Kenneth Drew

Chuck:

Let us not forget, in addition to the Cabell connection, Dulles was in Dallas about a month before the assassination. And he joked about this, plus the fact of his relationship with Mary Bancroft, which put him about two degrees away from Ruth and Michael Paine. You know those two sweet, innocent Good Samaritan types who went into overdrive to try and convict Oswald within hours after the murder.

I forgot one more point: Dulles' special visit to Truman--while sitting on the Warren Commission--trying to get him to retract his editorial in the Post about how the CIA had seemed to have gone rogue of late. Truman started writing that editorial about a week after the assassination.

In the materials given to me by Ray Marcus from the Truman Library, it is apparent that Dulles thought the article was written owing to Truman's suspicions that somehow the CIA was involved in Kennedy's murder. And one step beyond that, he also thought that Truman suspected Vietnam was a big motive in the assassination. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pgs. 378-81) I am really surprised that more people have not picked up on this point.

I mean how incriminating is incriminating.

I'd give Truman credit for his knowledge.

David Talbot is a journalist. Which means when he writes something, he gathers facts; the facts form a story; the story has a beginning, a middle, and a conclusion. Fine.

If one looks at Talbot's online Salon website, one finds some useful information. What one finds primarily is bias in the writing of Salon pieces. Which is also OK. I'm able to digest bias.

Bias is anathema to a truth teller. David Talbot has a bent toward bias.

Fine, so do all historians.

So count me a skeptic.

David Talbot is a journalist. Which means when he writes something, he gathers facts; the facts form a story; the story has a beginning, a middle, and a conclusion. Fine. Unfortunately it, too often, is 'his' story, 'his' beginning, 'his' ending. Truth is not a requirement for journalists.

Count me a skeptic also.

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 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,

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.

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

"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?

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?

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

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

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.)

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.

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.

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

There are those in the homosexual persuasion that would tell you that they are perfectly normal and that homosexuality is not a medical condition. I'm not sure why some of those, if they read some of the comments on this thread, would not say that being homosexual does not make you an 'anti-communist' or a 'right winger'. I wouldn't make the argument either way as I've not studied the subject and am not a psychiatrist. Uh, another point. Why would being homosexual make someone a 'target'?

Again, Kenneth, according to Freud, homosexuality itself isn't a medical condition -- however closeted homosexuality can lead to cases of paranoia, which is a medical condition, according to Freud.

As for the problem of homophobia in the USA in the 1960's, I think that is already well-documented by sociologists. Although I feel certain that the resigned General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder, and so I condemn him for that -- nevertheless I also regard Walker as a victim of mass homophobia for his entire life, and so I pity him for that. I don't excuse Walker's (alleged) murder of JFK -- but I do regard mass homophobia in the USA in the 1960's as an extenuating circumstance of Walker's behavior.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

For a very insightful discussion about homosexuality and the ways in which it has been perceived over the past 2000+ years, see Ronald Bayer's book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.

With respect to Walker, it is important to understand that apart from religious judgments that being gay amounted to a grievous sin resulting in famine, earthquakes and pestilence being visited upon societies that failed to properly expiate it, the professional medical community (i.e. psychiatrists) considered homosexuality to be a mental disease. In the U.S. that position was not changed until 1973 when the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

One can make obvious conclusions regarding how such societal perceptions would affect an individual whose entire livelihood and reputation and sense of self-worth depended upon keeping his sexuality secret for his entire life.

Homosexuality and American Psychiatry. I'm not sure why anyone would want to read this book in relation to the JFK assassination. I'm sure no one needs to study the history of homosexuality to understand why JFK was killed. And I'm gonna bet the book, as most books are, written with an agenda.

I have serious doubts that the fact that the psychiatric organization changed their definition of homosexuality had much impact on the way homosexuals felt about themselves.

Much better. Thank you. Wouldn't want to start a new conspiracy theory about JFK getting whacked by the Stemmons sign.

What? He was hit by the sign? Never heard that one!

I understood Freud's comment and believe I understand his intent. I have no problem with his assessment. I'm not a fan (nor a non-fan) of Edwin Walker and did not know until recently that he was either a homosexual, or was assumed to be a homosexual. (Do you know, in fact, whether it is true or not) So I'm sure that bit of information has not altered my opinion of whether he was involved with the JFK assassination. I have never seen any evidence that absolutely links him to any aspect of the assassination so I remain skeptical.

