Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Recommended Posts

Well shoot Greg, I don't have all the Bloody news.

:rolleyes:

;)

Bill

Bill, I hear the natives are getting restless.

I think Jeff's book is going to be the benchmark on Walker.

On another note, Ernie said earlier in this thread :

"Nobody who actually knew Edwin Walker would conclude that he had the level of intelligence or the people skills and organizational ability required to implement or facilitate (undetected) any complex event such as the assassination of the President of the United States."

Which is hearsay from unknown sources. edit. Re-reading, it's not even hearsay. It's Ernie telling us what others would say.

Here is what Dr Stubblefield said in his psych report on Walker: Walker was "functioning correctly at the superior level of intelligence"

Stubblefield did not "know Walker". He met Walker for the first time in 1962 and he then was engaged in an adversarial relationship, i.e. Walker being compelled to answer "gotcha" questions which he knew could result in him being committed to a mental facility indefinitely. [incidentally, does anyone know the length of time Walker met with Stubblefield?]

What questions do you suppose Stubblefield (or any psychiatrist) might ask Walker that could produce a conclusion that Walker was "functioning correctly at the superior level of intelligence"?

Do you think questions posed would include:

"how would you go about organizing the assassination of a President?" OR

"how would you deal with multiple personalities who have their own agendas and egos, particularly when they conflict with or impede something that you want to accomplish"? OR

"how would you resolve the bitter rivalries within the anti-communist and white supremacist movements"?

Ernie,

Stubblefield gave him the usual battery of tests to come to his conclusions.

Are you really expecting anyone to take your word as to what others MIGHT say over what a qualified psychiatrist concluded from valid testing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

Stubblefield gave him the usual battery of tests to come to his conclusions.

Are you really expecting anyone to take your word as to what others MIGHT say over what a qualified psychiatrist concluded from valid testing?

Yes, Greg, that's the right question in this context.

To measure the credibility that resigned General Edwin Walker had in Dallas among the JBS, Minutemen, NIC and other rightists in 1963, we only need to look one month before the JFK murder to the Dallas humiliation of Adlai Stevenson at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium on the night of 24 October 1963.

It was well-known in Dallas that Edwin Walker was the acknowledged leader of that violent protest. They did not boast about it to the Mainstream Media, however.

Walker disappointed Robert Welch by his failure at Ole Miss in 1962. Yet Robert Welch did not cut off his friendship with Edwin Walker after that failure -- instead, his JBS published a defense of Walker in their 1963 publication, The Invasion of Mississippi (which blames JFK for invading Mississippi, as it exonerates Edwin Walker).

However, in the minds of the general public, Edwin Walker was a LOSER, and because RFK sent Walker to a loony bin, Walker might also be considered INSANE.

Yet among the Southern right-wing, this was politics as usual. The North regarded the South and their Confederate Flag as INSANE, while the South considered the North and their Brown Decision INSANE. The word has almost no meaning in politics.

Yet because RFK sent Walker to an insane asylum on Tuesday 01 October 1962, the issue of sanity was the key issue in the Grand Jury hearing of Edwin Walker. And it remained the key issue for liberals ever since.

Again -- you get your psychiatrists and we'll get ours. Dr. Stubblefield wasn't the only psychiatrist hired by the Dallas rightists in order to make their legal case. There were others who also agreed -- Edwin Walker was fit as a fiddle and operating at or above a superior level of intelligence by actual clinical testing.

Liberals still wince when they hear those facts. Edwin Walker was legally sane -- but politically insane according to RFK and his followers. It was the Cold War.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well shoot Greg, I don't have all the Bloody news.

:rolleyes:

;)

Bill

Bill, I hear the natives are getting restless.

I think Jeff's book is going to be the benchmark on Walker.

On another note, Ernie said earlier in this thread :

"Nobody who actually knew Edwin Walker would conclude that he had the level of intelligence or the people skills and organizational ability required to implement or facilitate (undetected) any complex event such as the assassination of the President of the United States."

Which is hearsay from unknown sources. edit. Re-reading, it's not even hearsay. It's Ernie telling us what others would say.

Here is what Dr Stubblefield said in his psych report on Walker: Walker was "functioning correctly at the superior level of intelligence"

Stubblefield did not "know Walker". He met Walker for the first time in 1962 and he then was engaged in an adversarial relationship, i.e. Walker being compelled to answer "gotcha" questions which he knew could result in him being committed to a mental facility indefinitely. [incidentally, does anyone know the length of time Walker met with Stubblefield?]

What questions do you suppose Stubblefield (or any psychiatrist) might ask Walker that could produce a conclusion that Walker was "functioning correctly at the superior level of intelligence"?

