Gene Kelly

Ron:

I'm not a communications expert, but my kids are, and have degrees in the subject.  Today, the idea of magazines and newspapers are all but obsolete. So are the classic venues of TV "specials" and informative news. Talk radio and reality TV are becoming old school (quickly). The new generation wants their information in short sounds "bites" (texts, tweets,  hash tags).  The stories are broken on Facebook and Twitter ... not NBC or the Washington Post.  

There is no such thing as Drew Pearson or George Lardner ... Charlie Rose, Garrison Keillor and Matt Lauer are no longer respectable.  Dan Rather, Brian Williams .... we no longer look for the "anchors" like Walter Cronkite. No longer do we blindly trust that 60 Minutes and Newsweek are infallible. The NY Times and Wall Street Journal are for our grandparents and people over 70.  I still read Rolling Stone ... but not for the philosophical truth or profound insight.  Not sure what the modern-day version of Mockingbird looks like, but its a different game today.   No one has the patience to read a book; nor do they send letters/memoranda.  No one writes (or mails) letters anymore... interviews are scripted, rehearsed and meaningless (i.e. not believable).  The truth comes to us on body cams, cell phone videos and sound bites on Action news at 11pm.  

Gene

Jim:

One of the more recent revelations for me (as I continue to learn) is about the disinformation and conscious efforts to  mislead,  on the part of so-called MSM... and that it persists to this day.  Its certainly shattering a long-held myth that you cant trust what's published in history books and on the news. One ideally thinks we are America, where honest/probing investigative journalism is cherished/embraced.  What we see/hear on television is truth (with a capital T).  I think this is one of the reasons why many of my generation cannot come to terms with the JFK story.   We were conditioned on the premise that we are the "good guys" and that the truth prevails.   So, this cant possibly be true. 

One anecdote I'll share is from my early career in nuclear power, where I worked for government and went to a nuclear plant to investigate so-called abuses and safety problems.  What I found was far different from what was reported in the press.  The story actually got to 60 Minutes (Diane Sawyer and Ed Bradley) and was thoroughly misrepresented.  It was 180-degrees out of kilter from the true facts.  I was shocked (but I was young) and it felt like my introduction to the "real world".  In this case, I was a federal investigator, and the MSM trumped-up the story for public consumption. Totally irresponsible.  I later learned not to talk to reporters or - if needed -- cautiously and with great circumspect. They are driven by deadlines, headlines, controversy and selling magazines/papers (not necessarily by the "truth").   

It is crystal clear ("crystal", as Tom Cruise told Jack Nicholson) that Ferrie, Shaw, Bannister et al were guilty as sin.  Something was rotten in Denmark ... Permindex, Montreal, untimely deaths, CIA tentacles, witness intimidation,  delay tactics, judges compromised ... you simply cant make this stuff up (real life being far stranger than fiction). The anecdote of David Ferrie going to Oswald's landlady to check on his library card; the pictures from the Civil Air Patrol, the admissions (and discrediting) of so many first-hand witnesses (e.g. Aloysius Habighorst).  I'd characterize it as more than just "amazing"'; more a disgraceful travesty.  So much for the land of the free, and the home of the brave ...  I will forever view the Garrison effort in a much different light. 

Gene

Jim:

What's great about Destiny is that it doesn't just chronical Garrison's work and results (which are well known) but it lays out the enormous resistance that he encountered, and the extraordinary subversion by so-called journalists and interlopers (things that I didn't fully appreciate).  I'll remain forever puzzled by Walter Sheridan's behavior, and if he was a true RFK loyalist, as the Kennedy's proclaimed.  Talk about having the deck stacked against you; that Garrison kept his sanity and composure is impressive... he was clearly on the trail of the bad guys.  And  - from my perspective -- he kept to the high road (something that his adversaries cant say) although he was portrayed otherwise in the MSM.  I also appreciate your historical perspective, and the foreign policy insights; these help to explain the "why" of the assassination, especially for the engineer/scientist type that I am.  It is troubling to understand why anyone with half a brain wouldn't see through the fairy tales and charades, and not only question the findings but be impassioned by such deception, as Garrison was.  A president is murdered, and we lose one of our finest leaders .... and no one is outraged?  It's also disheartening to understand that HSCA and AARB also unfortunately fell far short of uncovering the real story.  Finally, I know you to be a stickler for editorial discipline (footnotes, endnotes, table of contents) and Destiny is an example of how to do that properly. 