The evidence that the resigned General Walker was homosexual involves two DPD arrests of Walker in Dallas for homosexual behavior in a public place.

Further, Walker never married, nor was ever known to have had a girlfriend at any time in his life, though he lived to be 83.

Of course, Walker's alleged homosexuality has no direct correlation at all to the JFK assassination.

Harrison Livingstone once wrote, however, that nearly all of his suspects in the JFK assassination had been homosexual -- including Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack Ruby, the resigned General Walker and several others. Jim Garrison himself once called the JFK assassination "a homosexual thrill killing."

I think Livingstone and Garrison made much ado over nothing -- yet homophobia remained strong in the USA throughout the 20th century. Actually, it's not evidence of anything on its own.

The point here, IMHO, is not whether Walker was gay, but whether Walker was paranoid -- and whether such paranoia played a role in the JFK murder.

As for Walker's role in the JFK murder, there is a very small but growing literature about it -- because Walker played a key role in the Ole Miss riots of 1962, and in the Dallas humiliation of Adlai Stevenson in October, as well as in the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbills circulating in October and November, and the "black-bordered ad" of November in Dallas -- as well as newer evidence.

This is one reason why this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, is interesting to many.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Thanks for that info.

(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia.

Yes, Kenneth, that is my reading of Sigmund Freud. In a society which is less oppressive to homosexuals, we will see fewer cases of paranoia -- that was Freud's clear conclusion in 1915. It's part of his psychoanalytic theory. Although it is widely disputed -- IMHO Freud was entirely correct.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I agree with his theory, I think. Though I'm kinda surprised to learn that homosexuals were so much in 'the closet' in and before 1915. When you watch movies of the old Romans, Greeks, and others, seems as if they valued homosexuals highly. It was rampant in the old Legions that were at war for years at a time. So I wonder when and why they went 'into the closet'.

yep, VA 105, NAS Cecil Field. Jacksonville, FL. America's navel. LCdr Scott Speicher was the very first american casualty of the first Gulf War when his F18 was shot down by an incredibly lucky Iraqi when Scott made an error on his turnback (the story is told in a book called Bogeys and Bandits, about the training and fighting capabilities of a few special F18 pilots). Lt Speicher was a Corsair pilot in VA 105 and i remembered him well when i saw his name on the casualty list Jan 16, 1991.

He was never recovered - when we went back into Iraq our illustrious govt didn't want to mess with finding his him until an iraqi showed someone the downed plane and an intact flight-suit. meaning of course that he'd survived the down and ... who knows ... it was in the news periodically because his family were trying to get attention drawn to the govt's apathy in order to find him, but to no avail.

anyway, i don't know why i went into that. one of those things that connects you to something so otherwise foreign and terrible.

The Forrestal was unable to sell to scrap metal companies, so it eventually sold to the highest bidder for an entire dollar (the truth, as you're probably aware). Even the Coast Guard didn't want it.

It's at that scrap metal company All Star Metals on the channel near Brownsville Tx, being chopped up at the present time. I was hoping some city would want it because it was the first Supercarrier and had a history. But we all go back to 'dust to dust'. eventually.

Brownsville, TX, huh... how suspicious... how close to Dallas is that...? smells suspiciously like part of a conspiracy to me... and Adm Forestal was active at the time, right? wasn't he on the cabinet then?

I think this needs to be investigated.

Ex Sec of Defense, James Vincent Forrestal committed suicide in 1949. But I do think that the Forrestal being salvaged in Texas is related to the JFK assassination. I'm looking into the details and if I come up with something concrete, I will certainly publish it. So, rest assured, no stone unturned.

There are those in the homosexual persuasion that would tell you that they are perfectly normal and that homosexuality is not a medical condition. I'm not sure why some of those, if they read some of the comments on this thread, would not say that being homosexual does not make you an 'anti-communist' or a 'right winger'. I wouldn't make the argument either way as I've not studied the subject and am not a psychiatrist. Uh, another point. Why would being homosexual make someone a 'target'?

Again, Kenneth, according to Freud, homosexuality itself isn't a medical condition -- however closeted homosexuality can lead to cases of paranoia, which is a medical condition, according to Freud.

