HARRY J. DEAN

[William Kelly]

Ernie, I thought you were a lone wolf, but now you're hanging out with Mel. who thinks Hover was straight. Mel Ayton also believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza and he's a card carrying member of Ken Rahn's Coincidentalists, who believe that a string of coincidences led to the death of JFK.

It's also unfair to say that because the British newspaper caved in on David Phillips lawsuit, that all of Tony Summer's work is underscored, or that makes Phillips innocent of being CIA case officer "Maurice Bishop, just as the CIA wasn't guilty of killing JFK because Phillips lost the libel case to Mark Lane. It is true however, that Gaeton Fonzi, Dick Russell and Tony Summers failed to give Phillps a fair shot by properly questioning him when they had the opportunity.

There is no dobut that Hover and the FBI failed to even contend with organized crime because of Hover. While I haven't seen the photo myself, from what I understand it was Frank Costello who had the goods on JEH, and they were seen meeting together on occassion. Even if there was no photo, though I'm inclined to believe Tony that there was, Hover was certainly in bed with the Italian Mafia and the national syndicate that was run by the Commission, and I don't need any evidence or proof to knowingly and confidently believe that. He was also pals with the California horse race crowd and Texas oilmen, who he vacationed and gambled with seasonally.

As for Hover's sexuality, chaste isn't the word. I would think he needed more than nylons and makeup to get anyone to have sex with him, but if anyone did I would bet it was Clyde, who ended up living with Hover, so they were more than just administrative assistants, and they lived across the street from LBJ, who allowed his daughters to visit them, more evidence they weren't really perverts or communists.

Get Mel to join the forum and we can have some real debates.

BK

BILL: In further reply to your assertions re: Hoover's sexuality and the "Mafia" photos of Hoover "in drag", I copy below excerpts from an article by Mel Ayton which is one of the better summaries concerning this matter:

Mel Ayton: The Truth About J. Edgar Hoover 7/19/05

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 for living a secret life as a homosexual. Summers believes that Hoover was blackmailed after powerful Mafia boss Meyer Lansky, an associate of Frank Costello, obtained photographs of the FBI boss in a compromising position with his friend and top aide, Clyde Tolson.

Summers's "proof" about Hoover's homosexuality comes from a number of witnesses who told him that they had seen such photographs. Former members of the Mafia or Mafia associates told of how Lansky pressured the FBI director into leaving the criminal organization alone. ...

Summers's strongest source for Hoover's alleged homosexuality is Susan Rosenstiel, the fourth wife of Lewis Solon Rosenstiel, a mobster and distilling mogul. She claims to have witnessed Hoover in drag at two orgies at New York's Plaza Hotel in 1958 and 1959. Sen. Joseph McCarthy's former aide, 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 has quoted an interview given by Roy Cohn shortly before his death from AIDS. Cohn said, "(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."

Anthony Summers's "evidence" of Hoover's homosexuality lacks veracity according to two of Hoover's most acclaimed and authoritative biographers. Richard Gid Powers and Athan Theoharis both believe Summers's sources are 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. Another "witness" to the existence of the photograph was JFK conspiracy fantasist, Gordon Novel, who Summers admitted was a "controversial" figure.

Athan Theoharis successfully 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, on the other hand, 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.

When asked about rumors of a Hoover/Tolson homosexual relationship Hack answered, "Oh, I know it wasn't. I know he wasn't." Hack's view is that the mere fact that Tolson and Hoover allowed themselves to constantly be seen in public, meant they could not have been more than close colleagues. Hack said, "It became clear to me as I went deeper into the man's psyche that if they were indeed lovers, they never would have been seen together."

Of Rosenstiel's claim that Hoover was homosexual, Theoharis wrote, "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 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 rendition 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 her claims are considered; Hoover was allowing himself to be observed by someone who could have destroyed his career and compromised him for the rest of his life.

