptcy.
I approved the comment you are replying to only after considering that despite my misgivings over it including no support
of its claims, not approving it would be unwelcoming to an unfamiliar and perhaps inexperienced commenter.
Photon, you’ve since made my deliberation irrelevant.
You are brazen in your unequivocal presentation, and your lecturing, accompanied by no supporting citations is troubling to read.
There are other POV, although you do not even hint that they could have any merit.:
I went back to confirm that this commenter, unfamiliar to me, was in fact a new or very infrequent contributor to Jfkfacts.org comments. Lo and behold,
this commenter posted from an IP # that also is sourced to several (35, over last 2 years) other commenters. Last month, the same alias posted a long quote of Scott Kaiser that I did not approve because it included no introduction by the alias, David Smatlee Phillips. I do not see that Scott Kaiser himself has any connection with this group of aliases.
Do you have any objections to restricting the use of multiple aliases?
Although there is no requirement for commenters to provide their “real names” I have been checking commenters whose
aliases I am unfamiliar with to attempt to determine if they have commented in the past with a different alias. A
spam filter also keeps “multiples” from appearing in the comments approval queue. The example I assume you are
replying to, I expect is not a symptom of a condition here, but very distant from my sense of the overall problem.
I’ve found nothing leading me to suspect recent frequent commenters are carrying on exchanges at Jfkfacts.org with
themselves, or have been using other aliases.
The answer to your question is yes, because we want to keep it real. I don’t want to lay out sources and methods
I am using to identify use of multiple aliases. The example I cited was of a group who averaged less than two comments each, and the most from any one alias was five, submitted by the alias that led to my discovery of this
abuse. We can put a restriction in the TOS, but a spammer, and that is what commenting with multiple aliases is,
won’t be influenced. I’m not putting my time in here to read and approve spam comments.
I agree Tom,
There is so much material on the subject of the Dulles Brothers involvement with the Nazis, as well as most of the US industrialist’s complicity with the Hitler regime, that it is utterly and foolishly simplistic to assert otherwise.
From Loftus (AMERICA’S NAZI SECRET & UNHOLY TRINITY), to Christopher Simpson (BLOWBACK), to Charles Highham (TRADING WITH THE ENEMY), to Joseph Borkin (CRIME AND PUNISHMENT OF I.G. FARBEN), to Michael Bar-Zohar (BITTER SCENT)…. to name just a few.
For anyone to pretend that the cat’s still in the bag at this late date is very silly.
The Vatican supplied dozens of Nazis with false travel documents- does that make the Vatican a supporter of Nazis? Or was the post-war situation in Europe more complicated than a simple explanation could furnish? To get Wolff to surrender Italy saved lives, both Allied and Italian. Both the Western Allies and the Soviets turned off the moral compass to use surrendered Nazis for purposes of advantage in the Cold War. That is hardly supportive of National Socialism.
To equate someone with support for Nazism is probably the greatest insult possible. The Dulles brothers do not merit that accusation, no matter what you think of their politics.
Allen Dulles secretly negotiated with Nazi war criminals, in direct violation of President Roosevelt’s policy of unconditional surrender (which meant no negotiations with Nazis at any level, period). He worked to save people who were guilty of complicity in war crimes and fully deserved to face justice at Nuremberg. His actions were indefensible both legally and morally.
Well you know JD,
I would be of the opinion that to equate someone with support for Nazism is probably the greatest indictment possible, and one that should have been prosecuted through the Trading With The Enemy Act.
But political connections and power does have it’s perks. Doesn’t it? Impunity probably the most important perk of all – a veritable life saver.
“The Vatican supplied dozens of Nazis with false travel documents- does that make the Vatican a supporter of Nazis?”~Photon
Absolutely. Not a doubt, the record is clear. Just as the record is clear about the Nazi connection to US industrialists and financiers.
Project Paper Clip is one of the best documented exposures of the Nazi/US nexus there is. And the Dulles brothers were right in the middle of it.
John Kennedy was the greatest beneficiary of Paperclip.
Arguably the most historic achievement of his administration was the commitment to a Moon landing by 1970. That was made possible only by the contributions made by the German rocket scientists that were brought to this country. At least one was revealed to have been a possible war criminal and had his citizenship revoked.
If you are going to accuse Dulles of supporting Nazis, you had better add JFK to the same script.
Stop! You present nothing in this series of comments except your opinion. You often lecture other comnmenters for doing the same. Release JFK
from your headlock and put away the bucket of tar you paint him with here, until you can support your extraordinary claims convincingly.
I imagine you think Dulles did a great job of working against the interests of General Aniline and its investors.:
1934 – Allen W Dulles Proposes Seven Point Program for Munitions Control
WW II Dye Trust Indictments:
1934: Stock Photo – DuPonts and their lawyer at Munitions probe. Pierre DuPont (left) Irenee DuPont (center) and their counsel, Colonel William J. Donovan
“The Vatican supplied dozens of Nazis with false travel documents . . .”
First of all, that’s probably more like “hundreds,” perhaps even “thousands.” And it is an interesting window into your mind that you use the Catholic Church’s assistance to fleeing Fascist war criminals (which included a large number of non-Germans) to support whatever point your trying to make. Allen Dulles was quite happy make common cause with former Nazis like Reinhard Gehlen. So the accusation against him is merited.
Was or was not JFK the President that committed the U.S. to Project Apollo?
How did the prime mover of Project Apollo get to the U.S.?
You mean the moon landing that JFK proposed the U.S. achieve jointly with the Soviets with NSAM 271? Interesting that you ignore what most historians consider to be JFK’s greatest achievement – the nuclear test ban treaty following his American University speech, outlining his plans for leading the country “towards a strategy of peace, not towards a strategy of annihilation.” http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty.aspx?p=2
The post WWII facts related to General Analine, however ugly they are – and assuming this is a credible report – also involve Robert Kennedy, President Kennedy and his brother-in-law Prince Radziwill.
“Shortly thereafter, Spofford received a phone call from Orrick. Orrick asked whether Spofford was aware that a new figure had come to the Justice Department on behalf of Interhandel. Spofford admitted he was not. Orrick then dropped the bombshell: Prince Radziwill, he reported, was representing Interhandel! 38 Spofford was jolted by the news. Radziwill was not even a lawyer. But he was the brother-in-law of President Kennedy. . . . Schaefer confirmed that Radziwill had indeed been retained. Spofford expressed his reservations about the president’s brother-in-law in the bluntest terms. . . However, he recognized that Radziwill’s special relationship to President Kennedy was a powerful element. Therefore, despite his misgivings, he reluctantly agreed that this new and extraordinary development probably had to be pursued. Schaefer then told Spofford about Interhandel’s new proposal: the Department of Justice would return G.A.F. to Interhandel, which would sell it and with the proceeds establish a European development bank to supply credit to underdeveloped countries. 40
It was Prince Radziwill’s assignment to feel out the attorney general’s reaction to such a plan. The essence of the proposal was to benefit the poor of the world first and Interhandel second, if such a notion could be believed by the attorney general or anybody else. . . . Upon Spofford’s return to the United States a few days later, he told Charles Wilson about these developments. Wilson and his counsel agreed that they should wait for the results of the “initiatives” that Schaefer had taken “through other channels.” They were clearly referring to Prince Radziwill’s efforts. 41
On September 13, Charles Wilson received a cable from the Union Bank asking that he arrange an early conference between Schaefer and Robert Kennedy. Spofford immediately went to Washington and met with Orrick, who informed him that the attorney general did not even want to discuss the project of the European development bank. In Kennedy’s view it did not represent an appropriate solution to the G.A.F. problem. 42
Spofford cabled the discouraging news to Switzerland: “Advised that Attorney General does not believe conference useful at this time and cannot fix future date.” 43 Schaefer wrote in reply, “I heard from my friend in London that the Justice Department felt they could not entertain our proposal.” He had therefore asked “the party in question to contact Washington in order to solicit an appointment there for the next or following week, if possible.” 44
‘It was Prince Radziwill’s assignment to feel out the attorney general’s reaction to such a plan. The essence of the proposal was to benefit the poor of the world first and Interhandel second, if such a notion could be believed by the attorney general or anybody else.Although the Justice-Interhandel deal was not yet firm in all details, Katzenbach asked John Wilson, as an act of good faith, to drop opposition to Keating’s amendment. Let the legislation pass, Katzenbach suggested to Wilson, because otherwise Keating’s opposition to a settlement would be formidable. With the reluctant acceptance of Katzenbach’s assurance that the gentlemen’s agreement reached in Munich would be adhered to in drafting the final settlement, Wilson dropped Interhandel’s opposition to congressional action and the bill that permitted the sale of G.A.F. without court action passed the Congress. President Kennedy signed the bill into law on October 22, 1962. 58
With that stroke of the pen, the sole remaining company in active operation under the supervision of the office of alien property was now ready for disposal by the United States government. The New York Times commented, “The General Aniline provision is expected to open still another chapter in the long and tangled legal history of that corporation.” 59
I’m sorry Ms. Sharp,
But what does any of this General Analine business have to do with Project Paperclip?
Willy Whitten, GAF was owned by American I.G., the US arm of German chemical cartel IG Farben, Glen Yeadon’s “The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century” is an excellent source for understanding the history of GAF and Farben.
According to journalist Linda Hunt in “Secret Agenda”, during WWII Otto Ambros was a chief chemist and director of Farben responsible for developing Zyklon B used to gas millions during the Holocaust. In spite of being found guilty of slavery and mass murder, Ambros was released from prison and entered the US under the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) “National Interests” policy which was essentially an extension of Paperclip designed to guarantee that any German or Austrian scientist that the US Military was not interested in could be recruited by private industry. Ambros was contracted by US chemical conglomerate W.R Grace & Co, Dow Chemical and several other American companies as well as the US Army Chemical Corp. The same experiments Ambros directed in Auschwitz were repeated at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland on US military personnel. According to Hunt, another Farben/GAF chemist, Walter Reppe was recruited by the US Department of Commerce but ended up pursuing his career in the UK. General Aniline and Film Corporation (GAF) pioneered the transfer of Reppe chemistry to the United States. “After World War II, Reppe was described as making a larger contribution to chemistry than any other employee of the large German chemical firm I. G. Farben. The project to transfer leading German scientists to the United States (Project Paperclip) ranked Reppe as highly as the discoverer of nuclear fission, Otto Hahn. Yet for all his scientific achievements, Reppe never won the Nobel Prize. This was partly the result of bias against industrial chemists (a prejudice that would have been incomprehensible to Reppe’s fellow industrial chemist, Alfred Nobel) and partly because of Reppe’s research at I. G. Farben, which was closely linked to the Nazi regime in Germany.” – encyclopedia.com
For the record Willy, the GAF case had been ongoing since the early ‘50’s, and according to Yeadon, in 1954 [Allen] Dulles testified in favor of a bill designed to return vested enemy assets, such as GAF, to their previous owners.
Thank you for your answer Ms Sharp,
I suppose what I don’t understand even yet is how this concerns John a Robert Kennedy, other than as peripheral actors in an ongoing situation that they really had no part of.
Perhaps you can make that specific point more clear for me.
