New Book!

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

As a semi-fan of Jim Garrison (I think his Playboy interview was masterful), I'm taken aback by the "homosexual thrill killing" comment you attribute to him.

In 1963 was there such a thing? And what is the purpose of such a thing? Just questions.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

As a semi-fan of Jim Garrison (I think his Playboy interview was masterful), I'm taken aback by the "homosexual thrill killing" comment you attribute to him.

In 1963 was there such a thing? And what is the purpose of such a thing? Just questions.

I agree with your sentiment, Jon, since IMHO Jim Garrison made the most progress in identifying NOLA suspects to the JFK murder than anybody else.

Yet the attribution is not mine, but appears in several sources, including Perry Russo (one of the key witnesses of the Clay Shaw trial), and Richard Billings (a LIFE magazine reporter close to Jim Garrison), and of course the well-known attribution by James Phelan in his book, Scandals, Scamps, and Scoundrels (1983, pp. 150-151).

That there was such a thing as late as 1963 was part of Jim Garrison's orientation as he referred to the famous case of Leopold and Loeb who murdered Bobby Franks in Chicago in 1924.

The motive, according to the errors of Jim Garrison's orientation (and according to James Phelan) would have been an uncontrollable envy of wealthy and powerful straight men.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

Paul Trejo,

As a semi-fan of Jim Garrison (I think his Playboy interview was masterful), I'm taken aback by the "homosexual thrill killing" comment you attribute to him.

In 1963 was there such a thing? And what is the purpose of such a thing? Just questions.

I agree with your sentiment, Jon, since IMHO Jim Garrison made the most progress in identifying NOLA suspects to the JFK murder than anybody else.

Yet the attribution is not mine, but appears in several sources, including Perry Russo (one of the key witnesses of the Clay Shaw trial), and Richard Billings (a LIFE magazine reporter close to Jim Garrison), and of course the well-known attribution by James Phelan in his book, Scandals, Scamps, and Scoundrels (1983, pp. 150-151).

That there was such a thing as late as 1963 was part of Jim Garrison's orientation as he referred to the famous case of Leopold and Loeb who murdered Bobby Franks in Chicago in 1924.

The motive, according to the errors of Jim Garrison's orientation (and according to James Phelan) would have been an uncontrollable envy of wealthy and powerful straight men.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I would say that killing a homosexual just because they were homosexual was still happening in 63.

[Paul Trejo]

I would say that killing a homosexual just because they were homosexual was still happening in 63.

Well, Kenneth, the famous case of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year old homosexual, tortured and murdered in 1998 simply because he was openly gay may be one case you have in mind. Also, the random violence against LGBT people still continues in the USA, though perhaps at a lesser rate than in the 20th century.

However, I wonder if you thought I was speaking about violence against gays when I brought up the Leopold and Loeb case of 1924, because that case was exactly the opposite, and it got a tremendous amount of newspaper coverage in 1924. One reason the case was so famous was that the Loeb family hired the famous lawyer, Clarence Darrow, to defend the murderers.

It was the opposite because Leopold and Loeb were the gay ones, and Bobby Franks was a 14-year old straight boy, and the case was about these two gay teenagers murdering this straight boy. It was famous at the time because Leopold and Loeb came from millionaire families, and so it caught the attention of America.

This is what Jim Garrison meant when he spoke of the JFK assassination as a "homosexual thrill killing."

Why would two rich kids murder a straight boy -- that was the question in 1923. Also, that was what Jim Garrison thought was going on with the JFK murder -- that these rich gay men, led by Clay Shaw, would decide to kill JFK, and plot to do so months ahead of time.

This is how the Jim Garrison case against Clay Shaw began -- according to Perry Russo, Richard Billings and James Phelan.

Although Jim Garrison was wrong about that theory -- David Ferrie was also gay, as was Jack Ruby, so that was one reason Jim Garrison got started. Some of that imagery can still be seen in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK (1992). For a while, Jim Garrison also thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was also bisexual, and had been recruited by Shaw-Ferrie-Ruby to help murder JFK.

It is interesting to note that Jim Garrison dropped that theory when he brought Clay Shaw to trial -- and only those who read deeply of the Clay Shaw trial know about these origins of Garrison's investigation.

The topic of the resigned General Walker and the JFK murder might possibly resurrect these errors -- so we should beware.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

I would say that killing a homosexual just because they were homosexual was still happening in 63.

Well, Kenneth, the famous case of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year old homosexual, tortured and murdered in 1998 simply because he was openly gay may be one case you have in mind. Also, the random violence against LGBT people still continues in the USA, though at a far lesser rate than in the 1960's, I believe.

However, I wonder if you thought I was speaking about violence against gays when I brought up the Leopold and Loeb case of 1923, because that case was exactly the opposite, and it got a tremendous amount of newspaper coverage in 1923. One reason the case was so famous was that the Loeb family hired the famous lawyer, Clarence Darrow, to defend the murderers.

