Did Eugene Dinkin Try to Stop the JFK Assassination?

[Tom Graves]

You repeatedly cite the primary/original sources  - which is what any even semi-serious researcher should do - and the conspiracists simply don't like it. Not all (you're a good test case to separate the responsible from the irresponsible ones), but those who respond to your work by calling you a disinformation agent or a CIA apologist or, heaven forbid, a lone nutter and Warren Commission apologist. That crowd.

Let's assume for the argument that you are, that you're a government agent (Trudeau was a lone nutter?): that's not answering your work, refuting your research. It's old fashioned poisoning of the well, attacking you but not what you find. In their defense, at this point it's all they have. Like the earth riding on the backs of turtles, it's conspiracies all of the way down.

Well put.

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/eugene-dinkin-s-submissions-to-the-hsca

Eugene Dinkin's Submission to the HSCA

Dinkin wrote three times to the HSCA and submitted 23 "demonstrations" of his so-called "psychological sets" that indicated JFK would be assassinated. Please tell me which one you found the funniest!

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/eugene-dinkin-meets-with-dick-russell

Eugene Dinkin Meets Dick Russell

Russell talked with Dinkin twice in 1975. Dinkin showed Russell more of his "proofs." None of the nuttiness of this interview showed up in Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much.

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/eugene-dinking-and-james-dieugenio

Eugene Dinkin and James DiEugenio

DiEugenio has published three articles about Eugene Dinkin on his website and seems to believe Dinkin's ridiculous "demonstrations."

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/eugene-dinkin-and-vince-palamara

Eugene Dinkin and Vince Palamara

Vince Palamara loves the Eugene Dinkin story. He has used it in three of his books. But he adds some new details that he taken from a surprising source.