Gene

Jim:

I sent you a separate note, but my kids got me "Destiny Betrayed" for XMAS ... excellent account of the big picture, and an honest portrayal of the real Jim Garrison.  Sorry it took so long for me to get to it, but its a great read (can't put it down).

Best,

Gene

Philadelphia was spared ... cold but no snow.  Happy holidays to all of you, who persist in the getting the story right and pursuing the unvarnished truth.

Paul:

I hesitate to engage but struggle not to respond, as I wish to show respect for your views.  But how can anyone characterize this as a "silly and unimpressive" document?  Why go out of your way to minimize James Wilcott?  You libel this as "... a ridiculous report dated 1978 ... fifteen years after the JFK murder ... hearsay about mere hearsay".  You summarize all of this as "pure speculation",. and then take a pot shot at Richard Sprague.  It strains reasonable ... what's your game?

Gene

Steve:

Fascinating food for thought ... I know you've suggested previously that some third party (not CIA) was being protected by the falsification of records and withholding of information. But my limited knowledge of CIA tells me that there is no distinction between "military" (Pentagon) and CIA .... they share resources and covers, collaborate on projects , and are in fact one and the same from an operative consideration.   So, I don't see them as separate entities or interests.

I think the allegation that Angleton's loyalties were not American has been out there for some time ... that he didn't have America's best interests at heart, and perhaps really wasn't working for "our side".  Allowing that right brain of mine the freedom to speculate, wouldn't it be interesting (and make this entire case far more interesting) if Angleton - knee deep in the Oswald Project and JFK's murder - was playing for another team?  Maybe Britain, or Israel, or even France?  More sensationally, maybe certain factions in Russia.

I've always thought that the key to understanding how/why JFK was murdered, is to study the backdrop of contemporary political events .  Pre-JFK, what was prominent in the Eisenhower Administration and world politics?  I think it was, in a nutshell, nuclear weapons and China (topics central to military leaders).  Eisenhower ended the Korean War, and one of the legacies was that U.S.-Chinese relations remained hostile and tense. Like Truman, Eisenhower refused to recognize the People's Republic of China. Just weeks after Eisenhower became President, Stalin's death brought what appeared to be significant changes in Soviet international policy. Stalin's successors began calling for negotiations to settle East-West differences and to rein in the arms race.  But a year later, in 1956, the President authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin top-secret intelligence flights over the Soviet Union by using the brand-new high altitude U-2 reconnaissance planes.  The main elements of Eisenhower's so-called "New Look" policy were: (1) maintaining the vitality of the U.S. economy while still building sufficient strength to prosecute the Cold War; (2) relying on nuclear weapons to deter Communist aggression or, if necessary, to fight a war; (3) using the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to carry out secret or covert actions against governments or leaders "directly or indirectly responsive to Soviet control"; and (4) strengthening allies and winning the friendship of nonaligned governments.  Eisenhower's defense policies, which aimed at providing "more bang for the buck," cut spending on conventional forces while increasing the budget for the Air Force and for nuclear weapons (reference: Eisenhower: Foreign Affairs" by Chester Pach, UVA Miller Center).  I also think of John Foster Dulles is pivotal, and was a key advisor and Ike's most important cabinet member:

Dulles described how he had passed the word to the Chinese and the North Koreans that unless the communist powers signed the Korean armistice, the United States would unleash its atomic arsenal. Dulles claimed that by moving to the brink of atomic war, he ended the Korean War and avoided a larger conflict. Secretary Dulles was the most prominent advocate of global containment and he traveled the world tirelessly to ensure its success. In 1954, the United States took a strong stand in favor of the Chinese Nationalists when the PRC bombarded Taiwan’s island strongholds. In 1955, assistance began to flow to the new nation of South Vietnam, created after the withdrawal of France from Indochina. In 1958, the United States again rattled the saber to protect the Chinese Nationalists’ offshore islands.

