Allen Dulles confronts the evidence

(With customary eloquence, courtesy of David S. Lifton. )

Excerpted from David Lifton’s Best Evidence,
December, 1965, at U.C.L.A.

. . .

"I wanted to ask just one question, I said, “and get your comments on it.” One of the most important conclusions of the Commission, I began, was that there was no evidence of conspiracy. “Wasn’t it,” said Dulles, correcting me, and punctuating the air with his finger as he spoke, “we have found no evidence of conspiracy?” I proceeded to describe the motion of the President’s head on the Zapruder film and some of the grassy-knoll testimony. How could the Commission Report make a statement like that, in view of all that evidence ?

Dulles responded: “We examined the film a thousand times,” and he proceeded to deny that the motion I described appeared on the film. As he answered, I retrieved from my briefcase a demonstration panel prepared by Ray Marcus in which the relevant portions of all frames between 313 and 323 were arranged in sequence on one 8-1/2 by 11-inch page.

The backward motion was obvious. I walked over to Dulles, and put one of the panels on his lap. “Here,” I said, kneeling beside him, “I know these are not the best reproductions, but just look at the President’s head and the rear seat of the car, and see if they get closer together or farther apart in successive frames after impact.”

“Now what are you saying . . . just what are you saying?” said Dulles, his voice rising.

“I’m saying there must be someone up front firing at Kennedy, and that means a conspiracy,” I replied.

“Look,” he said, “there isn’t a single iota of evidence indicating a conspiracy . . . no one says there was anything like that . . .”

As politely as possible I described the statistics in Harold Feldman’s “Fifty-Two Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll,” closing with the fact that several people on the overpass saw smoke coming from the area behind the fence, and that a policeman “even smelled smoke there.”

“Look,” he paused, and then, his voice rising again, angrily, “What are you talking about? Who saw smoke?” he thundered, sounding as though I had fabricated the information out of whole cloth.

“Sam Holland, for instance,” I replied. “He was standing on the overpass.” I named a few others, and said that anyone could buy the book Four Days, turn to page 21 and see, in color, what was apparently a puff of smoke on the Nix film frame published there.

By now, Dulles had worked himself into a lather.

“Now what are you saying,” he roared, “that someone was smoking up there?” His attempt at ridicule was unmistakable. “Are you telling me,” he continued, ”that there was no one up in that building, that no gun was found there, that no shells were found there?”

“Oh, no, sir,” I said, feigning surprise. “I’m sure there was a gun there. I’m sure there were shells there. I think someone was shooting from there. But I think someone was also shooting from up front. Harold Feldman analyzed all that testimony and quotes witnesses who even heard shots from two locations.”

“Just who,” asked Dulles in an extremely sarcastic tone, “is Harold Feldman?”

While I was certain Dulles knew who Feldman was, I answered by describing him as “a writer, sir, a freelance writer . . .”

“And who does he write for?” inquired Dulles.

“ . . . He frequently writes for the Nation.”

Dulles raised his right hand, slapped his knee with a savage intensity, and laughed loudly and derisively.

“The Nation! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.”

There was an embarrassing silence. No one laughed with him.

Politely, I interjected: “I don’t think that is so funny, sir. I don’t care what magazine the article was printed in – either the right or the left. The article is well written, and it is accurately footnoted.”

“You say the Nation is accurately footnoted, eh?” replied Dulles.

Dulles now turned to the group and said: “I don’t know if you’re really all interested in this, and if you’re not, we’d just as well . . .” His voice trailed off as he was met by anxious murmurs: “Oh, no, we’re interested. No, keep going,” etc. So he shrugged and we continued sparring.

Dulles looked down at the photographs on his lap and claimed he couldn’t see what was there. “Look, there isn’t one iota of evidence that the shots came from the front. How can you say such a thing?”

“Mr. Dulles,” I said, “I’m showing you this evidence, and I’ve told you about the eyewitness testimony, which was taken under oath and certainly qualifies as evidence. And I’m absolutely amazed to hear you deny the existence of all this . . .”