Hoover was adept at blackmail. He used incriminating information his agency collected about prominent people to maintain his hold on office. The question must be asked: Would a man with so many enemies put himself in a position to be blackmailed by parading himself around a hotel dressed as a woman? Furthermore, Hoover's life revolved around the Bureau – would he put his career at risk by such actions?

Despite the clear implication in the book that Rosenstiel's story was true, Summers eventually stated that he merely reported what Rosenstiel said, along with what others claimed. He said he held, "no firm view one way or the other" as to whether she told the truth.

Oliver "Buck" Revell, a former associate director of the FBI, has observed that if the Mafia had had anything on Hoover, it would have been picked up in wiretaps mounted against organized crime after Appalachin. There was never a hint of such a claim, Revell said. Furthermore, Hoover was himself under secret surveillance for his own protection and such behavior would have been reported.

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

(Author's note: Summers alleged CIA official David Atlee Phillips had been involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The British newspaper The Observer published excerpts from the book, Phillips sued, and The Observer admitted in open court that "there was never any evidence" to support Summers's allegations. The paper apologized to Phillips and paid £22,500 in damages.)

Wannall questioned why, if "there were such a photograph with which to blackmail Hoover," was it not used "from 1961 to 1972 when 10 Cosa Nostra 'family bosses' were arrested and convicted, when organized crime convictions based on his investigations totalled 131 in 1965, 281 in 1968, and escalated to 813 the last year of his life?"

There are more compelling reasons to explain Hoover's pre-1961 poor record on dealing with organized crime. Until 1961, there was no federal law authorizing or enabling the FBI to investigate organized criminal activities or groups such as the Mafia. It was not until 1961 that Congress passed a law granting such authority. It is also true that, after local authorities raided the 1957 meeting of Mafia chieftains from across the U.S. in Appalachia, N.Y., Hoover instituted a "Top Hoodlum" program. Several organized crime figures were arrested long before Congress passed the 1961 law, under individual laws already in effect. Notwithstanding these facts, it is true Hoover's war on organized crime did not really take off until the ascendancy of Robert Kennedy as head of the Justice Department.

To those who knew both men, including Cartha "Deke" DeLoach, George Allen, and Charles Spencer, Hoover's relationship with his friend was chaste. Allen said, "Tolson was sort of Hoover's alter ego. He almost ran the FBI. He's not only a brain, but the most unselfish man that ever lived. He let Hoover take all the bows all the credits...They were very, very close because he needed Clyde so much. He couldn't have done the things he did without Clyde."

Spencer said, "Oh, Christ I heard rumors about them a thousand times. All around, every place, and I think it's just the result of people unable to believe that two men could be as dedicated to their country as those two were. It wasn't just speculation and it was worse than rumors. It had to be developed by jealous and enviable people that were out to do somebody in. Their demeanor was always flawless. Very businesslike. The best way I can put it is that Clyde Tolson was the associate director of the FBI. He lived 24 hours of every day, seven days a week for the full year as associate director of the FBI. It was a director and associate director relationship."

Cartha Deloach worked closely with Hoover for over 20 years and became the third ranking FBI agent. DeLoach dismissed stories about Hoover's alleged homosexuality stating, "I think it's significant to note that no one who knew Hoover and Tolson well in the FBI has ever even hinted at such a charge. You can't work side by side with two men for the better part of 20 years and fail to recognize signs of such affections."

The real reason why Hoover did not investigate the Mafia throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s is that he had a genuine fear that his agents would be corrupted by the criminal organization. The FBI was the only love of Hoover's life and he protected and defended it as a father does with a son. On more than one occasion he made reference to the fact that state and local law officers had been corrupted by the mob.

There was also a self-serving reason. Throughout his leadership of the FBI, Hoover had been unwilling to tackle any major initiative unless he had been assured of success. Fighting organized crime, to Hoover, did not provide that guaranteed success. As Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote, "Former FBI agents laid great stress on Hoover's infatuation with statistics. He liked to regale Congress with box scores of crimes committed, subjects apprehended, and crimes solved. Organized crime did not lend itself to statistical display. It required a heavy investment of agents in long tedious investigations that might or might not produce convictions at the end. The statistical preoccupation steered Hoover toward the easy cases: bank robbers, car thieves, kidnappers and other one-shot offenses."

