Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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.

I realize that the JFK Cover-up started only three hours after the JFK murder -- and that is the strongest evidence against J. Edgar Hoover that was ever presented in 50 years. Yet the explanation given by Hoover, Warren, Dulles and LBJ matches the facts perfectly -- the explanation is National Security.

I truly believe that J. Edgar Hoover realized the truth only 60 minutes after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested and reports were pouring out of Dallas that Oswald was a Communist and an officer of the FPCC in New Orleans.

By 3pm CST, Hoover telephoned RFK and told him in clear terms -- Oswald was NOT a Communist and was NOT an officer of the FPCC. How did he know?

The only way Hoover could have known those two facts so quickly is by having a file on Oswald about his New Orleans period when he was working with Guy Banister -- and so Hoover knew that the FPCC branch in New Orleans was a Fake, and that Oswald's CPUSA card was a Fake.

That fact links all the evidence together -- J. Edgar Hoover figured out quickly, because he was a genius with a strong organization. So, Hoover knew that Oswald was set-up -- he knew it for a fact. But he also feared riots in the streets if the Truth came out -- and riots in US streets during the Cold War could have become catastrophic. By his "Lone Nut" fiction, Hoover probably spared us a lot more bloodshed than we realize.

BTW, Harrison Livingstone's book attacks J. Edgar Hoover as a suspect in the JFK murder, like many other books, on notoriously weak evidence -- such as his alleged homosexuality. It's deplorable. I have far more faith in the intelligence of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, and I look forward to his new book with eager anticipation.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

My point continues to be that almost every assassination of a political figure produces conspiracy theories which, by their very construction, are incapable of being falsified. Consequently, people argue about such murders for decades after the original event. [if memory serves me correctly, there is also a conspiracy theory regarding the murder of RFK, i.e. a supposed second gunman).

Furthermore, the available universe of data will ALWAYS be large enough to provide "confirmations" for just about anything which somebody wants to believe or assert. In other words, there will always be a bottomless pit of "information" which can be used to construct a superficially plausible alternative "theory" that discredits whatever orthodoxy is the prevailing explanation.

What Paul describes as "notoriously weak evidence" is, nevertheless, believed to be accurate and factual by some segment of conspiracy theory adherents. Those individuals do not accept whatever is your standard for "notoriously weak evidence". During our debate about Harry Dean -- YOU made absolutely absurd statements which, nevertheless, you expected us to believe. You declared that YOUR standard for credible evidence was "giving the benefit of the doubt" to people who produced something which you thought advanced your larger argument. We later discovered that many of your assumptions and statements were absolute falsehoods that you fabricated from your imagination and/or from your omnipresent animosity toward the JBS and toward Hoover and the FBI.

As I have stated from the very beginning of my contributions here in EF -- the ultimate problem is NOT any dispute over the credibility or provenance of any specific piece of data. Instead, the ultimate problem is (and continues to be) major epistemological differences regarding what constitutes acceptable standards for evidence and logical argument.

For example: YOU think Harry Dean's recollections are credible. But most JFK-assassination theorists (even ones you respect) do not -- which is why Harry's story is rarely even mentioned by any of them. And those who do mention Harry, usually de-value his assertions by devoting only one or two sentences to him. For example, you have described Joan Mellen as an "expert" researcher. But as I previously pointed out, when I contacted Joan Mellen, she stated that nobody she interviewed ever mentioned Harry Dean! Obviously, there is a major disconnect between your standards for credible "witness" testimony versus standards employed by "expert" researchers.

So---you will continue to present your unique "theory" and even when nobody finds anything to support your contentions (including after the final October 2017 release of CIA/FBI documents), you will just come up with some new excuse for not discarding your "theory".

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I trust your data that any accusations of Hoover's "promiscuity" came from people who were not close enough to really know, if that's what you are saying. This is, after all, a common problem with rumors - they're usually not from the best sources. You'd know more than I would, since I've spent very little time on him. Nevertheless, I find it incredibly hard to believe that two men spend as much of the type of time that they spent together and there NOT be "something" unusual going on. ALL of their vacations to France, etc, together? ALL of their lunches together? Daily commute together? For how many years...? Maybe these are all exaggerations, too...?