During his first year in office, Eisenhower authorized the CIA to deal with a problem in Iran that had begun during Truman's presidency. In 1951, the Iranian parliament nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a British corporation that controlled the nation's petroleum industry. The British retaliated with economic pressure that created havoc with Iran's finances, but Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh refused to yield.  In August 1953, the CIA helped overthrow Mossadegh's government and restore the shah's power. In the aftermath of this covert action, new arrangements gave U.S. corporations an equal share with the British in the Iranian oil industry. The intense rivalries in the Middle East brought Eisenhower into a confrontation with his most important allies, Britain and France.  The origins of the Suez crisis of 1956 lay in the difficulties of the western powers in dealing with Nasser, the nationalist President of Egypt who followed an independent and provocative course in his dealings with major powers. Nasser bought weapons from Communist Czechoslovakia, and he sought economic aid from the United States to build the Aswan High Dam on the Nile. The Eisenhower administration was prepared to provide the assistance, but during the negotiations, Nasser extended diplomatic recognition to the People's Republic of China.  Nasser retaliated by nationalizing the Suez Canal, and the British, French and Israelis decided to take military action ...and these three nations did not consult—or even inform—Eisenhower before the Israelis launched the first attacks into the Sinai Peninsula in October 1956 (same excellent reference: "Eisenhower: Foreign Affairs" by Chester Pach). On another front - Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam - the Eisenhower administration was paying more than 75% of the French costs of the war. Yet the French were unable to defeat the Vietminh. Ike spent more than half of the federal budget the armed services, which represented in his words "an immense military establishment and a large arms industry".

So, to your instincts, maybe its the Middle East (Egypt, Israel) and certain nuclear proliferation interests. Perhaps the joint interest (for both the US and Russia) at the time was China.

Gene 

Steve/Paul:

This is all indeed strange.  It lands upon me as insightful, though.  I've always been struck by the novel "Harlot's Ghost" by Norman Mailer.  It has elements of fiction sprinkled with what come across as factual, and I cant help think he was relating a lot of the truth.  In particular, he paints Angleton as obsessed by the tactics and strategies of the Soviets, who had much more experience in the time-honored art of espionage and counterintelligence.  I recall a description of a Soviet who kept young children and trained/raised them to be doubles.  Sort of creepy, but you then envision them becoming plants or "sleepers" sent to other countries, including America. 

If I put aside my left brain in wrestling with this case (analytic and logical, sort thru facts and evidence) and let my right brain creatively speculate, then its not difficult to see Angleton as just like Philby ... and there are theories that Kim Philby was not at all what we see him ending up as (i.e. a traitor, Communist spy, exiled in Russia, etc.). Who knows where the true allegiance of such people lies?  So, right out of a John le Carré or Ludlum novel, perhaps this was a joint US-Soviet ploy, with Angleton and others playing games that we cannot decipher easily.  Certainly he was enigmatic, and suspicious of not only all around him ... but suspect to all who knew him.  And perhaps Angleton is not necessarily on our side (the good guys, the Americans) and his true loyalties are to quite another set of powers and players.  And what was being run here was not an American project.  Truth becomes stranger than fiction.

Gene

David:

As you have pointed out previously, there was a contrast between Pic and Robert Oswald in their testimony before the Warren Commission ... one that might have been overlooked if Albert Jenner hadn't put Pic's demeanor on record. Pic came across as a hostile witness. John Armstrong contacted John Pic at his Florida home in 1995, but apparently didn't get much information or insight from him. When Armstrong asked Pic about the discrepancies in Lee’s appearance - which Pic himself had revealed in his WC testimony - Pic replied:

“I gave my testimony to the WC in 1964. I’ll stand by that testimony and have nothing further to say.”

This story is so deeply rooted in long-standing biases. Sometimes, we seek straightforward and "linear" explanations.   I don't know how to say this more profoundly, but labeling the bad guys (or the erstwhile patriots) as "CIA or military" is too simplistic.