‘I suppose what I don’t understand even yet is how this concerns John a Robert Kennedy, other than as peripheral actors in an ongoing situation that they really had no part of. Perhaps you can make that specific point more clear for me.’ — Willy Whitten
Those convinced of a conspiracy behind the assassination are frequently labeled as having been blinded by a mystique of “Camelot”. I argue that the assassination had little to do with Kennedy as “King Arthur” but rather the disabling of one leg in the barstool of our democracy. Debunking the Arthur spin and recognizing that an elected president was murdered in broad daylight draws us closer to the reality of the coup d’etat. In fact, I argue that the Camelot spin was part of the plot; mesmerize Americans that their very own King Arthur was murdered and they will fall under the spell of myth, and Grainne will wail. But will Gainne expose the conspiracy?
The fact is, John Kennedy was mortal .. in fact in his own words he considered himself in that category. But the fact is that his brother in law, Prince Radziwell was contracted by General Aniline to negotiate a final settlement .. yes, one that had been in the courts for a decade … but Radziwell played ‘the family card’ and the Kennedy brothers engaged. Sweeping these facts under the carpet in what might be suspect as an agenda to position John or Robert Kennedy beyond their human foibles is absurd. They were simply that, human. They also brought to their elevated roles the aspirations of their higher angels; whether or not they always rose to the occasion has created the void we confront.
You are addressing this to Photon, and not to any conspiracy poster?
Your link to your site on the arrested tramps being the so-called tramps who were never arrested is hilarious, but completely fictional.
Please attempt to stay current, McAdams.
It’s time to stop with the mollycoddling of your esteemed Dulles brothers and see them for what they were.
In Cold War, U.S. Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis http://nyti.ms/1zd3W3F
How U.S. intelligence agencies used 1,000 Nazis as Cold War spies — then covered it up http://wpo.st/yMay0
BBC News – US used Nazis as Cold War spies http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29795749
Curious that Photon, McAdams, and Jean Davidson jump all over where AD was on 11/22. Yet they do not take issue with the first two thirds of Talbots book. You know, the part that talks about his traitorous dealings with the Nazi’s, and serving his corporate legal clients. Seems they don’t want to debate the fact that Dulles was a psychopath. I take that as acceptance of the fact on their part.
The book is excellent, and well sourced.
You mean we don’t take issue with the part that has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. But just shows that Talbot hates Dulles.
We know Talbot hates Dulles. So I’m not inclined to believe anything he says about Dulles.
If you’ll post some relevant information showing how Dulles was a “psychopath” it might be worth discussing.
Or not. I think it’s mostly that Dulles was on the side of the Cold War that won.
You lone nut buffs always resort to factoids when a Conspiracy Realist presents Facts supporting the Truth about JFK’s execution.
Anything specific, Ronnie? Concerning the assassination of JFK this book is nothing but error upon error-coupled with completely unsubstantiated conjecture based in large part on those errors. Has Talbot ever clarified what he believes to be the Single Bullet controversy? More to the point, have any of many interviewers actually ASKED him about it?
I believe that the Dulles travel claims made by Talbot (which form a core for his belief that Dulles masterminded the assassination) almost certainly are based on incomplete review of the 5-year old reports of Pease and DiEugenio, for it repeats errors made by Pease NOT substantiated by the real documents in the Mudd Collection. It is obvious that Talbot relied on second hand information for his Nov. 22 Dulles travel history and never saw the original documents, despite his implied claim to have researched the matter.Had he seen the Dulles-RFK-Ethel Kennedy correspondence he would have immediately recognized how ludicrous his hypothesis was.
As previously stated, if that reflects Mr. Talbot’s research methods his book is worthless.
I am awaiting you taking apart, fact by fact, the items posted at the zerohedge.com site I presviously mentioned.
I am still waiting. . . .
Read chapters 7 & 13, regarding Noel Field and the Galindez cases respectively. Winning the Cold War is one thing. The means to the end in Dulles case is sickening. The man was a traitor as well as a psychopath. You cannot sweep away Talbot’s well sourced thesis with your statement that AD “was on the side that won”.
I can’t fathom what McAdams means by “I think it’s mostly that Dulles was on the side of the Cold War that won,” but if he is trying to insinuate that Talbot sympathizes with the totalitarian politics of the Soviet Union and wishes they had “won” the Cold War (which, incidentally, nobody “won”), that is a repellent and utterly unjustified remark worthy of the lowest moments of the McCarthy era.
I mean that while people like Talbot are not pro-communist, they have a visceral hatred of people who fought the Cold War on the American side.
As for you fussing and fuming about “McCarthyism:” buffs have no standing at all to fuss about that.
Ol’ tail gunner Joe would be right at home with your attacks on scores of people you don’t like and blame for the assassination.
It is entirely possible to respect and admire certain American leaders during the Cold War and oppose Soviet totalitarianism while deploring the policies of people like the Dulles brothers, whose support of coups against democratic governments around the world created problems that we are still dealing with today. What good did deposing Mossadegh or Arbenz do us?
I’m not sure why you keep insisting that David Talbot’s critical view of Dulles comes from “hatred.” Talbot writes with considerable empathy for Dulles’s family, and seems to be trying hard to understand why Dulles acted as he did. Opposing someone’s political policies is not the same as vehemently hating someone on a personal level.
“I mean that while people like Talbot are not pro-communist, they have a visceral hatred of people who fought the Cold War on the American side.”
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet, and that’s saying a lot.
Look Gramps, your function here is one thing: debunking crazy people. Step outside that- into your nutty Dr. Strangelove BS, and you will be mocked into oblivion.
Oh you are going to mock me? I’m quivering in my boots.
“If you’ll post some relevant information showing how Dulles was a ‘psychopath’ it might be worth discussing.”
His collaboration with Nazis such as Reinhard Gehlen and SS General Karl Wolff.
His overthrow of democratically elected governments in Guatemala and Iran, turning them into dictatorships in which hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives.
His unsuccessful attempts to enforce US dominance in other parts of the world. Just one example, South Vietnam, a phony country created by the CIA when Allen Dulles was running it. How many people died in that supreme act of folly?
People were executed after the Nuremburg Trials with far less blood on their hands than Dulles had on his.
Maybe they should have smoked a pipe, chuckled amiably, and given lip service to the principles of liberal democracy as he did while going about their unspeakable awful deeds.
December 24, 2015 at 10:44 pm
“If you’ll post some relevant information showing how Dulles was a ‘psychopath’ it might be worth discussing.”
“His overthrow of democratically elected governments in Guatemala and Iran, turning them into dictatorships in which hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives.”
Certainly not defending what we did in Guatemala and Iran but do you have a reference on the “hundreds of thousands” that lost their lives. I was thinking the body count wasn’t near that high. And do you really think Ike didn’t order these operations?
“His unsuccessful attempts to enforce US dominance in other parts of the world. Just one example, South Vietnam, a phony country created by the CIA when Allen Dulles was running it.”
I’ll buy your phony country but how do you blame the CIA for creating it? Any reference here?
With regards to Guatemala, it is estimated that as many as 200,000 people lost their lives during the Civil War, which lasted from (+-1960 to 1996.) Below is an informative, balanced, but lengthy summary.
December 25, 2015 at 8:54 am
With regards to Guatemala, it is estimated that as many as 200,000 people lost their lives during the Civil War, which lasted from (+-1960 to 1996.) Below is an informative, balanced, but lengthy summary.
Thanks for the link JohnR. I don’t doubt the 200,000 dead the link list. But I wasn’t thinking of a 36 year period, just the attack we made to unseat Arbenz. But I don’t argue about the 2,000. I’m good with that.
Still nothing on the CIA forming this phony country and I wonder if this is another case of “always blame the CIA”
After reading the first chapter of John Newman’s book, I was struck by his confident assertion that “South Vietnam” was actually a creation of CIA machinations, particularly under the supervision of Ed Landsdale. I put the prospect into my browser and this is one of the first things I came up with:
Vietnam Declassified: CIA and Counterinsurgency in Vietnam
Thomas L. Ahern, Jr. (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2009), 480 pp., index.
In his preface to Vietnam Declassified, Thomas Ahern writes that when he left Vietnam in 1965, “I knew we were losing, but I had no idea why the Saigon government was in retreat in the countryside, and the VC ascendant.”(12) In this book, originally published internally in 2001 as a classified history entitled CIA and Rural Pacification in South Vietnam, Ahern provides many answers, formed with the benefit of hindsight, deep research into classified documents, candid and revealing interviews, and his own experience as a clandestine service officer….”
December 25, 2015 at 6:57 pm
“After reading the first chapter of John Newman’s book, I was struck by his confident assertion that “South Vietnam” was actually a creation of CIA machinations, particularly under the supervision of Ed Landsdale.”
If only one could trust John Newman. So far this is one more BS statement of his.
“I put the prospect into my browser and this is one of the first things I came up with:”
Vietnam Declassified: CIA and Counterinsurgency in Vietnam
Thomas L. Ahern, Jr. (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2009), 480 pp., index.
Thanks for finally including a reference for your imaginative writings. The link is a good but brief account of some of the pacification effort in South Vietnam.
But did you not notice Willy that every thing mentioned in your reference occurred AFTER THE PHONY STATE OF SOUTH VIETNAM had been manufactured at Geneva, 1954? Come on Man! Your link does not include anything indicating that the CIA produced the phony country at Geneva and that is where it occurred, Willy.
Please try again Willy.
“Please try again Willy.”~Bill Clarke
Of course Mr Clarke, everybody knows there are never any hidden machinations that take place on the ground by intrigue. That everything is as it seems on the surface and no one ever lies or attempts to fool anyone. A world full of “honorable men” … veritable angels one and all.
Excuse my naivete, and forgive my cynicism.
December 28, 2015 at 7:00 pm
“Please try again Willy.”~Bill Clarke
Of course Mr Clarke, everybody knows there are never any hidden machinations that take place on the ground by intrigue. That everything is as it seems on the surface and no one ever lies or attempts to fool anyone. A world full of “honorable men” … veritable angels one and all.
Excuse my naivete, and forgive my cynicism.
Am I supposed to also excuse you for running around the bush and not answering my question of you; Did you not notice, Willy, that every thing in your reference occurred AFTER the phony state had been manufactured at Geneva? That is a stone cold fact you can’t run away from.
Still no evidence at all that the CIA created this “phony state” and I’m very sure none will be forthcoming.
Come on Willy, address the question instead of more crap.
“The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important.
In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play. . . . All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called ‘co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them. . . . Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific technique, and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements. . . . In normal cases, children of sufficient heredity will be admitted to the governing class from the moment of conception. I start with this moment rather than birth since it is from this moment and not merely the moment of birth that the treatment of the two classes will be different. If, however, by the time the child reaches the age of three it is fairly clear that he does not attain the required standard, he will be degraded at that point.
There would be a very strong tendency for the governing classes to become hereditary, and that after a few generations not many children would be moved from either class into the other. This is especially likely to be the case if embryological methods of improving the breed are applied to the governing class, but not to the others. In this way the gulf between the two classes as regards native intelligence will become continually wider and wider. . . . Assuming that both kinds of breeding are scientifically carried out, there will come to be an increasing divergence between the two types, making them in the end almost different species.”~Bertrand Russell – The Scientific Outlook (1931)
This appears, based on the few sources I can find, to be a utopia rather and dystopia.
But of course, the utopias of intellectuals, put into practice, turn into dystopias.
“But of course, the utopias of intellectuals, put into practice, turn into dystopias.”~McAdams
Yes and here you sit in this dystopia seemingly clueless to it.