Do you think questions posed would include:

"how would you go about organizing the assassination of a President?" OR

"how would you deal with multiple personalities who have their own agendas and egos, particularly when they conflict with or impede something that you want to accomplish"? OR

"how would you resolve the bitter rivalries within the anti-communist and white supremacist movements"?

Ernie,

Stubblefield gave him the usual battery of tests to come to his conclusions.

Are you really expecting anyone to take your word as to what others MIGHT say over what a qualified psychiatrist concluded from valid testing?

Greg:

Stubblefield was one psychiatrist who formed an opinion based upon very limited contact with Walker. My objection was to your suggestion that anybody (whether a psychiatrist or any other casual acquaintance) could make any reliable informed judgment re: Walker's level of intelligence after a relatively brief examination or discussion.

I think Walker entered Parkland Hospital on November 9th for his "examination" and he was released 2 days later. I have no clue what questions he was asked. Do you? I also have no clue regarding the total amount of time which his "examination" took. Do you?

The actual purpose of that examination was solely to determine if Walker was mentally competent to stand trial. I don't think that ever was in doubt.

BUT, let me be very clear if this is not already:

I do NOT believe that Walker was insane (as Paul Trejo might believe). Although, I hasten to add that in November 1960 Walker was admitted to a hospital in Munich because of a suspected brain tumor. I don't even believe that he should have been required to be examined by a psychiatrist.

However, Walker did behave or speak in ways which could reasonably cause someone to question his perception of reality and his ability to control his temper.

Greg wants us to believe that a single psychiatrist's judgment should trump or discredit all other evidence. Greg then says I am expecting readers to take my word for something. Oh really?

Neither Greg or myself knew Walker. Neither of us spoke with Walker or corresponded with him. I suspect that neither Greg or myself have ever interviewed anybody who knew Walker.

So what is GREG's basis for making a conclusion about Walker? Isn't Greg asking us to accept HIS WORD regarding the (indisputable) credibility of one person, i,.e. whatever Dr. Stubblefield concluded? But, again, what, exactly, did Stubblefield ask Walker? Do you know? I don't.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence on the record regarding friends and allies of Walker who described him in unflattering terms. Over the years he was described by various individuals as being confused, incoherent, belligerent, rambling, or exhibiting delusions of grandeur, etc.

These descriptive terms were often the result of personal contacts with Walker, i.e. people who attended events where Walker spoke or they read articles he wrote or they listened to Walker answering questions from reporters or they followed Walker's April 1962 testimony before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee or they were aware of his comments during Walker's campaign for Governor of Texas---not to mention the infamous University of Mississippi episode.

So this is not just "my word" about anything.

BOTTOM-LINE:

I still maintain that based upon what we know about Walker's personality and his personal history -- he is not the type of individual who had the people-and-organizational skills required to plan and execute or manage any complex criminal activity involving numerous different actors -- without ever being detected or leaving any obvious contemporary clues.

Furthermore, I urge readers to carefully review the "Correlation Summaries" from Walker's FBI file which I posted on Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/foia_Walker_Edwin_A.-HQ_Correlation_Summaries/Walker_Edwin_A.-HQ_Correlation_Summaries#page/n0/mode/2up

If you carefully review those summaries, several things stand out:

1. The FBI was intimately familiar with Walker's activities. There are literally DOZENS of FBI HQ and field office main files which contain references to Walker.

2. Because of Walker's behavior -- the FBI was routinely sending the Secret Service and Army Intelligence copies of FBI reports and memos regarding Walker.

3. As I recall, the Dallas Police Department Intelligence Unit had one or more informants who were providing information re: Walker

4. The Texas Dept of Public Safety (TDPS) also had informants reporting about Walker and TDPS was sharing their info with the FBI

It strains credulity and requires a willing suspension of disbelief to claim that anybody like Walker who was being monitored by multiple state and federal agencies could somehow mastermind the greatest political crime of the century with nobody in law enforcement getting word about his meetings or plans regarding the murder of our President. This is a guy who could not pick his nose without some agency preparing a report about it.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can add from personal experience that I was told by a member of a DPD reserve unit which focused on "subversives" that Walker was routinely monitored - including observation of his visits to clubs frequented by known homosexuals to actual rendezvous at private meeting spots. Of course at the time the standard intelligence interest was that such contacts made the individual accessible to blackmail and of course Walker as a former senior military commander did hold knowledge of the American military in Europe. I cannot vouch for that information on his monitoring although I can vouch that the individual worked for DPD in the duties he described to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

larry, this is the kind of stuff i love to hear. great to be able to file it away for future reference. it's not in my line of theory at the moment, but it's reliable testimony in my book, because I'm not a court of law and i can accept hearsay from known reliable persons. that's you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Glen, its all just part of many hears of slogging....and some slightly spooky interludes like the night time tour of locations in Dallas including some of the spots mentioned in my previous post. It seemed pretty clear that the person talking to me knew what he was talking about. We ended that tour with a visit to Walker's former residence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

Stubblefield was one psychiatrist who formed an opinion based upon very limited contact with Walker. My objection was to your suggestion that anybody (whether a psychiatrist or any other casual acquaintance) could make any reliable informed judgment re: Walker's level of intelligence after a relatively brief examination or discussion.