Dulles got very angry. “You have nothing! Absolutely nothing! The head could be going around in circles for all I can see. You can’t see a thing here! I have examined the film in the Archives many times. This proves nothing”

This exchange ended with my passing about forty copies of the photo exhibits around the room, and asking the students to see for themselves the movement of the head. Meanwhile Dulles, waving his hand vehemently, simply denied that the head went back at all! “I can’t see a blasted thing here. You can’t say the head goes back . . . I can’t see it going back . . . it does not go back . . . you can’t say that . . . you haven’t shown it . . . “

At some point during the conversation, Dulles looked at me and said: “You know, I’ve never heard that argument before, and I’ve read all those books the experts supposedly are writing.” He said it in a very funny way. To the students, I’m sure it sounded as though the argument must be no good because it hadn’t been published. But it had the two-edged tone of a disgruntled compliment reluctantly paid.

When the next student recognized from the floor asked another question about the Warren Commission, there was a whispered conference between Dulles and the moderator. Dulles said that if there were no further questions on other subjects he would prefer to go to bed. He said he had had enough of this work when he was on the Commission, that the Commission had settled all these questions a thousand times over

The student apologized to Dulles, and the moderator asked if there were “other types of questions someone might want to ask Mr. Dulles.”

"Yes, but one man was so dominant that it almost wasn't a plot."

Approximately 2:00 PM to 4:30 PM, 16 Dec 1963

. . .

CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, is there anything further to come before the meeting?

MR. RANKIN: I'd like to say about the oath, if you will sign them when you have time and send them to me.

REP. BOGGS: Why don't we do that right now?
MR. RANKIN: All right, and I'll send them to Justice Reed.

(The Commission members pause to sign their oath.)

MR. DULLES: I've got a few extra copies of a book that I passed out to our Counsel. Did I give it to you, Mr. Chief Justice?

CHAIRMAN: I don't think so.

MR. DULLES: It's a book written about ten tears ago giving the background of seven attempts on the lives of the President.

CHAIRMAN: I have not seen it.

MR. DULLES: It's a fascinating book, but you'll find a pattern running through here that I think we'll find in this present case. I hate to give you a paperback, but that's all there is.

CHAIRMAN: Paperback is good enough. Thank you very much.

REP. BOGGS: This piece in the current issue of the New Republic raises some interesting questions. You might like to read it.

MR. MC CLOY: This is very interesting.

REP. BOGGS: It is.

CHAIRMAN: The New Republic?

REP. BOGGS: The December 21st issue.

MR. MC CLOY: Called "Seeds of Doubt, Questions About The Assassination."


REP. BOGGS: It quotes stories from papers all over the country.

REP. FORD: When was the book written?

MR. DULLES: 1952. The last one is the attack on Truman. There you have a plot, but these other cases are all habitual, going back to the attack on Jackson in 1835. I found it very interesting.

MR. MC CLOY: The Lincoln assassination was a plot.

MR. DULLES: Yes, but one man was so dominant that it almost wasn't a plot.

"President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and false mirrors, and when the curtain fell the actors, and even the scenery, disappeared.

But the magicians were not illusionists but professionals, artists in their way.

Abraham Lincoln too had been murdered by artists. Lincoln's election to the Presidency by the abolitionists had been the signal for the start of the Civil War.

He was the first President to proclaim a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Like Kennedy, he read Shakespeare, and he took long rides in the country, where he could dream far from the sounds of men. To a passing stranger he said, "If you have no friend, I will be your friend."

Even Karl Marx eulogized him.

Before the outbreak of the Civil War, there was a plot to kill Lincoln in Baltimore. He was warned by Pinkerton, however, and saved his life by crossing the town at night.

Afterwards, the New York Times wrote: "This plot was hatched by politicians, backed by bankers, and it was to be carried out by a group of adventurers."

On January 31, 1865, slavery was abolished.

On April 14, Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theatre in Washington.

The "assassin," John Wilkes Booth, was trapped and shot in a barn.

Colonel Baker tore 18 pages out of a notebook he was carrying.

Nevertheless, there was a trial, and the prosecutor, Bingham, proved that Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was behind the assassination.