It was the opposite because Leopold and Loeb were the gay ones, and Bobby Franks was a 14-year old straight boy, and the case was about these two gay teenagers murdering this straight boy. It was famous at the time because Leopold and Loeb came from millionaire families, and so it caught the attention of America.

Why would two rich kids murder a straight boy -- that was the question in 1923. Also, that was what Jim Garrison thought was going on with the JFK murder -- that these rich gay men, led by Clay Shaw, would decide to kill JFK, and plot to do so months ahead of time.

This is how the Jim Garrison case against Clay Shaw began -- according to Perry Russo, Richard Billings and James Phelan.

I feel certain that Jim Garrison was wrong about that theory -- but David Ferrie was also gay, as was Jack Ruby. So, that was how Jim Garrison got started. Some of that imagery can still be seen in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK (1992). For a while Jim Garrison thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was also bisexual, and had been recruited by Shaw-Ferrie-Ruby to help murder JFK.

It is interesting to note that Jim Garrison dropped that theory when he brought Clay Shaw to trial -- and only those who read deeply of the Clay Shaw trial know about these origins of Garrison's investigation.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Most of that sounds reasonable to me. I've never heard or seen any evidence of LHO being homosexual.

[Paul Trejo]

Most of that sounds reasonable to me. I've never heard or seen any evidence of LHO being homosexual.

The evidence that Jim Garrison presented in the early days of his investigation into the JFK murder came from the Warren Report. There were two citations in particular:

(1) In the testimony of New Orleans lawyer Dean Andrews, he said he met Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of "Clay Bertrand" paying for his legal fees. According to Dean Andrews, Lee Harvey Oswald came to his office accompanied by two "gay kids." Handling legal cases for New Orleans arrests for public homosexuality was Dean Andrews' staple income.

(2) In the testimony of George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Marina complained to them that Lee Harvey Oswald had seriously neglected their marriage bed. George said he believed that Lee Oswald was "asexual."

The fact that Jim Garrison was able to connect Lee Harvey Oswald to David Ferrie -- a known homosexual -- prompted Garrison to begin reasoning along these lines in the early stage of his investigation into the JFK murder.

Again, the topic of the resigned General Walker being involved in the JFK murder might possibly resurrect these errors -- because Walker was allegedly gay -- so we should beware.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

Most of that sounds reasonable to me. I've never heard or seen any evidence of LHO being homosexual.

The evidence that Jim Garrison presented in the early days of his investigation into the JFK murder came from the Warren Report. There were two citations in particular:

(1) In the testimony of New Orleans lawyer Dean Andrews, he said he met Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of "Clay Bertrand" paying for his legal fees. According to Dean Andrews, Lee Harvey Oswald came to his office accompanied by two "gay kids." Handling legal cases for New Orleans arrests for public homosexuality was Dean Andrews' staple income.

(2) In the testimony of George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Marina complained to them that Lee Harvey Oswald had seriously neglected their marriage bed. George said he believed that Lee Oswald was "asexual."

The fact that Jim Garrison was able to connect Lee Harvey Oswald to David Ferrie -- a known homosexual -- prompted Garrison to begin reasoning along these lines in the early stage of his investigation into the JFK murder.

Again, the topic of the resigned General Walker being involved in the JFK murder might possibly resurrect these errors -- because Walker was allegedly gay -- so we should beware.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Good assessment. I know there were those in LHO's 'circle' that were homosexual but I'm not sure that means LHO was also. I think he was interested in the spy business and those were some he was in contact with.

[Paul Trejo]

Good assessment. I know there were those in LHO's 'circle' that were homosexual but I'm not sure that means LHO was also. I think he was interested in the spy business and those were some he was in contact with.

Well, Kenneth, IMHO Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) wasn't gay -- he was desperate to become accepted for full-time employment by the CIA. His wife was pregnant with their second child, and he still didn't have a steady job. Yet the only job he ever wanted -- the only job he spent years training for (even at the young age of 23) was to be a CIA Officer.

IMHO, the only reason LHO was active in NOLA in the summer of 1963 was to serve Guy Banister's plot against Fidel Castro -- under the false impression that Guy Banister could get him a job in the CIA. As for all the sleazy characters in the company of Guy Banister, LHO simply put up with them -- he wanted that CIA job so badly he could taste it.

Little did LHO know that Guy Banister was an intimate associate of the resigned General Walker -- the same person whom LHO tried to murder in his Dallas home (at the instigation of George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine) on 10 April 1963.

IMHO, LHO thought he was working with this Fake FPCC in NOLA (and Operation Mongoose) in order to get a job in the CIA, while Guy Banister and David Ferrie knew that LHO was really being set-up as a Patsy so that the resigned General Walker could get revenge on JFK, RFK and LHO for the 10 April 1963 shooting.