Yet you call it “democracy”. The only sense in which this can be termed such is as a “Bernaysian Democracy”*, which is of course an Orwellian euphemism that translates into “Oligarchy” and specifically the “Technocracy” that Bertrand Russell, and other Fabian maniacs promoted, nurtured, and spawned into being.
* “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ~Edward Bernays – from his book, PROPAGANDA
So I guess that means you aren’t an intellectual. Thanks for clarifying. It explains so much. 😉
Jeff, please ask David Talbot to respond to the repeated accusations among posters here who claim he got Allen Dulles’ 11/22/63 schedule all messed up.
inquiring minds want to know: was the former CIA director at the Farm that evening and that weekend, or not? and if there were actually TWO “Farms,” which one was he at and who was there with him?
I have read the book twice and find it one of the best ever in the field of JFK research. and Jim DiEugenio’s review is right on!
Of course he wasn’t at ” the Farm” the evening of the 22nd nor on the 23rd.
He was at his house in Georgetown except for a few minutes spent on the 23rd paying respects to a friend. Of course Talbot and DiEugenio know nothing about that.
And people such as Allen Dulles never tamper with the official record to hide where they really were.
I mean, just imagine, a man running an agency of people who pretend to be people they aren’t, doing things they never do, in places they’ve never been, pretending he was somewhere other than he actually was at a certain time! Never could happen. I mean, you might as well argue that the White House would force the Pentagon to falsify records so that bombing raids on Cambodia were officially recorded as having taken place in Vietnam. That could never happen, and did not happen. Right?
I don’t agree with Talbot’s verdict that Dulles orchestrated the Kennedy assassination. I do think Dulles welcomed the outcome, and did whatever he could to make sure that CIA was protected from any hint of complicity. That said, I think Talbot has done a brilliant job at showing what horrible men Dulles and his brother were, and how this country is still dealing with the blowback associated with their deeds these many years later.
Allen Dulles was a professional liar. He was very good at it. In the ancient world, one of the most ancient jokes recorded goes thusly: “‘Every Cretan is a liar,’ said the man from Crete.” As far as I’m concerned, you should pour that bit of salt on everything Dulles ever said, or every record of where he ever was said to be. And I realize that might mean that instead of Camp Peary, or some other place in NoVa, he might have been on the dark side of the moon, totally out of touch. I wouldn’t put it past him.
Who cares???? It’s not even important or crucial, what is important is that Dulles’ calendar states he went to Dallas several weeks prior to the assassination, just as Harvey was witnessed going to Dallas.
D.E. Mitchell claims: “This was a domestic operation from start to finish!”
Again, an outrageously silly and stupid comment: whenever a hit goes down anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, routinely out-of-towners are used, and declassified CIA documents state that a meeting between CIA agents took place months prior to the assassination between them and OAS assassin, Jean Souetre, in Lisbon, and CIA document #632-796 states that an expulsion order was issued hours after the JFK assassination to have Jean Souetre picked up in Dallas!
Holy crap, what more does one need? Plus add in Pfc. Eugene Dinkin’s intercept of the cables between the CIA station in Italy and an OAS site, detailing the assassination to take place in Dallas between 11/22 to 11/28. [From the Warren Commission Materials]
To the naysayers and those exalted defenders of the smoke and mirror wizardry foisted upon the American citizens for over 50 years by the HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANOR SET (the “War Cult”): There indeed are standards of proof one needs to follow when presenting a case either academically, literally, or legally. One has the option of using both documented verifiable facts AND anecdotal impressions, to reinforce sets of facts and when testing hypotheses. It should be unequivocally clear to both JFK assassination truth seekers and conspiracy detractors, that ALLEN DULLES left his uniquely diabolical imprimatur upon the JFK assassination.
When leaders in emerging countries attempted to bring democratic reforms directly to the masses, but against the aims and wishes of American/US Allies corporate/military interests, those leaders were overthrown, usually by CIA sponsored uprisings, or assassination. JFK realized and understood the nationalistic yearnings and resulting [legitimate] revolutions [not CIA fomented] within those nations, to cast off the vestiges of the insidious, racist, anachronistic “parasitic colonialism,” these morally sanctioned liberation movements inspired the Civil Rights Movement in AMERICA – which JFK ultimately supported. The FBI infiltrated, spied on, and disrupted this movement when and where ever possible. Dr. King was ultimately assassinated, like JFK, because an atmosphere of hate and intolerance was fomented by Enemies of our REPUBLIC.
If we surmise that Kennedy swore to defend Liberty in its maximum hour of danger, and Dr. King pushed to expand liberties for disenfranchised citizens, then what greater threat to Liberty/Civil Rights was posed by the military/industrial complex gaining “unwarranted influence” at all levels of government? Dulles, simply, was the ‘personification’ of this “unwarranted influence” and helped consolidate its [Fascist] power during WWII, in the form of the OSS – which morphed into the CIA – that Allen Dulles then turned into the clandestine arm of the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL KILLING REGIME in FOREIGN AFFAIRS. HOOVER, following Dulles’s lead, domestically turned the FBI in the same direction. These OLD GUARD-MEN (Joint Chiefs included) created, and promoted, the COMMUNIST MENACE (Psy-Ops), to scare Americans into accepting a semi-Fascist form of police state. I assert to you, my countrymen, that our President Kennedy and our other leaders, were felled by the ENEMIES of our REPUBLIC, for no other reasons beyond their narrowly defined provincial interests. Let us never forget our leaders exhortations and sacrifices to keep us focused on PEACE, nor the thugs who demanded our peace seekers be killed. Now, we see what has become of their dreams in the hands of Fascist men.
Another superb comment Kennedy63. Brilliantly put and right on the money.
Sad. I had so much hope for this site and it’s simply being overrun by the same loony demagogues as every other JFK site on the internet.
No one is interested in truth. People are only interested in their own personal agenda.
“loony demagogues”~Greg Arious
You have never made a single comment of substance here, all you do is taunt and call names.
You seem to be particularly concerned with my commentary, as though you feel I have made you look like a fool in someway, so you are out to strike back.
I suggest you address the facts and attempt to support your point of view, rather than just attacking the view of others.
Okay, last one, both of you should consider other readers. If you want to continue, give me your permission to
exchange your email addresses.
And, although one cannot be sure to the accuracy, given they are only eyewitness suggestions, with no photos to verify (especially since the corrupt LAPD cops confiscated and destroyed Jamie Enyart’s film from the night Sen. Bobby Kennedy was assassinated !!!) there is the suggestion that someone fitting Moise Maschkivitzan’s description (one of the so-called tramps from the Grassy Knoll) appeared at the time of the murder of Rev. King, and someone fitting Lazlo the Hungarian’s description (another of the so-called tramps, the tall blond fellow) appeared at the murder of Bobby Kennedy.
But there was one more element to setting up this new imperial order. That was the Dulles connection to the Power Elite. Talbot adroitly introduces this by using the man who actually coined that term, C. Wright Mills. As the author writes, for the Dulles brothers, “Democracy … was an impediment to the smooth functioning of the corporate state.” (p. 197) Franklin Roosevelt was well aware of this oligarchy and its advocates. He once wrote, “The real truth … is that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the day of Andrew Jackson.” (ibid) Therefore, their backing of Nixon, and the creation of the Red Scare, all of this was a great opportunity for them to “prove masters of exploiting the anxious state of permanent vigilance that accompanied the Cold War.” (p. 195) As Mills referred to men like the Dulles brothers and Nixon, they believed in a “crackpot realism”; and in the name of that realism, “they have constructed a paranoid reality of their own.” (p. 198)
— Jim DiEugenio, December 15, 2015
Any reader (Photon) who missed the big picture painted in The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles should be posthumously charged with TREASON. His pattern of insubordination and subversion is abundantly clear. Thank you, Jim, for your insightful review of the Devil’s Chessboard. While crowning Allen Dulles the “first CEO of the Secret Government” may be premature, based on FDR’s own assertion that our government was hijacked from Thomas Jefferson’s own time forward to these days. FDR’S statement alone needs to be expounded upon and, if confirmed, the brothers Dulles were influential front men and servants of the Usurpers, presumably the “uber rich” class (worldwide).
Dulles acted on principles aligned with his clients, not necessarily those principles which uphold our democratic processes. Indeed, the disdain Dulles showed toward DEMOCRACY and LEADERS assenting to that process, is reminiscent of Fascism; and, reveals the true source of DULLES’S power and influence – unbridled greed by the capitalist owners of particular client industries represented and influenced by Dulles.
I submit, that just as the MAFIA formed an overseeing COMMISSION to maximize profits from their activities, and to keep control of the ” crime franchise,” so too did corporations through clandestine operators like Dulles, in order to keep control of external markets and raw materials. Democracy was incidental to capitalism because, in most foreign political theaters (specifically emerging countries), one puppet leader backed by an acquiescing military could ensure internal control for the external corporate [sponsor] clients, under DULLES’S clandestine apparatus. Reference the historic pattern of CIA coups around the globe.
I think JFK figured out what DULLES actually represented (being forewarned by Eisenhower) and attempted to alert the American people in his American University “Peace” speech. To his credit, JFK eloquently announced to the “OLD GUARD-MEN” during his Inaugural Address, that the “torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans BORN IN THIS [20th] CENTURY. Little did we understand how deeply encroached in our government were these OLD GUARD-MEN. Fascist men who thought nothing about murder; for murder of “our KING” meant the continued reign of “their KING” by a TREASONOUS ACT of ASSASSINATION. Just as murder is a means to an end among mobsters, so murder was used as a tool to accomplish certain critical and desired ends among this “so-called” genteel, privileged, but bloodthirsty lot, directed by ALLEN DULLES. They audaciously all still prefer to call themselves “Patriots.”
Wonderful summation there Kennedy63. Damn the Apparatchiks, full speed ahead!!!
The ” Big Picture” painted in “The Devil’s Chessboard” is that David Talbot made false statements about the whereabouts of Allen Dulles on Nov. 22 in an attempt to support his slanderous claims that Allen Dulles was somehow implicated in the assassination of John Kennedy. His theory was based on inaccurate information posted by Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio in 2010- information DiEugenio conveniently neglect to mention in his generally glowing review of Talbot’s collection of innuendo and unsubstantiated claims, like those of St. John Hunt..
If this is not reflective of the lengths that CTers are willing to go to obscure the truth, I don’t know what is.
Actually, if Allen Dulles was implicated in the assassination, he wouldn´t have been in Dallas that day. It´s nonsensical that a cover op requires the presence of the mastermind in the hot spot. An ex CIA Director knows to much to risk themselves that way.
Well stated, superbly articulated.
When those of us here understand the big picture (thanks to Messrs. Talbot and DiEugenio, et al., many things come together, such as how WaPo’s publisher, Katherine Meyer Graham, may very well have some culpability in the deaths of Larry Stern (WaPo) and Dorothy Kilgallen, who may both have either spoken directly to her, or mentioned to someone who passed it along, about the important information on the killers of JFK which they uncovered, but were killed before they could pass along.
I bought the book the week it came out and learned a lot from it. However I think it is incredibly unfortunate that without having more evidence Talbot decided to infer that Dulles masterminded the assassination. Because of that, it is really not a surprise that the NYT and WaPo passed on it. For their readership, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there is nothing in the book that is courtroom-worthy regarding a Dulles role in JFK’s murder.
