James DiEugenio

Thanks Gene. I also think those are two of the many highlights of the book: the DeGaulle vs OAS and CIA showdown, and the report by Wyatt about Harvey. Also, the evidence that Dulles actually lobbied to be on the WC. I don't know anyone who did that. Why would you want to be on such a body? Well, from the results that he so studiously helped produce, I think we can deduce something. The whole portrait of Dulles is also compelling. In someways he is even worse than McCloy. You know, even though my review is 25 pages long, I left out a lot of stuff.

At his talk in LA, he did say that he attempted to get William Harvey's travel vouchers from the CIA. HIs claim was denied. In the book, he says that Dan Hardway, an HSCA investigator, did try and get both Harvey's travel vouchers and his security file. And he could not. BTW, the thing that surprised me that Talbot left out, was the last part of Dulles' conversation with Truman while Dulles was on the Warren Commission. This was when Dulles flew out to Missouri to try and get Truman to retract his Washington Post editorial about the CIA being out of control and not being anywhere near what he envisaged it to be when he approved the plans for it. Recall, the column appeared on 12/22/63. But from Truman's notes, he began work on this editorial about one week after Kennedy was killed. Talbot includes the visit there, and the phony memo that Dulles wrote to CIA files about it. But he left out what I thought was the most incriminating part of the visit. Where Dulles himself brings up Kennedy's name as being the reason for the visit. Again, this was while he was on the Warren Commission! And it was in regards to Vietnam! So as I wrote in my book, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, "Dulles' comments imply that he thought Truman wrote the column due to his suspicions about the CIA, Kennedy's murder, and the Vietnam war--which Johnson was now in the process of escalating. What makes this even more fascinating is that if one looks at the very first wave of Kennedy assassination boohs and essays, no one connected those dots-... that early. By getting Truman to retract, was Dulles trying to prevent anyone from doing so in the near future? If so, as prosecutors say, it reveals "consciousness of guilt" . (pgs. 380-81) Puzzling to me why Talbot left that out. Maybe he does not agree with me about Kennedy and Vietnam.

Thanks Brian. But if you read the review, I did not rely on the same sources in my review that Talbot did. For instance, if you follow the footnote on Phillips, I rely on his brother's phone call with him to place him in Dallas on the day of the assassination. As per Hunt, I rely on the Angleton memo which does state specifically that Hunt was in Dallas that day. BTW, its hard to believe, but the traffic to this review has gone through the roof. It is getting 1400 hits per day, and about 1200 visits. Which is an amazing ratio.

That's why I jumped back on. Sometimes you have to spell this stuff out. Or it gets lost in the shuffle.

Wait a minute. I said that Talbot reveals that Harvey was on a plane to Dallas form Italy in November. We have that from his first assistant, Mr. Wyatt. Which now makes four upper level CIA officers in Dallas either on the day of the assassination, or in the weeks leading up to it. Now, in my review, I gave source notes for each and every one of them being there. Talbot gives notes for Dulles and Harvey. I find it hard to believe this information has not been circulated here. Its kind of old hat.

I am kind of surprised that no one has mentioned what I consider to be really important information, some of it original, in the book that I specifically detailed in the review. Let me name just a few: 1. The bombshell interview of DeGaulle after he returned form JFK's funeral and said that Kennedy's death was clearly a conspiracy between his security forces and the military; that Oswald was simply a cover story and was supposed to be disposed of, but Jack Ruby became the clean up guy. This is within days of the murder. 2. Kennedy telling the French ambassador that he does not have control over the CIA, but he will do what he can to back DeGaulle during the OAS revolt. He later revealed he did not believe Dulles' denials of non involvement, This was clearly one of the reasons JFK fired him. 3. Dulles actually lobbied his way onto the Warren Commission. This is striking, since as far as I can tell, no one else did that. Some of these guys had to have their faces slapped to agree to serve on this thing: like Russell and Warren. Why would Dulles do such a thing? 4. Well, maybe because his agenda from the beginning was to cover up absolutely everything about the case and turn it into (lying) biographies of Oswald and Ruby? Which he did, more than any other Commissioner. 5. That Bill Harvey was on a plane to Dallas in November from Italy. Which means that the following people were in Dallas either on the day of the assassination or in the weeks leading up to it: Allen Dulles David Phillips Howard Hunt Bill Harvey. Hmm. Maybe they were all Cowboys fans? I doubt it. 6. But this attraction might explain why Dulles was at the Farm from Friday to Sunday night though, eh? Perhaps coordinating the "plumbing" put in by his former subordinates who admired him like an idol. Some retirement eh? Should not Clover and he have been at their home in Georgetown, watching the TV spectacle. After all he was retired. 7. What other Warren Commissioner had an agent inside the Garrison camp? 8. What other Warren Commissioner flew to Missouri to get Truman to retract his editorial about the CIA being out of control and doing things he never dreamed they should do. An article Harry Truman started about 9-10 days after Kennedy's murder. (And by the way, Talbot did not include the best part of this exchange between Harry and Dulles--the part that was the most incriminating of his own guilt in my view.) Anyway, it is a really good book. Everyone should read it.