IMHO, Walker's paranoia led him to believe that JFK and RFK were behind Oswald's shooting. Walker openly stated that he knew that Liberals in Dallas were behind LHO's shooting at him in April, but they were small potatoes -- Walker wanted JFK first and foremost for that crime.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

Whether one finds the subject of Homosexuality in his case objectionable is not the issue. It did play a pivotal role in the overall case in several respects. Especially in Garrison’s original theory and concept of the case. Read Weisberg on this in his archive. He picked it off early. This was one of the issues that turned Harold against Garrison. I didn’t always agree with Weisberg, we knocked heads sometimes, yet on this I would agree.

This gets very involved and I have developed an analysis of it which I hope to present one day. The perpetrators and the cover –up artists used homosexuality as a means of deception, blackmail and implied culpability, via innuendo towards targeted individuals (‘Fall Guys”) in this case. It was a control mechanism. To sweep this element aside is just a mistake, IMO! If you didn’t grow up in those days, you probably don’t appreciate the underlying intensity of the issue, and the threat it presented to those who had something to hide. It was very powerful!

Bill

Edited August 24, 2015 by William O'Neil

[Paul Trejo]

Whether one finds the subject of Homosexuality in his case objectionable is not the issue. It did play a pivotal role in the overall case in several respects. Especially in Garrison’s original theory and concept of the case. Read Weisberg on this in his archive. He picked it off early. This was one of the issues that turned Harold against Garrison. I didn’t always agree with Weisberg, we knocked heads sometimes, yet on this I would agree.

This gets very involved and I have developed an analysis of it which I hope to present one day. The perpetrators and the cover –up artists used homosexuality as a means of deception, blackmail and implied culpability, via innuendo towards targeted individuals (‘Fall Guys”) in this case. It was a control mechanism. To sweep this element aside is just a mistake, IMO! If you didn’t grow up in those days, you probably don’t appreciate the underlying intensity of the issue, and the threat it presented to those who had something to hide. It was very powerful!

Bill

It was James DiEugenio, I recall, who cited the book by Harrison Livingstone here, The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy (2004). As I've already shown, that book talks about the resigned General Walker only in passing -- but it does cite his homosexuality.

I've already cited Jim Garrison's opinion about a possible link between homosexuality and the JFK murder, but here is Harrison Livingstone's more elaborated opinion, on page 133 of his 615 page book:

========== Begin Excerpt of Harrison Livingstone's book (2004) on page 133 ===============

THE LINK

Before I get into this, it will be easy for some to accuse me of being a homophobe after reading what follows. Nevertheless, facts have be faced. Those involved in the conspiracy that assassinated John Kennedy were a tight circle of homosexuals and bisexuals from the Far Right.

I was told several years ago by my high-level source in Dallas, "George Healey," (a former FBI man) that...the circle of conspirators were homosexual or bisexual and had their own network and coded language and communications, which made it easier for them to plan without anyone knowing what was going on...

Rose Cheramie told doctors and police in a hospital that Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald slept together.

...John Crawford (aka "Larry Crafard"), who was very close to Ruby, was also a homosexual. Crafard suggested during his testimony to the Warren Commission that both Ruby and his roommate, George Senator, were the same.

So was Clint Murchison, Sr., and J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson, his assistant. So was General Edwin Walker, who was arrested more than once in compromising situations in public men's rooms. Sid Richardson was long rumored to be Clint Murchison's secret lover. The closeness of Hoover and Murchison had to have been based to a great extent on their mutual sexual orientation.

The evidence seems to be that Ruby and Murchison were bisexual. There are many stories about Murchison.

Gordon McLendon was one of Dallas' most famous transvestites. He showed up at many society parties in drag, and one might wonder about his sexual orientation.

Walter Jenkins, a key aid to Lyndon Johnson when he was in the White House, was also arrested for homosexual activities, seriously embarrassing President Johnson. It is felt that Jenkins was one of those on the operations level of the conspiracy. A source told me that Jenkins was the connection between LBJ and Clay Shaw, also a homosexual, a CIA asset in New Orleans, prosecuted for conspiring to kill John Kennedy...

========== End Excerpt of Harrison Livingstone's book (2004) on page 133 ===============

This screed, IMHO, seriously undermines the value of Harrison Livingstone's book. We haven't read Dr. Caufield's book yet, still, I seriously doubt that Dr. Caufield, a medical doctor, will be as myopic as Harrison Livingstone on the topic of the homosexuality of the resigned General Walker.

Once again -- IMHO the only significance of Walker's homosexuality would be the fact that he suppressed it, and lived in the closet, which, according to Freud. is generally the first stage of clinical paranoia.

