Allen Dulles and his secret behind Kennedy's assassintion

[James DiEugenio]

The above post reveals why its a waste of time to argue with you.

You have your mind made up already. Even when you are wrong, like about the evidence in the JFK case never being presented in a court of law.

Dulles had Lumumba murdered against JFK's wishes. And then he hid it from him for weeks. This resulted in a bloodbath in Congo and the destabilization of the country for decades.

Dulles was trying to overthrow DeGaulle against JFK's wishes. Which would have caused a civil war and who knows how many deaths.

Dulles lied to Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs which caused the death of over a hundred Cuban exiles in the employ of the CIA.

Now, that is just in four months.

As for committing treason, well what do you call negotiating with Himmler to save the Third Reich--against FDR's orders? And it went on for two months. And Dulles lied about having FDR's approval--just as he lied about having Kennedy's approval to the French generals. But see was not treason since it was done in secret.

Or don't you know John Harington's old adage about treason being done in secret and successfully, then its not treason, because no one will have the guts or knowledge to call the new regime.

I mean for God's sakes, you do know what covert action is don't you?

Edited January 28, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Jon G. Tidd]

Jim D.,

What persuades you AWD had a hand in killing JFK?

FWIW, I believe the kill and the framing of Oswald was the work of an intelligence organization experienced in such matters.

I press you: what persuades you AWD had a hand in killing JFK.

[David Andrews]

If monied interests wanted JFK dead, Dulles would be the ideal interface, as he had been between Wall Street and the CIA, in the case of the Guatemala coup.

[Scott Kaiser]

Tom Neal,

My "amateur" comment is based on the quality of questions the interviewer makes.

The interviewer clearly, in my opinion, lacks the knowledge and skill necessary to pin Helms against the ropes. Helms easily laughs as he shrugs off the questions.

As to the most up-to-date information about AWD, let me see if I can encapsulate that information. AWD helped certain Nazis and Nazi clients; he played against not only JFK but also the United States; on balance, he served private interests, not the public interest. If I've missed anything important not previously known about AWD, please let me know.

I have no doubt AWD should have been excluded from the Warren Commission; no doubt he early-on favored the Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself conclusion; and no doubt he's a stain on U.S. history. If I've missed here anything important about AWD, please let me know.

Do I believe he could have planned JFK's murder? No. Murdering JFK, IMO, was treason pure and simple if it was meant to remove him from office and pave the way for his successor. I don't think AWD, self-interested as he was, was capable of such overt treason. Sure, he played ball with Nazis. Who didn't on our side of the Atlantic. Even Roosevelt, upon McCloy's advice, failed to order bombing of the rail lines leading to the death camps. Truman and Eisenhower welcomed Nazis such as Gehlen and Von Braun into the United States. AWD was in very good company.

Hi Jon,

No reflection on you, I just have to ask the question. It's a general question, again, not aimed at you. Now, for the question. Does it require to be [persuaded] in order to have a conclusive, accurate, positive ID of those involved in the assassination? Hear me out, but what if by chance say someone had information they shared, and this information didn't come from a third party or out of a address phone book page, but rather from some federal document would that be proof enough? Or, because a guy like Dulles and let's not forget George W. Bush who became friends with the Natzi's as they wanted to control Wallstreet and the banking industry according to some is the "smoking gun"?

​I thought that Brain's post of the video was "billarant," however, I do agree with you, there was no real hardline pressing as was in the video posted below, I won't mention by who, mums the word. Helms, "and that was the end of the plot," meaning that's it, end of conversation, let's move on, but you gotta love the way the speaker says for all apparent reasoning, "but for purposes of discussion" "what in the blazes are we giving an agent a device to kill Castro for if it's not an assassination plot?" Helms, "Well, if you want to have it that way, why don't you just have it that way". "it happened that way, it's quite satisfactory with me."

For all my conspiracy friends out there, I can see Helms in the Oval Office with president Nixon, why did President Nixon order his staff to no longer pursue the CIA’s paper trail? Was there something that Helms told Nixon in that meeting, which caused the President to back off? Or, as some researchers now believe, did Helms blackmail President Nixon into leaving the CIA alone under threat of a possible presidential assassination? Could Helms simply have said something like, “Mr. President, we can always schedule another presidential motorcade in Dallas if this nosing around my agency doesn’t stop.”