As I note below, I had to read the book twice. And took 43 pages of notes. No reviewer can read this just once and do justice to it. The book has so much new material in it and so much that has been reworked from different angles. The best book on Dulles there is. http://www.ctka.net/2015/TalbotDulles.html

Duncan, I was quoting a detailed post by Ed with comparison photos and text captures from you. Someone had to ask you if a photo by you was phony or not. You admitted it was. Did this woman miss the advance notice? Wh not respond to Ed right there? As for Ed begin a laughingstock, me and others think he is doing pretty well against you right now. So he may be a laugher at your forum--but this is understandable. IMO, he and David Josephs have done a lot of good work in showing that your "enhancement" skills leave a lot to be desired.

My review of Talbot's book will be going up tonight. I read it twice, which is the only way one can deal with it all. It is the best book on Dulles there is.

Has no one here read Seamus Coogan's masterful expose of the MJ 12 hoax at CTKA? http://ctka.net/2011/MJ-12_Preamble_I.html Although Seamus is associated more with hit critique of John Hankey, I always thought this was the best thing he ever wrote for CTKA. Very important in so many ways. The people who pushed this one remind me of the people who put together that recent hoax about Stanley Kubrick directing the moon landing. This piece is so good it actually got Seamus a paying job in journalism.

Nice work Ed. If he wants to depart, fine.

Jon: In your comment about David Rockefeller on my Garrison Tapes thread you said some Cabinet secretaries dismissed him as Mr. R? I don't understand what that means.

How did, "no one at Parkland saw it" get started? I mean, this is what the HSCA BS was all about. But they admitted several witnesses at Parkland saw a blowout in the rear of the skull. All you have to do is read Aguilar's essay in MIDP to comprehend this. After all he is the guy who called them on this and no one could explain it. On page 199, he places two charts, one from witnesses at Parkland, the other from witnesses at Bethesda. He has something like 21 witnesses at Parkland saying the blow out was in the right rear of the skull. And BTW, I always thought that this long essay called "The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy" was the best thing he ever wrote. In fact, I think its one of the very best essays on the medical evidence in the literature. As per the Z film, this is the focal point of the Z film research being done by Sydney Wilkinson. I saw one of her presentations. I am not big on this subject, but her presentation is the most credible case for Z film alteration I have ever seen. If they are right, then the Z film does show a blow out on the rear of the skull. Case Closed.

I just checked the stats at CTKA. This is the number one rated article there right now. Thanks to the brilliant Carol Hewett.

Why does that have to be the case? Could he not have been part of the hit team? DIdn't Worrell then see someone running out the back of the building?

DJ: Who gave the orders which David Rockefeller was required to follow - you know, just to put things into perspective. Is this supposed to be satirical? ​I will never forget an article from the decade of the seventies, I think it was in Penthouse?, about a writer who infiltrated into a Bilderberger meeting. The secretary of the meeting--that is the guy who set up the invitee list, the accommodations, the speaking schedule--was McGeorge Bundy. Through some subterfuge, this guy got invited. He said David Rockefeller did not arrive until the third day, of course, on his private jet. ​He said his arrival was almost comical. Here you had all of those multimillionaires, and Wall Street guys and political leaders. They were carrying on for a couple of days with not a care in the world. But when word got out that Rockefeller was arriving, the whole tone changed. They knew he did not like smoke filled rooms and was a tee totaler. So, like magic, all the smokers disappeared, and presto, most of the liquor did too. ​David Rockefeller was required to follow no one. And Kennedy knew it. Let us never forget what JFK told Mort Sahl. Mort had been kidding Kennedy about how his father helped him so much in getting elected since he was rich. So once, on a plane--maybe AF1--Kennedy asked Mort, "OK, how much do you think my Dad is worth Mort?" ​Sahl replied, "Not really sure. Maybe 300 million?" JFK: "Alright. Now, how much do you think the Rockefellers are worth?" Sahl: "Oh, I have no idea on that one." JFK: "Try four billion. (JFK paused to make a dramatic silence. He then pointed at the comedian.) Now, that's money Mort!"