In clandestine and covert operations, facts and evidence will always be hard to acquire. Psychological profiles and examinations of modi operandi like Talbott’s, effectively even the playing field between the knowable and the unknowable.
I would think that outside of the U.S. a very low percentage of people would regard JFK as unsolved. The underlying motivations of WC defenders merit examination.
“The underlying motivations of WC defenders merit examination.” — Charles
I fully agree, and have long advocated that a concerted effort be undertaken to analyze and when appropriate, expose individuals and collective entities that have participated in the 52 year cover up. Examining the motivations of publishers of authors that have vociferously defended the Warren Report would be a good place to beginning. Some might argue this could become a witch hunt, and any thinking person recognizes the danger, ironic as it is. Those who understand how insidious were the McCarthy hearings can appreciate the burden of responsibility.
“I would think that outside of the U.S. a very low percentage of people would regard JFK as unsolved.”
Respectfully, so what?
“The underlying motivations of WC defenders merit examination.”
It never fails, it seems. Whenever a “WC defender” points out that a “critic”‘s allegation has no evidence to support it, instead of wondering if the allegation might be untrue, a few people here start questioning our motives and attacking our “good faith”.
It’s kind of a “tell” that when some people can’t refute an argument, the insults start. (I’m not talking about everyone here who disagrees with me, of course, just a few.)
For 48 year I thought it was possible LHO was lone killer of my hero JFK. 4 years ago I read an article claiming Obama Family had connections to CIA, Then I read about Tim Geithner’s Father employed Obama’s Mother. It dawn on me the system is rigged. Geithner a protégée of Kissinger and Fed Bankers had to be Obama’s Treasurer despite cheating on his income taxes
I took close look at Warren Report an saw who was looking after Oswald’s in Dallas and it became clear to me there is connection starting with Army intelligence reserve David Ferrie in 1955 all the way to his death he had been handled. My best discovery was that Col, Boris Pash lied about his retirement in 57 but was person to send LHO to Minsk research lab. Col Robert Ellis Jones a colleague of Pash lied to HSCA about his background, he in fact was Commander of Green Beret unit and 2nd in Command of Phoenix Program in VN. The cover-up
You’ve named several suspects. Dare I ask, Is there any evidence that any of these people was involved in the JFK assassination?
I hate these off-the-cuff, never heard of before and unverified items posted like this, especially by someone who claims they believed the bogus conspiracy story from the Warren Commission for so many decades — it’s been available for quite some time, ya know?
(Under “assassins ball”)
Anyone who has actually read all 26 volumes of the WC Report knows of all the endless variances, obviously never followed up questions and false allegations made, along with important items excluded (such as Eugene B. Dinkin’s intercepted cables and his subsequent electroshock and drug treatment by the CIA at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
As any reader of the WC knows, they falsely claim that Oswald rejected any and all legal representation, yet the clip of him at the 12:00 AM (funny time to schedule it) meet with journalists at the Dallas PD, Oswald repeatedly speaks out, pleading for legal representation!
Re: Jean Davidson’s comment >
“Whenever a “WC defender” points out that a “critic”‘s allegation has no evidence to support it, instead of wondering if the allegation might be untrue, a few people here start questioning our motives and attacking our “good faith”.
Is that TRULY, honestly your (Jean Davidson, John McAdams, Photon, et al) motivation; ‘GOOD’ faith? You could’ve fooled me.
Thank you, sir, and anyone of good faith should take the time to visit and try to interview Eugene B. Dinkin in L.A. area, as he is of an advanced age.
Personally I think the book The Devil’s Chessboard is a limited handout to squash the investigation of the real killers of John and Robert Kennedy the Military, FBI, and Fed Bankers. Even taking a look at CIA Director John McCone there was more involvement with his previous job at Atomic Energy Commission and Oswald’s Geologist friend depositing Nuclear waste in Texas oil wells.
I don’t see how Talbot’s book in anyway eliminates the Military, FBI, and Fed Bankers as being behind the JFK assassination. After all Dulles was a part and parcel of that whole milieu.
Willy that is true he was part of it but he didn’t sanction the assassinations and not part of continuing cover-up. It boggles my mind that you will not look at real history of Col. Robert Ellis Jones and lies told by Col Pash about his retirement in 1957 when he was still working for Army in June 1963.
The Fed Bankers. You’re saying banker members of the Federal Reserve Board used Lee Harvey Oswald and had something to do with the killing of John F. Kennedy.
I would say that there is nothing that would make people more discouraged from pursuing further truth in this case than the ridiculous rantings of this Whitten persona.
“..the ridiculous rantings of this Whitten persona.”
Do you have anything of substance to say here? Or are you content to prove your reading comprehension skills are lacking?
Neither I nor Campeau said anything about Oswald being used by Federal Reserve Board to kill Kennedy.
If you want to argue with yourself to talk to your mirror.
Greg Arious. Yes, I get it! How inclined am I to subscribe to the opinions of such a brilliant punster!
Yes, Greg Arious. Never occurred to me what you were getting at with that handle until now. Ho, Ho, Ho!!!, one might say on a night like this. Never suspected that wasn’t your real name. No sir. Could have knocked me over with a Fey There.
However half-baked the Fed Theory Of Assassination is (and I think it is), it’s far less loony than Oswald Killed JFK All On His Lonesome And Ruby Killed Oswald All On His Lonesome and neither had connections to Snoop Agencies or the Mob.
Nonsense, it really perfectly refocuses attention on the guilty operational parties (Allen Dulles, William Harvey, David Atlee Phillips [and George Joannides], Gen. Lansdale, and probably Lucien Conein.
Although I don’t recall seeing it mentioned in the over one thousand books I’ve read on the subject (so I could be mistaken and it was) let’s not forget all the French connections: at least two of those three tramps may be ID’d still as former OAS assassins, while overwhelming evidence puts Jean Souetre in Dallas that day (confirmed by the CIA’s expulsion order, and later confirmed by French intelligence on the attorney/researcher Mr. Fensterwald’s trip to Pars) and the home invasion of Dallas police chief, Jesse Curry, by three French thugs posing as journalists, wanting only to interrogate him about his knowledge of JFK’s assassination (from Dallas newspapers).
Curious, do you see or have documentation of William Harvey’s possible recruitment of Corsican assassins as suggested by other sources?
See my comment (4 pp. long) at site below — search under “assassins ball” :
I read through four pages under assassins ball. None of the article titles seemed to relate to the JFK assassination, Bill Harvey or Corsicans.
You claimed that none of the four pages related to Harvey or the assassination, given that Eugene B. Dinkin intercepted cables between the CIA station in Italy (Harvey) and an OAS site (and we aren’t talking about Corsicans, which was what a criminal told another criminal — which was what the semi-journalist, a TV writer, not an investigative journalist, claimed — so hearsay from hearsay from hearsay (whether someone claiming an ex-con claimed that Marcello claimed that . . .) isn’t in the mix, so please try not to repeat misinformation spread to confuse and bewilder us!
Everything I mentioned had to do with the assassination, quite clearly and beyond reasonable doubt — simply making a false statement on your part is spurious and specious and doesn’t contribute anything, as anyone else can also refer to that site given!
You don’t read correctly.
I claimed nothing. I’m not disputing anything you said. What I said was after searching through he four pages of articles links at the site you provided I could not find the one you were referring to. Thus I actually read nothing. I’d still like to as I personally suspect Harvey’s involvement in the assassination based on his heading ZR rifle and hatred of the Kennedy’s.
Can you please provide a direct link instead of making one search?
You said: I read through four pages under assassins ball. None of the article titles seemed to relate to the JFK assassination, Bill Harvey or Corsicans.
My latest post in a similar vein most definitely relates to the assassination, and the Dinkin links should point to cable interception between CIA station in Italy (Harvey was chief there at that time) and an OAS site.
So my comments posting most certainly relates to the assassination, Harvey’s implied involvement, but not any Corsicans as not were involved.
The CIA and its representatives met with Jean Souetre months prior to the assassination:
And the expulsion order (documents #632-796) indicates that they were aware of Souetre being in Dallas at the time of the assassination – – everything regarding some supposed Mertz involvement is disinformation tracking back to Bradley O’Leary, who cannot prove a thing in that regard — claiming he interviewed Souetre (assuming that really took place, and I doubt it, Souetre is most certainly NOT a reliable source: Army deserter, accomplished killer, possible drug runner, and involved in at least one attempt on President de Gaulle’s life. (Sarti’s involvement was claimed by a French crook to a TV documentary writer, again not a reliable source.)
And I was referring to these three tramps, not a biometric match to the three you stated. And that’s the crux of the matter, as they were never, according to the head of the Identification Division of the Dallas County Sheriffs, James Kitching, ever arrested, nor matched any arrest photos.
(Look under 5/16/68, JAMES D. KITCHING . . .)
Arrest records of three tramps misreported:
Maybe your problem is you have read thousand different books with 100 plus different theories Frankly its a no brainer that Col Pash sent LHO to Radio and Radar research lab in Minsk to gather micro samples of semi conductors used in there latest technology One gram would do the trick as Lee told Ofstein about micro dots at JCS
Negative, I simply went through all existing data, including declassified CIA and FBI documents — would suggest you do the same sometime.
The Devil’s Chessboard
By David Talbot
Reviewed by Jim DiEugenio, December 15, 2015
This whole review is well worth reading.
This is a book I must get eventually – it seems to be the coup de grâce of all the previous books on US-Nazi relations that I have read.
Bravo Mr. DiEugenio and Mr. Talbot!
This is an amazing review of an amazing book. In fact, Jim DiEugenio’s review is so good that it is a precis and more of Talbot’s book; that is, from what little I’ve read of it. (It looks like you can read the review and skip the book. And after I paid 30 bucks for it?!) JDiE even improves on the massive tome about one thing that caused an uproar on this site: Where was the devil himself, Allen Dulles, 11-22? DiEugenio straightens it out and doesn’t even point out that Talbot is wrong about this detail.
DT, p.546, has it that AD 1.landed at National at 8:30 am, then rode all the way to Williamsburg (nearly 3 hours!) to deliver an address at a Brookings Institute breakfast (at noontime?); 2. then rode back to D.C.; 3. then rode BACK to where he was, to “The Farm” near Camp Peary to direct post-assass operations.
DiEugenio cleans up this episode nicely, simply, without throwing any stones: 1. true, AD landed at 8:30, delivered his swill at the BI breakfast IN WASHINGTON, HQ of this particular clubhouse of American Not-sees; 2. THEN rode to “The Farm” in SE Virginia, the Tidewater area, not far from the capital of the Confederacy. Simple, one trip, not 3. I figure Talbot just wrote this passage huurriedly.
But that’s small potatoes. AD ended up at his control center, Camp Peary, bought and maintained by our tax dollars. That’s what important.
Next: pure apoplexy.
I admit I’ve been miffed — okay, angry — the last ten years about the assassinations of our best leaders. But now, after reading Jim DiEugenio’s review of Talbot’s new book, I am cataleptic, nearly to a catatonic degree. I wish I had a blood-pressure cuff to check it.
This country has not been satisfied with murdering our best, and letting the obvious perps get away with it. No, we have had to bring our murder-loving, slavery-loving sickness to every place on this planet where we could get away with it.
Iran, birthplace of the chessboard, Cyrus the Great from whom Christians get their word for Lord, Kyrie.