Dulles? Nah... He just wanted to be apart of the cover-up.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[James DiEugenio]

Jim D.,

What persuades you AWD had a hand in killing JFK?

FWIW, I believe the kill and the framing of Oswald was the work of an intelligence organization experienced in such matters.

I press you: what persuades you AWD had a hand in killing JFK.

OMG, you didn't read my review then.

I devoted a whole section to this specifically and noted that no other reviewers were presenting the case in toto.

As per Scott in the above, he is beginning to remind me of John Hankey.

Edited January 29, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Scott Kaiser]

There isn't even one single video of Dulles to psychoanalyze his communication habits. For those of you who don't understand what that means, it's to hear him speak, compare his arrogance to that of Helms, needless to say, all there is are photos of Dulles disseminated all over these videos with dubbed voices telling us just how bad this man was, so bad that Dulles was the CEO of Kennedy's assassination.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

Jim D.,

What persuades you AWD had a hand in killing JFK?

FWIW, I believe the kill and the framing of Oswald was the work of an intelligence organization experienced in such matters.

I press you: what persuades you AWD had a hand in killing JFK.

OMG, you didn't read my review then.

I devoted a whole section to this specifically and noted that no other reviewers were presenting the case in toto.

As per Scott in the above, he is beginning to remind me of John Hankey.

presenting the case in toto.

At least I don't wear a toto!

Edited January 29, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Paul Brancato]

We are in my opinion trying to weigh what we know against what we don't know with as much level headed consideration as possible. It's not always easy. But guys, you are not playing fair. Your objections to my opinion, or Talbot's opinion, are that you have a different opinion. Great - all true. So how should we proceed?

Well, from what I can gather Jim D would like us to seriously examine the facts, not opinions, around A Dulles' career. We are in luck - we have a well known and careful (not to be misread as perfect) author/researcher who has put together in an easy to read format a book easily available on kindle or hard copy called.....

'The Devil's Chessboard'. In this book, the author, David Talbot, lays out the particulars of AWD career in such a way that we can easily see what a dirt bag xxxx head asshole he was. So rather than have to answer for why we think he might have been the monster that handled this coup, we should ask the few here that argue otherwise how exactly they have come to their opinions.

So far we know that Scott Kaiser believes with fervor that he has inside information,which by the way is pretty much the way he sees everything. That's understandable to a degree, given his background.

Then we have Jon Tidd, who was an intelligence officer and like the proverbial blind men and the elephant fable, believes that his personal experience explains everything about how power works.

So I think Scott and Jon should share their information which weighs in favor of AWD. What was there about him that supports your opinion in his favor? Are you convinced he did what was right for the US?

[Tom Neal]

We are in my opinion trying to weigh what we know against what we don't know with as much level headed consideration as possible. It's not always easy. But guys, you are not playing fair. Your objections to my opinion, or Talbot's opinion, are that you have a different opinion. Great - all true. So how should we proceed?

Well, from what I can gather Jim D would like us to seriously examine the facts, not opinions, around A Dulles' career. We are in luck - we have a well known and careful (not to be misread as perfect) author/researcher who has put together in an easy to read format a book easily available on kindle or hard copy called.....

'The Devil's Chessboard'. In this book, the author, David Talbot, lays out the particulars of AWD career in such a way that we can easily see what a dirt bag xxxx head asshole he was. So rather than have to answer for why we think he might have been the monster that handled this coup, we should ask the few here that argue otherwise how exactly they have come to their opinions.

So far we know that Scott Kaiser believes with fervor that he has inside information,which by the way is pretty much the way he sees everything. That's understandable to a degree, given his background.

Then we have Jon Tidd, who was an intelligence officer and like the proverbial blind men and the elephant fable, believes that his personal experience explains everything about how power works.

So I think Scott and Jon should share their information which weighs in favor of AWD. What was there about him that supports your opinion in his favor? Are you convinced he did what was right for the US?

Jim and Paul: Absolutely perfectly said.

Logic, facts and the latest research is strong evidence that Dulles could, would, and probably did play a major role in JFK's murder.

Scott and Jon's counterargument is a closed loop:

1. state AWD wasn't involved because *I* believe he wasn't involved.

2. reject out of hand the latest AWD historical facts

3. respond to facts with over-the-top sarcasm

4. make an irrelevant response

5. return to step 1 and repeat

You guys sound like Cronkite who summed up LHO's marksmanship like this: 'We know he COULD do it, because he DID do it.'

