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
Paul Trejo

Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

Recommended Posts

I remember reading but can't remember where, someone referring to LBJ as a "nazi of the worst order". There was his public self, and then the way he really was, apparently. Ties between LBJ and Walker would be real interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 8:50 AM, Paul Trejo said:

But the John Birch Society (and Larrie Schmidt) felt strongly about using a Jewish name in the Ad -- as a decoy. 

From my point of view, Paul, this illuminates a key difference between your Radical Right CT and the standard Garrison-constructed CIA-did-it-CT.

The famous newspaper ad featured a "typical New York Jew"-ish sounding name because that's the mentality of the guys who authored the assassination.   Who thinks like this?

Only guys with the most base, vulgar, and childish instincts for public perception think having a Jewish-sounding name might actually impugn Jewish people.

Does this simplistic absurdity sound like the thinking of men who play global three dimensional chess with the Soviets, East Asians, and Castro?  Or does it sound more like the thinking of those less comfortable in Cold War brinksmanship and more comfortable with the traditional southern redneck culture of guns, burning crosses, and lynchings?   This isn't the East Coast Bush-wing of conservatives in action, this is the southern George Wallace/Trump Nation wing of conservatives in action.  

Anyway, I guess my point is that the ad and the whole Weissman sub-plot is the work of those unschooled in shaping public opinion - they failed in the less important Weissman/Jew baiting effort but failed dramtically in their hopes of pinning Kennedy's death on a communist conspiracy.

 

Jason

Screen_Shot_2017_10_31_at_7_53_21_PM.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also just picked up a copy of Dr. Walt Brown's "Trachery In Dallas" that Paul T. spoke well of. Eventually I'll get to that. Too many things to do. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Roger DeLaria said:

Thomas Masen involved with Cuban gun-running. I understood Jack Ruby was involved with Cuban gun operations. against Batista, then Castro. Did Jack Ruby and Masen cross paths? Ruby and Oswald apparently know each other. Oswald gets impersonated here and there. Masen, part of Walker's entourage, looks like Oswald. A few degrees of separation? Hmmm.... Masen seems like he knows something. Maybe, maybe not?

Roger, from my read of the evidence Oswald is only one step above homelessness at all times in his life.   This is not a guy who hangs out at nightclubs, he's not a guy who's naturally comfortable around single, promiscuous, American women.  He's Walter Mitty who checks out 007 novels from the library and imagines he's on a road that will lead him to the James Bond nirvana he boyishly seeks.  IMO.  

I don't see Ruby and Oswald as friends because birds of a feather flock together and birds of a different feather flock their separate ways - but anyway it doesn't matter.    You may still be right about the connections between Masen, et al., but I see a lot of CTers here trying desperately to connect dots.  Why does it matter?  They don't need to be friendly to be involved in the killing.

One of the places where me and Paul Trejo disagree slightly is on the many appearances of Oswald; at gun ranges and car dealers in particular.   My reading of the evidence is that there are too many reports dated prior to the assassination for them all to be cases of mistaken the identity.  Reports AFTER the assassination are irrelevant - these are just as worthless as the claims AFTER the assassination that Dinkin predicted anything at all about JFK.   

There are too many reports before 22 Nov 63 for any explanation other than someone else using Oswald's identity, IMO.  One of the most intriguing footprints of Oswald is below....Oswald's visit to Knoxville.   AFAIK no one has a good explanation for this tidbit:

Jason

Oswald_at_Oak_Ridge.png

 

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

I don't see Ruby and Oswald as friends because birds of a feather flock together and birds of a different feather flock their separate ways - but anyway it doesn't matter.    You may still be right about the connections between Masen, et al., but I see a lot of CTers here trying desperately to connect dots.  Why does it matter?  They don't need to be friendly to be involved in the killing.

One of the places where me and Paul Trejo disagree slightly is on the many appearances of Oswald; at gun ranges and car dealers in particular.   My reading of the evidence is that there are too many reports dated prior to the assassination for them all to be cases of mistaken the identity.  Reports AFTER the assassination are irrelevant - these are just as worthless as the claims AFTER the assassination that Dinkin predicted anything at all about JFK.   