I think Walker entered Parkland Hospital on November 9th for his "examination" and he was released 2 days later. I have no clue what questions he was asked. Do you? I also have no clue regarding the total amount of time which his "examination" took. Do you?

The actual purpose of that examination was solely to determine if Walker was mentally competent to stand trial. I don't think that ever was in doubt.

BUT, let me be very clear if this is not already:

I do NOT believe that Walker was insane (as Paul Trejo might believe). Although, I hasten to add that in November 1960 Walker was admitted to a hospital in Munich because of a suspected brain tumor. I don't even believe that he should have been required to be examined by a psychiatrist.

However, Walker did behave or speak in ways which could reasonably cause someone to question his perception of reality and his ability to control his temper.

Greg wants us to believe that a single psychiatrist's judgment should trump or discredit all other evidence. Greg then says I am expecting readers to take my word for something. Oh really?

Neither Greg or myself knew Walker. Neither of us spoke with Walker or corresponded with him. I suspect that neither Greg or myself have ever interviewed anybody who knew Walker.

So what is GREG's basis for making a conclusion about Walker? Isn't Greg asking us to accept HIS WORD regarding the (indisputable) credibility of one person, i,.e. whatever Dr. Stubblefield concluded? But, again, what, exactly, did Stubblefield ask Walker? Do you know? I don't.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence on the record regarding friends and allies of Walker who described him in unflattering terms. Over the years he was described by various individuals as being confused, incoherent, belligerent, rambling, or exhibiting delusions of grandeur, etc.

These descriptive terms were often the result of personal contacts with Walker, i.e. people who attended events where Walker spoke or they read articles he wrote or they listened to Walker answering questions from reporters or they followed Walker's April 1962 testimony before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee or they were aware of his comments during Walker's campaign for Governor of Texas---not to mention the infamous University of Mississippi episode.

So this is not just "my word" about anything.

BOTTOM-LINE:

I still maintain that based upon what we know about Walker's personality and his personal history -- he is not the type of individual who had the people-and-organizational skills required to plan and execute or manage any complex criminal activity involving numerous different actors -- without ever being detected or leaving any obvious contemporary clues.

Furthermore, I urge readers to carefully review the "Correlation Summaries" from Walker's FBI file which I posted on Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/foia_Walker_Edwin_A.-HQ_Correlation_Summaries/Walker_Edwin_A.-HQ_Correlation_Summaries#page/n0/mode/2up

If you carefully review those summaries, several things stand out:

1. The FBI was intimately familiar with Walker's activities. There are literally DOZENS of FBI HQ and field office main files which contain references to Walker.

2. Because of Walker's behavior -- the FBI was routinely sending the Secret Service and Army Intelligence copies of FBI reports and memos regarding Walker.

3. As I recall, the Dallas Police Department Intelligence Unit had one or more informants who were providing information re: Walker

4. The Texas Dept of Public Safety (TDPS) also had informants reporting about Walker and TDPS was sharing their info with the FBI

It strains credulity and requires a willing suspension of disbelief to claim that anybody like Walker who was being monitored by multiple state and federal agencies could somehow mastermind the greatest political crime of the century with nobody in law enforcement getting word about his meetings or plans regarding the murder of our President. This is a guy who could not pick his nose without some agency preparing a report about it.

Getting a bit unsettled there, Ernie.

You can dispute what you like... but here is what was actually said.

"Nobody who actually knew Edwin Walker would conclude that he had the level of intelligence or the people skills and organizational ability required to implement or facilitate (undetected) any complex event such as the assassination of the President of the United States."

You are clearly stating that what YOU think unnamed others would say, automatically trumps a properly conducted psychiatric assessment. My response to that is a big raspberry.

You now add that The actual purpose of that examination was solely to determine if Walker was mentally competent to stand trial. I don't think that ever was in doubt. - What was your purpose in adding this? It was not in contention. You're simply moving the goalposts.

Greg wants us to believe that a single psychiatrist's judgment should trump or discredit all other evidence. Greg then says I am expecting readers to take my word for something. Oh really?

Yes, oh really! What evidence have you provided since that first exchange that trumps Stubblefield? Opinions from disaffected ex-employees and ex-friends and political colleagues - none of whom have any psychiatric training.