Tom

Edited January 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Scott Kaiser]

We are in my opinion trying to weigh what we know against what we don't know with as much level headed consideration as possible. It's not always easy. But guys, you are not playing fair. Your objections to my opinion, or Talbot's opinion, are that you have a different opinion. Great - all true. So how should we proceed?

Well, from what I can gather Jim D would like us to seriously examine the facts, not opinions, around A Dulles' career. We are in luck - we have a well known and careful (not to be misread as perfect) author/researcher who has put together in an easy to read format a book easily available on kindle or hard copy called.....

'The Devil's Chessboard'. In this book, the author, David Talbot, lays out the particulars of AWD career in such a way that we can easily see what a dirt bag xxxx head asshole he was. So rather than have to answer for why we think he might have been the monster that handled this coup, we should ask the few here that argue otherwise how exactly they have come to their opinions.

So far we know that Scott Kaiser believes with fervor that he has inside information,which by the way is pretty much the way he sees everything. That's understandable to a degree, given his background.

Then we have Jon Tidd, who was an intelligence officer and like the proverbial blind men and the elephant fable, believes that his personal experience explains everything about how power works.

So I think Scott and Jon should share their information which weighs in favor of AWD. What was there about him that supports your opinion in his favor? Are you convinced he did what was right for the US?

Jim and Paul: Absolutely perfectly said.

Logic, facts and the latest research is strong evidence that Dulles could, would, and probably did play a major role in JFK's murder.

Scott and Jon's counterargument is a closed loop:

1. state AWD wasn't involved because *I* believe he wasn't involved.

2. reject out of hand the latest AWD historical facts

3. respond to facts with over-the-top sarcasm

4. make an irrelevant response

5. return to step 1 and repeat

You guys sound like Cronkite who summed up LHO's marksmanship like this: 'We know he COULD do it, because he DID do it.'

Tom

Tom,

I will be more than happy to counter your claims tomorrow, now, I am going to sleep, before I do, are you asking that I counter the claims you levy against me? Or, just all your general claims regarding Dulles?

I certainly have no problem pointing out your theoretical study rather than its practical application.

Do you, the reader, read anything that may be out-of-place? A slip-up perhaps, a quick correction to an answer regarding a question, these are the facts as I know them.

Mr. Helms, "what role did the agency have if any in the assassination of Kennedy."

Helms - "At the time the Warren Commission was formed. The agency did everything in it's power to cooperate with the Commission, and with the FBI. The FBI having the lead in the investigation. Ah, it was the agencies feeling since it was this ah, This tragic event had been taken care of ah taken place in the United States, that the FBI and Department of Justice would obviously have the leading edge in conducting the investigation."

Goodnight,

Scott Kaiser

Edited January 29, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Tom Neal]

There isn't even one single video of Dulles to psychoanalyze his communication habits. For those of you who don't understand what that means, it's to hear him speak, compare his arrogance to that of Helms, needless to say, all there is are photos of Dulles disseminated all over these videos with dubbed voices telling us just how bad this man was, so bad that Dulles was the CEO of Kennedy's assassination.

Scott,

Everyone understands what you are saying so you don't have to talk down to us so we can understand. I googled "Allen Dulles youtube" and here are the FIRST two results which are devoid of your claimed overdubs, etc. Didn't exactly look everywhere before you made your "Tidd-like" statement, now did you? Tidd doesn't know about the Garrison trial and you don't know about the internet...

Before you psychoanalyze AWD from the videos, STATE you credentials and qualifications to do so...

Tom

Edited January 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[James DiEugenio]

​I am "shocked, just shocked" that Scott could not find these.

I had seen the first one before, but not the second one.

What a despicable xxxx. American did not overthrow governments? LOL

And man his support for Vietnam. Plus the whole thing about CIA always having the president's approval?

Yeah Allen, how about the revolt of the generals in Algeria?

Sickening.

[Scott Kaiser]

"Tidd doesn't know about the Garrison trial and you don't know about the internet..."

I'm certain, you don't know about the assassination. My credentials? I don't have all night, going to bed remember?

[James DiEugenio]

But you didn't.

[Tom Neal]

I will be more than happy to counter your claims tomorrow

Scott,

You can start with a response to my post #161, and explain how no video existed of Dulles speaking, so no one can psychoanalyze him... Try to avoid a repetition of this in your forthcoming counter arguments.

Tom