As for the problem of homophobia in the USA in the 1960's, I think that is already well-documented by sociologists. Although I feel certain that the resigned General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder, and so I condemn him for that -- nevertheless I also regard Walker as a victim of mass homophobia for his entire life, and so I pity him for that. I don't excuse Walker's (alleged) murder of JFK -- but I do regard mass homophobia in the USA in the 1960's as an extenuating circumstance of Walker's behavior.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I understood Freud's comment and believe I understand his intent. I have no problem with his assessment. I'm not a fan (nor a non-fan) of Edwin Walker and did not know until recently that he was either a homosexual, or was assumed to be a homosexual. (Do you know, in fact, whether it is true or not) So I'm sure that bit of information has not altered my opinion of whether he was involved with the JFK assassination. I have never seen any evidence that absolutely links him to any aspect of the assassination so I remain skeptical.

Paul - do you personally, after years of Walker research, think that RFK sent Oswald to kill Walker?

No, Paul B., in my personal opinion, RFK did not send Lee Harvey Oswald to kill the resigned Major General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963.

IMHO, George De Mohrenschildt convinced Oswald to hate and despise the resigned General Walker, and this was common knowledge in Dallas in 1963 by Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald, Volkmar Schmidt, Everett Glover and Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin -- and probably several other yuppie Dallas oil engineers in their circle. (It was the best kept secret of the WC witnesses, IMHO.)

Yet the resigned General Edwin Walker was a complex character -- a shrewd and victorious US General on the one hand, and a man suffering from a homosexual conflict with his US Army oath on the other hand.

Sigmund Freud's analysis of paranoia in the early 20th century concluded that classical paranoia begins as closeted homosexuality. The psychological reversal, according to Freud, goes something like this -- "Step 1: I love this man; Step 2: No, that is taboo, so, I obsessively hate this man; Step 3: No, that is taboo, so instead, this man hates me and continually wants to kill me." So, the sexual attraction of the closeted homosexual, said Freud, would transform a continual homosexual passion into a continual fear of being stalked. (It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.)

This seems to be the case with the resigned General Edwin Walker. As a military man, he would respect and admire people of great political power. That would include JFK and RFK. As a homosexual, that would necessarily lead to homosexual fantasies in Walker's mind. Evidence of this is found in Walker's personal papers, where we find a cartoon published by the John Birch Society, showing JFK in a wedding gown. Walker preserved that cartoon separately from all other literature. I take this to refer to Walker's fantasy life.

Yet for social purposes in Dallas polite society, all homosexual feelings, thoughts and fantasies must have been forcefully suppressed. This suppression, said Freud, leads to paranoia and its transformation of passion into continual fear.

In my personal opinion, the resigned General Walker lived in at least a mild state of paranoia for his entire Military career, and perhaps even before, going back to childhood. Jim Root once wrote in this FORUM that he interviewed the neighbors of Edwin Walker near Kerrville, Texas, and they believed that Walker's father sent him to military school because he feared young Edwin was gay. That fits the pattern I see.

When the resigned General Edwin Walker faced a Grand Jury for his role in the 1962 racial riots of Ole Miss University, two psychiatrists testified that they believed on the basis of Walker's testimony at the April 1962 Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness (called by Senators John Stennis and Strom Thurmond) that Walker showed signs of "mild paranoia", e.g. in his referring all major world events to himself. Two other psychiatrists testified, on the contrary, that Walker was fit as a fiddle -- and the Grand Jury believed the latter. I think this Grand Jury was wrong in all its decisions that day.

So, in conclusion, Paul B., I think that the resigned Walker was at least mildly paranoid -- and that his medical condition played a key role in the JFK assassination there in Dallas.

I also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did try to kill the resigned General Walker, as persuaded by George De Mohrenschildt, Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt, among others. (I think the sworn testimony, and the material evidence for this view is overwhelming.) I also believe that George suspected Oswald as soon as the news hit the streets, and that he told his suspicions to Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin four days later, who told the FBI that same day -- and the FBI told officials in Dallas, and one of those officials told Walker on that same day. That would explain Walker's letter to Senator Frank Church in 1975 -- as well as Walker's claims to the Deutsche Nationalzeitung newspaper in Germany less than 24 hours after the JFK murder. Oswald tried to kill Walker.

Walker took this shooting at him at his home in Dallas as a direct threat from Communism. The JBS had told Walker that JFK and RFK were Communists. Therefore, in the paranoid mind of the resigned General Walker, RFK and JFK were continually trying to kill him. Therefore, Walker's plans to assassinate JFK would have been, on this paranoid logic, simple self-defense.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia.