The bottom line is that after reading Stubblefields' report, the government did not even bother getting a counter one done - which they were entitled to do. If there was anything unprofessional, untoward or suspicious about Stubblefield's report, you can bet your bottom dollar that the government would not have thought twice about a counter report.

So you can huff and puff and blow all you want Ernie, but what you really need to do is suck it up.. This was not about what Walker was capable or not capable of doing. It was about you suggesting that he was somehow mentally deficient, when there is evidence of the opposite.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Birch Society 'Members Monthly Message' as mentioned in !990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS page 36.

Quote, JBS founder Robert Welch.

"And we can take tremendous encouragement from the one huge victory

we have won over the Communists. We have been part of the cast, therefore

in the final act of this gory performance .

And I mean that last statement very literally"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

Stubblefield was one psychiatrist who formed an opinion based upon very limited contact with Walker. My objection was to your suggestion that anybody (whether a psychiatrist or any other casual acquaintance) could make any reliable informed judgment re: Walker's level of intelligence after a relatively brief examination or discussion.

I think Walker entered Parkland Hospital on November 9th for his "examination" and he was released 2 days later. I have no clue what questions he was asked. Do you? I also have no clue regarding the total amount of time which his "examination" took. Do you?

The actual purpose of that examination was solely to determine if Walker was mentally competent to stand trial. I don't think that ever was in doubt.

BUT, let me be very clear if this is not already:

I do NOT believe that Walker was insane (as Paul Trejo might believe). Although, I hasten to add that in November 1960 Walker was admitted to a hospital in Munich because of a suspected brain tumor. I don't even believe that he should have been required to be examined by a psychiatrist.

However, Walker did behave or speak in ways which could reasonably cause someone to question his perception of reality and his ability to control his temper.

Greg wants us to believe that a single psychiatrist's judgment should trump or discredit all other evidence. Greg then says I am expecting readers to take my word for something. Oh really?

Neither Greg or myself knew Walker. Neither of us spoke with Walker or corresponded with him. I suspect that neither Greg or myself have ever interviewed anybody who knew Walker.

So what is GREG's basis for making a conclusion about Walker? Isn't Greg asking us to accept HIS WORD regarding the (indisputable) credibility of one person, i,.e. whatever Dr. Stubblefield concluded? But, again, what, exactly, did Stubblefield ask Walker? Do you know? I don't.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence on the record regarding friends and allies of Walker who described him in unflattering terms. Over the years he was described by various individuals as being confused, incoherent, belligerent, rambling, or exhibiting delusions of grandeur, etc.

These descriptive terms were often the result of personal contacts with Walker, i.e. people who attended events where Walker spoke or they read articles he wrote or they listened to Walker answering questions from reporters or they followed Walker's April 1962 testimony before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee or they were aware of his comments during Walker's campaign for Governor of Texas---not to mention the infamous University of Mississippi episode.

So this is not just "my word" about anything.

BOTTOM-LINE:

I still maintain that based upon what we know about Walker's personality and his personal history -- he is not the type of individual who had the people-and-organizational skills required to plan and execute or manage any complex criminal activity involving numerous different actors -- without ever being detected or leaving any obvious contemporary clues.

Furthermore, I urge readers to carefully review the "Correlation Summaries" from Walker's FBI file which I posted on Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/foia_Walker_Edwin_A.-HQ_Correlation_Summaries/Walker_Edwin_A.-HQ_Correlation_Summaries#page/n0/mode/2up

If you carefully review those summaries, several things stand out:

1. The FBI was intimately familiar with Walker's activities. There are literally DOZENS of FBI HQ and field office main files which contain references to Walker.

2. Because of Walker's behavior -- the FBI was routinely sending the Secret Service and Army Intelligence copies of FBI reports and memos regarding Walker.

3. As I recall, the Dallas Police Department Intelligence Unit had one or more informants who were providing information re: Walker

4. The Texas Dept of Public Safety (TDPS) also had informants reporting about Walker and TDPS was sharing their info with the FBI

It strains credulity and requires a willing suspension of disbelief to claim that anybody like Walker who was being monitored by multiple state and federal agencies could somehow mastermind the greatest political crime of the century with nobody in law enforcement getting word about his meetings or plans regarding the murder of our President. This is a guy who could not pick his nose without some agency preparing a report about it.

Getting a bit unsettled there, Ernie.

You can dispute what you like... but here is what was actually said.

"Nobody who actually knew Edwin Walker would conclude that he had the level of intelligence or the people skills and organizational ability required to implement or facilitate (undetected) any complex event such as the assassination of the President of the United States."