Most importantly, it was Hoover's obsession with 'Communist subversion' that drew his complete attention and he was aided and abetted in this by successive post-war administrations and Congresses. He believed communism to be the main threat to the "American way of life." According to Richard Hack, "It didn't matter if there were Mafia out there. They weren't going to bring the government down, they were just making money illegally and there were lots of cops to deal with that."

It was this desire to keep the fight against communism at the top of the political agenda that led to his clash with the first attorney general who saw the Mafia as public enemy No. 1.

[Greg Parker]

It appears from the subject matter and language that the Belmont memo was written for the Justice Dept. Is that correct?

Greg:

No – it was an internal memo intended for senior FBI officials.

Okay. Thanks, Ernie.

Getting back to your observations for a minute:

(3) The Bureau often established general guidelines which allowed for exceptions. Sometimes memos were written in language which could be forwarded outside the Bureau to make it appear that the Bureau was adhering to instructions they received from the Department (i.e. nominally Hoover's superiors) but the ACTUAL policy was different.

Was this an admission that there was a culture of “getting around” instructions/protocols/policies? I ask because what you are describing here as to what Hoover did to fool his superiors is no different to what some agents did to fool Hoover.

Appearance was everything to the FBI, substance hardly mattered.

Now let’s look at the Bureau’s efforts in the matters under investigation in the Goldwater file, and see how well they do against Belmont’s policy summation:

The Mobile office advised the Chicago office that they did not have a membership list of the local WCC because of Bureau regs prohibiting active investigation of that organization. Was the Mobile Office not one of the 12 “Southern Offices” instructed per Belmont’s memo to maintain pertinent data on the WCC? Or was Belmont’s memo just so much BS for dept consumption?

Having not seen the full text and the context of what the Mobile office said – and, especially, not knowing how Chicago field comes into this matter –

Threatening mail was received in Chicago from someone claiming to be a member of the Mobile chapter of the WCC. Mobile got back to Chicago advising they had no membership because … well, you know why by now what they claimed was the reason, I hope!

it is difficult to answer your question appropriately except to note that one characteristic of an official investigation is that efforts are made to obtain membership lists (and mailing lists) of groups under official investigation.

Yes, and Chicago made that effort, albeit rather meekly and unsuccessfully.

What games would they be, Ernie? All I’ve asked you to do is answer “yes” or “no” as to whether the Mobile Office was being truthful.

The “game” is your continual refusal to answer first-principles questions so we all understand the same terms of reference.

No. It has been your game to try and embarrass me into doing something which you seem to believe is beneath you to do yourself.Like I said, even if I didn't know, I could avoid embarrassment by looking it up, so the continued harping about it has nothing to do with wanting to know "terms of reference". The only term of reference needed is the quote from the Mobile Office. It is either true or false on its face.

Truthful that their specific field office did not have a complete WCC membership list for the one WCC unit mentioned? Probably yes.

Truthful about Bureau policy at that moment in time? – depends upon what, exactly, they were addressing,

If you had read my summaries of the files that I posted mostly for your benefit, you would know.

and whom in the Mobile office wrote the memo

Since it was in response to a request from the Chicago office on a matter of some importance, I would presume it was someone knowledgeable regarding the subject of the request. Or are you going to suggest that FBI let the cleaner respond to such matters?

and their familiarity with what data was actually being developed in all the FBI’s field offices and how they chose to characterize practices in all field offices.

Let me blunt here. If the Mobile office was being loose with the facts in “how they chose to characterized practices”, it was most likely because they sympathized with the local WCC.

I submit on these grounds that the reasoning for not investigating such groups was spurious. I would further submit that your support for such spurious reasoning makes you look rather like an FBI apologist (willing when cornered to offer up limited hangouts).