You're welcome, Jim. No, I didn't attend this year so I can't give a summary. In fact, this is the first anniversary in many years that I didn't give a presentation at one JFK Conference or another. However, I agree with you that these findings would be very important to include (or even feature) in any future documentaries on the subject. No matter the tone of the "self educated" critic's comments that have thus far been offered here--or the dissenting views on what the findings may or may not mean--still, these lesser opinions are just that: uneducated opinions. They have no effect on the SCIENCE, which was replicated. Irrespective of the ability (or inability as the case may be) of the eye witnesses to keep their stories self-consistent, what they witnessed must be taken along with these findings. Where the eyewitness statements are at odds with what the science proves, then the eyewitnesses are mistaken or the evidence was tampered prior to the eyewitnesses coming into contact with it. It is not a matter of: "If the eyewitnesses are correct then the science is faulty." It is a matter of replication. If these findings are replicable, as Dr. Chesser has shown they are, then they stand on their own merit irrespective of witness testimony to the contrary. However, where there are witnesses whose statements tend to support the SCIENCE and refute other witness' statements, then, again the SCIENCE prevails. The correct explanation, then, would be one that incorporates both the SCIENTIFIC findings and the eyewitness statements. Where multiple eyewitness reports contradict each other, then the SCIENCE must be considered more reliable. Any who doubt or question the science should seek to replicate the findings themselves or in the company of a qualified expert(s). Well put, pointed and succinct.

This is a really fascinating interview of TV personality John Barbour about his attempts to get a fair hearing for Jim Garrison on both local and national television. He naively thought he could do so. Garrison disagreed. Garrison was correct. Len Osanic's show has been gaining and gaining in listenership. Shows like this and the Talbot interview have done it.

Sandy: When you follow the entire transaction from beginning: that is on the day Oswald was supposed to write the money order, his time cards are all filled up; to the end: that is how could he pick up the rifle if the PO box was not in his name-- and everything in between is just as questionable--then the odds of the money order being genuine are quite unlikely. This is why i never like to evaluate a piece of evidence in this case at one isolated step. Because sooner or later there is a break, and something fishy happens.

One reason is that if Oswald was on the first floor or outside, it is simple not possible for him to have run from the sixth floor down that far in the necessary time frame.

Oh, I didn't know that Sandy. Once you understand the rest of it, you will see why this does not at all follow logically from that. In fact, the rest makes it very unlikely.

DVP: [EVEN THOUGH HE'S "DEALING" WITH ME RIGHT NOW, See how long it is before I deal with you directly again.

You know, I always said you had problems with the English language. And this is one reason I do not deal with you anymore. The point of the issue is not whether the x rays show an intact skull. What Mantik is arguing is that the rear of the skull appears to be overexposed in the posterior which is where a white patch appears. And it obstructs that so you cannot decipher what is back there. As per your Marquette professor, here, play around with these: http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams.html https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/18/right-wing-pressure-in-academia/ http://www.ctka.net/reviews/McAdams_Mantik.html If you are using Lamson, McAdams, and Nickerson as your "authorities" in this day and age, please give it up; or go back to the drawing board and do some original work for a change instead of being a recycling bin. John McAdams robbed himself of any respect, credibility, or shred of morality when he put a female graduate instructor's health in danger. And then gloated about her leaving Marquette for Colorado. (See the second entry above.) If that is the kind of human being you line up with, then it says a lot about you. In many ways.

Oh no, another thread hijacking by DVP. If you have nothing to say about what was presented at Lancer by Mantik and his colleague, then why say anything. But the worst is you are recycling a source that, to say the least, is simply not credible today.

BTW, if DVP is quoting people like Lammie and Nickerson, he has lost. He should just throw in the towel right now. He does not even know that in the domain of administrative law, the word "should" means just that . It should be done, or its questionable and you will be called on it.