You are clearly stating that what YOU think unnamed others would say, automatically trumps a properly conducted psychiatric assessment. My response to that is a big raspberry.

You now add that The actual purpose of that examination was solely to determine if Walker was mentally competent to stand trial. I don't think that ever was in doubt. - What was your purpose in adding this? It was not in contention. You're simply moving the goalposts.

Greg wants us to believe that a single psychiatrist's judgment should trump or discredit all other evidence. Greg then says I am expecting readers to take my word for something. Oh really?

Yes, oh really! What evidence have you provided since that first exchange that trumps Stubblefield? Opinions from disaffected ex-employees and ex-friends and political colleagues - none of whom have any psychiatric training.

The bottom line is that after reading Stubblefields' report, the government did not even bother getting a counter one done - which they were entitled to do. If there was anything unprofessional, untoward or suspicious about Stubblefield's report, you can bet your bottom dollar that the government would not have thought twice about a counter report.

So you can huff and puff and blow all you want Ernie, but what you really need to do is suck it up.. This was not about what Walker was capable or not capable of doing. It was about you suggesting that he was somehow mentally deficient, when there is evidence of the opposite.

Greg - you apparently have a reading comprehension problem. I did not state or hint that Walker was "mentally deficient". That is your deliberate mis-representation. All I wrote is what many people have stated regarding Walker i.e. Walker was not an intellectual or a thinker or someone known for his cleverness of thought and speech. In other words, not the kind of person you would expect to dream up an elaborate plot involving dozens of variables. Nor was he the type of person whom you would expect to motivate large groups of followers through his unique insights and inspirational rhetoric. His "talent" was as a polemicist, i.e. hyperbolic attack, invective, condemnation -- giving an adoring (subordinate) crowd the red meat they wanted to hear.

As I previously stated, Walker spent his entire career in a top-down authoritarian and hierarchical environment. The qualities one values and exercises in that type of environment are much different than the qualities one uses in "normal" life.

One could argue that spending one's adult lifetime receiving and executing orders in a military chain of command where unquestioning obedience is the standard operating procedure does not present a lot of opportunity for original thinking or for challenging one's superiors or even for routinely convening meetings with hundreds or thousands of rank-and-file to persuade them to accept whatever decisions you make or to get their input on something which is your responsibility and your decision. Instead, a military commander functions within a much more constricted circle of advisers and subordinates.

So, my original point was, and continues to be, that Walker never displayed the level of intelligence or the temperament one would expect to be self-evident for creating and executing a complex criminal conspiracy.

Lastly, you continue to misrepresent my point about Dr. Stubblefield. I did not dispute his competence. I simply stated that relying upon a single individual who has had very limited exposure to someone is not prudent. And incidentally, there were other psychiatrists who presented their (critical) evaluations of Walker. I do not rely upon their conclusions either. [And since you chose to not answer my questions re: what Stubblefield asked Walker during his "examination" -- we can reasonably conclude that you have no clue what was asked or answered....so, again, you demand that we accept your word about the sufficiency of Walker's "examination".

This seems to be your standard debate technique. i.e. criticize and reject whatever someone else presents but demand uncritical acceptance of everything you tell us.

* If YOU state that somebody is an "expert" -- that ends the discussion.

* If YOU state that someone is "intelligent"---that ends the discussion.

* If YOU state that critics of Walker must fall only into these categories "disaffected ex-employees and ex-friends and political colleagues" -- that ends the discussion.

Let me put it this way: If Greg Parker were ever arrested for something and a court decided that Greg should be evaluated for mental competence -- I suspect that Greg would want more than one person to evaluate him AND I suspect that Greg might expect that his "examination" should take more than some period of time during 2 days to make an objective and informed decision.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue which Paul Trejo and I have debated is whether or not Robert Welch or the JBS supported anyone who planned or facilitated murder or any other illegal activity. We know that when the JBS discovered neo-nazis, Klan members, and Minutemen in its ranks -- it terminated their membership.

A lot of things are done for show. A lot of groups on both sides of politics are presented as the "cleanskin" public face of the left or the right. The dirty stuff is done by other groups. That's how it works. The IRA carried out the bombings, Sinn Fein carried out the politics. We see similar things in the Middle East.

The two demonstrators who were involved in Stevenson incidents were expelled from several groups - including Walker's! Yet DPD intelligence had quoted talk at a Walker meeting that they planned on "dragging his (Kennedy's) dick in the dirt when he comes to Dallas." That is a euphemism for dragging a dead body away from the scene of a gun fight or ambush.

Do you honestly believe that Hatfield and Fredrickson were expelled by any groups for any reason other than public show?