I have no clue what you are driving at here. The Bureau DID “investigate” these groups within the parameters of what they could do without being accused of harassment or illegal activities.

No. They investigated such groups within the parameters of how little investigating they could get away with.

On the other hand, groups on the Left, who had also broken no laws, and posed no threat to national security, were the subject of wire taps and black bag jobs, among other extra-legal means of investigation and interruption. The real threat was not communism, it was liberalism. Communism… potential infiltration by communists and etc were just excuses for actions taken.

On favoritism… let’s again look at what we find in the Goldwater file: It shows that most of the victims of the threats just happened to be on the Security Index.

What “threats” are you referring to? What “victims” are you referring to?

Again – I posted my review of the files in this forum to give you that type of information. It should not be too difficult to find if you missed it when it was on the first page.

Yet you quote a mid ‘50s Belmont memo as evidence I am wrong about what happened almost a decade later? Were there no “rapid changes” in those 8 to 10 years? Was this period an exception to your rule?

You still are missing my point. A single memo does not constitute a case.

I was not making a case. I was reiterating what was stated in a FBI document.

You are falling into the trap which Karl Popper mentioned, i.e. you have found one “confirmation” for a theory you already believe but you are ignoring all of the contradictory evidence because it is fatal to your argument.

Huh? Didn’t I acknowledge you have demonstrated that they were investigated in 1950s?

I was not looking in the Goldwater file for confirmation of anything. I merely summarized what I found accurately and honestly, but with an occasional editorial comment thrown in. I think it is perfectly clear which is straight summary and which is editorial comment.

It is quite possible that the memo was intended for distribution outside the Bureau (including to Hoover's superiors within the Justice Dept) so, obviously, the author would re-state the official policy which the Department handed down without acknowledging the actual state of affairs --- see below for more details.

Whilst this may be true of the document I quoted, it would not have been true of the memo IT quoted which was sent from Mobile to Chicago office advising that they did not have a list of WCC of members and WHY they didn’t (i.e. due to FBI policy…). THAT memo was for internal use only – i.e. advice from one office to another.

Greg, that is your assumption. Unless and until you and I can see the full text of both memos, we have no idea if it was intended for “internal use only”. But even if it was, there are other factors that need to be considered.

It was not an assumption. You forget that I have seen the document. If you want to discuss assumptions, let’s talk about your assumption that I was searching through Goldwater’s files looking for “confirmation of a theory you already believe[d]”.

The civil rights laws enacted during Eisenhower's tenure greatly expanded the Bureau's responsibilities and the 1958 Atlanta Temple bombing incident dramatically changed the Bureau's attitude about groups who were considered white supremacy activists. [The original suspects in that bombing were National States Rights Party members--some of whom had connections to the WCC.] But the political sensitivity of formally "investigating" organizations which consisted of very prominent individuals in southern communities (including Governors, state legislators, judges, newspaper publishers, etc.) made it necessary to conduct investigations (in order to acquire intelligence) in a very discreet manner.

Then this change of attitude is noticeably absent in the Goldwater file pertaining to the early ‘60s.

Why would you expect to find the most relevant data about Bureau interest in white supremacy groups and individuals in the Goldwater file? You seem obsessed with Goldwater as if his file is the ONLY significant file in the entire FBI.

Not obsessed with the Goldwater file. It just seems to be the exception to most of the entreaties of propriety on behalf of the FBI you have offered up so far.

[Michael Hogan]

Get Mel to join the forum and we can have some real debates.

BK

Debating Mel Ayton? If you really want a new paradigm to kick in, your time would probably be better spent handing out COPA flyers on the boardwalk.

Yes, and Gus Russo and Edward J. Epstein agree, and people who want to argue will do so forever (italics added), unless the new paradigm kicks in, and that is to enforce the Constitution of the United States and require the Congress to properly oversee the JFK Act, for grand juries to evaluate the evidence and obtain the testimony of new witnesses under oath, and for the victims to be given a proper forensic autopsy.