I'm convinced personally (cant prove it) that Harvey was one of them.  He was many things in his career and life -- a lawyer, FBI, CIA (maybe he was a devote Catholic at one time) -- but I think he ran his own show with a lot of impunity.   He was not someone to be "managed" when RFK put his thumb down on the excesses.   His bosses sent him away, and purportedly exiled him in Rome.   But Harvey ran with gangsters and thugs ... I'm sorry, but John Roselli was not an all-American mafiaso;. he was a criminal.   The ends did not justify the means. 

My point is ... Harvey is not simply "CIA".  He operated outside of the law, made his own rules, and drank in excess.  Perhaps I could be lambasted for saying this on the Forum, but there are many honorable and hard-working people who represent CIA and FBI ... and to associate this guy with those agencies is an insult to them.  

No ... sorry, I do not

Thanks Steve .... Item #3 in Dinkin's filing seems missing or redacted (and it has to do with his "reported activates in Europe...".   At least we know he was living in Brooklyn NY in 1975.   This set of questions (reads like a FOIA request) lends credibility to his story and motives.   By 1975, he wasn't afraid to challenge the CIA.  Interesting that he wants to know more about his "treatment and interrogatories" while in Walter Reed, and about "grey propaganda" techniques.   This filing was at least two years prior to HSCA contacts, and during the Church Committee hearings.

Gene

Bernie and Michael:

Your points are well taken, particularly about the body and exhumation.  That challenge is healthy, and makes one look at the Armstrong evidence with a critical eye.  I've noted in other threads that, in my business, we encourage a healthy skepticism - trust but verify - and questioning attitude.  Its a hallmark of our culture and keeps our products technically rigorous.  There are many stories and topical areas surrounding JFK's murder that have ambiguity, uncertainty and differing views.  The bottom line for me is that  I respect your opinions and don't feel compelled to change them, or tell you that you're wrong.  There is no wrong or right (imho) in this complex murder story.

Gene

A few things (not necessarily profound) that strike me as off or odd about the Dinkin story;

1. He is only 24 years old at the time
2. Mostly 2nd and 3rd hand information that is passed along (e.g. acquaintance Howard Cowen has girlfriend named Beth Cox, Cowen talks to Col. Adams, Dennis DeWitt tells Cowen) ... lots of whisper round the block
3. Dinkin was transferred out of the "Code Section" and sent to Metz Depot ... for a contentious stance on savings bonds?
4. Reminds one of the Newman's "dimming the lights" just before 11/22 - as with the Mexico City stories and FBI watch list removal - perhaps another tactic to "blackmail" FBI and CIA into burying a story that otherwise depicts knowledge of a credible threat that they didn't act upon
5. No one ever interviews (at least not documented) many of the peripheral players named (Pullen, Reynolds, Dr. Afar, R. Thomas) ... strange, given that a President has been murdered
6. Dewhirst (Newsweek) and DeWitt (acquaintance) seem to be a play on words (real names, real people?)
7. Didn't bring his concerns forward to his Army superiors (because he thought it was a high-level military plot?) ... seems hard to believe, as the first/best way taught for raising concerns in a government agency or a sensitive industry is to first go through your reporting chain ... there exist many layers (and good people) before the "high levels" are reached  
8. Having previously worked in a government agency, allegations (which is what this was) are taken very seriously, and failure to follow-up or document these is grounds for dismissal  
9. Civil action filed at some time in Brooklyn NY ... what was that about, and where did it end?
10. Shows up after 14 years at the HSCA's doorstep (actually wrote two letters in Feb/March 1977 to an investigator named Jacqueline Hess)
11. The Stars & Stripes psychological sets and subliminal programming seems a cover story ... a way of  avoiding criminal prosecution for divulging classified information (if indeed he was legitimate and a cryptographic technician).  He stated that his secret clearance was revoked ... and that's when he left the base, and started his unsuccessful Geneva travels  

If its really Harvey in the operating room, then that answers a lot of questions ... and it seems somebody like him was observed by the doctors

Regarding the hierarchy of players (CIA vs. JCS), I note that the Defense Intelligence Agency was already in place (since 1961) and - unlike CIA - can operate more freely on American soil than CIA (theoretically) and spans all of the armed services.  Both agencies today are roughly the same size (if you can believe public estimates) with CIA at around 22,000 employees and DIA at 17,000 employees.  There have been overtures made about DIA Director Lieutenant General Joseph Carroll, USAF, who played a part in the Cuban missile crisis.