There is no way to answer your question to your satisfaction because there is no factual evidence upon which to base a conclusion. If you have some documentary evidence which establishes that Hatfield and Fredrickson were not dropped but, instead, continued to be members -- I certainly would like to see it. OR if you have some other evidence which proves that the JBS (as an organization) encouraged or directed Hatfield or Fredrickson to assault Stevenson -- I would be happy to see that too.

Perhaps you have statements by other members of the Friends of Walker group to support your innuendo?? Do you have anything from:

William Drew Fitzwilliams, Bill Waller, William Ivan Snodgrass, Pat Brady, Michael Ray Bowlin, Bill Calhoun, Leslie Tooker, Ronnie Beall and Rusty Williford, William McCune Duff, Mrs. Beth Rachel, Cliff Roberts, William Keester, or Julia Knecht??

OR

Maybe you have some statements or other evidence from members of the Indignant White Citizens Council such as Bob or William Joiner, Claude Binder, Earl Thornton. L.M. Edmunds, Roy Davis Jr., or Mrs. Addie Frazier??

OR perhaps something else?

Hi Ernie,

Is this the Reverend Roy Davis as mentioned by Joseph Milteer and head of the Dallas KKK?

Dave

CORRECTION: My FBI file on Citizens Councils-Dallas does identify Davis as "Grand Dragon, US Klans, Knights of the KKK, Realm of Texas" and he was elected President of the Oak Cliff Citizens Council in June 1958.

Thanks Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Birch Society 'Members Monthly Message' as mentioned in !990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS page 36.

Quote, JBS founder Robert Welch.

"And we can take tremendous encouragement from the one huge victory

we have won over the Communists. We have been part of the cast, therefore

in the final act of this gory performance .

And I mean that last statement very literally"

Welch and the JBS often took credit for all sorts of "victories" over "Communists". But simultaneously the annual Scoreboard issue of the Birch Society's American Opinion magazine kept reporting ever-worsening scores for the U.S.

When the JBS was founded in 1958, the U.S. was supposedly 20-40% "under Communist influence and control"

From 1961-1963, the JBS stated we were 50-70% "under Communist influence and control"

From 1964-1970, the JBS stated we were 60-80% "under Communist influence and control"

Nevertheless, Welch kept telling his members that the JBS was "winning victories" over "the Communists"

Ultimately, Welch apparently recognized the disconnect between his rhetoric and the dire statistical evaluations presented every year in the Scoreboard issue so he had a nifty solution to that problem: he stopped publishing the annual Scoreboard !!

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...So, my original point was, and continues to be, that Walker never displayed the level of intelligence or the temperament one would expect to be self-evident for creating and executing a complex criminal conspiracy.

Well, Ernie, although he was the only US General to resign in the 20th century, we cannot omit the fact that Edwin Walker was in fact at one time a Major General of the US Army.

A person does not need to be an intellectual to attain the rank of US General, however, a person does need to have superior intelligence, and also be an unusually shrewd and capable person.

IMHO, any person who joined the John Birch Society showed signs of intellectual inferiority; but that is a political opinion. IMHO, any person who joined the John Birch Society should also be stripped of any US military rank; but that is also a political opinion.

What I cannot deny is that any person who attains the rank of Major General in the US Army is smarter than the average person; and IQ (statistically) does not diminish except in cases of medical damage.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...So, my original point was, and continues to be, that Walker never displayed the level of intelligence or the temperament one would expect to be self-evident for creating and executing a complex criminal conspiracy.

Well, Ernie, although he was the only US General to resign in the 20th century, we cannot omit the fact that Edwin Walker was in fact at one time a Major General of the US Army.

A person does not need to be an intellectual to attain the rank of US General, however, a person does need to have superior intelligence, and also be an unusually shrewd and capable person.

IMHO, any person who joined the John Birch Society showed signs of intellectual inferiority; but that is a political opinion. IMHO, any person who joined the John Birch Society should also be stripped of any US military rank; but that is also a political opinion.

What I cannot deny is that any person who attains the rank of Major General in the US Army is smarter than the average person; and IQ (statistically) does not diminish except in cases of medical damage.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, for the life of me, I have no idea why you keep stating that Walker was the only General to resign in the 20th century as if that has some relevance to anything (leaving aside that he was not "the only" General to resign -- as I previously brought to your attention).