There are too many reports before 22 Nov 63 for any explanation other than someone else using Oswald's identity, IMO.  One of the most intriguing footprints of Oswald is below....Oswald's visit to Knoxville.   AFAIK no one has a good explanation for this tidbit:

Jason

Oswald_at_Oak_Ridge.png

 

I agree with you about an Oswald/Ruby relationship. I believe they knew each other but didn't have to be friendly, it doesn't really matter for the killing. I feel the same way about the Oswald sightings before the assassination. Too many to be mistaken, one maybe I could buy. The knoxville visit is intriguing, I've never seen that before. I think the USSR bit might have been to draw attention, it looks almost to be an afterthought, like its out of place in a way. I wonder if this was an attempt to be a tie to his time in the Soviet Union where he was to give secrets to the USSR. Sheepdipping, part of an operation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 8:38 AM, Jason Ward said:

Paul T,

The communications documentation released in 2017 present factual insights into Hosty's mindset.  

Ironically, one of the central tenets of crime science is that those who deceive not only have something to hide, but also possess the criminal state of mind, a solid awareness that what they did was wrong, and a desperation to avoid punishment --- and Hosty is by this maxim guilty of something he wants hidden from his boss.  Hosty knows this well from his training but can't help acting guilty as hell.

I think it's correct to classify the FBI's reporting of the Dallas reactionaries into 3 distinct phases.  1st - before the assassination, the Dallas FBI office is towing the line from Hoover and dutifully reporting on the Radical Right, albeit reluctantly and minimally.

2nd phase - in the aftermath of the assassination, the Dallas FBI office comes close to saying there is no such thing as extreme right wingers in Dallas.

3rd phase - Hosty is now apparently out of the communications loop, and guys like Special Agent Garry Watt are again reporting enthusiastic and dangerously eccentric right winger meetings and rhetoric in the Dallas area.

Jason

PHASE 1

{Prior to November 22, 1963}

...OF THE FBI IN DALLAS REPORTS ON THE RADICAL RIGHT.  They exist.  They're definitely worth watching.  They are possibly dangerous.

PHASE 2

{November 23, 1963 to circa late1965}

...OF THE FBI IN DALLAS REPORTS ON THE RADICAL RIGHT.  There is no such thing as right wing extremist groups in Dallas.  Between September 1963 and January 1964, they have disappeared completely from the DFW metroplex.

 

PHASE 3

{late 1965 to ?present day?}

...OF THE FBI IN DALLAS REPORTS ON THE RADICAL RIGHT.  Hosty seems re-assigned.  New FBI staff like Special Agent Garry Watt are in Dallas.  The Minutemen and other reactionaries are suddenly reported as active again.  Did they really disappear for a few years or was someone hiding (protecting?) them for a few years after Dealey Plaza?

Jason,

This is a brilliant beginning.  Please keep mining in this direction as far as possible.  I believe your original research will hit paydirt.

Your documentary evidence so far is empirically SOLID.   The FBI is watching the Radical Right PUBLICLY before the JFK assassination, and immediately afterwards they force their PUBLICIZED attention off of the Radical Right.  Then, after the Warren Commission is completed, they begin watching the Radical Right PUBLICLY again.

I believe you have shown that with FBI documents -- and if you continue in that direction, with that paradigm, you will solve the JFK assassination before anybody else.

As for James Hosty, we know historically that J. Edgar Hoover reassigned him -- moved out of Dallas -- following the JFK assassination.  This was perceived as a "demotion" by Hosty and many other FBI agents -- yet the actual purpose remains shrouded, in my opinion.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

Thomas Masen involved with Cuban gun-running. I understood Jack Ruby was involved with Cuban gun operations. against Batista, then Castro. Did Jack Ruby and Masen cross paths? Ruby and Oswald apparently know each other. Oswald gets impersonated here and there. Masen, part of Walker's entourage, looks like Oswald. A few degrees of separation? Hmmm.... Masen seems like he knows something. Maybe, maybe not?

Roger,

The following is my opinion.

So many people were involved in Cuban gun-running in the early 1960's, from people close to the Minutemen, to people close to the Mafia, to people close to the CIA.  They do not necessarily know each other, nor are they necessarily coordinated.   Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gabby Gabaldon and Harry Dean were also involved in gun-running in support of Cuban Raid Groups.  Too many people to count.