The rumors of his alternative dress habits i think came from the Justice Dept who was investigating Frank Costello, a known confidant of JEH's. It was widely accepted, but that doesn't make it true. You're the first i've heard to directly challenge the proposal, and out of deference to the more studied (you), I'm open to this as an enormous exaggeration - EXCEPT for all that alone time he and Tolson shared. Is all that closeness an exaggeration, too?

as far as:

"My point continues to be that almost every assassination of a political figure produces conspiracy theories which, by their very construction, are incapable of being falsified.---"

i'm not so sure about that...

"---Consequently, people argue about such murders for decades after the original event. [If memory serves me correctly, there is also a conspiracy theory regarding the murder of RFK, i.e. a supposed second gunman)."

Really? I believe that a conspiracy of the RFK ass. could easily be shown if it were ever opened again. Simple mathematics and simple trajectory physics proves a conspiracy. Have you ever seen the fatal bullet wound in RFK's skull? That investigation was shut down before it started, for all intents and purposes. A conspiracy is even more obvious than the JFK one.

I'll make an opinionated comment: I happen to think that we'd ALL do well to remember that the single most immovable reason that these three murders (including MLK) are not solved, officially or even unofficially, is that the various authorities flatly refuse to let the cases be reopened. Including the JFK case, I believe that these are very solvable cases IF 1) there were powers to subpoena, and 2) the, or some, powerful hindrances were removed, both of which would happen if the case were officially reopened.

The real reason this case, these cases, cannot make great progress is that ALL of the most brilliant minds, intrepid PI's, resourceful investigative journalists cannot do what an honest government investigator can do with a subpoena and access to a judge. I think it's distinctly possible that someone, or a team of someones, could happen across a "smoking gun" item that could shake up the right people enough to break something open, but if so, it's still a long road to hoe.

I would certainly never for a second consider NOT caring for a positive outcome of this travesty. I have more fun these days than ever before following my little angle into the shadows, and reading about all of your angles.

But it's my opinion that the lack of governmental cooperation (and its active resistance) is an enormous factor in its success.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...For example: YOU think Harry Dean's recollections are credible. But most JFK-assassination theorists (even ones you respect) do not -- which is why Harry's story is rarely even mentioned by any of them. And those who do mention Harry, usually de-value his assertions by devoting only one or two sentences to him. For example, you have described Joan Mellen as an "expert" researcher. But as I previously pointed out, when I contacted Joan Mellen, she stated that nobody she interviewed ever mentioned Harry Dean! Obviously, there is a major disconnect between your standards for credible "witness" testimony versus standards employed by "expert" researchers...

So -- you will continue to present your unique "theory" and even when nobody finds anything to support your contentions (including after the final October 2017 release of CIA/FBI documents), you will just come up with some new excuse for not discarding your "theory".

Well, Ernie, you continue to misunderstand me after years of debate.

The claims of Harry Dean are not all credible to me -- for example, when he blames the Mormon Church for the JFK murder -- that's not credible to me.

However, on the topic of the resigned General Walker, when Harry Dean claims that he has personal, eye-witness information about Walker's leading role in the JFK murder -- I do find that credible.

Nor am I the only person who believes Harry Dean on this account. My theory wasn't created in a vacuum.

This debate about Harry Dean is relevant in this thread about a new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, because the very title of this new book names the resigned General Edwin Walker as a suspect in the JFK murder.

Again, Ernie, don't be so one-sided about my statements -- I defend Harry Dean's statements about General Walker as well as about Harry's period of supporting Fidel Castro in the 26th of July Movement. But I don't defend every word that Harry Dean ever wrote or spoke. We have differences.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
...For example: YOU think Harry Dean's recollections are credible. But most JFK-assassination theorists (even ones you respect) do not -- which is why Harry's story is rarely even mentioned by any of them. And those who do mention Harry, usually de-value his assertions by devoting only one or two sentences to him. For example, you have described Joan Mellen as an "expert" researcher. But as I previously pointed out, when I contacted Joan Mellen, she stated that nobody she interviewed ever mentioned Harry Dean! Obviously, there is a major disconnect between your standards for credible "witness" testimony versus standards employed by "expert" researchers...