Eight accomplices were condemned, and four of them were hanged.

Jacob Thompson, the representative of the Confederacy in Canada, had deposited a large sum of money in Booth's account at the Bank of Ontario in Montreal. But Booth and his accomplices were only the executants.

The men behind the plot went free. Lincoln was succeeded by Vice President Andrew Johnson, who, on Christmas Day, 1886, proclaimed an amnesty and complete pardon.

The war that Lincoln had tried to avoid was over before his death. He was killed out of vengeance.

But it was an era when men killed for spite and made little attempt to hide it.

An Alabama newspaper had taken up a collection to cover the cost of the assassination, and a Confederate officer had volunteered for the job.

In those days of the Old Frontier, there were volunteers for all sorts of causes. Men then were driven by their emotions.

Today's killers have less emotions and stronger motives. William Manchester remarks that "some motives lie beyond the rules of evidence. Like the shadow, they are elusive."

These motives, nevertheless, were strong enough to persuade Chief Justice Earl Warren to place "the good of the country " ahead of justice.

"The good of the country" is always invoked with regard to an act contrary to the laws and justice of the nation. "

Farewell America
by "James Hepburn"

Frontiers Press, 1968

To my old Master, Colonel P. H. Anderson

August 7, 1865
To my old Master, Colonel P. H. Anderson,
Big Spring, Tennessee.

SIR: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin’s to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy,—the folks call her Mrs. Anderson—and the children—Milly, Jane, and Grundy—go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated. Sometimes we overhear others saying, “Them colored people were slaves down in Tennessee.” The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future.

I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor’s visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams’s Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the Negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve—and die, if it come to that—than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,
Jourdon Anderson

Natural Born Leader: Jack Kennedy's Challenge to Birtherism

Hey, would you look at that?



Who knew?






http://www.ontheissues.org/John_F__Kennedy.htm




Senator John F. Kennedy today pledged that "high priority" would be given by a Democratic administration to the platform plank calling for amendments to the immigration and naturalization laws to ban discrimination based on national origin.

Source: Senate press release, "Naturalization Laws" (APP) , Aug 6, 1960

JFKcare

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson, seated left, signed the Medicare Bill at the Harry S. Truman Library as, from left, Lady Bird Johnson, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, former President Harry Truman, and former First Lady Bess Truman watched. This bill-covering many health care expenses for senior citizens-was a part of LBJ's ambitious domestic agenda known as The Great Society.

Johnson credited Truman with “planting the seeds of compassion and duty which have today flowered into care for the sick and serenity for the fearful.”

Magnanimous as ever, Lyndon...

The Forbidden Fruit is Knowledge

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. "

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day...

And He said, "Who told thee that thou wast naked...?"

A Reagan Letter to Robert Poli, Chairman of PATCO, Air Traffic Controllers' Union (Oct. 20, 1980)

Dear Mr. Poli:

I have been briefed by members of my staff as to the deplorable state of our nation's air traffic control system. They have told me that too few people working unreasonable hours with obsolete equipment has placed the nation's air travellers in unwarranted danger. In an area so clearly related to public safety the Carter administration has failed to act responsibly.

You can rest assured that if I am elected President, I will take whatever steps are necessary to provide our air traffic controllers with the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of public safety....

I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the President and the air traffic controllers.
Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc8brHWFZMY

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5604656

http://www.workers.org/2006/us/patco-0817/

"Twenty five years ago—on Aug. 3, 1981—workers in the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off the job. Seeking a shorter work week, pay increases, improved working conditions and better safety for air travelers, the union defied an ultimatum by newly elected President Ronald Reagan to return to work.

Forty-eight hours later, Reagan fired 11,359 striking air traffic controllers.

Union leaders and members were arrested, jailed and fined. PATCO’s $3.5 million strike fund was frozen, the strike was broken and eventually the government decertified the union.

Reagan finished what President Jimmy Carter had begun in February 1981, before leaving office.

A month before contract negotiations had begun, the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA)—PATCO’s employer—and the Justice Department compiled a list of union leaders and members to be arrested if the workers went out on strike. Both capitalist parties, Republicans and Democrats, were responsible for the PATCO debacle—although Reagan was the more treacherous, venomous and fork-tongued.