I don't expect Dr. Caufield to opine on the psychoanalysis of the resigned General Walker -- but rather to focus on the facts of history as they relate to the JFK assassination. We'll soon see.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

proposal and your more-than-minor difficulties with it. Unfortunately for your side, the problem was not the answer. The problem was that one question was asked, a different question was answered. So the question was the problem, not the answer. Once I determined that, I haven't been back to that thread so don't know of any subsequent discussion.

Okay now to your response to this thread just above. The main error you're making is that you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement: "(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) " when, in fact, it was Freud that made that statement. My statement is only that "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer. Notice that I didn't make the statement that 'it is true and ......" So you read into Freud's statement that it is analog and has a whole lot of 'if's, and's, and but's.

Seems as if you would have to actually know what he had on his mind when he wrote that and then that you would have to actually be able to prove that he had that in mind. So diagram his simple sentence and show me all the if's and then's that have to be satisfied to make it either true, neutral or false.

Take it easy on the HP keys until they get fully broken in.

you're so funny. That was partly my intent

not that kind of funny.

"you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement" - you must think i'm an idiot. Do you consider what I 'think' important?

NO. It was an observation. I consider what you think superfluous.

i stated very clearly that Freud's statement is analog. I did not in any way attribute it to you. Yes, but, where did you get the info to determine that it was analog?

For you to understand my answer you'd have to know what 'analog' means. Like DVP, your jury's still out on what 'reason' means. (i DID explain it more than once as i was making these points so that you'd have an idea. You obviously missed them. But they're there.)

i stated very clearly that you leaped from analog (with gray areas) (but you didn't tell us how you determined it to be analog, I didn't see that in Freud's statement) to digital (black and white)(and I see nothing to change it from just black and white) which does not work. and then i gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps it was just poor word choice. this sentence: "Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia" leaves no room for gray area. it's black and white -(and from Freud's statement, that is still all that I can deduce) "no more" means just that. NONE. and there's no room for misunderstanding those particular words, either. that sentence gets nowhere close to "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer." An analogy: the paint is red because it has red pigment in it, remove the red pigment, no more red color in that paint.

Freud spoke of variation. Give me the statement that he made that has the word 'variation' in it, or just the implication of variation in it from this statement:(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.)

"has the word variation in it"? does it have to have the word in it to have the characteristics? Why must it have the word 'variation' in it to depict something that's variable? i said very simply that the phrase "leads to" when the subject is something like "paranoia" very obviously refers to a progression toward, i.e. a graduation to - differing levels or degrees of "paranoia." NOT an absolute, singular state of Paranoia.

Do you disagree with that? Don't conditions like this have varying levels? Don't some paranoiacs suffer from it more than others? (a hint: this is what analog means. variable. gray areas. gradient.)

so, if you don't disagree with that (or even if you do) this statement speaks of an analog situation.

You spoke of All or None.I can't find any reference by me to "All or none".

Let me clarify: In the phrase "so no closet, no paranoia" the word no, as an adjective, means "not in any degree or manner; not at all." In fact, in almost any situation, the word contains no variation. It's the opposite of "yes." THUS, it is, as opposed to any varying degree or condition, "ALL or NONE." In this case, NONE.

which is digital. it's either yes, or no. all or none. 1 or 0. that's digital, and not analog.

analog is fractions, the idea of an infinite number of values between the values of '0' and '1'. digital is the utilization of ONLY the values '0' and '1'.

you make light of Freud's important sociological and psychological statement by oversimplifying it with such a pithy "so, no closet, no paranoia." it's just such a patently wrong and flippant assessment of a pretty complex observation.

No one has to know or prove what was in his mind when he said that. don't be childish. childish? Keep that up and I'll accuse you of being DVP in disguise.

SOME people (like Greg and Bernie) place a disproportionate value on verbal slurs and accusations. I don't, especially when considering the source.

all one has to do is have more than a fundamental understanding of English as expressed with nuance, context, circumstance. Hmmm, fundamental understanding of English....

right. with no intention to insult, i question yours. The 'experiment' was quite a surprise. I truly wished DVP had participated.

hell you don't even need that with that sentence. there's no way it means anything other than variations of paranoia tell me where, within that sentence that anything about 'variations of paranoia are mentioned

See above. the condition of paranoia is by default varying. People simply possess different degrees of Paranoia. there's no singular state of paranoia like there is a singular state of death.

you know this, right?

and variations of being closeted.and where does he speak of 'variations in closeted'?

with the word 'condition' - this word, i'll say again, pretty much assumes variation. Do you have any conditions? Sunburn... acrophobia... hairloss... infatuation with someone...? those all are measured in degrees. no absolutes. none. erego, variation is implied. it exists. it's unavoidable.

he respects his reader enough to know that most people will know this so he doesn't have to clarify. and neither does he resort to oversimplification by using shorter, more concise words for effect. like you do.

Mark Twain, in my opinion the best sentence stucturist this world has ever seen, said: "The difference between the right word and almost the right word is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." Would that be kinda, sorta like the difference in "paranoia" and "variations of paranoia"?