This leap in logic brings back my If, Then proposal and your more-than-minor difficulties with it. (Freud's quote is analog - with gray areas, varying degrees of severity, and your oversimplification of it is digital, black or white, ON or OFF, 1 or 0 - it's just a comment, no insult intended.) so, NO, not, "so no more closet, no more paranoia." it's not that simple. the closeted condition - suggesting a lesser or greater degree of being closeted rather than a solidified state of it - "leads to", again implying degrees, and not a simple state of paranoia. And I'm certain that he did not mean, "no one who is in a closeted condition will suffer from paranoia, and everyone who is in the condition of being closeted will suffer from it." it's not that simple.

you will possibly want to accuse me of splitting hairs or taking your words too literally or too seriously; if so, I'd say nonsense. on subjects like mental health and a person's periodic persecution for his sexual "self," and as these may or may not play a role in the possible (I italicized it so that Paul won't think, "yay, he's coming 'round!") involvement in an assassination of a head of state, I kinda think word choice - and the understanding of them - is pretty important.

which reminds me; i have my most fantastic laptop back (i'm now a converted HP loyalist from the ankles up after what they did for me!) so i can type again, and am STILL eager to throw together some observations from my position as onlooker on what was just meant to be a quaint little exercise at which hopefully a few people might take a stab and then forget - in my born fascination with how humans think I was no question blown away at the many different ways various people viewed and then thought about an identical situation. I didn't ultimately see it so much as right or wrong as I did, wow, now isn't THAT interesting! ya'll forgive me, but it really was much more than I thought it was going to be.

can't wait to go through that stuff and write about it. [Cheshire Cat Smile]

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.

^{So who did Dr. Ebersole answer to?}

Pretty sure it was Osborne Chief of Surgery as well as Humes for this Autopsy and then anyone above them.

I did this a while back to better understand the scene at Bethesda. hope it helps.

DJ

edit - PS - reading Ebersole's HSCA interview sheds a great deal of light... then see what Custer and Reed and even O'Connor has to say about Ebersole's abilities. He was about as good at Xrays as Humes was at performing an autopsy

if that's your idea of some kind of humor at an otherwise nationally sobering catastrophe, then i'm liking you more and more every time i read your stuff.

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

yay

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

Yeah, it is, but it's not stated correctly.... How did you know I would read that?

Hang on here... dead serious

Those are the connections at Bethesda and surrounding that night...

Humes claimed the autopsy started with body at 6:45.

FBI/SS bring in a casket at 7:17

The actual start is 8pm...

This is how all these people were actually connected.... and who ordered who to do what, to sign what, to go and be here and there.

Sorry, but what's so funny?

(Have you read Best Evidence? my bad if not... I did this while reading it to remember who everybody was)

David that "if - then" comment by Glenn was in reference to another thread we had a lot of laughs over. Was not about your diagram.

Having no professional skills in analyzing the mental health of a subject, I will not venture to declare a diagnosis on Walker. However, I will say he definitely suffered from some sort of (or several) maladies or afflictions.

After studying his speeches visually on film, it seems he had bouts of stage-fright and or drug induced type lapses. His hands would shake, his lips would quiver, he would stutter and stammer over simple words as if he were distracted by some unseen affliction. In the next minute he would seemingly be able to compose himself and speak with authority as if the moment had passed. Was he just a poor speaker in general? Yes, yet not always! I think it went deeper than that on some other level that I can't pinpoint. I think a psychologist could have field day watching this man, in some ways he reminded me of Hitler, and his up and down speech cadence, and bursts of venom.

Bill

William, would you link me or steer me to one of those videos of Walker's that show the 'stage fright, lapses, etc'. I checked out several and the only thing I see is that he reads all of his speeches and sometimes has a little problem with 'finding his place again when he glances down'. I'm sure I just wasn't able to find the right ones to show the things you mentioned.

I'd have to say, after watching several videos, he seems to have his head screwed on straight. I had no idea that the tactic of 'not fighting a war to win' started before Viet Nam, but he clearly says he was told that the strategy in Korea did not include 'winning'. That he could not mount any offensive with more than 30 troops without prior approval and anytime they did some damage to the enemy, he had to withdraw to give them time to rebuild and re-arm. I'm not sure if Truman were still the president during the time he mentions or if Ike had already taken over. Seems likely that it was under Truman since Ike only was Pres for about 6 months of that war, while Truman had it for about 2 1/2 years.