Guatemala, our neighbor! It would be like going three doors down the street and robbing, torturing, murdering the entire household, every man, woman, child, dog, cat. And then laughing about it for 60 years.
Congo and destabilizing the whole continent.
Dominican Republic, Trujillo, are you kidding?! We could all go to hell for that alone.
Vietnam, a genocide of two million peasants.
Indonesia, genocide of at least a half million, though in my book, that was our nastiest worst.
The entire Middle East.
And on and on.
The Dulles-Harvey-Angleton types should be glad that the draft-dodgers who fled to Canada, and the VVAW, and Canada herself didn’t know the extent of this evil back in the late 60s, early 70s. They would have come down here and stomped however much butt it took to get this filth off their doorstep.
At the end of DiEugenio’s review, a great work in itself, he mentions another groundbreaking biography similar to Talbot’s on Dulles, Kai Bird on John McCloy. And to think Dulles and McCloy ran the WARren COmmissioN. Ouch, that hurts.
Roy, you raise important perspectives. The WC defenders will argue all day long over the most inconsequential things like where was Dulles and when, picking fly specs out black pepper. Yet they strenuously avoid addressing what the real nature and objectives of our governments are. This is the substance of Tabott’s book.
It is the acknowledgement that evidence that informs and solidifies the credibility or lack thereof for us around JFK, the WC and many other issues of the day. It is a total loser for the WC defenders so they must resort to salami tactics.
I find it quite paradoxical but also amusing how the WC defenders actually bring the very idea of so called facts and evidence based reasoning into disrepute. This effect is why most hard-headed realists are also the most out of touch with reality. As an intellectual class they would make crummy engineers, physicists and astronomers. Successful application of intelligence calls for a certain amount of flexibility and as a group they have none.
“Roy, you raise important perspectives. The WC defenders will argue all day long over the most inconsequential things like where was Dulles and when, picking fly specs out black pepper.”
I believe it was Talbot who made it consequential, wasn’t it? I don’t care where he was. So far no evidence has been presented that Dulles directed post-assassination operations *anywhere*.
Suspicion isn’t evidence of anything. As someone once said, “No amount of belief establishes any fact.”
Jean, your government, today even, has officially and openly imprisoned, tortured and assassinated men, women and children on less evidence. They have done this, in your name, to “keep you safe.”
I don’t know why you think you are entitled to a higher standard of evidence or what you expect of me. Go argue with your President and make a real difference rather than wasting your time here.
So of course they killed JFK.
That follows perfectly.
OK, so government is evil, and therefore anything you accuse government of, it must be guilty of.
Mr. McAdams you never cease to amaze me. I am new here but I gather you used to be a professor. As a fellow with a few initials after your name your comment, in its gross oversimplification, is hardly even suited to sophomore debating club.
We don’t have to agree but I do expect from you a higher standard of intellectual engagement and a reasonable measure of sincerity.
Sometimes, a concise statement of what the other side is saying is the best rebuttal.
Have you actually read this board much? Most of what is posted is huffing and puffing about how evil this or that group or person is, which supposedly proves a conspiracy in the JFK assassination.
Roy W Kornbluth
December 18, 2015 at 5:17 am
“The Dulles-Harvey-Angleton types should be glad that the draft-dodgers who fled to Canada, and the VVAW, and Canada herself didn’t know the extent of this evil back in the late 60s, early 70s. They would have come down here and stomped however much butt it took to get this filth off their doorstep.
I admire your sense of humor here, Roy. A good one that cracks me up. Then we would have had “The 101st Screaming Draft Dodgers instead of the Screaming Eagles of the 101st Division. The Big Red Draft Dodgers (boy, I really like this one-RED) instead of the Big Red One Division. The 11th Draft Dodgers instead of the 11th Armored Cav Regiment.
Boy howdy, those draft dodgers, VVAW phonies, and “Canada herself” would have been some real ferocious rabbits. And may I point out Roy that they were here to start with. They shouldn’t have had to “Come down here”.
“At the end of DiEugenio’s review, a great work in itself,”
No doubt it was, Roy. No doubt.
Bill, how about addressing the substance of Roy’s post rather than vexatiously straw-manning his broad brush concluding remarks ?
I’ll try Charles but you gotta admit that sometimes this BS gets so far out in left field it flips my switch.
The draft dodgers charging out of Canada? Come on Charles, I just couldn’t let that one go.
You must be too young, or you were in a coma, to remember the late 60s, early 70s. Or you have led a very sheltered life. The sentiment of our best Vietnam vets was expressed by quite a few who, while throwing their medals over the White House fence, said, approximately, “This is a Purple Heart I got at Da Nang (or Que San, or Hamburger Hill, or Camron Bay). And I hope I get another one fighting these *************s.” We begged them not to throw away their medals because they earned them, but they did it anyway.
Nixon was no dummy; he eventually got us out, not so much because he wanted to, but because he had to. (That’s the real reason for Watergate, a Silent Coup by MIC, forcing RMN out for slowing down the war-machine gravy train.) There was a civil war going on here, and the brilliant Nixon didn’t want the bloodbath brought to his own citizens. American war-lovers like to paint the Nam draft-dodgers as lily-livered, but they were (and probably still are) anything but. It’s too bad you never met a real Vietnam Veteran Against the War because you won’t be able to understand this mathematical equation: As VVAW was brave, strong, tough :: the Canadian draft-dodger is ten times more so (I’ve met several) :: and the Canadian native-born is ten times that. You think because they don’t attack the weak and helpless that they are weak. Quite the opposite.
Roy W Kornbluth
December 19, 2015 at 12:04 am
“You must be too young, or you were in a coma, to remember the late 60s, early 70s. Or you have led a very sheltered life.”
I was born in 1945, went on active duty and attended Armor School in 1969, went to Vietnam as an armored cavalry platoon leader in June, 1970. Came home in May of 71 and got out of the Army. I have a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star from Vietnam.
I have not led a sheltered life; hardly.
“The sentiment of our best Vietnam vets was expressed by quite a few who, while throwing their medals over the White House fence, said, approximately, “This is a Purple Heart I got at Da Nang (or Que San, or Hamburger Hill, or Camron Bay).”
It is “Que Son”, not “Que San”, Roy. But I still give you an A- for knowing about it. I worked it once a month. A very bad place. I find it interesting that you were there that day. Did you see the rat John Kerry throw his (or whoever’s) over the fence?
“It’s too bad you never met a real Vietnam Veteran Against the War because you won’t be able to understand this mathematical equation:”
I have two friends that joined up. One is now long deceased. Both were true combat veterans and both had Purple Hearts. Their joining up never effected our friendship. It doesn’t effect my and your friendship either far as I’m concerned.
“went on active duty and attended Armor School in 1969, went to Vietnam as an armored cavalry platoon leader in June, 1970.”~Bill Clarke
So what’s this crap about the advisers being known to be involved in combat ops as a running joke, if you weren’t there contemporaneously while it was a running joke?
Hearsay, like most of your so-called facts about Vietnam and life in general. You are still in a coma.
I wasn’t there when John Kerry was there. I was there late 72 or early 73. Hell I’m not even sure when he was there, I believe the first ‘Winter Soldier’ something-or-other. What do you have against John Forbes Kerry, the other JFK? He went to Nam and he didn’t have to. He did some good stuff there. I can cite it chapter and verse.
By the time I went to D.C. with some VVAW, it was almost like a prayer service. The “I hope I get another one fighting these …” was a mantra we all said. That was started years before, I think.
Funny story: Same schoolyear when I was a freshman at Wake Forest U in Winston Salem, NC, and Spiro Agnew came to town. Big crowd, about half protesters. The police kept us in the baack of course. We had a bright idea to bring visual aids: 1. short pieces of barbed wire with messages taped to them like “How would you like it if YOUR backyard was littered with this?” and 2. little balloons filled with red paint (symbolic blood, get it?), hoping to chuck em at the suits.
Of course, all that crap was confiscated as soon as we got there. We couldn’t even get arrested. None of us would have dreamed about assaulting a law officer. Very soon after, Agnew was forced to resign. Was it me? Probably not, but just sayin.
December 19, 2015 at 5:58 am
“So what’s this crap about the advisers being known to be involved in combat ops as a running joke, if you weren’t there contemporaneously while it was a running joke?”
Willy Boy, you failed to comment on my Dr. Moise comments. Why don’t you try now. And my “The Best of Willy” needs your attention also.
AnthonyMarsh wrote in …
>Can we agree that Eisenhower increased
>the number of advisors in South Vietnam >before JFK came into office? And that the
>number exceeded the Geneva Accords?
I believe the answer is yes to both questions, though I would not claim to have rock-solid documentation. Bear in mind that I have never tried to do a serious scholarly study of the 1960-61 period.
Ed Moise May 13, 2004
> Can you explain to some people here the
> difference between pilots and ground
> combat troops?
LBJ was the first president to send regular U.S. ground combat troops to Vietnam; JFK had not done that. If we take out that word “regular,” the issue becomes more ambiguous. In 1962 and 1963, JFK had Special Forces A-teams in Vietnam, training Montagnard troops and leading them in combat. Were those Special Forces guys “ground combat troops”? My answer would probably vary between “yes” and “well, maybe sort of” depending on what mood I was in on any given day. I don’t think there would be any days when I would give a simple “no.” Ed Moise
13 2004, 6:02 pm
____________________________________________I can’t quite agree with this. Kennedy did take the United States to war in Southeast Asia. When he came into office, there were less than a thousand U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam, and they were just advisers. When he died there were over fifteen thousand there, and they
were conducting combat operations. A pretense was maintained that they were still just advisers, but this was just a pretense. U.S. Air Force pilots were flying bombing missions; U.S. Army and Marine helicopter pilots were flying combat missions both in troop-transport elicopters and helicopter gunships; U.S. Army Special Forces troops were commanding and
leading locally recruited CIDG units in ground combat.
Kennedy did reject some proposals to take the United States to war on a larger scale, but that does not mean he did not take the United States to war at all.
He also initiated the program of paramilitary harrassment against North
Vietnam that eventually, under Johnson, grew into OPLAN 34A.
Two psychopaths of the same feather! And both made sure Nazi monsters who worked previously for IG Farben would get off with their crimes.
David Talbot does a fantastic job on many levels as did Jim DiEugenio (although I believe he always made a major mistake to ignore those three tramps, who have still never been positively, biometrically identified, and the head of the Dallas County Sheriffs Identification Division, James Hitching, absolutely declared no one matching their photos had been booked there, which negates those phony three hobo claims, etc.) but what Mr. Talbot does best is draw a continuum of assassinations from Arbenz (who was probably killed) and Lumumba and JFK and MLK and RFK and Salvador Allende, etc.
What David Talbot also does is remind us of the Nazis brought aboard the CIA, with appropriate name changes, which begs the question:
How many of the top 50 people at the CIA had parents who were with Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich?
A most important question . . .
The Three Tramps were, front to back:
— Charles Frederick Rogers, ex-USAF, current CIA murderer-for-hire, soon to be parenticide (chopped up the rents and stuffed them in the fridge, Jeffrey Dahmer style)
— Charles Harrelson, experience Mafia hitman
— Chauncey Holt, Mafia credential forger (delivered many, many sets of phony govt IDs)
I have approved several comments in which you only include a link. Please use links to support the details in the text of your comment.
I seriously can not believe that in 2015 people are still talking about the 3 homeless men picked up in the train yard. Good grief.