None whatsoever. nothing at all like that.

this is why "no more in the closet, no more paranoia" is wrong. that's not what he said.Now that's where you're correct: he actually said: (It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.)

right. and he also meant that. your summation did NOT.

and as far as the conditional reasoning problem, you exhibited your skill in totally evading the correct meaning of certain relevant terms, like 'conditional' and 'reasoning', so what you determined is of absolutely no consequence to what I got out of the exercise. As I said I didn't go back to see how you wrapped all that up, but once I had proven that the original question that was asked was changed to fit the answer that had been given incorrectly, I had no further need to discuss it. And still don't.

Denial is most often the easiest way people maintain their comfort zones. Some really are averse to "Truth."

unfortunately for my side? what the hell is my side? Actually my statement was "Unfortunately for your side" which is only southern colloquial for 'your position on the issue'. I thought you were a southerner.

i don't know which south you were raised in, but i've never heard it used that way. sorry. in fact, I may have heard it put that way in NY when i lived there. it sounds familiar. but it's not indigenous to the south, fer sher.

So this is what you do as exercise for your HP keyboard.

what's with you and my HP keyboard? did you misunderstand even my description of my computer problem?

i couldn't type with a POS keyboard while my good one was at summer camp. Now it's back, so I can type more than 10 words a minute. HP has nothing to do with it but that they're the ones who made this (well, that's probably not technically true) and they're the ones who provided some incredible above and beyond customer service, changing my mind on them for good. They rock, now.

[Glenn Nall]

Most of that sounds reasonable to me. I've never heard or seen any evidence of LHO being homosexual.

The evidence that Jim Garrison presented in the early days of his investigation into the JFK murder came from the Warren Report. There were two citations in particular:

(1) In the testimony of New Orleans lawyer Dean Andrews, he said he met Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of "Clay Bertrand" paying for his legal fees. According to Dean Andrews, Lee Harvey Oswald came to his office accompanied by two "gay kids." Handling legal cases for New Orleans arrests for public homosexuality was Dean Andrews' staple income.

(2) In the testimony of George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Marina complained to them that Lee Harvey Oswald had seriously neglected their marriage bed. George said he believed that Lee Oswald was "asexual."

The fact that Jim Garrison was able to connect Lee Harvey Oswald to David Ferrie -- a known homosexual -- prompted Garrison to begin reasoning along these lines in the early stage of his investigation into the JFK murder.

Again, the topic of the resigned General Walker being involved in the JFK murder might possibly resurrect these errors -- because Walker was allegedly gay -- so we should beware.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Good assessment. I know there were those in LHO's 'circle' that were homosexual but I'm not sure that means LHO was also. I think he was interested in the spy business and those were some he was in contact with.

I know there were those in LHO's 'circle' that were homosexual but I'm not sure that means LHO was also.

What? I'm an old traditional southerner with traditional southern concepts of homosexuality in and of itself - and with fairly contemporary and accepting views of individuals in and of themselves, regardless of what they choose to do in private or whether or not they know that Ian Paice is the second greatest drummer of all time.

And if, in my circles, which contain some homosexuals, I were heard to make that statement i'd be quickly compared to a socially inept puritan.

"I know there are those in his circle that are gay, but i'm not sure if that means he is also."

what the heck does one have to do with the other?

"I know that there are some librarians and some Iowans in his circle, but i'm not sure if that means he is."

a most FASCINATING use of logic.

[Ernie Lazar]

Whether one finds the subject of Homosexuality in his case objectionable is not the issue. It did play a pivotal role in the overall case in several respects. Especially in Garrison’s original theory and concept of the case. Read Weisberg on this in his archive. He picked it off early. This was one of the issues that turned Harold against Garrison. I didn’t always agree with Weisberg, we knocked heads sometimes, yet on this I would agree.

This gets very involved and I have developed an analysis of it which I hope to present one day. The perpetrators and the cover –up artists used homosexuality as a means of deception, blackmail and implied culpability, via innuendo towards targeted individuals (‘Fall Guys”) in this case. It was a control mechanism. To sweep this element aside is just a mistake, IMO! If you didn’t grow up in those days, you probably don’t appreciate the underlying intensity of the issue, and the threat it presented to those who had something to hide. It was very powerful!

Bill

It was James DiEugenio, I recall, who cited the book by Harrison Livingstone here, The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy (2004). As I've already shown, that book talks about the resigned General Walker only in passing -- but it does cite his homosexuality.

I've already cited Jim Garrison's opinion about a possible link between homosexuality and the JFK murder, but here is Harrison Livingstone's more elaborated opinion, on page 133 of his 615 page book:

========== Begin Excerpt of Harrison Livingstone's book (2004) on page 133 ===============

THE LINK

Before I get into this, it will be easy for some to accuse me of being a homophobe after reading what follows. Nevertheless, facts have be faced. Those involved in the conspiracy that assassinated John Kennedy were a tight circle of homosexuals and bisexuals from the Far Right.