If the bad guys behind the scenes were affiliated with DIA (not sure of their composition and role in 1963), then the question of military versus CIA becomes moot.

John Armstrong's work is impressive and thoughtful.  It seems there exists a concerted effort to push back persistently on Jim Hargrove (127 posts later) with no sign of ending.  The critique and counterpoints consist mainly of ad hominem attacks.  I've read every inch of Harvey and Lee, and try to occasionally learn something new from these threads.  This particular thread leaves me with the impression that Armstrong was onto something important here ... and (to quote the Bard's Hamlet) "methinks thou dost protest too much"

Interesting that this is also a tale of two women and their testimony (both of whom were harassed and demeaned in character) ... Silvia Duran and Sylvia Odio

Steve:

A few more points.  First, I appreciate your (and George's) challenge and skepticism.  In my business (nuclear power) we value a questioning attitude, and coach our engineers to challenge and not assume or accept at face value (i.e. trust but verify).  It serves in part to make our written products, analyses and decisions technically rigorous... as safe reactor operation is paramount.  We also have a saying that "its not the answers we get wrong, but rather the questions that we ask".

I was in Carlisle PA last week, near Harrisburg, and its an interesting place as the Army's War College is located there ... a separate subject of interesting discussion.

Gene 

Steve;

The cruise was a 38th Anniversary special ... not something I regularly do (in fact, my first ever trip to Europe).   But you surely look into it, as its worth every penny.  

Wherever/whatever Dinkin was, there's little doubt that he was US Army ... and they were summarily "kicked out" of France a few years later.  I think the politics of Charles de Gaulle - who some historians call "that prickly character, the hautain French aristocrat" - bear close study in the context of the Dinkin allegation.  Don Cook's De Gaulle Biography states that:

Charles de Gaulle "openly detested the new world order of the Cold War". He disliked superpowers and did not appreciate American hegemony over Western Europe. His primary foreign policy aim, then, was to make France an independent counterbalancing force—making Western Europe relevant again as an independent entity by becoming a leader in European politics.  He clashed with the Americans primarily because he perceived them as the more dominant force of the bipolar world. Many of his policies have been interpreted as anti-American, but other actions—such as his support for the Americans during the Cuban Missile Crisis—reveal that he was just as much anti-Soviet. France's antagonistic relationship towards the Americans was a direct consequence of de Gaulle's desire to enhance France's independent stature in a world dominated by superpower politics. When de Gaulle proposed that France and Britain should have an equal say as the U.S., he was rebuffed by President Eisenhower. This was in 1959, but it put the writing on the wall for France's 1966 departure. Immediately following Eisenhower's rejection, de Gaulle removed the strategic French Mediterranean fleet from NATO. In 1963, he signaled his intentions even more clearly by saying that military cooperation had had its day. And in 1966, France fully withdrew.

A lecture by NATO Secretary Dr. Jamie Shea in 2009 states that in the 50s, NATO had relied on a very simple tripwire strategy whereby the Americans would put large numbers of nuclear weapons in Europe. General de Gaulle had returned to power in France in 1958. If France could no longer rely upon the American nuclear bomb to protect French territory, then why would not France wish to acquire a bomb of its own for that purpose? When the Korean War broke out, the Americans had 18 allies, mainly Western European, joining them in Korea, many of whom, for example my country the UK, suffered very heavy losses. In Vietnam there was virtually nobody, some Australians, some South Koreans. The growing disenchantment between France and NATO in this period is also one of the reasons why we remember the 1960s.  that prickly character, the hautain French aristocrat Charles de Gaulle.  The French also were fairly dissatisfied with the lack of American support when they had been trying to hang on to French Indochina in 1954 during the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu, in what today would be North Vietnam, with what they considered to be inadequate American support for their attempts to hang on to Algeria. But there's no doubt about it that once de Gaulle returned to power, this sense of distancing France from the Atlantic alliance and from the United States continued.  De Gaulle also refused to deploy Thor and Jupiter nuclear weapons in France with the result that the SACEUR at the time, General Norstad, removed American nuclear-capable aircraft from France. In 1966, at a very famous press conference, de Gaulle announced that he was pulling out of NATO's military structure and ordered SHAPE out of France ... the French defection irritated a whole generation of American political scientists.