There are those in the homosexual persuasion that would tell you that they are perfectly normal and that homosexuality is not a medical condition. I'm not sure why some of those, if they read some of the comments on this thread, would not say that being homosexual does not make you an 'anti-communist' or a 'right winger'. I wouldn't make the argument either way as I've not studied the subject and am not a psychiatrist. Uh, another point. Why would being homosexual make someone a 'target'?

Pat,

Thanks.

I've always understood that x-rays are reflected by bone, metal, or other dense and hard matter and are absorbed by soft tissue.

As for the four x-ray depictions you present, I'm curious about the lower-right one. Is that supposedly a lateral view of JFK's skull? If it is, I must say it looks like the x-ray of a cross between a homo sapien and a simian, given what appears to me to be protruding bones above and below the mouth.

that is a strange looking bone structure.

Paul - do you personally, after years of Walker research, think that RFK sent Oswald to kill Walker?

No, Paul B., in my personal opinion, RFK did not send Lee Harvey Oswald to kill the resigned Major General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963.

IMHO, George De Mohrenschildt convinced Oswald to hate and despise the resigned General Walker, and this was common knowledge in Dallas in 1963 by Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald, Volkmar Schmidt, Everett Glover and Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin -- and probably several other yuppie Dallas oil engineers in their circle. (It was the best kept secret of the WC witnesses, IMHO.)

Yet the resigned General Edwin Walker was a complex character -- a shrewd and victorious US General on the one hand, and a man suffering from a homosexual conflict with his US Army oath on the other hand.

Sigmund Freud's analysis of paranoia in the early 20th century concluded that classical paranoia begins as closeted homosexuality. The psychological reversal, according to Freud, goes something like this -- "Step 1: I love this man; Step 2: No, that is taboo, so, I obsessively hate this man; Step 3: No, that is taboo, so instead, this man hates me and continually wants to kill me." So, the sexual attraction of the closeted homosexual, said Freud, would transform a continual homosexual passion into a continual fear of being stalked. (It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.)

This seems to be the case with the resigned General Edwin Walker. As a military man, he would respect and admire people of great political power. That would include JFK and RFK. As a homosexual, that would necessarily lead to homosexual fantasies in Walker's mind. Evidence of this is found in Walker's personal papers, where we find a cartoon published by the John Birch Society, showing JFK in a wedding gown. Walker preserved that cartoon separately from all other literature. I take this to refer to Walker's fantasy life.

Yet for social purposes in Dallas polite society, all homosexual feelings, thoughts and fantasies must have been forcefully suppressed. This suppression, said Freud, leads to paranoia and its transformation of passion into continual fear.

In my personal opinion, the resigned General Walker lived in at least a mild state of paranoia for his entire Military career, and perhaps even before, going back to childhood. Jim Root once wrote in this FORUM that he interviewed the neighbors of Edwin Walker near Kerrville, Texas, and they believed that Walker's father sent him to military school because he feared young Edwin was gay. That fits the pattern I see.

When the resigned General Edwin Walker faced a Grand Jury for his role in the 1962 racial riots of Ole Miss University, two psychiatrists testified that they believed on the basis of Walker's testimony at the April 1962 Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness (called by Senators John Stennis and Strom Thurmond) that Walker showed signs of "mild paranoia", e.g. in his referring all major world events to himself. Two other psychiatrists testified, on the contrary, that Walker was fit as a fiddle -- and the Grand Jury believed the latter. I think this Grand Jury was wrong in all its decisions that day.

So, in conclusion, Paul B., I think that the resigned Walker was at least mildly paranoid -- and that his medical condition played a key role in the JFK assassination there in Dallas.

I also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did try to kill the resigned General Walker, as persuaded by George De Mohrenschildt, Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt, among others. (I think the sworn testimony, and the material evidence for this view is overwhelming.) I also believe that George suspected Oswald as soon as the news hit the streets, and that he told his suspicions to Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin four days later, who told the FBI that same day -- and the FBI told officials in Dallas, and one of those officials told Walker on that same day. That would explain Walker's letter to Senator Frank Church in 1975 -- as well as Walker's claims to the Deutsche Nationalzeitung newspaper in Germany less than 24 hours after the JFK murder. Oswald tried to kill Walker.