I was told several years ago by my high-level source in Dallas, "George Healey," (a former FBI man) that...the circle of conspirators were homosexual or bisexual and had their own network and coded language and communications, which made it easier for them to plan without anyone knowing what was going on...

Rose Cheramie told doctors and police in a hospital that Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald slept together.

...John Crawford (aka "Larry Crafard"), who was very close to Ruby, was also a homosexual. Crafard suggested during his testimony to the Warren Commission that both Ruby and his roommate, George Senator, were the same.

So was Clint Murchison, Sr., and J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson, his assistant. So was General Edwin Walker, who was arrested more than once in compromising situations in public men's rooms. Sid Richardson was long rumored to be Clint Murchison's secret lover. The closeness of Hoover and Murchison had to have been based to a great extent on their mutual sexual orientation.

The evidence seems to be that Ruby and Murchison were bisexual. There are many stories about Murchison.

Gordon McLendon was one of Dallas' most famous transvestites. He showed up at many society parties in drag, and one might wonder about his sexual orientation.

Walter Jenkins, a key aid to Lyndon Johnson when he was in the White House, was also arrested for homosexual activities, seriously embarrassing President Johnson. It is felt that Jenkins was one of those on the operations level of the conspiracy. A source told me that Jenkins was the connection between LBJ and Clay Shaw, also a homosexual, a CIA asset in New Orleans, prosecuted for conspiring to kill John Kennedy...

========== End Excerpt of Harrison Livingstone's book (2004) on page 133 ===============

This screed, IMHO, seriously undermines the value of Harrison Livingstone's book. We haven't read Dr. Caufield's book yet, still, I seriously doubt that Dr. Caufield, a medical doctor, will be as myopic as Harrison Livingstone on the topic of the homosexuality of the resigned General Walker.

Once again -- IMHO the only significance of Walker's homosexuality would be the fact that he suppressed it, and lived in the closet, which, according to Freud. is generally the first stage of clinical paranoia.

I don't expect Dr. Caufield to opine on the psychoanalysis of the resigned General Walker -- but rather to focus on the facts of history as they relate to the JFK assassination. We'll soon see.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

There is no credible evidence to support the assertion that Hoover, Tolson, or Murchison were gay. These stories were given widespread publicity by two sources (1) the Soviet KGB and (2) Mafia-connected individuals (in particular Susan Rosenstiel, whom, at one time, had been convicted of perjury).

More importantly:

(1) nobody who actually knew Hoover/Tolson, (i.e. had daily personal contact with them) has ever claimed they were gay

(2) historians who have been very hostile toward Hoover have, nevertheless, dismissed the claims regarding Hoover's sexuality.

When British author Anthony Summers resurrected the assertions regarding Hoover, historians such as Dr. Athan Theoharis and Richard Gid Powers both rejected what Summers presented as not credible. [For a detailed rebuttal to Summers, see, in particular, Theoharis's 1995 book: J. Edgar Hoover--Sex and Crime: An Historical Antidote]

Some Hoover biographers have claimed that Hoover had a sexual relationship with Hollywood actress Dorothy Lamour and a possible intimate relationship with Lela Rogers, mother of actress Ginger Rogers.

With respect to Susan Rosenstiel -- Theoharis pointed out:

"Susan Rosenstiel…was not a disinterested party. Although the target of her allegations was J. Edgar Hoover, she managed as well to defame her second husband with whom she had been involved in a bitterly contested divorce that lasted 10 years in the courts. Her hatred of Lewis Rosenstiel had led her in 1970 to offer damaging testimony about his alleged connections with organized crime leaders before a New York State legislative committee on crime. Furthermore, she was a convicted perjurer and received a prison sentence."

Former FBI Assistant Director Cartha DeLoach observed that Susan Rosenstiel blamed Hoover for supplying her husband with damaging information used in her divorce trial. Furthermore, according to DeLoach, she had been peddling the Hoover "drag" story to Hoover's critics for years without success -- until Anthony Summers came along.

American journalist, Peter Maas, devoted most of his career to writing about organized crime in the U.S. He arrived at the same conclusions as Theoharis and DeLoach and he discovered a fatal flaw in Anthony Summers' recounting of events with regard to the Hoover cross-dressing story at the Plaza Hotel.

The "evidence" against Hoover's sexuality was described by former FBI Intelligence Division Assistant Director W. Raymond Wannall, as, emanating from "dead witnesses, a perjurer, a Watergate burglar, and principally a British author, Anthony Summers, whose allegations against a previous American public servant, repeated in a London newspaper, resulted in an open-court retraction, apology and payment of a substantial sum in damages."