Ruby and Oswald have no knowledge of each other -- I have never seen any evidence that cinches that.  It's entirely rumor.

Oswald gets impersonated very rarely -- most of the cases of a "false Oswald" are simply cases of "mistaken identity" which is a significant part of any murder investigation involving famous people (like JFK).

Masen knows something according to ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth, and he lives in Dallas so knows his stuff.  Yet Masen is a part of the Minutemen, whose leader in Dallas was General Walker -- a very disciplined and conservative person (except that he was gay and in the closet).  He would never have tolerated any criminals in his Minutemen organization.  Never.

Thomas Masen was a former military man, and these were preferred in the Minutemen.  The discipline was important.  Thomas Masen also owned a small business (a gun shop).  This was one reason that Frank Ellsworth was watching him closely.  If there had been any connection with the Carousel Club, this ATF agent would surely have reported it.  No doubt in my mind.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

I remember reading but can't remember where, someone referring to LBJ as a "nazi of the worst order". There was his public self, and then the way he really was, apparently. Ties between LBJ and Walker would be real interesting.

Roger,

The following is my opinion:

People in politics -- at any level -- say bizarre things: in no way was LBJ ever a Nazi.  One could never reconcile that with the Civil Rights Bill that he pushed through Congress.

General Walker was widely considered a LOSER in Washington DC.   He was a pitied person long before the riots at Ole Miss in September 1962.  Way back in April, 1962, Ex-General Walker appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness, and made a complete jackass of himself.  He ruined himself forever with his McCarthyist antics -- blaming the Pentagon of Communism and what not.  George Lincoln Rockwell dressed in full Nazi regalia marched into Walker's Senate Hearing.  It was a circus.

Anybody who blames ordinary people of Communism (without solid proof) lacks moral fiber.  That was what most folks in Washington DC thought -- and what most people think, IMHO.

So, seeking any contacts between the very powerful LBJ and the very powerless General Walker is futile, IMHO.

They did know one Texan in common -- billionaire H.L. Hunt.  Hunt loved to play in politics.  He had financed General MacArthur's bid for US President way back in 1948.  Hunt also financed Ex-General Walker's campaign for Texas Governor in 1962.  Walker came in last place, and H.L. Hunt lost interest in him politically.   After the Ole Miss riots, H.L. Hunt would not be seen with Walker in public.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

I also just picked up a copy of Dr. Walt Brown's "Treachery In Dallas" that Paul T. spoke well of. Eventually I'll get to that. Too many things to do. :)

Roger,

Many thanks for finding and announcing Dr. Walt Brown's superb book which highlights the Dallas Police roles in regard to the JFK assassination.   It plays directly into a Radical Right CT.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

From my point of view, Paul, this illuminates a key difference between your Radical Right CT and the standard Garrison-constructed CIA-did-it-CT.

The famous newspaper ad featured a "typical New York Jew"-ish sounding name because that's the mentality of the guys who authored the assassination.   Who thinks like this?

Only guys with the most base, vulgar, and childish instincts for public perception think having a Jewish-sounding name might actually impugn Jewish people.

Does this simplistic absurdity sound like the thinking of men who play global three dimensional chess with the Soviets, East Asians, and Castro?  Or does it sound more like the thinking of those less comfortable in Cold War brinksmanship and more comfortable with the traditional southern redneck culture of guns, burning crosses, and lynchings?   This isn't the East Coast Bush-wing of conservatives in action, this is the southern George Wallace/Trump Nation wing of conservatives in action.  

Anyway, I guess my point is that the ad and the whole Weissman sub-plot is the work of those unschooled in shaping public opinion - they failed in the less important Weissman/Jew baiting effort but failed dramatically in their hopes of pinning Kennedy's death on a communist conspiracy.

Jason

Jason,

Nice quotation from Milteer about blaming Jews for the JFK assassination.  Ruby and Weissman were strokes of good luck as he saw it (as reported by Jeff Caufield, 2015).

