In 1975, Eugene Dinkin sued the U. S. Department of Defense and the CIA for denying a variety of his rights during the preparation of Warren Commission Document 943.
Here is his complaint:
Dinkin contends that there is no statute of limitations when it comes to Presidential Commissions. His case was brought 11 years after the publication of the Warren Report.
Dinkin claims he was falsely arrested and imprisoned; that he received unlawful medical treatment; that he was libeled; and that false evidence was submitted to the Warren Commission.
Dinkin apparently believed he is being monitored by the government as he asks the court to "enjoin the Federal government and its Investigative Agencies from conducting any surveillance or interference of my normal daily activities."
Dinkin says that he has "never made any allegations whatsoever to the Central Intelligence Agency," but CD 943 never makes that claim.
Dinkin talks of a second party who part of his plan but never identifies that person. He is probably referring to Private First Class Dennis De Witt. When Dinkin supposedly sent a letter to Robert Kennedy in October 1963, he signed it under his own name but used the return address for De Witt. He did that because he believed the letter might be intercepted "since he felt the Army authorities might well be censoring his mail."
His supposed plan to "upset the impending" assassination was nothing short of ridiculous. Why would any ambassador agree to see a Private First Class?
He then says he "related the above warning" to several ambassadors, but just who did he talk to? Supposedly the ambassador of Israel listened to Dinkin and told him how to present himself at the U. S. embassy.
Dinkin writes that when he heard that President Diem of South Vietnam had been assassinated, "I realized that I would appear moreso [sic] to be a crank and that there was no possibility whatsoever of convincing anyone of influence that an assassination was impending against President Kennedy."
In any event, Dinkin continued to try to tell his story to journalists. But even the Overseas Weekly thought his story was "farfetched."
Dinkin then goes to the U. S. Embassy in Bonn but leaves because they asked for proof of his military leave and his military ID. This doesn't make any sense -- he claims he had a valid leave permit, and he wasn't shy about telling people that he was in the military.
This paragraph stuck out:
During my stay at Walter Reed an aide who believed I was the subject of a frame did relate to me that the medical report from the European Command contained statements that I had referred to General Paul L. Freeman, USAREUR commander, and a Colonel Dixon, 82nd Ordnance Battalion commander, as the "secret president and vice-president of the John Birch Society." The same aide did identify for me a plant, that is, a Government operative posing as a patient, who sought me out remarking that he was happy to meet someone who knew the truth, namely, that Robert Kennedy had ordered the assassination.
I don't believe there was government operative at Walter Reed and that a plant told Dinkin that Robert Kennedy ordered the assassination.
But Dinkin's next line is the kicker:
I would not be surprised if this "truth" was obscenely incorporated into CD 943.
Dinkin claims he was incarcerated by "orders of the U. S. Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency."
Dinkins then goes off the deep end:
I maintain that the United States Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency by policy decision at the highest level did attempt, in the manner of a totalitarian police state apparatus, to extract, and coerce correct and officially solicited information, and did receive the complete cooperation of military medical officers, who in the process did function and conduct themselves as political prostitutes, disgracing themselves and scorning their medical oaths and obligations in order to remain in the good graces of Government Authority.
At the highest level?
Dinkins doesn't really deny that he made a speech about the bond program.
Dinkin nitpicks at the date at which he was seen in the press room of the UN Building in Geneva. But he certainly was there, no?
Dinkins writes that:
The United States Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency did have knowledge that I and others had been conducting a study of propaganda techniques in the mass media, and that I had derived my conclusion that a conspiracy existed to assassinate the President from that study.
Nice to see in his own words that his conclusions about an assassination attempt came from his mass media study and NOT from any encrypted message received in the line of duty.
Now we finally get into some of Dinkin's proofs:
In the summer and fall of 1963 I became aware of newphotographs [sic] of unusual structure. More specifically, these newsphotographs contained images which were not clearly distinguishable at normal viewing distance, but did take on greater perceptual definition when viewed from greater distances or with focal distortion obtained by squinting. Scientific American magazine of September 1972, aptly demonstrates this phenomenon in reproduction of the "Cubist Portrait" by Leon D. Harmon of Bell Telephone Laboratories.
Dinkins then explains why this is important:
The Cubist Portrait demonstrates that a fusion of gestalt elements occur when the viewer squints or observes the display from a distance of 15 feet or more, thereby producing sufficient focal distortion for the image of a man to be distinguishable as a more normally perceptible configuration.
This reminds me of a story from James Kirkwood's American Grotesque: (pages 536 - 537)
Dinkin then discusses a New York Times Crossword puzzle:
See Exhibit D. This crossword puzzle design appearing in the New York Times Magazine of March 25, 1975 demonstrates that computer designed images based upon the principle of the "least amount of visual information" do occur in the mass media. The image is barely perceptible at reading distance, but easily approximates photographic definition when viewed at arms length and greater distance.
Here is the New York Times Crossword Puzzle from March 25, 1975. I certainly don't see anything of interest, but I don't have a copy of Dinkin's Exhibit D, and perhaps he was referencing another puzzle.
Dinkin's Exhibit E is as follows:
On November 1st, 1963, I did then have the right to examine a UPI Photo entitled "Figures in Probe", which appeared in the Stars and Stripes newspaper; and I did have the right to interpret that this photograph had artificial modification characteristics and contained a latent image {designed according to the above described principle). I did have the right to turn the photograph 90 degrees counterclockwise and to view it from a distance and to then perceive the face of a man with conspicuous cut or scar on the forehead, gaping mouth, and strangely outlined eyes. I did have the right on November 1, 1963, as I do now, to believe that this image was a representation of the man who would be designated as the assassin. I do now have the right to rephotograph "Figures in Probe", recovering the latent image by application of a moderate degree of focal distortion, and to compare it for similarities of facial characteristics with photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Here is the photograph from the Stars and Stripes:
Carole Tyler's photograph was in many newspapers in the United States:
Dinkin's next item:
I further believe that numerous photographs of the events of the assassination have been doctored with computer designed, implanted images, which are recoverable by application of focal distortion. Exhibit F, an AP photograph of 11/22/63, and Exhibit G, a Wide World Photo of 11/22/63 demonstrate this implantation phenomenon.
This is the photograph that Dinkin is referencing:
Dinkin saw the face of Leon Trotsky in this photograph:
Dinkin then states:
It is my contention also that some of the photographic exhibits of the Warren Commission Report have been altered to contain such latent configurations, which are recoverable by application of focal distortion.
Dinkin scores an own goal:
The photographic processes in these demonstrations are well known to most photojournalists, industrial photographers, advertising specialists, perception laboratories, and the Federal Communications Commission. There is a vast difference between considering oneself "brainwashed" and being knowledgeable about perceptual illusion, anamorphic images, partial cue recognition, peripheral vision reception,
Maybe there isn't a vast difference!
Then Dinkin claims that "No laws have been passed limiting knowledge of these subjects to privileged parties, yet these Agencies of the Federal Government have acted as though that condition did exist."
After reading Dinkin's analysis, maybe there should be a law.
I don't have a copy of the ruling, but I doubt that Dinkin won his case.
Coming up in part four: Dinkin's submission to the HSCA.
Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Eugene Dinkin
Dinkin's story from 1964 about his interpretation of various newspapers.
A Garrison investigator spoke to Dinkin in 1968.