Just weeks before the presidential election, on Oct. 20, 1980, candidate Reagan wrote a reassuring letter to PATCO President Robert Poli, vowing to cooperate with the union."

"I would have signed a bill with some doubtful features if, taken as a whole, it had been a good bill.

But the Taft-Hartley bill is a shocking piece of legislation.

It is unfair to the working people of this country. It clearly abuses the right, which millions of our citizens now enjoy, to join together and bargain with their employers for fair wages and fair working conditions.

Under no circumstances could I have signed this bill.

The restrictions that this bill places on our workers go far beyond what our people have been led to believe.

This is no innocent bill.

The bill is deliberately designed to weaken labor unions. When the sponsors of the bill claim that by weakening unions, they are giving rights back to individual workingmen, they ignore the basic reason why unions are important in our democracy. Unions exist so that laboring men can bargain with their employers on a basis of equality. Because of unions, the living standards of our working people have increased steadily until they are today the highest in the world.

A bill which would weaken unions would undermine our national policy of collective bargaining. The Taft-Hartley bill would do just that. It would take us back in the direction of the old evils of individual bargaining. It would take the bargaining power away from the workers and give more power to management.

This bill would even take away from our workingmen some bargaining fights which they enjoyed before the Wagner Act was passed 12 years ago.

If we weaken our system of collective bargaining, we weaken the position of every workingman in the country.

This bill would again expose workers to the abuses of labor injunctions.

It would make unions liable for damage suits for actions which have long been considered lawful.

This bill would treat all unions alike. Unions which have fine records, with long years of peaceful relations with management, would be hurt by this bill just as much as the few troublemakers.

The country needs legislation which will get rid of abuses.

We do not need—and we do not want—legislation which will take fundamental rights away from our working people.

We must always remember that under our free economic system management and labor are associates. They work together for their own benefit and for the benefit of the public.

We seek in this country today a formula which will treat all men fairly and justly, and which will give our people security in the necessities of life.

As our generous American spirit prompts us to aid the world to rebuild, we must, at the same time, construct a better America in which all can share equitably in the blessings of democracy.

The Taft-Hartley bill threatens the attainment of this goal.

For the sake of the future of this Nation, I hope that this bill will not become law."


"

http://web2.millercenter.org/speeches/audio/spe_1947_0620_truman.mp3

Okay - We now need to keep this guy alive.

The Origins of al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda means "The Board" in Arabic.

The name dates back to the use of an FBI Snitch in 2000-2001, when they were trying to nail Bin Laden for planning and executing the 1998 African Embassy Bombings (they've never been able to tie him in to the attack on the USS Cole, which bares significant markers of possibly being a Mossad false flag).



To nail Bin Laden for the Embassy bombings (and maintain FBI jurisdiction on the case), they were trying to prosecute those perpetrators they had been able to trace using RICO.



RICO, as the name suggests, is designed and intended to crack down on interstate and nominally international organised crime; not terrorism.



For RICO to apply and for the FBI to have jurisdiction in indicting and trying in absentia a foreign national, the organised crime (in this case, blowing sh*t up) had to have an organisation.... Organising it.



The Feds wrote all the names of the foreign nationals they hoped to indict on a whiteboard - or they pinned them up on the office notice board where they were running the investigation.








They brought the Snitch in and told him what was required of him.



"We want Bin Laden."



"We want his whole organisation."



"Tell us, Mahmood Snitchy al-Snitch, what is the name of Bin Laden's organisation? "



"Here, look at all the names we have up here on our wall - what do you see?"



"What is it that all these various individuals have in common...?"



The board.



Al-Qaeda.

Dick Nixon enjoys himself with the Apollo 11 crew

"Oh, Fine, fine. Release the wasps, Bob."

Chappaquidick - The Pictoral Evidence

I'm not going to tell you what to think - just use your eyes.

...And if you look out of your window to the right, about 10 milesout,you should be able to see...

...what's the name of that little island again...?

Oh. Oh, yeah....

....and then look what happened...