Here is some direct WC testimony from Bernard Weissman about his role in the Black-bordered Ad in the DMN, "Welcome Mister Kennedy, to Dallas -- Why are you a Communist?"

 

ABOUT THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY:
 
Representative BOGGS. Are you Jewish?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I am.

Representative BOGGS. Were they anti-Jewish?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Too many of them, yes. It was requested at one time that I change my name.

Representative BOGGS. Well, did you find this request unusual?

Mr. WEISBMAN. Yes; I did, as a matter of fact, I got pretty mad...


ABOUT THE BLACK-BORDERED AD:

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, let’s put it like this. I signed my name to the ad. But you might say the final selection rested with the contributors.  I had to go along with them, because if I said I won’t go along with it, or I won’t sign my name, there would have been an ad anyway -- the ad would have been printed anyway.  Larrie would have put his name to it...Bill and I had decided about a week after we got to Dallas that Larrie was full of hooey, that we could not go along with this guy.

Representative FORD. What do you mean by that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, everything he is doing he is doing for himself, and if we happen to fit in, it was fine.  And he was getting an awful lot of recognition and publicity.  We felt if this guy got any stronger, he would be able to move us out, or control us.  So when the idea for the ad came up I said, “Okay, I will put my name to it,” because I felt any recognition that came would then be in my favor, and if we took advantage of this, and because these organizations would have to back me personally as representing them, I could then denounce the anti-Semitism, the anti-Catholic, anti-Negro, and they would have to back me up, or else I would just tell the whole story about this thing.  And I felt that this was going to be my move to get back to the original philosophy of a completely democratic type of organization.   And I had discussed -- Bill and I, I might say, were a partnership unto ourselves.  We had decided one way or the other we were either going to get out of Dallas or run the thing ourselves, because we didn’t like the way it was going.

Mr. DULLES. Did Larrie object to your being the one to sign the advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; in fact, Larrie was sort of afraid to sign it, because when he came out and said he was part of the [Adlai] Stevenson demonstration, his life had been threatened, and he had all sorts of harrassing phone calls and so on. And he wanted to avoid this. But if it was a question of printing an ad or not printing it, he would have signed it.

Representative FORD. But as far as any organization of any kind being responsible for this ad, it was not true.  There was no organization that backed this ad?  There were four or five of you that really promoted it and finally raised the money for it and put it in the newspaper?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is not quite accurate. You might say when you get right down to it, in the final tale, the John Birch Society printed that ad, not CUSA.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

This is a brilliant beginning.  Please keep mining in this direction as far as possible.  I believe your original research will hit paydirt.

Your documentary evidence so far is empirically SOLID.   The FBI is watching the Radical Right PUBLICLY before the JFK assassination, and immediately afterwards they force their PUBLICIZED attention off of the Radical Right.  Then, after the Warren Commission is completed, they begin watching the Radical Right PUBLICLY again.

I believe you have shown that with FBI documents -- and if you continue in that direction, with that paradigm, you will solve the JFK assassination before anybody else.

As for James Hosty, we know historically that J. Edgar Hoover reassigned him -- moved out of Dallas -- following the JFK assassination.  This was perceived as a "demotion" by Hosty and many other FBI agents -- yet the actual purpose remains shrouded, in my opinion.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Dallas was blinking red on Hoover's radar by November, 1963.  FBI communications document extreme concern and obvious intelligence frenzy - not dissimilar from the way Osama bin Laden and an imminent attack was known by the US intelligence community in the summer of 2001

When catastrophe happened in Dallas, Hoover was scared for his job.  His sexuality put him in a very rough place because Walker, Walker's boyfriends, Ferrie, Clay Shaw, et al., and various hangers-on in the form of rent boys and French Quarter street hustlers could start an anti-gay domino collapse that takes down the FBI.  I know you think we should leave sexuality out of it, but in 1963 Hoover's sexuality is a component of his decision-making, even as it is for us all in one degree or another.

Hoover by 1pm fears for the survival of Hoover's FBI - from my perspective of the communications stream.   He had to cover up the fact that Dallas in a slow-moving convertible is about the most dangerous thing JFK could do; in fact Kennedy would find it safer in Moscow or Havana.   Hoover's hands are bloody from the assassination because he was probably positioned better than anyone in America to understand both the tactical and strategic perfect storm developing in Dallas in late November.  