Seriously no offense intended, Roy, but you are falling for the endless misdirection put out there — first those so-called tramps Harrelson, Holt, etc., next they really are tramps, and on and on.
I attempt to explain this in my fumbling way at the site below (please search on “assassins ball” and you’ll find it — rather lengthy, so did not want to take up too much space at Mr. Morley’s outstanding site! (with links to declassified docs, etc.)
(Four international assassins: on the grassy knoll, turned-up collar was Moise Maschkivitzan and Lazlo the Hungarian, third tramp really was a tramp [not Hunt], and on the overpass, Jean Souetre, and in the Dal-Tex Building, most likely Lucien Conein, the CIA assassin: two Frenchmen, on Belgian Jew, and a Hungarian.)
Nothing like all the disinformation they spread!
Sgt. Doom, Jacobo Arbenz (President of Guatemala 1951-54,) died in exile in Mexico at the age of 58. To my knowledge, he was not murdered. If you know different, Wikipedia would like to hear from you.
His wife suggested it was a delayed murder, much the same way that the Pinochet administration kept going after members of the Allende administration.
See Michael Townley, mass murderer in the WITSEC (witness protection program) Program and the assassination of Letelier.
“….3. then rode BACK to where he was, to “The Farm” near Camp Peary to direct post-assass operations.”
What’s the evidence that Dulles was directing post-assassination operations at “the Farm”? Is there any?
“What’s the evidence that Dulles was directing post-assassination operations at “the Farm”? Is there any?”~Jean Davison
The fact that it is a veritable certainty that Dulles was intimately involved in the deadly Coup against Kennedy is proof enough for such a proposition.
Very weak Willy. That the best you got? I believe Jean asked to see some evidence. Do you have any evidence to show her? From your weak answer I’d say you do not.
“From your weak answer I’d say you do not.”
Yup, from your perpetual naive presumptions, I would expect just such a response from you.
The evidence is that of the coup itself, which is what I am pointing out to Jean here. Needless to say you don’t get that either.
You apparatchiks always want to narrow the context, disregarding all of the proofs made before and focusing on a single particulate in isolation.
Your posts are consistently bereft of facts, and contain nothing but grandstanding conjecture. As unhelpful as humanly possible.
Arious, You are entitled to your own personal opinions. But then again…as if I care.
What was the wall that designates ‘Wall Street’ originally used for?
Does the nursery rhyme “Eenie, Meenie, Miney, Mo”
ring any bells for you?
The photo which looks like Gen. Lansdale, the possible photo of Lucien Conein (which, like the three tramps, had someone coming out of the woodwork, but his skull shape just isn’t square enough), the fact that Harold Jameson was detained and questioned by the Dallas PD, had an FBI case number (499 731), and an office in the Dal-Tex Building and was related to Donald Jameson, head of the CIA’s Soviet Russia/Covert Actions desk.
Etc., etc., etc.
Hmm, as Sgt. Schultz used to say, verrry interesting. Any idea of the location of Harold Jameson’s office. Possibly a window office overlooking Dealy Plaza? Where can one find any more info on this?
Please see my full posting (search under “assassins ball” and the item will appear in the comments section below at site):
Made numerous calls of former building residents, most of whom were dead, but one seemed to recall that Jameson had leased a top floor office with roof access.
On the east sidewalk of Houston Street, from Main to Elm, there was a spook convention. Morales, Lansdale, Conein, George Herbert Walker Bush (around Dal-Tex). There’s a panoramic photo of all the chicken slacker lizards in the sun against the Dallas County Criminal Courts Building and the Dallas County Records Building.
Excuse me. That’s only a small, partial list of CIA in Dealey on 11-22. Ted Shackley (maybe the worst) was also there. At least 12, I believe, but my notes are a mess…
And your evidence for all of this is?
OK, I get it now. You were posting a parody of JFK conspiracy thinking.
Sorry, but on this board, you understand how I might have thought you were in earnest.
Jean, Dulles hired Stanley Kubrick and Howard Hawkes to video and audiotape him that weekend, don’t you remember? The resulting movie, “Seven Dr. Strangelove Days in May” made a trillion dollars, net not gross, six trillion in today’s money. It won 99 1/2 Oscars at the 1964 Academy Awards.
I asked, “What’s the evidence that Dulles was directing post-assassination operations at “the Farm”?,” and you reply with a joke?
You mean you’re serious about “evidence that Dulles was directing post-assass ops.”?! I assumed you know, having written books about the subject, esp. on LHO, that Allen Dulles was History’s most accomplished manipulator and destroyer of EVIDENCE. Yet you act like AD is going to hand Walter Cronkite or Ben Bradlee, JFK’s phony friend, a smoking gun. If only he had it. “Book me, Dano.”
One tiny anecdote illustrating AD’s penchant for NOT leaving evidence, and then I’m done with this, the quadrillionth LN goose chase. Harry Truman wrote a little piece for the Washington Pest 12-22=63 about his displeasure with CIA. There were some hints about the similarities between the recent removal-by-gun of our Head of State AND foreign Heads of State by CIA. Though Dulles was newly employed as the saboteur of the War Con, he went into a flurry of propaganda activity rebutting HT’s letter-to-the-editor. Even flew to Missouri to sweettalk Harry and twist his arm. Put out all kinds of false info about 87 year old HT, tried to make him look daft. Harry had to spend no small amount of time getting a rebuttal of a rebuttal of a rebuttal in Look magazine. Does that sound like Dulles was an innocent man to you? And does that sound like a man who leaves assassination evidence laying around?
And if Dulles was even AT Peary, black ops central on the East Coast, that’s proof, evidence, of directing post ops. He wasn’t there playing tiddlywinks.
Another strange thing in the D.C. area, the phones down for quite a while, supposedly due to overuse. But a lot of the Pentagon phones worked. Anything on that?
Translation: evidence? I don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!
For your answers, and for the items which indicate “beyond reasonable doubt” (going by declassified documents from CIA/FBI) please see my comments (too long to include here at 4 to 5 pp.) at site below:
(Search under “assassins ball” )
Roy, having not – but intending to – read Mr. Talbot’s book, does it delve into Dulles’ connections with the Paine family via Dulles’ mistress Mary Bancroft? Bancroft was the best friend of Michael Paine’s mother. Michael and Ruth Paine were the key players in multiple “coincidences” to set up LHO as the LN assassin. Ruth and Michael Paine were used by Dulles and his cohorts to paint LHO as the lone nut communist at the exclusion of any other possibility. Ruth Paine delivered more testimony before the WC than any other witness. Michael and Ruth Paine are among the few central figures from the JFK assassination who are still alive. Were that the Vulcan mind melt could be applied on them to discover what they are not telling.
Not to usurp or preclude any response from Roy but… Yes he does Sandy. Pg. 539, “The conspiracy minded would have a field day ,he chuckled, if they knew that he had visited Dallas three weeks before the assassination and that he had a personal connection to the woman whom he identified as Marina Oswalds’s “landlady”.” A subject that deserves further investigation.
Sandy, six Paines are in this GREAT index. They appear from 534 to 545. Curiously, the Paines bookend a very telling anecdote about Mary Bancroft — who appears on about 50 other pages, WAG — and the longest passage about Ronnie Wayne’s favorite Dallasite, David Harold “Dry Hole” Byrd, owner of TSBD. Not long after 11-22, DHB had the 6th floor “sniper’s window” removed and hung in his house along with his other hunting trophies.
Also curious, the section on the Paines immediately precedes the two short paragraphs on page 546 RE AD’s whereabouts 11-22, and Camp Peary. Which has caused a number of tempests in a teapot on JFK Facts.
So far in Chessboard, I’ve read only about 30 or 40 pages, all by looking up my faves in the index. Oh no, now Photon and MacAdams can fuss and fume about the illegitimate methods of CRs. The part about the Paines is simply GREAT. Talk about economy of language, no wasted wordage. I feel that I know the entire Paine and Forbes family history, from soon after the Mayflower to present day. Michael and Ruth are now living in a sort of Quaker retirement commune in North CA, still separated, but not far away from each other.
My only complaint about Talbot so far is that he’s too polite, especially when it comes to women. (Remember, moderation in ALL things.) I feel the same way about his magnificent Brothers, the book I have given away the most copies of. “Please read it if only to be educated about the potential fatal flaws of family.” (My children, in their 30s, say they tried, but I don’t know.) His Ruth Paine saga is a perfect example of his over-politeness. I’m not talking about how DT deals with RP’s obvious homosexuality. That’s fine, understated, but fine. How we treated same-sex folks until recently — we have only ourselves to blame for the J Edgar Hoovers, Roy Cohns, and Edwin A. Walkers, how we drove them underground and twisted them with fear and cruelty.
But there’s an aspect of Ruth that Talbot declines to pick up on: 1. she never worked a day in her life, at least at a paying job. Pictures of her “working” at her “humanitarian jobs” in exotic locales all over the globe (poor Ruth), like sanding shelves — she’s getting nothing done, she’s totally useless, you can see it; 2. she ran down every man she came across, esp. good Lee Oswald, for not supporting his holy princess, who of course could never work, in the manner she expected from Hollywood.
Ruth Paine let Michael give her a house and a car and who knows how much financial support, while he bunked in a crummy apartment. His money was okay with her, but not he himself.
But AD’s hoity-toity mistress, Mary Bancroft, is another species altogether of Americanus Bossus Aroundus. As Ibsen wrote, “They (European women) freed their black slaves, but kept their white ones.” Page 538, here’s Queen Mary in a March 1964 (!) letter to AD, reminiscing about the times she spent with Michael Paine’s mother, Ruth Forbes Paine, at their private island off Cape Cod: (with editorial comments)
“In those times, anyone could say absolutely anything [and that’s what produced MB’s food, clothing, and mansion shelter — them running their mouth] — everything was accepted and examined [how big of them]. One met labor leaders [no slavers they], pacifists [those bold free-thinkers, bucking the Am. war-machine with their cocktail parties], Negroes [OMG] — everything [sic] but Catholics! [hey, she said everything(one) was accepted — and let me remind you, dear reader, southern New England was majority Catholic]
“Lyman Paine, Ruth’s first husband and M. Paine’s father, came from a similar background — authentic, proper Bostonians, the kind of people who still believe today that the U. S. is their invention on lease to all the rest of us.” As if Mary Bancroft and Allen Dulles are not the exact same, even worse. The arrogant, delusional nerve.
Talbot actually interviewed Ruth and Michael Paine, now in their mid-70s, who now reside in a Quaker retirement home in Northern California…
they continue to portray their Dulles connection as pure coincidence, even though Ruth’s father and siblings had been employed on international assignments for the CIA, and Ruth herself had even done investigative work in Nicaragua in the early-1990s…
as DiEugenio wrote in his lengthy book review, Talbot let the aging Paines off easy…
Michael is 87 years old, Ruth is 83. Considering their ages and that they consented to giving the interviews, what “less easy” would DiEugenio have proposed that
Talbot should have subjected the Paines to, the third degree, a trip to the cooler, an involuntary polygraph examination, sleep deprivation, Rumsfeld indefinite
standing method, or insects placed in a confinement box? “We have ways of making you talk!” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah#August_1.2C_2002_memo
Let us encourage investigative journalists to practice a scorch the earth policy of “one and done” interviews of persons of interest in their mid 80’s, after they have consented to meet and answer questions.