The Berlin crisis in 1961 and then the Cuban missile crisis in 1962  provided him with an opportunity to assure President Kennedy that, in the event of war, France would fight alongside the USA.  After Kennedy's assassination, relations deteriorated with the Johnson administration which was preparing to reinforce the integration of NATO and had adopted the doctrine of graduated response, which in turn cast doubts on the guarantee provided by the US nuclear umbrella.  In 1966 upon being told that President Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson mentioned to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that he should ask DeGaulle about the Americans buried in France. Dean implied in his answer that that DeGaulle should not really be asked that in the meeting at which point President Johnson then told Secretary of State Dean Rusk: "Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!"  That made it into a Presidential Order so he had to ask President DeGaulle. So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II ... DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.”

This backdrop of French-American relations provides some context for Eugene Dinkin's Army assignment in Metz, when the Cold War was at its most tense moments.  When I connect some dots to the work of Bill Kelly and David Talbot - regarding the similarities of the assassination attempt on de Gaulle and JFK's murder - it lends credibility to the Dinkin story.

Gene

Steve:

In looking for references to Ordnance groups, I found several citations.  A writer named Don Burdett who (if you read his bio on Linked-in) states: “After several other stateside and overseas assignments, including Commanding Officer of the 599th Ordnance Company (Ammo) in Thailand."  There is also a book ("The Rivers of My Soul") written by an author who, in October 1966, claimed that he was commanding officer of the 599th Ordnance Company dispatched from Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. Then there is this:

Situated three kilometers east of the city of Kaiserslautern, Rheinland-Pfalz, Rhine Engineer Depot was designed as a Class II Installation under the (Chief) Engineer, Headquarters, United States Army, Europe. Western Area Command provides the essential logistical-administrative support to the depot, including housing, utilities, and personnel services. The Rhine Engineer Depot was established under the authority of General Order Number 2, Engineer Division, Headquarters EUCOM, dated 23 April 1951. Headquarters 599th Engineer Base Depot was attached to Rhine Engineer Depot in June 1952 by Movement Order Number 31, Engineer Division, Headquarters.

Perhaps its just semantics, and the Dinkin writer was loosely referring to the 599th Engineer Group, responsible for maintenance and supply. I'd also speculate that - if Dinkin was in some classified operation or role - he would not be too specific about where/what he did.  In any case, Metz is a distinctly military town and was during the Cold War a large supply depot and strategic NATO location.  Metz was also an endpoint for the critical US-owned, French-operated  390-mile long Donges-Metz pipeline system that ran from St.-Nazaire on the French coast to the French-German border near Saarbrücken, and part of the US Army Petroleum Distribution Command.

Gene

Steve;

A bit off topic, but if you ever get the chance to do a Viking river cruise on the Rheine and Moselle Rivers (wine country), its wonderful.  Interestingly, the French call it the Moselle but the Germans refer to it as the Mosel. The cities have beautiful cathedrals and their history is measured in thousands of years (not a few hundred) ... and I live in Philadelphia, where we have some of the oldest American historical sites. In Metz is the beautiful Saint-Stephen Cathedral (built in 1220 AD) with its magnificent stained glass.  The sloppiness of the Dinkin journalism aside, this very question was raised during the guided tours (i.e. are you German or French?).  Their reply is that they are neither ... they are Alsatian. Cities like Metz represent an interesting blend of the two cultures, and they don't necessarily think of themselves as French nor is their language and accent distinctly French.  The 3,000-year old Metz is considered an important city in the heart of Europe and a crossroads of different cultures.  It has certainly seen its share of turmoil, and is described as "variously experiencing an integration into the Roman Empire, Christianization, barbarian depredations, religious wars, the French revolution, the Industrial revolution, annexation into the German Empire and finally WWII."   