Hoover may have disliked the Kennedys; but Hoover doesn't dislike the Kennedy's enough to risk his own career and the FBI.  Hoover had to cover up incompetence - that is the reason for the coverup; not guilt, in my view.

One of the supporting features of what I write above is that Hoover starts rolling heads downhill in the assassination aftermath.  Key FBI men are demoted, eased out of headquarters back to the field, or shuffled out of important, desirable cities into irrelevant backwaters.    He can't come out and say: "We had all the information necessary to stop the assassination so you're fired for not stopping the assassination."  Instead he starts cashiering FBI men in the background of the Warren Commission - a few of them raise hell over their demotions as shown by the documents I've shared with you.....remind me to post them here if you think it's interesting to see how the scapegoated FBI guys pushback at Hoover as much as they dare.

...anyway, Hosty's demotion is in perfect keeping with Hoover's overall retribution program against those that let the Assassination happen and by doing so embarrassed Hoover and the FBI.  Hoover comes down hard on Dallas and a couple other key offices...again I'll post more on that if you think it's interesting.

 

Jason

 

Hoover doesn't hold a big purge; he patiently punishes those who risked the FBI's existence by allowing the assassination to happen, or who by negligence did not pursue the {in retrospect} obvious signals that should have clearly shown the intersection of motive and opportunity in Dallas.

Here's Turner, one of a few dozen FBI men who are scapegoated for not preventing the assassination:

Screen_Shot_2017_11_01_at_7_17_28_PM.png

 

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

I agree with you about an Oswald/Ruby relationship. I believe they knew each other but didn't have to be friendly, it doesn't really matter for the killing. I feel the same way about the Oswald sightings before the assassination. Too many to be mistaken, one maybe I could buy. The knoxville visit is intriguing, I've never seen that before. I think the USSR bit might have been to draw attention, it looks almost to be an afterthought, like its out of place in a way. I wonder if this was an attempt to be a tie to his time in the Soviet Union where he was to give secrets to the USSR. Sheepdipping, part of an operation?

Hi Roger,

Mary Ferrell is in some ways a role model for me because she believed first and foremost in the imperative of data, not supposition.   Look around the Mary Ferrell foundation's website and I believe you'll find your 10 free searches a day elicit a plethora of evidence on most any given subject well beyond what the average CT-er discovered over decades of work.  If the subject of Ruby and Oswald interest's you - there's lots of unconsidered evidence to get a more certain answer.

To re-focus a point about this I made to you above, I must be blunt and say it simply doesn't matter - if Oswald and Ruby knew each other or not.  It doesn't matter if Oswald took Russian language classes in the Marines. It doesn't matter if there were dozens of fake Oswald sightings.   All this might lead to useful clues, but, really, we've had these same points for years on these particular topics and we're still at the same place we were with Garrison.   Oswald at a Ford dealership or Oswald taking Russian classes or Oswald and Ruby as BFFs doesn't tell us who shot Kennedy.  

Oswald touring the birthplace of America's nuclear production capacity and signing USSR in the register is, in my view, almost a comical example of in-your-face-commie on the loose in America, an example of a constructed dangerous threat meant to scare us all.   I'm a Soviet spy, so I sign USSR in the guest register at Oak Ridge....ok.....

Jason

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Mary_Ferrell_Chronologies.html?search=mary's chronologies

Mary's chronologies are especially fruitful and under-appreciated; she does a month by month calculation of Oswald's finances to elucidate any questionable income. Merely by reading Mary's chronologies, one quickly realizes that the possibility of Oswald working for the CIA or sophisticated omnipotent handlers is absurd.  Below is a snippet from Mary's Chronology in the summer of 63, around the time of Oswald's visit to Mobile, Knoxville, the Oak Ridge nuclear facility and ?????

 

John_T_Masen.png


Screen_Shot_2017_11_01_at_7_44_49_PM.png


Screen_Shot_2017_11_01_at_7_44_35_PM.png


Screen_Shot_2017_11_01_at_7_43_48_PM.png

 

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

When catastrophe happened in Dallas, Hoover was scared for his job.  His sexuality put him in a very rough place

Historians who are extremely hostile toward Hoover have discounted the rumors about Hoover's sexuality.  Most of those rumors are based upon assertions made by the wife of a Mafia figure who had been convicted of perjury.