Walker took this shooting at him at his home in Dallas as a direct threat from Communism. The JBS had told Walker that JFK and RFK were Communists. Therefore, in the paranoid mind of the resigned General Walker, RFK and JFK were continually trying to kill him. Therefore, Walker's plans to assassinate JFK would have been, on this paranoid logic, simple self-defense.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia.

yep, VA 105, NAS Cecil Field. Jacksonville, FL. America's navel. LCdr Scott Speicher was the very first american casualty of the first Gulf War when his F18 was shot down by an incredibly lucky Iraqi when Scott made an error on his turnback (the story is told in a book called Bogeys and Bandits, about the training and fighting capabilities of a few special F18 pilots). Lt Speicher was a Corsair pilot in VA 105 and i remembered him well when i saw his name on the casualty list Jan 16, 1991.

He was never recovered - when we went back into Iraq our illustrious govt didn't want to mess with finding his him until an iraqi showed someone the downed plane and an intact flight-suit. meaning of course that he'd survived the down and ... who knows ... it was in the news periodically because his family were trying to get attention drawn to the govt's apathy in order to find him, but to no avail.

anyway, i don't know why i went into that. one of those things that connects you to something so otherwise foreign and terrible.

The Forrestal was unable to sell to scrap metal companies, so it eventually sold to the highest bidder for an entire dollar (the truth, as you're probably aware). Even the Coast Guard didn't want it.

It's at that scrap metal company All Star Metals on the channel near Brownsville Tx, being chopped up at the present time. I was hoping some city would want it because it was the first Supercarrier and had a history. But we all go back to 'dust to dust'. eventually.

Glenn,

What branch did you serve in, and, were you in Viet Nam? My father was a 20yr career military man and a Viet Nam veteran as well. He didn't deal too much with the VA here in CO.

I'm US Navy - VA 105 Light Attack Squadron (A-7E Corsairs). My ship, the USS Forrestal, was in the Gulf of Tonkin with John McCain, who was in the lucky cockpit when the ship caught fire in 1967, but alas, i was unable to be there. I was only 5.

Very strange, we've got more in common than you think. I was also on the Forrestal, back when it was brand new almost. I served on it from early 58 til July 61, so I had left it about 6 years before Johnny did his stunt in 67. I was a Radarman,2nd Class so we got to control all those aircraft. If my memory is correct most of our squadrons were from Cecil Field. I guess 105 came along a little later.

loved being on the Forrestal. I lived near Mayport before I joined the Navy and it came into Mayport several times and I toured it. I joined Navy, went to RD school, requested service on Forrestal and got it. Just curious, you know where the Forrestal is now?

They didn't say the what the playback speed was, but I'd say it took the bullet with a 1200FPS muzzle velocity about 30 sec to travel about a foot. So does that mean the playback would be about 73000/1200/30 or about 2 frames per second ? so from extremely fast to very slow.

The extant x-rays, in particular the right lateral x-ray and the anterior x-ray showing the 6.5 mm metal piece, are frauds in my opinion.

The right lateral x-ray shows an absence of bone extending along the right and top sides of the skull and an absence of right front forehead bone. Jackie said that from the front, JFK didn't appear to be wounded. The Parkland docs did not describe damage corresponding to this x-ray. Autopsy photos do not correspond to this x-ray. That's all before I get to Mantik's analysis of the rear-skull depiction in this x-ray. I defer to Mantik; he's got a PhD in physics. Neither Randy Robertson nor any other medical expert who has examined this x-ray can lay claim to Mantik's knowledge of physics, which bears heavily on interpreting this x-ray. I go with Mantik.

As for the 6.5 mm metal piece depicted in the anterior x-ray, Humes said he never saw this item. Humes, who constructed a mighty fabrication, couldn't buy this lie; it was too far over the top for him. My understanding from Robert P. is that a frangible round wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section on the skull. My understanding from other writers is that a copper-jacketed round also wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section.

At the end of the day, neither of the two x-rays about which I write have any significance in the law. They are not evidence within the meaning of the law. They are mere films, asserted to have meaning.

Well, Jon, the frangible bullet would not leave a cross section of the actual bullet anywhere but, I'm not so sure what would become of the bullet jacket itself, especially when you consider any lethal frangible bullet in 1963 would have been a crude design, at the least. This is why I posted the photo of the 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet. As I pointed out, the jacket of these bullets was made from two pieces that were joined just behind the nose, and many of these jackets also had a deep cannelure groove at about the point where the bullet was inserted into the casing. The section of jacket between the join and the cannelure might very well be the fragment seen in the x-ray, if it did indeed exist.

the frangible bullet would not leave a cross section

I'm not so sure what would become of the bullet jacket itself,

might very well be the fragment seen in the x-ray,

if it did indeed exist.