Just as JFK listed three things that needed to happen for a coup to take place, there's the there things that need to happen for the truth to be revealed and for Justice for JFK.

Bill Kelly

[Ernie Lazar]

Bill: I am not "hanging out" with Mel. I merely used him because he summarizes, in one article, data from several different sources which addresses the standard mythology which you apparently agree with -- including books by scholars who have studied the FBI for decades (like Theoharis). I did not present what "Mel believes". I presented what the historians and scholars who have carefully examined this matter believe. Apparently, you don't understand the difference.

Ernie, I thought you were a lone wolf, but now you're hanging out with Mel. who thinks Hover was straight. Mel Ayton also believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza and he's a card carrying member of Ken Rahn's Coincidentalists, who believe that a string of coincidences led to the death of JFK.

It's also unfair to say that because the British newspaper caved in on David Phillips lawsuit, that all of Tony Summer's work is underscored, or that makes Phillips innocent of being CIA case officer "Maurice Bishop, just as the CIA wasn't guilty of killing JFK because Phillips lost the libel case to Mark Lane. It is true however, that Gaeton Fonzi, Dick Russell and Tony Summers failed to give Phillps a fair shot by properly questioning him when they had the opportunity.

There is no dobut that Hover and the FBI failed to even contend with organized crime because of Hover. While I haven't seen the photo myself, from what I understand it was Frank Costello who had the goods on JEH, and they were seen meeting together on occassion. Even if there was no photo, though I'm inclined to believe Tony that there was, Hover was certainly in bed with the Italian Mafia and the national syndicate that was run by the Commission, and I don't need any evidence or proof to knowingly and confidently believe that. He was also pals with the California horse race crowd and Texas oilmen, who he vacationed and gambled with seasonally.

As for Hover's sexuality, chaste isn't the word. I would think he needed more than nylons and makeup to get anyone to have sex with him, but if anyone did I would bet it was Clyde, who ended up living with Hover, so they were more than just administrative assistants, and they lived across the street from LBJ, who allowed his daughters to visit them, more evidence they weren't really perverts or communists.

Get Mel to join the forum and we can have some real debates.

BK

BILL: In further reply to your assertions re: Hoover's sexuality and the "Mafia" photos of Hoover "in drag", I copy below excerpts from an article by Mel Ayton which is one of the better summaries concerning this matter:

Mel Ayton: The Truth About J. Edgar Hoover 7/19/05

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 for living a secret life as a homosexual. Summers believes that Hoover was blackmailed after powerful Mafia boss Meyer Lansky, an associate of Frank Costello, obtained photographs of the FBI boss in a compromising position with his friend and top aide, Clyde Tolson.

Summers's "proof" about Hoover's homosexuality comes from a number of witnesses who told him that they had seen such photographs. Former members of the Mafia or Mafia associates told of how Lansky pressured the FBI director into leaving the criminal organization alone. ...

Summers's strongest source for Hoover's alleged homosexuality is Susan Rosenstiel, the fourth wife of Lewis Solon Rosenstiel, a mobster and distilling mogul. She claims to have witnessed Hoover in drag at two orgies at New York's Plaza Hotel in 1958 and 1959. Sen. Joseph McCarthy's former aide, 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 has quoted an interview given by Roy Cohn shortly before his death from AIDS. Cohn said, "(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."

Anthony Summers's "evidence" of Hoover's homosexuality lacks veracity according to two of Hoover's most acclaimed and authoritative biographers. Richard Gid Powers and Athan Theoharis both believe Summers's sources are 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. Another "witness" to the existence of the photograph was JFK conspiracy fantasist, Gordon Novel, who Summers admitted was a "controversial" figure.

Athan Theoharis successfully 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, on the other hand, 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.