Anthony Summers, in his book Official and Confidential, claimed Hoover deliberately refused to crack down on organized crime because he was being blackmailed by the Mafia after Mafia boss Meyer Lansky, an associate of Frank Costello, obtained photographs of Hoover in drag.  But the assertion that Hoover was gay did not originate with Anthony Summers. 

Summers's strongest source for Hoover's alleged homosexuality is Susan Rosenstiel, the fourth wife of mobster Lewis S. Rosenstiel.  She claims to have witnessed Hoover in drag at two orgies at New York's Plaza Hotel in 1958 and 1959.   Roy Cohn, a known homosexual, was (allegedly) also present. Rosenstiel's story could not be corroborated as all the participants present at the parties are now deceased.

Hoover biographer Richard Hack quoted an interview given by Roy Cohn shortly before his death. Cohn said that Hoover "wouldn't do anything, certainly not in public, not in private either. Hoover was always afraid that someone who he saw, where he went, what he said, it would impact that all-important image of his. He would never do anything that would compromise his position as head of the FBI – ever. There was supposed to be some scandalous pictures of Hoover and Tolson – there were no pictures. Believe me, I looked. There were no pictures because there was no sexual relationship. Whatever they did, they did separately, in different rooms, and even then, I'm sure Hoover was fully dressed."

Two of Hoover's most acclaimed and authoritative biographers. Richard Gid Powers and Athan Theoharis both believe Summers's sources were not credible. Athan Theoharis said that the popularization of Hoover's homosexuality was the result of "shoddy journalism."

Powers also questioned the reliability of many of Summers's witnesses quoted in the book. Powers said that Hoover was such a hated figure that many people were prepared to believe the worst about him and to "badmouth" him. Powers cites John Weitz, a former wartime secret service officer, who, according to Summers, was at a dinner party in the 1950s when the host showed him a picture and identified Hoover having sex with another man. Weitz did not himself recognize Hoover and he refused to identify the party host. Nor did Summers ever see the photograph.

Dr. Athan Theoharis demonstrated, in his book J. Edgar Hoover, Sex, and Crime, that Summers's claims were not credible.

Theoharis stated that no evidence exists that would prove Hoover and Tolson were sexually involved. Theoharis also believes Tolson was heterosexual, citing reports by a number of Tolson's associates. Theoharis believes that the likelihood is that Hoover never knew sexual desire at all.  Richard Hack, presented evidence in his 2004 book Puppetmaster – The Secret Life Of J. Edgar Hoover to prove Hoover had a sexual relationship with Hollywood actress Dorothy Lamour and a possible intimate relationship with Lela Rogers, mother of actress Ginger Rogers.

Regarding Rosenstiel's claim that Hoover was homosexual, Theoharis observed:

"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.

Theoharis's research is supported by the late FBI Assistant Director Cartha DeLoach who said 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.

DeLoach and Theoharis are also supported by writer Peter Maas who discovered a fatal flaw in Summers's version of events with regard to the cross-dressing story at the Plaza Hotel.  Maas said that in the period following the alleged incident at the Plaza Hotel Hoover assigned FBI agents to investigate Lansky who supposedly had the photos of Hoover in a compromising position.  When the FBI office in Miami complained that an investigation would be hampered by lack of manpower Hoover wrote back, "Lansky has been designated for 'crash' investigation. The importance of this case cannot be overemphasized. The Bureau expects this investigation to be vigorous and detailed." Maas also wrote that when he asked Lansky's closest associate about the photo, the old man replied, "Are you nuts?"

Therefore, according to Maas, this memo severely undermines Summers's thesis that Hoover could not act against mobsters because they "had the goods" on him.  And Susan Rosenstiel's credibility is also undermined by her interview to a BBC documentary team. When questioned by Anthony Summers about her observations at the Plaza Hotel she said the person in drag "LOOKED LIKE J. EDGAR HOOVER." (Emphasis added)  After a prompt by Summers she agreed that it was definitely Hoover. It is clear that Rosenstiel's story is less than convincing especially when you consider the proposition that Hoover was allowing himself to be observed by someone who could have destroyed his career and compromised him for the rest of his life.
 