….or perhaps find independently and publish facts contributing to their legacies? :
Tom S. or should I say The Indefatigable Tom S.,
Neither Jim Di Eugenio nor Russ Tarby wanted Talbot to give the Paines the third degree. They, Jim DiE and Russ T, are correct that DT is too easy on Ruth. I would like to point out that Talbot is the first interviewer to find out from Michael that he has serious misgivings about the Warren Commission. Michael Paine seems like such a good egg.
There’s a very good topic started by Paul Trejo on Ed Forum about Ruth. Good hearted PT seems to think RP is pure angel. Not so everyone else. I think she’s about 94.46478388%, which is pretty good for a human. (We’ll never be as pure as the canines, who made and make civilization possible so why try overhard?) BUT… just one thing rotten on the face of it, Ruth Paine, in her very lengthy testimony before WC, lied through her teeth ESPECIALLY about one thing very important in my book, among several other small lies of omission and commission. That big thing is how Lee Oswald found himself employed at Dry Hole Byrd’s TSBD.
I would have loved to be David Talbot for about five minutes in Northern California. (He can have all that other research work crap.) I would have asked RP:
–Why did you lie so profusely about the other much better-paying job as a baggage-handler at the airport? (With much difficulty, all that mess had to be straightened out.)
–Who was the Prime Mover for you pushing Lee into the non-existent job opening at TSBD? (It wasn’t Linnie Mae Randle; she was a convenient excuse.)
Of course, these questions need to be rephrased and approached politely. Tink Thompson could do it like how he got O.P. Wright to talk.
Meant to say there’s a whole lot of room between “going too easy” on the Paines and “the third degree”/”scorched earth” style of interviewing. You know Jim and Russ are much closer to the first style than the second style. Now, your old buddy Roy is a different matter. I guess that’s why any prospective JFK interviewee doesn’t want to talk to me for very long. Ask St. John Hunt about the guy who badgered him to say that Poppy Bush was in Dealey Plaza 12:30 pm, 11-22-63.
“Sure: people who wanted communist movements (like the Sandinistas) to take over Central American countries.”~McAdams
Then the “Right-Wing Yahoos” are those who preferred the fascist governments imposed by the US Intelligence services and military for United Fruit and other corporate interests.
No. That’s a buff factoid.
If you disagree, provide your evidence.
Researcher Steve Jones at JFK Lancer based his information on an close personal friend of Ruth’s — see below:
BTW, Tom Mallon’s Ruth Paine apology, a disgraceful book called Mrs. Paine’s Garage, also mentions her Pro-Nica work.
STEVE JONES at http://jfklancer.com/pdf/Paine.pdf
This friend got to know Ruth very well in Nicaragua during the early-1990s when they both were volunteering for the organization Pro-Nica. This was one of the various Christian peace organizations that were trying to help the people of that beleaguered nation in the wake of the war between the Contras and the
Sandanistas. Over the course of several months this friend shared with me the following information about Ruth that helped to either confirm or clarify previous leads that have been developed by other Paine researchers and myself:
1. Everyone in Pro-Nica, including this friend, thought that Ruth was working there in some type of intelligence gathering capacity. Ruth would take copious notes of everything she saw or heard; she asked people many inappropriate personal questions as if
she were trying to gather information; and she took photographs of people for supposed purposes that were later proven to be false. She was confronted about this but consistently and vehemently denied that she had anything to do with the CIA or any other governmental intelligence agency. Normally when an agent or asset was outed they would quietly leave in order to avoid
further embarrassment. But since Ruth never admitted her guilt and refused to leave, she was instead asked to take a leave of absence. When she was taken to a R&R camp in nearby Costa Rica, she was asked to leave because they, too, suspected that she was an agent. Ruth returned to Nicaragua and finished her
tour of duty and then left for the U.S. where she continued her relationship with this friend.
2. Upon returning to the U.S. she admitted to her friend that her
father had worked for the CIA as an “executive agent.” Apparently while he was traveling abroad for Nationwide Insurance and then later while working for the Agency for International
Development he would gather intelligence information for the agency.
Part I of II
Why did you not include the sentences that originally appeared immediately before your quoted text begins?
I will include the rest of Jones’s intro, along with some other facts, in the interest of
enhancing accuracy and fullness of Jones’s presentation. (The challenger scoffs but has added ???????? to the particulars.):
My reaction is that this lessens the weight of the accusations and observations
of Jones’s source, and it reveals a bit about his editorial judgment. It should be
a concern, more so when the following is also considered.:
Jones’s associated subject matter text can be viewed here.:
Recent reaction to a related excerpt of the material linked immediately above.:
I am not saying my research indicates anything more than the facts included. Jones did not do his own research. One name is
actually “Shawn” not “Sean” Miller. He seems transparent and it would be extremely difficult to claim he is not the person
described by Ms. Wheaton as presented by Jones, as “Sean” Miller.: continued in Part II…
Part II of II
Shawn Miller’s Face Book page is suprisingly public and photos confirm the hair color, as described by Wheaton/Jones.:
I see nothing suspicious about Jon Roice, either….. do you?
Doesn’t anyone check the facts of the presentations they embrace? Dr. McAdams somehow knows everything is as it seems, and russtarby replies
with information he has not fully considered or verified but tends to fit a narrative.
This is Jfkfacts.org, can we have a unique culture, here, or try to cultivate one?
So a bunch of left wing yahoos were suspicious of her.
That’s not evidence.
I must admit, however, that if you is going to hang around with left wing yahoos, maybe you deserve to be the object of their paranoia.
“left wing yahoos”~McAdams
So you get proof that Ruth Paine was working in Nicaragua tossed in your face. And you end up with some meaningless slur aimed at … who even knows?
Very weird. Perhaps you can define, “left wing yahoos” for the readership here.
Sure: people who wanted communist movements (like the Sandinistas) to take over Central American countries.
The Sandanistas were not Communists. Whatever their failings, they submitted themselves to democratic elections, and when voted out of power, turned power over to the opposition, however reluctantly. The fact that you call them Communists reveals far more about yourself than I think you’d be comfortable admitting. But perhaps I flatter you.
As to whether or not Ruth Paine was a spy for US intelligence agencies, I urge people to read the WC testimony of her husband Michael Paine, where he talks about attending meetings of both the ACLU and the John Birch Society, and ask yourself who other than an agent provocateur or an informer would do that? Then ask yourself if the spouse of such a person should or shouldn’t be suspected of the same kind of activity, especially given that her sister was a CIA employee, and her father worked for an organization known to be a CIA front.
You posted no such proof. Just evidence that some paranoid left-wing yahoos were suspicious of her.
For earlier comments directed at my by McAdams, who typically gets 98% of everything wrong (as he does with the three tramps, who were not arrested, as the Dallas County Sheriff’s Identification Division chief, James Hitching, stated, and see the comparison below at the tramps site, then see the so-called arrest records of the three tramps who falsely claimed to be them (that is, Doyle) questioned as to its veracity by the Dallas police (missing photos, missing fingerprints, etc.):
Arrest records of three tramps misreported:
And as far as McAdams requesting proof on that expulsion order:
From FOIA declassified CIA documents (check at maryferrell.org site):
CIA document #632-796 is released in 1977 – – dated 4/01/64 – – titled: “Jean Souetre’s Expulsion from the US” which occurred 18 hours after the murder of JFK
(Unfortunately, at the tramps site the person who debunks the three tramps claiming to be the Grassy Knoll so-called three tramps goes on to incorrectly agree with that clown from the Houston PD — whose mom got her the job — that it was Harrelson, Holt, etc., when there were no biometric matches with them either.)
Sgt. Doom, are you talking about the three tramps brought in from the railroad yard behind the TSBD or the three tramps brought in about 2:30 from the grain car about a half mile South of the railroad yard?
More importantly he mentions the Dallas Petroleum Club, where members Mohrenschildt, George H.W. Bush, D.H. Byrd (owner of the Texas School Book Depository) and various other miscreants like David Atlee Phillips were members – – hence a club where everyone was connected to everyone else — and let’s not forget that Ruth Paine had a cousin married to John Foster Dulles, nor that Michael Paine was related to both the Cabots and the Forbes.
A great book and an outstanding review by Jim DiEugenio.
Dulles and his cohorts thought their boy Nixon was going to be elected in 1960. But when it ended up being John Kennedy, all bets were off.
And John Kennedy had absolutely no idea what he was getting himself into. And he paid for it with his life.
A while back on the subway, the Spy Museum was running ads like this one:
So in homage to Kennedy, I made this parody one:
Great job! And appreciated by millions of us!
Outstanding, DG Michael. The kind of satire that makes one laugh AND cry.
In his review DiEugenio noted that Talbot emphasizes the Dulles´ April 1963 meeting with the Cuban exile Paulino Sierra, who worked in Chicago as legal consul for Union Tank Car Company and became a major figure among the exiles just a month after his meeting with Dulles, where General Lucius Clay was also present. Sierra convened a conference in Miami and let the Cubans know he represented a consortium of corporations seeking to recover their investments in Cuba and willing to give 30 million if the exile could reorganize and launch a new invasion without approval from the White House, but backed by military officers who will provide weapons and training camps. After this conference, Sierra traveled around the country spreading around money through Union Tank Car in order to create the Junta of the Government of Cuba in Exile. Talbot points out that after the failure of the Chicago plot against Kennedy in the fall of 1963, Sierra negotiated an arms deal for Homer Echevarria, who the day before JFK was killed supposedly said to an informant that his group —part of the junta— had some Jewish money to mount a major operation against Castro and it would be so as soon as they took care of Kennedy. Lansky was Jew and Dulles had tried to get him years earlier to get rid of Castro.
Mr. DiEugenio to his credit points out some of the obvious errors that Talbot makes, particularly the totally incorrect Single Bullet claim. But as usual he accepts the biggest whopper about where Dulles was on Nov. 22, 1963 without mentioning at all the northern Virginia claim. Interestingly he completely screws up Talbot’s travel claims for Dulles on that date-apparently realizing that Talbot’s itinerary on that date makes no sense as written in the book.
OK…so a single dead tree or two does not make a forest. If Jim made an error in his review or if Talbot got something wrong, we’re all human. But it may help you to step back – way, way back – and look at the big picture of what the book and review are talking about.
You may want to research a little more too about the invented one-shot-seven-wounds bullet theory. The first debunking of this theory was the back wound that went nowhere and witnessed by two FBI agents standing feet away from the body.
The back wound was in fact probed with a malleable (thin, flexible) metal probe by Finick, it stopped at about 4 inches at or just short of the pleura (lung) cavity per participant in the autopsy technician James Jenkins. This was not reported in the official autopsy but confirmed to the ARRB by Jenkins after his security commitment required at the time by the Navy expired.
The HSCA’s Forensic Pathology panel, (which included Earl Rose of Dallas) explained why they felt the attempt to probe the wound didn’t work, at paragraph 430:
Yes indeed Jean,
The HSCA’s Forensic Pathology panel, explained why attempt to probe the wound PROBABLY didn’t work, at paragraph 430.
So here we are back at your pointing the their conjecture to reinforce your own conjecture as to why PROBABLY Oswald was the lone assassin.
Enough “probably’s”, “could be’s” “maybe’s” and “must’ve been’s” and you’ve got a case bound for any real prosecutor’s trash can.
What forensic pathologist can you quote saying that Finck’s inability to probe the wound means the bullet didn’t transit?