With respect to this comment by you:
A person does not need to be an intellectual to attain the rank of US General, however, a person does need to have superior intelligence, and also be an unusually shrewd and capable person.
That certainly can be one assumption which you operate from and use as an organizing principle for your subsequent analysis and discussion. However, let's be very clear. What do you mean by "superior intelligence"? Superior in what respect?
In a military context, "superior" intelligence could be limited in scope to military situations -- such as arranging appropriate training and instruction for troops and correctly applying standard military tactics to a given combat situation.
But I would respectfully suggest to you that Walker had no relevant understanding of American history or of our political system or of communism. In fact, let me take this one step further because I confronted this exact same argument when I debated Cleon Skousen's son Paul. Let me quote what Paul wrote and a portion of my reply -- because it can be repeated with respect to your claims re: Edwin Walker's "superior intelligence":
PAUL SKOUSEN RE: HIS DAD -- Former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen
Was he perfect? Of course not. But he had more facts, study, scholarship, research, reading and published production than do his nay-sayers. If you could see his library of 7,000+ books, you’d see each extensively underlined with marginal notations—typical of many good researchers. Today, that collection is down to about 3,000, but still an amazing exploration into a man’s labors to get to the bottom of so many issues.
AN EXCERPT FROM MY REPLY TO PAUL SKOUSEN:
Senior FBI officials (including Assistant Directors and Supervisors and Section Chiefs in the security-related units of the Bureau) routinely described Skousen (after his retirement) as associating himself with “extreme right” groups and viewpoints. In many cases, the Bureau described these individuals/groups as “professional anti-communists”.
For example, the Bureau comment about Dr. Fred Schwarz/Christian Anti-Communism Crusade is shown below. Skousen was a frequent "faculty member"/speaker for Schwarz's anti-communism "schools":
As we know, Dr. Schwarz is an opportunist and we are not having anything to do with him and his activities. It might be added that such people as Dr. Schwarz are largely responsible for misinforming people and stirring them up emotionally to the point that when FBI lecturers present the truth, it becomes very difficult for the misinformed to accept it. In my opinion, Schwarz and others like him can only do the country and the anticommunist work of the Bureau harm.” [HQ 62-69602, #297; 3/13/61 memo from FBI Chief Inspector W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont].
As we know, Skousen frequently spoke at Christian Anti-Communism Crusade events and he endorsed the John Birch Society---i.e. the very groups which the FBI stated were "misinforming" people:.
So...we have to ask ourselves this obvious question:
If, as Paul Skousen and admirers of his father claim, Cleon Skousen developed some special understanding about internal-security related matters (particularly communism) while he was employed by the FBI — then how does one explain that Skousen associated himself with organizations and beliefs which the FBI categorically rejected as false, irrational, extremist, or gross distortions, and harmful to the anti-communist cause?
Furthermore, if as admirers of Cleon Skousen contend, he had such profound knowledge about the communist movement and, as Paul Skousen writes about his father, “…he had more facts, study, scholarship, research, reading and published production than do his nay-sayers” – one wonders how does one explain the profound errors in Cleon’s writings (which I have previously mentioned)?
So, Paul -- the same questions apply to Walker.....If (as you tell us) he had "superior intelligence" and he was so "unusually shrewd and capable" -- then why was he so susceptible to believing the utter falsehoods presented by Robert Welch and the JBS and similar organizations?
Have you ever heard of the so-called Peter Principle? Here is a brief description of the PP:
"The Peter Principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and 'managers rise to the level of their incompetence.' "
Let me spell this out -- for our current debate:
The "intelligence" and "shrewdness" you refer to with respect to Walker MIGHT be a correct description for portions of Walker's military career and military responsibilities but when you change the scope of the discussion to NON-military subjects or circumstances or events and relationships -- there is no plausible or logical reason to automatically transfer that presumed intelligence and shrewdness to those NON-military situations or subjects.
In short---one should recognize that whenever we discuss intelligence or shrewdness -- one must always be careful to understand in what CONTEXT such evaluations are made.
You then state:
IMHO, any person who joined the John Birch Society showed signs of intellectual inferiority; but that is a political opinion. IMHO, any person who joined the John Birch Society should also be stripped of any US military rank; but that is also a political opinion.
"Any person" ?? Really Paul?
Robert Welch was considered a gifted child. He learned to read at the age of 2. By the age of 4, he had mastered multiplication tables and at age six he was proficient in algebra. At 7 he learned Latin and he had read all nine volumes of Ridpath’s History of the World .
Welch enrolled in high school at the age of ten, His high school principal was so impressed with his grasp of mathematics, Latin, English, and history that he was enrolled as a high school junior and he was admitted to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the age of twelve (the youngest person ever to enroll there). While at the University he became so proficient in German and French that he read literary classics in the original language.
So, Paul, -- can YOU report anything about YOURSELF which is comparable???
Then -- consider the exceptionally talented and accomplished individuals who joined the Birch Society -- many of whom had master's and doctoral degrees in their chosen fields. In fact, the data from 3 sets of studies which have been made regarding JBS members reveal that JBS members had disproportionately upper income and educational levels.
Sorry, Paul -- but this is another area where you do not know what you are talking about.
Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Paul, for the life of me, I have no idea why you keep stating that Walker was the only General to resign in the 20th century as if that has some relevance to anything (leaving aside that he was not "the only" General to resign -- as I previously brought to your attention)...