That last comment refers to when Anthony Summers alleged that CIA official David Atlee Phillips had been involved in the assassination of JFK. The British newspaper The Observer published excerpts from the book. Phillips then sued, and The Observer admitted in open court that "there was never any evidence" to support Summers's allegations. The paper apologized to Phillips and paid him £22,500 in damages.

FBI Assistant Director Wannall appropriately questioned WHY,(if "there were such a photograph with which to blackmail Hoover," ) was it not used "from 1961 to 1972 when 10 Cosa Nostra family bosses were arrested and convicted, when organized crime convictions based on [FBI] investigations totaled 131 in 1965, 281 in 1968, and escalated to 813 the last year of his life?"

Edited August 24, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Kenneth Drew]

proposal and your more-than-minor difficulties with it. Unfortunately for your side, the problem was not the answer. The problem was that one question was asked, a different question was answered. So the question was the problem, not the answer. Once I determined that, I haven't been back to that thread so don't know of any subsequent discussion.

Okay now to your response to this thread just above. The main error you're making is that you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement: "(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) " when, in fact, it was Freud that made that statement. My statement is only that "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer. Notice that I didn't make the statement that 'it is true and ......" So you read into Freud's statement that it is analog and has a whole lot of 'if's, and's, and but's.

Seems as if you would have to actually know what he had on his mind when he wrote that and then that you would have to actually be able to prove that he had that in mind. So diagram his simple sentence and show me all the if's and then's that have to be satisfied to make it either true, neutral or false.

Take it easy on the HP keys until they get fully broken in.

you're so funny. That was partly my intent

not that kind of funny. So you just like 'stand up'?

"you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement" - you must think i'm an idiot. Do you consider what I 'think' important?

NO. It was an observation. I consider what you think superfluous. You spend a lot of time for something that you consider such

i stated very clearly that Freud's statement is analog. I did not in any way attribute it to you. Yes, but, where did you get the info to determine that it was analog?

For you to understand my answer you'd have to know what 'analog' means.I suspect I knew what the word meant before you were born. Like DVP, your jury's still out on what 'reason' means. (i DID explain it more than once as i was making these points so that you'd have an idea. You obviously missed them. But they're there.)

i stated very clearly that you leaped from analog (with gray areas) (but you didn't tell us how you determined it to be analog, I didn't see that in Freud's statement) to digital (black and white)(and I see nothing to change it from just black and white) which does not work. and then i gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps it was just poor word choice. this sentence: "Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia" leaves no room for gray area. it's black and white -(and from Freud's statement, that is still all that I can deduce) "no more" means just that. NONE. and there's no room for misunderstanding those particular words, either. that sentence gets nowhere close to "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer." An analogy: the paint is red because it has red pigment in it, remove the red pigment, no more red color in that paint.

Freud spoke of variation. Give me the statement that he made that has the word 'variation' in it, or just the implication of variation in it from this statement:(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.)

"has the word variation in it"?or just the implication of variation in it from this statement (missed that, I guess)does it have to have the word in it to have the characteristics? Why must it have the word 'variation' in it to depict something that's variable? i said very simply that the phrase "leads to" when the subject is something like "paranoia" very obviously refers to a progression toward, i.e. a graduation to - differing levels or degrees of "paranoia." Freud did not say anything about variations or levels of paranoia, did he? Do you consider it to not be paranoia unless it has variations?NOT an absolute, singular state of Paranoia. Why not? you don't consider that possible?

Do you disagree with that? Don't conditions like this have varying levels?Now you back to trying to change the original question because you don't like how the answer is coming out. Don't some paranoiacs suffer from it more than others? (a hint: this is what analog means. variable. gray areas. gradient.)

so, if you don't disagree with that (or even if you do) this statement speaks of an analog situation.

You spoke of All or None.I can't find any reference by me to "All or none".

Let me clarify: In the phrase "so no closet, no paranoia" the word no, as an adjective, means "not in any degree or manner; not at all." In fact, in almost any situation, the word contains no variation. It's the opposite of "yes." THUS, it is, as opposed to any varying degree or condition, "ALL or NONE." In this case, NONE. Now you're making it up as you go along, oh, you're just demonstrating that it's not: 'analog'

which is digital. it's either yes, or no. all or none. 1 or 0. that's digital, and not analog.

analog is fractions, the idea of an infinite number of values between the values of '0' and '1'. digital is the utilization of ONLY the values '0' and '1'.

you make light of Freud's important sociological and psychological statement by oversimplifying it with such a pithy "so, no closet, no paranoia." it's just such a patently wrong and flippant assessment of a pretty complex observation.

No one has to know or prove what was in his mind when he said that. don't be childish. childish? Keep that up and I'll accuse you of being DVP in disguise.