All of those forensic pathologist that you quoted that could only say “probably”.
Look Jean, the throat and back wound were not dissected. The paths are therefore unknown. All is pure conjecture. You still have naught but conjecture.
Let that sink in and deal with it.
Whitten- you love to carp about the throat wound not being dissected- So what? It doesn’t matter when we have xrays that do not show a bullet or fragments. Go ahead and run away from this fact again. You clearly have no interest in the truth.
“It doesn’t matter when we have xrays that do not show a bullet or fragments.”~Greg Arious
One X-ray that proves exactly that, no bullet nor fragments. And this is precisely why the wounds should have been excised for bullet tracks. Because all you are left with is supposition.
And this takes us to the lack of chain of custody for CE399, as one of the central determining factors.
Plus evidence in the Z-film of Connally not being hit at the same time as Kennedy’s throat shot…etc, etc.
So back at you:
Go ahead and run away from this fact again. You clearly have no interest in the truth.
Well we have an entrance wound in the back, and an exit wound in the throat, and the top of the right lung bruised. So it’s not rocket science to figure out the trajectory.
LOL Yes, one xray. One xray was all that was necessary to show that there was no bullet or fragments in the neck. We have bullet wounds there, so where did the bullet go, hmm?
Professor, please explain how a bullet entering the president’s back several inches lateral to the midline of the spine, and “bruising” the top of the right lung could exit at the midline of the neck, above the knot of the necktie.
Behind the knot of the necktie is the trachea, NOT the lung.
And you surely agree the Parkland doctors performed a tracheotomy on the patient.
I can’t find an anatomical drawing that shows this clearly, but none of the expert medical panels who examined the evidence (Clark, Rockefeller, HSCA) saw any problem with this.
Well we have an entrance wound in the back, and an exit wound in the throat, and the top of the right lung bruised. So it’s not rocket science to figure out the trajectory.”~McAdams
That’s right it is not rocket science, because rocket science is based on cold hard fact, not supposition.
It IS conjecture to state that “we have an entrance wound in the back, and an exit wound in the throat”. It is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The quality of this one and only X-ray is not such as to discount fragmentation, or even lodging of larger portions of bullet in more distant areas of the body.
The whole reason for dissecting wounds is to make certain what the trajectory of the bullet paths are. Regardless of WHY this critical procedure was not done (another controversy), the fact remains it was not.
And again, this issue cannot be taken in isolation from the other facts surrounding it.
And to have to repeat these points time and again is the point at which it becomes obvious that the WC apologists are playing patty-cake and ring around the rosy here.
>Trajectory; from the so-called “snipers window” to the T3 vertebrae is impossible.
>CE399 is a plant.
>Connally was hit by separate shot or shots, not the one that hit Kennedy in the throat
>The head wound is one of entry, which makes it most likely the throat wound was as well.
These points are just the first of many in a long litany of facts.
And most important of all here; every single one of the so-called “inquiries” of the assassination have been compromised by the Intelligence community.
This is what you are saying:
1. There is an entrance wound in the back.
2. There is an entrance wound in the neck.
3. There are no exit wounds for either of these.
4. You agree that these bullets are not in the xray.
5. There aren’t even fragments of these bullets in the xray.
So where are these vanishing bullets?
See how silly and ridiculous you sound?
“4. You agree that these bullets are not in the xray. ~Greg Arious,
No, I agreed to no such thing I said:
The quality of this one and only X-ray is not such as to discount fragmentation, or even lodging of larger portions of bullet in more distant areas of the body.
Do you really want to step back and look at the facts-and some mysterious issues related to Mr. diEugenio and Mr. Talbot? If you review every interview Mr. Talbot has given on the subject of Dulles whereabouts he uses essentially identical statements.
But look at the Education Forum post of Peter McGuire on the topic of Allen W Dulles:
‘ Jim DiEugenio’ …Lisa Pease has discovered another …location for Dulles on the day of the assassination. According to notes written on his calendar , Dulles happened to be at “the Farm”… It can actually refer to two places: the CIA training facility at Camp Peary, or Mitch Werbell’s sixty acre weapons laboratory in Geogia”
And the date of McGuire’s post? 18 JULY 2010. And that of DiEugenio’s? 05 JULY 2010.
So Talbot’s startling new information is FIVE YEARS OLD-and from the hand of one Jim DiEugenio! Of course Jim can come up with a more believable travel history for Dulles on Nov. 22- he has had five years to make up an itinerary . Unfortunately, like his misunderstanding of the Single Bullet specifics ( fed to him by another Conspiracy theorist-see previous JFKFacts) Talbot’s sloppy documentation caused him to completely screw up what he read on the issue-or misconstrue what someone told him Who that someone was I will leave up to the reader, but it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out.
The Allen Dulles desk diary and calendars available online from the Mudd Library at Princeton state that Dulles flew from Washington National Airport very early on the morning of November 22, 1963 to Newport News, Virginia. From there he was driven to Williamsburg, Virginia to speak to the Brookings group at 9 am. The diary states that at 3 pm Dulles returned to Washington, D.C. with the CIA’s John Warner after hearing of JFK’s death. The Farm is near Williamsburg in southern Virginia.
Dan, your note drives a stake through the heart of Talbot’s claim of where Dulles spent the weekend of the assassination. It totally destroys the credibility of Talbot, DiEugenio and Pease on this subject. A blind man on a galloping horse can see that instead of actually reviewing the records, Talbot made up the whole scenario based on a mistaken version of Dulles’ travel history.
Any rational approach to Talbot’s research methods should call into question every claim that he has made about Dulles in his book. And that is probably why the MSM wants no part of it.
“[Y]our note drives a stake through the heart of Talbot’s claim of where Dulles spent the weekend of the assassination.. . . A blind man on a galloping horse can see that instead of actually reviewing . . . ]”
“A blind man on a galloping horse can see”? What the hell is the point of that simile? It’s makes as much sense as “a stitch in time gathers no moss.” At least the vampire reference at the beginning of the comment makes sense, but it’s still overwrought.
And while Talbot may have made a mistake with regards to Dulles’ itinerary on 11/22/63, that doesn’t necessarily negate the rest of his research. Even people who’ve praised the book have taken issue with his claim that Dulles was responsible for the hit on JFK.
As to this:
“Any rational approach to Talbot’s research methods should call into question every claim that he has made about Dulles in his book. And that is probably why the MSM wants no part of it.”
That’s both amusing and hypocritical coming from someone who’s posted under two names on this website, and indignantly denied it when several people pointed out that comments made by “Paul May” were remarkably similar in tone and general attitude with those posted by “Photon.” You finally ‘fessed up. To say you have a credibility problem is to state the obvious.
The MSM refuses to deal seriously with books questioning the official narrative of the JFK assassination, but heaps copious praise on efforts by Posner, Bugliosi, et al. You’d have to be a bind man on a galloping horse not to have noticed this (whatever ailment you suffer from is obviously contagious).
“Totally destroys”? How convenient.
To me, it’s irrelevant or insignificant in the grand scheme of things with respect to Dulles.
Those are truly silly and insignificant statements, and the facts speak for themselves.
Declassified CIA documents found at this site detail the meeting between CIA agents and French OAS assassin, Jean Souetre, months prior to the murder of JFK (and the doc admitting that the CIA was aware of Souetre’s involvement in the attempted assassination of President De Gaulle of France)— said meeting taking place in Lisbom, the HQ city of Aginter-Presse, the front outfit for mercenaries and assassins for hire.
Next, Pfc. Eugene Dinkin intercepts cables between CIA station in Italy and an OAS site (Souetre) detailing that the hit on JFK is to take place in Dallas between 11/22 to 11/28.
Next, the expulsion order from the CIA to pick up international assassin, Jean Souetre, in the custody of the Dallas police, just hours after the assassination of President Kennedy!
Virgil Bailey of the INS picks up a Frenchman in Dallas, but remembers almost nothing about it — now why would anyone, immediately after the murder of the president in Dallas, recall anything noteworthy when picking up a foreign assassin in the custody of the police at the very same city just hours afterwards?!?!?!?!?
Masterful post, Sarge. I think the French-Corsican assassins, Jean Souetre and Lucien Sarti, were on the South Grassy Knoll, not THE (North) GK. Wasn’t Souetre and/or Sarti using the name of Michel Mertz, who had gone straight, at the Dallas hotel?
“…sorry to disagree with you gentlemen, but those people involved in the assassination of the president were all from a very tightly knit group of men…operators that were aware of how each other thought, and so forth. these men had all, ate, drank, fought, slept, bled, talked…they all knew each other very well! This wasn’t a band of loose knit, compartmented, don’t know the other guy, guys. They couldn’t be! They were “thick as thieves!” Men who operate in groups of this type, have to…especially given the priority of their target. Each one had to have a “pretty good idea” how the others thought and would act; especially in the event of any planning failures or ‘operational malfunctions!”
How many SF teams don’t know each other…how the others within the team act and think? None that I ever knew of! Nope! This was a domestic operation from start to finish! It had to be for all kinds of reasons…operational security; confidence; ability to “cover each others back in the event of a double cross! All sorts of crap! These men were domestic operators and all knew each other…probably to include most, if not all phases of the operation…at least up to and in part,beyond extraction or exfiltration.
Could you imagine a DPO running into someone, say, on “the grassy knoll, behind the stockade fence, and the officer asks the “other” officer a question, and he had a thick Corsican, or French accent?”-DM
“…oh, and by the way: how many people cover their whereabouts with bogus paper trails, idm’s, and “other types”of memo’s?
Besides-in the historical world, nothing becomes a “fact,” until it ends up on paper!”-DM
How about posting some evidence of this.
Thanks for mentioning the Mudd Library’s Dulles collection, which was new to me.
Among other things, Dulles’ online correspondence to and from the Kennedys should be worth reading. Here’s a handwritten note from Ethel after RFK’s assassination:
“My thanks to you both for the affection which prompted your kind letter. Bobby so enjoyed your company.”
The main page is here, with links:
Yea Ethel Kennedy’s responses to condolences must be of the greatest historical significance compared to all the other material substance gathered on this blog…
And if you didn’t get the edge here Jean, I am certainly speaking satirically. You are really clutching at straws with that one.
Any objective review of the Mudd correspondence between Dulles, Robert and Ethel Kennedy reveals the high regard in which the Kennedy family held Allen Dulles and the affection that Dulles had for them.
It should be apparent that Talbot never viewed these notes, nor apparently was he even aware of their existence . Apparently neither was DiEugenio, Pease or any of the “Dulles hated JFK” crowd.
So much for the “research” community. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, particularly if you can get someone to pay for it.
Thank you so much for this website, the Mudd Library. And thank you for finding this most likely (though it is AD’s desk diary, so it is suspect) itinerary for AD on 11-22. Have you ever heard that Dulles, or some of the CIA-DoD bigshots, actually ended up around Quantico the evening of 11-22? My notebooks are in the process of being indexed, so I should be able to find the answer to that question sometime in the year 2016. It’s been bugging me for a while.
R.E., the first link. The silence/rejection by the NYT and Washington post is deafening, and, telling. A starred Kirkus and Amazon Book of the Month and they won’t review it? The Mockingbird is not singing. It’s screaming SHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Also, Mr. DiEugeino’s review is long and in great depth but excellent.
(I was hoping to get my copy autographed by Talbot at the Lancer conference but he was only able to give his presentation on Skype).