Actually, Ernie, it is a historical fact that General Edwin Walker was the only US General to resign in the 20th century -- given that we define "resignation" according to Army regulations.

Your point, so long ago, was that the term "resign" might also be applied to people who "retired" from the US Army. Your example was a high-level US military leader who "retired" when he was asked to "resign" by some high official, but that official really meant "retire," and you obscured the fact.

The proof that Edwin Walker truly and actually resigned according to US Army regulations, is that Walker forfeited his Army pension.

You have always neglected to identity one other US General who forfeited his Army pension, and so your examples were always based on a faulty definition.

Your motivation was probably to protect the JBS from further accusations with regard to their association with General Walker.

Now, regarding Dr. Jeff Caufield's forthcoming new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, I have not seen it yet, so I cannot say with certainty that the John Birch Society will receive the sort of accusations from Dr. Caufield that I am willing to make with regard to their association with resigned General Walker.

So I look forward to the publication of this book for clarity on the JBS from Dr. Caufield.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg - you apparently have a reading comprehension problem. I did not state or hint that Walker was "mentally deficient". That is your deliberate mis-representation. All I wrote is what many people have stated regarding Walker i.e. Walker was not an intellectual or a thinker or someone known for his cleverness of thought and speech. In other words, not the kind of person you would expect to dream up an elaborate plot involving dozens of variables. Nor was he the type of person whom you would expect to motivate large groups of followers through his unique insights and inspirational rhetoric. His "talent" was as a polemicist, i.e. hyperbolic attack, invective, condemnation -- giving an adoring (subordinate) crowd the red meat they wanted to hear.

As I previously stated, Walker spent his entire career in a top-down authoritarian and hierarchical environment. The qualities one values and exercises in that type of environment are much different than the qualities one uses in "normal" life.

One could argue that spending one's adult lifetime receiving and executing orders in a military chain of command where unquestioning obedience is the standard operating procedure does not present a lot of opportunity for original thinking or for challenging one's superiors or even for routinely convening meetings with hundreds or thousands of rank-and-file to persuade them to accept whatever decisions you make or to get their input on something which is your responsibility and your decision. Instead, a military commander functions within a much more constricted circle of advisers and subordinates.

So, my original point was, and continues to be, that Walker never displayed the level of intelligence or the temperament one would expect to be self-evident for creating and executing a complex criminal conspiracy.

Lastly, you continue to misrepresent my point about Dr. Stubblefield. I did not dispute his competence. I simply stated that relying upon a single individual who has had very limited exposure to someone is not prudent. And incidentally, there were other psychiatrists who presented their (critical) evaluations of Walker. I do not rely upon their conclusions either. [And since you chose to not answer my questions re: what Stubblefield asked Walker during his "examination" -- we can reasonably conclude that you have no clue what was asked or answered....so, again, you demand that we accept your word about the sufficiency of Walker's "examination".

This seems to be your standard debate technique. i.e. criticize and reject whatever someone else presents but demand uncritical acceptance of everything you tell us.

* If YOU state that somebody is an "expert" -- that ends the discussion.

* If YOU state that someone is "intelligent"---that ends the discussion.

* If YOU state that critics of Walker must fall only into these categories "disaffected ex-employees and ex-friends and political colleagues" -- that ends the discussion.

Let me put it this way: If Greg Parker were ever arrested for something and a court decided that Greg should be evaluated for mental competence -- I suspect that Greg would want more than one person to evaluate him AND I suspect that Greg might expect that his "examination" should take more than some period of time during 2 days to make an objective and informed decision.

Correct. You did not use the term "mentally deficient". You simply indicated he wasn't smart enough to organize a party in a brewery.

What you gave us was your opinion that others would say he wasn't smart enough to do xyz. You offered no names... no direct quotes to substantiate that claim. On the other hand, in rebuttal, I offered a direct quote from a qualified person who had examined Walker in a clinical setting. And now you have the gaal to suggest I expect people to take my word? It is entirely the other way around.

Look, I know you have modeled your style on the anally-retentive, uber-bureaucratic bully-boy authoritarian methods of Hoover, but that style isn't going to get you anywhere with me.

Greg - supplied direct quote from expert

Ernie - gave an opinion on what others would say.

See the difference?

That you want to play down Stubblefield is shocking. You are right. I don't know the entire contents of the report he made. I do know it was good enough to make the government back off. Yet you somehow believe it is insufficient? Robert Kennedy obviously never thought so, yet you know better... without having the foggiest as to what it said.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×