When asked about rumors of a Hoover/Tolson homosexual relationship Hack answered, "Oh, I know it wasn't. I know he wasn't." Hack's view is that the mere fact that Tolson and Hoover allowed themselves to constantly be seen in public, meant they could not have been more than close colleagues. Hack said, "It became clear to me as I went deeper into the man's psyche that if they were indeed lovers, they never would have been seen together."

Of Rosenstiel's claim that Hoover was homosexual, Theoharis wrote, "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 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 rendition 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 her claims are considered; Hoover was allowing himself to be observed by someone who could have destroyed his career and compromised him for the rest of his life.

Hoover was adept at blackmail. He used incriminating information his agency collected about prominent people to maintain his hold on office. The question must be asked: Would a man with so many enemies put himself in a position to be blackmailed by parading himself around a hotel dressed as a woman? Furthermore, Hoover's life revolved around the Bureau – would he put his career at risk by such actions?

Despite the clear implication in the book that Rosenstiel's story was true, Summers eventually stated that he merely reported what Rosenstiel said, along with what others claimed. He said he held, "no firm view one way or the other" as to whether she told the truth.

Oliver "Buck" Revell, a former associate director of the FBI, has observed that if the Mafia had had anything on Hoover, it would have been picked up in wiretaps mounted against organized crime after Appalachin. There was never a hint of such a claim, Revell said. Furthermore, Hoover was himself under secret surveillance for his own protection and such behavior would have been reported.

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

(Author's note: Summers alleged CIA official David Atlee Phillips had been involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The British newspaper The Observer published excerpts from the book, Phillips sued, and The Observer admitted in open court that "there was never any evidence" to support Summers's allegations. The paper apologized to Phillips and paid £22,500 in damages.)

Wannall questioned why, if "there were such a photograph with which to blackmail Hoover," was it not used "from 1961 to 1972 when 10 Cosa Nostra 'family bosses' were arrested and convicted, when organized crime convictions based on his investigations totalled 131 in 1965, 281 in 1968, and escalated to 813 the last year of his life?"

There are more compelling reasons to explain Hoover's pre-1961 poor record on dealing with organized crime. Until 1961, there was no federal law authorizing or enabling the FBI to investigate organized criminal activities or groups such as the Mafia. It was not until 1961 that Congress passed a law granting such authority. It is also true that, after local authorities raided the 1957 meeting of Mafia chieftains from across the U.S. in Appalachia, N.Y., Hoover instituted a "Top Hoodlum" program. Several organized crime figures were arrested long before Congress passed the 1961 law, under individual laws already in effect. Notwithstanding these facts, it is true Hoover's war on organized crime did not really take off until the ascendancy of Robert Kennedy as head of the Justice Department.

To those who knew both men, including Cartha "Deke" DeLoach, George Allen, and Charles Spencer, Hoover's relationship with his friend was chaste. Allen said, "Tolson was sort of Hoover's alter ego. He almost ran the FBI. He's not only a brain, but the most unselfish man that ever lived. He let Hoover take all the bows all the credits...They were very, very close because he needed Clyde so much. He couldn't have done the things he did without Clyde."

Spencer said, "Oh, Christ I heard rumors about them a thousand times. All around, every place, and I think it's just the result of people unable to believe that two men could be as dedicated to their country as those two were. It wasn't just speculation and it was worse than rumors. It had to be developed by jealous and enviable people that were out to do somebody in. Their demeanor was always flawless. Very businesslike. The best way I can put it is that Clyde Tolson was the associate director of the FBI. He lived 24 hours of every day, seven days a week for the full year as associate director of the FBI. It was a director and associate director relationship."

Cartha Deloach worked closely with Hoover for over 20 years and became the third ranking FBI agent. DeLoach dismissed stories about Hoover's alleged homosexuality stating, "I think it's significant to note that no one who knew Hoover and Tolson well in the FBI has ever even hinted at such a charge. You can't work side by side with two men for the better part of 20 years and fail to recognize signs of such affections."