So -- you will continue to present your unique "theory" and even when nobody finds anything to support your contentions (including after the final October 2017 release of CIA/FBI documents), you will just come up with some new excuse for not discarding your "theory".

Well, Ernie, you continue to misunderstand me after years of debate.

The claims of Harry Dean are not all credible to me -- for example, when he blames the Mormon Church for the JFK murder -- that's not credible to me.

However, on the topic of the resigned General Walker, when Harry Dean claims that he has personal, eye-witness information about Walker's leading role in the JFK murder -- I do find that credible.

Nor am I the only person who believes Harry Dean on this account. My theory wasn't created in a vacuum.

This debate about Harry Dean is relevant in this thread about a new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, because the very title of this new book names the resigned General Edwin Walker as a suspect in the JFK murder.

Again, Ernie, don't be so one-sided about my statements -- I defend Harry Dean's statements about General Walker as well as about Harry's period of supporting Fidel Castro in the 26th of July Movement. But I don't defend every word that Harry Dean ever wrote or spoke. We have differences.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Nobody is interested in Harry's bigoted opinions regarding the Mormon Church nor did you spend any significant time or effort analyzing or refuting those claims -- so please stop focusing upon SECONDARY matters of no consequence and pretending those were central to your larger argument.

You claim that you do not defend Harry's every word. Aside from his irrelevant Mormon Church comments---what, exactly, did you EVER dispute? I suggest you review the "Memoirs" thread here in EF to see how often you defended every syllable he uttered. AND, in fact, you described yourself as Harry's "#1 defender", "friend" and "ally" to whom you gave "the benefit of the doubt" -- although you never identified anything significant regarding his "JBS plot" assertions or with respect to his claims to be an "undercover agent" and "spy" for the FBI which you "doubted".

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I emphasize at this point that this thread by William O'Neil has nothing to do with me or my relationship with Harry Dean -- and everything to do with Dr. Jeffrey Caufield and his new book, which is now being shipped nationwide, entitled, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy,

I truly wish that this thread avoids the dismal fate of Harry Dean's well-meaning thread, i.e. the endless controversy between myself and Ernie Lazar. So, from me, no more on Harry Dean on Bill's worthy thread, unless Bill himself raises the topic. ( For those who wish to review the interminable controversy between Ernie and me on the topic of Harry Dean, please refer to that Moderator-closed thread. Harry Dean: Memoirs, officially shut-down on 2 Nov 2014.)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul ;) Harry and Dr. Caufield have had several years of correspondence, which doesn't really play into the main focus of the book, although his input was considered.This controversy is a side issue distraction.

BIll

Which only proves my point regarding using different standards for what is regarded as credible evidence and logical argument. In short: after "years" of correspondence plus Dr. Caufield interviewing Harry, the conclusion reached was that Harry's story "doesn't really play into the main focus of the book" -- which is a polite way of saying that Dr. Caufield did not put much credence into Harry's story --- a conclusion which also can be seen in the excerpts from the book which are on Google.

I am not trying to resurrect my previous debate with Paul Trejo re: Harry!

There is, however, a much more important point involved here, namely, how do we establish what constitutes acceptable and verifiable factual evidence as opposed to accepting rumor, gossip, speculation, half-truths, gross exaggerations, biased statements, misinterpretations, or absolute falsehoods??

My only point is that it appears from the excerpts of the book which are now online, Dr. Caufield is a serious and credible researcher and it also appears that he (like many others before him) has largely discarded Harry Dean's story.

As one Caufield excerpt states, Harry's story was more in the way of "supposition and opinion" and not direct personal knowledge and "what he professed to know often appeared to be more than what he actually knew."

Anybody who wants to see the epistemological difference between Dr. Caufield's approach to evidence versus Paul Trejo's -- may review the previous thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4269

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul ;) Harry and Dr. Caufield have had several years of correspondence, which doesn't really play into the main focus of the book, although his input was considered.This controversy is a side issue distraction.

BIll

Quite right, Bill. Getting back to J. Edgar Hoover; IMHO, the strongest evidence against him in the past 50 years was that the JFK Cover-up started only three hours after the JFK murder. IMHO, too many JFK CT's have leaped to the conclusion that Hoover was therefore part of the JFK Kill Team.