Frankly, Metz came across to me as a Germanic place, and quite a bit of it was damaged during WW II.   It also has a military flavor to it, with a long history of encampments and as a German garrison town.  Hitler celebrated Christmas 1940 in Metz, but local people rejected the German occupation, with French resistance cells active in the region.  Patton fought a fierce battle there in the Fall of 1944, and the history books describe Metz as the most heavily fortified city in Europe:

"The sprawling Metz fortress system has octopus-like tentacles that  spread six miles west of the Moselle and reach back another four miles to the east of the old Gallo-Roman city. The massive system, which made Metz the most heavily fortified city in Europe at the time, consisted of 43 forts arrayed in an inner and outer belt that together mounted 128 heavy guns. Patton entered the city in a triumphal procession more reminiscent of a conqueror from antiquity than of a 20th-century general. His oratory equaled the pomp with which he had entered the city: “Your deeds in the battle of Metz will fill pages of history for a thousand years,” he told his men. He had good reason to boast, as he was the first commander to capture Metz since Attila the Hun had entered the city in ad 415."

In the late 1950's and early 60's (when Dinkin ostensibly was there), it was a strategic NATO site defending against the Soviet threat . Metz is also site of the famous School of Application for Engineers and Artillerists.

Gene

Steve:

I dug into the Army information about ordnance groups, and found that they change both names and locations pretty frequently, for many reasons (e.g. to keep up with fast-moving tactical combat troops).  For example, the 599th Field Artillery Battalion changed its home station in Germany, moving from Schwäbisch Gmünd to Ferris Barracks, in Erlangen (near Nuremberg).  In February 1955, the 599th was re-designated as the 599th Armored Field Artillery Battalion. 

Gene

Steve:

I just visited Metz, while on a Viking river cruise.  Its a beautiful city on the banks of the Moselle River and strategically located near the so-called Schengen tri-point where the borders of France, Germany and Luxembourg meet ( presumably a good place for NSA "listeners").  Metz remained German until the end of World War I, when it reverted to France.  However, after the Battle of France during the Second World War, the city was annexed once more by the German Third Reich.  In 1944, the attack on the city by the U.S. Third Army freed the city from German rule and Metz reverted one more time to France after World War II.   Our tour guide explained that - when asked if they speak French or German - the answer is "Alsace" which is a mixture of the two.  The locals describe their grandparents as having changed their country allegiance so many times (French to German back to French) that they stopped claiming allegiance to either country, and refer to themselves as Alsatian. Websites describe Metz's population as historically impacted by "the vicissitudes of the wars and annexations involving the city, which have prevented continuous population growth".   So, I think its not unusual for someone to refer to the city alternately as in France or Germany.

Gene

Excellent article.  This story has always resonated with me.  As Larry Hancock states, somebody did talk.   It appears that Dinkin picked up on the elaborate psychological operation .... and Redmon's article sheds more light and credibility upon the so-called psychological sets.  That no one would listen to him ("Time Life, Look") is disturbing.  The incarceration in mental hospitals and psychological "testing" Dinkin underwent is sinister, but a common tactic used to silence or segregate witnesses.  Its also troubling that HSCA ignored him, but clearly his allegations didn't fit the manufactured storylines.   I would love to have interviewed his friends, whom he tried to use for protection and credibility.   When you put yourself in young Dinkins' shoes -- and ask "what would I have done with his revelation?" -- it seems he undertook a number of logical and reasonable steps (i.e. he was credible).

Jim and All:

This is a great thread .... very illuminating.  It pulls many things together (FBI, evidence, CIA struggles with the Administration, Vietnam, Warren/HSCA sabotage, Sullivan's death)

Gene