The real reason why Hoover did not investigate the Mafia throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s is that he had a genuine fear that his agents would be corrupted by the criminal organization. The FBI was the only love of Hoover's life and he protected and defended it as a father does with a son. On more than one occasion he made reference to the fact that state and local law officers had been corrupted by the mob.

There was also a self-serving reason. Throughout his leadership of the FBI, Hoover had been unwilling to tackle any major initiative unless he had been assured of success. Fighting organized crime, to Hoover, did not provide that guaranteed success. As Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote, "Former FBI agents laid great stress on Hoover's infatuation with statistics. He liked to regale Congress with box scores of crimes committed, subjects apprehended, and crimes solved. Organized crime did not lend itself to statistical display. It required a heavy investment of agents in long tedious investigations that might or might not produce convictions at the end. The statistical preoccupation steered Hoover toward the easy cases: bank robbers, car thieves, kidnappers and other one-shot offenses."

Most importantly, it was Hoover's obsession with 'Communist subversion' that drew his complete attention and he was aided and abetted in this by successive post-war administrations and Congresses. He believed communism to be the main threat to the "American way of life." According to Richard Hack, "It didn't matter if there were Mafia out there. They weren't going to bring the government down, they were just making money illegally and there were lots of cops to deal with that."

It was this desire to keep the fight against communism at the top of the political agenda that led to his clash with the first attorney general who saw the Mafia as public enemy No. 1.

[Ernie Lazar]

MY REPLIES ARE IN BLUE FONT

It appears from the subject matter and language that the Belmont memo was written for the Justice Dept. Is that correct?

Greg:

No – it was an internal memo intended for senior FBI officials.

Okay. Thanks, Ernie.

Getting back to your observations for a minute:

(3) The Bureau often established general guidelines which allowed for exceptions. Sometimes memos were written in language which could be forwarded outside the Bureau to make it appear that the Bureau was adhering to instructions they received from the Department (i.e. nominally Hoover's superiors) but the ACTUAL policy was different.

Was this an admission that there was a culture of “getting around” instructions/protocols/policies? I ask because what you are describing here as to what Hoover did to fool his superiors is no different to what some agents did to fool Hoover.

You have difficulty with fact-based discussions so, instead, you find some exception to a general rule and you then want to inflate that exception into the general rule. This is always the general problem with conspiracy "logic", i.e. inability to make careful distinctions OR using some piece of evidence in ways which exceeds the actual import of the data.

Appearance was everything to the FBI, substance hardly mattered.

Such a gross overstatement but it certainly relieves you of any requirement to prove specific assertions because you can always return to your blanket generalizations--whether or not they are accurate or helpful for understanding some Bureau policy or practice.

Now let’s look at the Bureau’s efforts in the matters under investigation in the Goldwater file, and see how well they do against Belmont’s policy summation:

The Mobile office advised the Chicago office that they did not have a membership list of the local WCC because of Bureau regs prohibiting active investigation of that organization. Was the Mobile Office not one of the 12 “Southern Offices” instructed per Belmont’s memo to maintain pertinent data on the WCC? Or was Belmont’s memo just so much BS for dept consumption?

Having not seen the full text and the context of what the Mobile office said – and, especially, not knowing how Chicago field comes into this matter –

Threatening mail was received in Chicago from someone claiming to be a member of the Mobile chapter of the WCC. Mobile got back to Chicago advising they had no membership because … well, you know why by now what they claimed was the reason, I hope!

Nothing surprising here because as I have already pointed out, there were different methodologies employed by field offices to develop factual data. Securing actual membership lists (as opposed to more limited interest in key leaders of a group), usually occurred only when a "full" or "official" investigation was in progress because the group under scrutiny was suspected of violations of law or inciting violations of law.