So far, no other CT's, to my knowledge, have fully separated the JFK Kill-Team from the JFK Cover-up Team, aside from mine. IMHO, the explanation given by Hoover, Warren, Dulles and LBJ -- National Security -- fully explains Hoover's actions.

I truly believe that J. Edgar Hoover realized the truth only 60 minutes after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested and reports were pouring out of Dallas that Oswald was a Communist and an officer of the FPCC in New Orleans.

By 3pm CST, Hoover telephoned RFK and told him in clear terms -- Oswald wasn't a Communist and wasn't an officer of the FPCC. How did he know? The only way Hoover could have known so quickly is his FBI file on Oswald, showing Oswald working with Guy Banister in NOLA -- and so Hoover knew that the FPCC branch in NOLA was a Fake, and that Oswald's CPUSA card was also Fake.

J. Edgar Hoover started the JFK Cover-up right away -- fearing riots in the streets during the peak of the Cold War. So, Hoover knew for a fact that Oswald was set-up -- and who set him up -- and by his "Lone Nut" fiction, Hoover probably spared us a lot more bloodshed than we realize.

Harrison Livingstone's book attacks J. Edgar Hoover as a suspect in the JFK murder, like many other books, on notoriously weak evidence -- such as his alleged homosexuality. It's deplorable. I have far more faith in the intelligence of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, and I look forward to his new book with eager anticipation.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1976, a 40-page publication was circulated within the so-called "Patriot Movement". The author was never identified but there was speculation that it might have been written by Minutemen founder Robert B. DePugh.

The purpose of this publication was to reveal what the author claimed was infiltration of the "patriot movement" by "Jews" and "homosexuals".

The following excerpt is the portion of the DeGuello Report which pertains to Edwin Walker. It might be of interest as an alternative explanation for why Walker "resigned" from the US Army and "forfeited his pension".

-----------------------------------

Almost apologetically, we mention the pathetic case of General Edwin Walker and the not so pathetic case of his former associate, Col. Arch Roberts. Papers available to us relating to the Board of Inquiry which resulted in General Walker's resignation prove the facts of this case.
General Edwin Walker was without doubt a fine military commander and expert military tactician. In addition, he was without doubt a sincere American Nationalist and strong anti-communist.
While serving in the European theater, General Walker prepared and disseminated among his troops an excellent indoctrination against communism which was referred to as the "pro-blue" program. This program was very beneficial and much needed. It should have been made available to all troops of the United States everywhere.
Unfortunately, this excellent work was done by a man who was known to his enemies as being a secret homosexual. To destroy the effectiveness of Walker's pro-blue program, evidence was given to higher military authorities regarding his homosexual relationships with other men in and out of military service.
Arch Roberts, then a Major serving under General Walker, was one of several persons named as being active in these homosexual contacts. In the face of undeniable evidence, General Walker was forced to resign. After his return to the United States, he began giving lectures in which he stated that he had been removed solely because of the pro-blue program and that he had voluntarily refused to accept any retirement benefits.
These papers, referred to previously, prove that Walker was forced to resign and waive all retirement benefits in return for an agreement by military authorities not to bring criminal charges against him which would have resulted in public disclosure of his homosexual behavior and that of others.
After his return to Dallas, Texas, General Walker decided to run for Governor of that state and became temporarily active in the Nationalist movement in that area. Gradually, he became shunned by other Nationalists who observed his living in obvious homosexual relationship with a young man that he referred to as his "adjutant".
For several weeks, General Walker traveled with Billy James Hargis sharing the speaker's platform and often times sharing his bed as well. During this period and in subsequent years, Walker's mental abilities began to deteriorate and he began wandering aimlessly through the streets and parks of Dallas.
On several occasions, he was arrested as a public nuisance or for soliciting homosexual contacts but released by police officers that did not want to discredit his previously fine reputation. Finally, in 1976, Walker was arrested and stood public trial for making homosexual solicitations to a Dallas park plain clothes security officer.
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff. Although Walker claimed other reasons for his resignation, this is something to consider as an underlying factor. Although it's based on anonymous rumor and innuendo it is none the less something that Walker had to fear...being 'outed' Perhaps 'The Overseas Weekly ' had this info as well and kept it as a blackmail piece to force Walker into a no win situation.