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie - informative post. 

Jason - you (and many others) have repeated often the idea that Hoover was compromised and handcuffed by that. Other than the oft quoted story that Mafia actually had pictures of Hoover in drag, have you any other proofs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Paul,

Dallas was blinking red on Hoover's radar by November, 1963.  FBI communications document extreme concern and obvious intelligence frenzy - not dissimilar from the way Osama bin Laden and an imminent attack was known by the US intelligence community in the summer of 2001

When catastrophe happened in Dallas, Hoover was scared for his job.  His sexuality put him in a very rough place because Walker, Walker's boyfriends, Ferrie, Clay Shaw, et al., and various hangers-on in the form of rent boys and French Quarter street hustlers could start an anti-gay domino collapse that takes down the FBI.  I know you think we should leave sexuality out of it, but in 1963 Hoover's sexuality is a component of his decision-making, even as it is for us all in one degree or another.

Hoover by 1pm fears for the survival of Hoover's FBI - from my perspective of the communications stream.   He had to cover up the fact that Dallas in a slow-moving convertible is about the most dangerous thing JFK could do; in fact Kennedy would find it safer in Moscow or Havana.   Hoover's hands are bloody from the assassination because he was probably positioned better than anyone in America to understand both the tactical and strategic perfect storm developing in Dallas in late November.  

Hoover may have disliked the Kennedys; but Hoover doesn't dislike the Kennedy's enough to risk his own career and the FBI.  Hoover had to cover up incompetence - that is the reason for the coverup; not guilt, in my view.

One of the supporting features of what I write above is that Hoover starts rolling heads downhill in the assassination aftermath.  Key FBI men are demoted, eased out of headquarters back to the field, or shuffled out of important, desirable cities into irrelevant backwaters.    He can't come out and say: "We had all the information necessary to stop the assassination so you're fired for not stopping the assassination."  Instead he starts cashiering FBI men in the background of the Warren Commission - a few of them raise hell over their demotions as shown by the documents I've shared with you.....remind me to post them here if you think it's interesting to see how the scapegoated FBI guys pushback at Hoover as much as they dare.

...anyway, Hosty's demotion is in perfect keeping with Hoover's overall retribution program against those that let the Assassination happen and by doing so embarrassed Hoover and the FBI.  Hoover comes down hard on Dallas and a couple other key offices...again I'll post more on that if you think it's interesting.

Jason

Hoover doesn't hold a big purge; he patiently punishes those who risked the FBI's existence by allowing the assassination to happen, or who by negligence did not pursue the {in retrospect} obvious signals that should have clearly shown the intersection of motive and opportunity in Dallas...

Jason,

Although I agree with you that much can be made of the FBI failure to act before the JFK assassination (specifically by Dallas FBI agent Hosty in response to PRS inquiries), it is my opinion that a concentration upon J. Edgar Hoover in this regard would not help to solve the JFK assassination by naming the actual plotters.

Even if every word you say above is true -- and I believe that Sylvia Meagher would agree with you -- that does not solve the JFK assassination with regard to the actual shooters or plotters.  It is, in my humble opinion, tangential and perhaps even irrelevant to the JFK assassination plot.

One can only learn what the USA should have done to "better prevent" the catastrophe.  But not who is truly guilty.  

Guilt "after the fact" is something very different, IMHO, and I would hope that we do not become sidetracked by it.  By digging so deeply into the FBI materials, I can see how this could be a temptation.  I would humbly ask that you continue to focus on the possible shooters and active Dallas plotters.

IMHO, the fact that the FBI focus on the Radical Right starts AFTER the JFK assassination is enough evidence that FBI Headquarters was not part of the JFK plotting.

Of course, here I make an exception of the local, Dallas FBI agents.  Hosty and Bookhout.  They were both present during the final hour of the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, and IMHO they both joined Fritz, Sorrels and Holmes in perjury about what Lee Harvey Oswald said during the final hour of his life.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

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

×