The extant x-rays, in particular the right lateral x-ray and the anterior x-ray showing the 6.5 mm metal piece, are frauds in my opinion.

The right lateral x-ray shows an absence of bone extending along the right and top sides of the skull and an absence of right front forehead bone. Jackie said that from the front, JFK didn't appear to be wounded. The Parkland docs did not describe damage corresponding to this x-ray. Autopsy photos do not correspond to this x-ray. That's all before I get to Mantik's analysis of the rear-skull depiction in this x-ray. I defer to Mantik; he's got a PhD in physics. Neither Randy Robertson nor any other medical expert who has examined this x-ray can lay claim to Mantik's knowledge of physics, which bears heavily on interpreting this x-ray. I go with Mantik.

As for the 6.5 mm metal piece depicted in the anterior x-ray, Humes said he never saw this item. Humes, who constructed a mighty fabrication, couldn't buy this lie; it was too far over the top for him. My understanding from Robert P. is that a frangible round wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section on the skull. My understanding from other writers is that a copper-jacketed round also wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section.

At the end of the day, neither of the two x-rays about which I write have any significance in the law. They are not evidence within the meaning of the law. They are mere films, asserted to have meaning.

are frauds in my opinion. I agree. Just on the basis of, if there had been an xray clearly showing a 6.5 bullet in JFK's head, it would have been known about on 11/23/63, or before. One of the autopists would have seen it on 11/22 and we would all know about it.

^{So who did Dr. Ebersole answer to?}

Pretty sure it was Osborne Chief of Surgery as well as Humes for this Autopsy and then anyone above them.

I did this a while back to better understand the scene at Bethesda. hope it helps.

DJ

edit - PS - reading Ebersole's HSCA interview sheds a great deal of light... then see what Custer and Reed and even O'Connor has to say about Ebersole's abilities. He was about as good at Xrays as Humes was at performing an autopsy

if that's your idea of some kind of humor at an otherwise nationally sobering catastrophe, then i'm liking you more and more every time i read your stuff.

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

yay

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

Yeah, it is, but it's not stated correctly.... How did you know I would read that?

Thanks, I can assure people that their are startling revelations in this book. It's not just about Walker, it's over 900 pages and covers a large area of Right Wing activity from 1956 through 1968.

From the likes of Guy Bainister to James O. Eastland to Joesph Milteer to HL Hunt, Robert Morris,Walker, Hoover etc etc........it covers the gamut. The book was originally over 1,200 pages, but the publisher though it best to keep under that figure. So,some things had to be left out or condensed. Hopefully a website in the future can be a repository for these eliminated items and more. This work will be self published and all costs are paid out of pocket. We don't expect to make much at all, it was a labor of love and a search for truth.

Bill

Those of us who are old enough to remember those dark and incomprehensible days of November 1963 have never thought of this subject as merely a crime. Something profound changed in our country as a consequence of JFK's murder---and that something has never been made right.

Subsequent developments including the murders of RFK and MLK only deepened our depression and the sense that we had lost our way as a nation. Then the Vietnam War, the racial riots, Watergate, and the resignation of Nixon made it impossible to believe that we could ever believe in ourselves and our future potential again.

Given this background, it comes as no surprise that 52 years later we still want to find some indisputable answer and some unmistakable villain(s) who were clearly responsible for taking our innocence from us. And I am absolutely certain that on the 100-year anniversary of JFK's murder, a new generation will still be arguing about whom was responsible.

Mr Lazar, i like the first two paragraphs so much that i would ask your permission to quote them, for the most part, on another website i'm beginning. with proper credit, of course.

well said. well focused.

on another website i'm beginning. What's that about?

I'm a professional, contractual web developer and programmer. I haven't wanted to work all that much for a while, and so I've been puttering about with two or three of my own projects, one (my most energetic by far, of course) being a "JFK" site mainly catering to the uninformed by way of 1) the more pertinent, tangible and understandable data, and 2) more logically organized data.

i'm about to go lay up in the VA hospital for a considerable length of time, and I very fully look forward to getting a lot done and getting on some of your nerves. a lot.

just kidding. mostly.

i'm about to go lay up in the VA hospital for a considerable length of time, I hope it's nothing too serious, the VA has gone downhill a lot in the last few years, especially under the present regime', but maybe they'll take good care of you.