One can only wonder why he would expose himself to running for Governor with these things lurking in the background.Those who were against the idea of him running for public office for several reasons, may have feared this exposure as well.

I went through the Archibald Roberts collection at The University of Oregon and saw no material even suggesting he was gay, though that doesn't surprise me as many of these collections were sanitized/purged of sensitive info by family or their attorneys et al. prior to donation.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff. Although Walker claimed other reasons for his resignation, this is something to consider as an underlying factor. Although it's based on anonymous rumor and innuendo it is none the less something that Walker had to fear...being 'outed' Perhaps 'The Overseas Weekly ' had this info as well and kept it as a blackmail piece to force Walker into a no win situation.

One can only wonder why he would expose himself to running for Governor with these things lurking in the background.Those who were against the idea of him running for public office for several reasons, may have feared this exposure as well.

I went through the Archibald Roberts collection at The University of Oregon and saw no material even suggesting he was gay, though that doesn't surprise me as many of these collections were sanitized/purged of sensitive info by family or their attorneys et al. prior to donation.

Bill

Actually, Bill, it is based upon something more than "anonymous rumor and innuendo". I am not at liberty to reveal my source (at this time) but my source had extensive and repeated personal conversations with DePugh during which he acknowledged he was the author.

However, to my knowledge, nobody has found any Army "records" to support the accusations about Walker. On the other hand, not many people have pursued Walker (and related subjects) as a research project. With respect to Walker potentially "exposing" himself to some risk by running for Governor --- that does not seem to me to be much of a risk because of a variety of factors.

For example: Anybody who was familiar with Walker during the period from 1961-1964 would certainly have been aware of his military background. Furthermore, even cursory investigation into Walker's associations would have established that he was connected with various "extremist" organizations and causes. Consequently, any "jilted lover" or even just a casual sex partner who might have considered some form of blackmail would have to calculate the likely repercussions to himself by making public charges against Walker.

(1) Given Walker's general reputation, a blackmailer could have easily been dismissed as a con man -- i.e. the type who often attach themselves to famous persons for personal gain.

(2) Given Walker's military background, a blackmailer would have to calculate if Walker's response (quietly and anonymously) could have been violent

(3) The blackmailer who acknowledged his own homosexual activities would (in 1961-1964) have to calculate the potential irreparable damage to his own situation (job, family, friends, etc) and he might even have to face a defamation lawsuit which he could not afford to dispute and which he had no verifiable evidence to support his claims

(4) After 1963, let's assume for purposes of this discussion that the proposition regarding Walker being involved in the murder of JFK is a correct paradigm. That would be one more compelling reason for someone to not come forward to present any damaging information re: Walker's sexuality---because (if they believed Walker's connection to that murder) what would prevent Walker from eliminating some "nobody" who was threatening to defame Walker?

Lastly, if Walker was primarily engaged in anonymous sexual encounters, it is entirely possible that his sexual partners never even recognized him.

You are, of course, correct about the possibility that a person or his/her family might "purge" or "sanitize" the personal papers of their family member. However, as a general proposition, usually there are family members or neighbors or co-workers or friends/acquaintances or business associates who "reveal" (at a minimum) their suspicions and, often, their actual knowledge.

I faced this situation with respect to Eustace Mullins. After I completed my report on Mullins which discussed his homosexuality, I received several hate emails from Mullins admirers. And there are hate messages on various neo-nazi websites that slime me because I quoted directly from US Army psychiatrist reports regarding Mullins AND I mentioned correspondence by friends and associates of Mullins which discuss his homosexuality. Some people want their heroes to remain totally "perfect" in every respect because they think one perceived flaw, or deficiency diminishes or discredits everything they have to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill: Your comment triggered something which I should have asked you.

Obviously, Walker never married and never had any children.

However, do you know anything specific about his family members, i.e. how many brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles he had that were alive during the 1960's and thereafter? I've never pursued that. I vaguely recall that he had at least one nephew but I don't know his name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie I think Paul would have access to that info faster. I have info but it's packed away now. I believe he had a brother, which he mentions in letters. I think his nephew is named George Walker, who donated the Walker Papers to UT. His Obit says that the nephew is only survivor. Not sure he is still around but should be.

Bill

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

×
×
  • Create New...