SOME people (like Greg and Bernie) place a disproportionate value on verbal slurs You mean like, calling someone 'childish'? that's not something you would do, right? oops, excuse me. and accusations. I don't, especially when considering the source.

all one has to do is have more than a fundamental understanding of English as expressed with nuance, context, circumstance. Hmmm, fundamental understanding of English....

right. with no intention to insult, i question yours. if you only had the basic fundamentals of English, you wouldn't. The 'experiment' was quite a surprise. I truly wished DVP had participated. Wishing for someone on your level?

hell you don't even need that with that sentence. there's no way it means anything other than variations of paranoia tell me where, within that sentence that anything about 'variations of paranoia are mentioned

See above. the condition of paranoia is by default varying. People simply possess different degrees of Paranoia.Excuse me, I didn't notice that you were a psychiatrist, so is all paranoia variable or just some cases? there's no singular state of paranoia like there is a singular state of death.

you know this, right? So why are you stating that death is a singular state? Do you know that from experience? Did you just make a jump to digital?

and variations of being closeted.and where does he speak of 'variations in closeted'?

with the word 'condition' - this word, i'll say again, pretty much assumes Jumping on that ASSUME word again. variation. Do you have any conditions? Sunburn... acrophobia... hairloss... infatuation with someone...? those all are measured in degrees. no absolutes. none. erego, variation is implied. it exists. it's unavoidable.

Note: Editing discontinued beyond this point. I can only have so much fun in one day. I'm required to have more 'variation'. Must be paranoid or something.

he respects his reader enough to know that most people will know this so he doesn't have to clarify. and neither does he resort to oversimplification by using shorter, more concise words for effect. like you do.

Mark Twain, in my opinion the best sentence stucturist this world has ever seen, said: "The difference between the right word and almost the right word is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." Would that be kinda, sorta like the difference in "paranoia" and "variations of paranoia"?

None whatsoever. nothing at all like that.

this is why "no more in the closet, no more paranoia" is wrong. that's not what he said.Now that's where you're correct: he actually said: (It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.)

right. and he also meant that. your summation did NOT.

and as far as the conditional reasoning problem, you exhibited your skill in totally evading the correct meaning of certain relevant terms, like 'conditional' and 'reasoning', so what you determined is of absolutely no consequence to what I got out of the exercise. As I said I didn't go back to see how you wrapped all that up, but once I had proven that the original question that was asked was changed to fit the answer that had been given incorrectly, I had no further need to discuss it. And still don't.

Denial is most often the easiest way people maintain their comfort zones. Some really are averse to "Truth."

unfortunately for my side? what the hell is my side? Actually my statement was "Unfortunately for your side" which is only southern colloquial for 'your position on the issue'. I thought you were a southerner.

i don't know which south you were raised in,(Born and raised in Lowndes County, Glynn County and Camden County, all in southern Georgia. You must be one of those yankees up around Atlanta or something. Excuse this little bit of 'extra editing') but i've never heard it used that way. sorry. in fact, I may have heard it put that way in NY when i lived there. it sounds familiar. but it's not indigenous to the s"outh, fer sher.

So this is what you do as exercise for your HP keyboard.

what's with you and my HP keyboard? did you misunderstand even my description of my computer problem?

i couldn't type with a POS keyboard while my good one was at summer camp. Now it's back, so I can type more than 10 words a minute. HP has nothing to do with it but that they're the ones who made this (well, that's probably not technically true) and they're the ones who provided some incredible above and beyond customer service, changing my mind on them for good. They rock, now.

[Paul Trejo]

There is no credible evidence to support the assertion that Hoover, Tolson, or Murchison were gay. These stories were given widespread publicity by two sources (1) the Soviet KGB and (2) Mafia-connected individuals (in particular Susan Rosenstiel, whom, at one time, had been convicted of perjury).

More importantly:

(1) nobody who actually knew Hoover/Tolson, (i.e. had daily personal contact with them) has ever claimed they were gay

(2) historians who have been very hostile toward Hoover have, nevertheless, dismissed the claims regarding Hoover's sexuality.

When British author Anthony Summers resurrected the assertions regarding Hoover, historians such as Dr. Athan Theoharis and Richard Gid Powers both rejected what Summers presented as not credible. [For a detailed rebuttal to Summers, see, in particular, Theoharis's 1995 book: J. Edgar Hoover--Sex and Crime: An Historical Antidote]...

My point, Ernie, is that I hope that a discussion of the resigned General Walker (the only US General in the 20th century to resign-and-forfeit-his-pension) will never deteriorate into the sort of homophobia we saw with Jim Garrison, Harrison Livingstone and Anthony Summers.

I think that Anthony Summers -- like many others -- hoped to portray J. Edgar Hoover as a darker character with this needling about his bachelor status, and that is pathetic, IMHO. We want the facts in the JFK Conspiracy -- not rumor and insult.

I truly hope this thread never deteriorates into the sort of time-wasting name-calling that we see in the H&L thread.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 25, 2015 by Paul Trejo