The JBS is a pertinent example: the Bureau never had any complete membership list nor did it seek one. It did, however, know the identity of all of its national leaders as well as many of the local chapter leaders and most of their Coordinators. In fact, many of these individuals contacted their local field office for various reasons. When the Bureau realized that the JBS and WCC were non-subversive groups which attracted many prominent people in their communities, there was no interest in complete membership lists or any "active investigation". However, unlike the JBS, the Bureau was concerned about the potential for "extra-legal" actions by WCC members and possible future violations of law - particularly in those cases where Klan members were known to also be WCC members.

it is difficult to answer your question appropriately except to note that one characteristic of an official investigation is that efforts are made to obtain membership lists (and mailing lists) of groups under official investigation.

Yes, and Chicago made that effort, albeit rather meekly and unsuccessfully.

What games would they be, Ernie? All I’ve asked you to do is answer “yes” or “no” as to whether the Mobile Office was being truthful.

The “game” is your continual refusal to answer first-principles questions so we all understand the same terms of reference.

No. It has been your game to try and embarrass me into doing something which you seem to believe is beneath you to do yourself.Like I said, even if I didn't know, I could avoid embarrassment by looking it up, so the continued harping about it has nothing to do with wanting to know "terms of reference". The only term of reference needed is the quote from the Mobile Office. It is either true or false on its face.

Greg -- I am not trying to embarrass you but it is quite significant that you perceive my repeated requests in that manner. Notice too your deliberate falsehood about what I am willing to do. In this thread I have repeatedly discussed the difference between "full" or "official" investigations versus other methods of obtaining information such as reliance upon "established sources", and public source material, public records, etc. So, what this shows is that you feel unconstrained by facts when you want to trash a critic or skeptic. The Mobile office memo is merely one piece of information. For you to pretend that it is the ONLY piece of information worth considering is absurd. But again, this is how conspiracy believers operate. They want laser-like attention to ONE piece of data while ignoring or de-valuing all other data...which, again, is the type of defective reasoning which Karl Popper discussed.

Truthful that their specific field office did not have a complete WCC membership list for the one WCC unit mentioned? Probably yes.

Truthful about Bureau policy at that moment in time? – depends upon what, exactly, they were addressing,

If you had read my summaries of the files that I posted mostly for your benefit, you would know.

No, Greg, I only "know" what little data you have presented. Unlike yourself, I do not form conclusions based upon one piece of information.

and whom in the Mobile office wrote the memo

Since it was in response to a request from the Chicago office on a matter of some importance, I would presume it was someone knowledgeable regarding the subject of the request. Or are you going to suggest that FBI let the cleaner respond to such matters?

I was only pointing out that one has to read the entire document and see the context before making conclusions.

and their familiarity with what data was actually being developed in all the FBI’s field offices and how they chose to characterize practices in all field offices.

Let me blunt here. If the Mobile office was being loose with the facts in “how they chose to characterized practices”, it was most likely because they sympathized with the local WCC.

That is totally absurd. Honest mistakes are made by human beings all the time. Again, without seeing the entire document, I cannot make any judgments about what was actually said but so far all you have done is present something which does not in any way contradict what I have already expressed, i.e. "full" or "official" investigations may be forbidden but there are other methodologies used which produce nearly the same results. Suppose, for example, you were a public figure and I wanted to develop a factual profile of you. I could hire a private investigator OR I could use alternative means to develop factual data about you. The private investigator option would be roughly equivalent to a "full" investigation but are you suggesting that I could not discover anything about you by using an alternate method?

I submit on these grounds that the reasoning for not investigating such groups was spurious. I would further submit that your support for such spurious reasoning makes you look rather like an FBI apologist (willing when cornered to offer up limited hangouts).

I have no clue what you are driving at here. The Bureau DID “investigate” these groups within the parameters of what they could do without being accused of harassment or illegal activities.

No. They investigated such groups within the parameters of how little investigating they could get away with.

Sorry, Greg, your personal speculations are contradicted by reams of evidence in FBI files concerning when and how investigations were to be conducted. Absent violations of federal laws which fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI they had no authority to "investigate" -- and, incidentally, WHO among us wants the kind of pervasive type of national police which apparently YOU think the FBI should have been?.

On the other hand, groups on the Left, who had also broken no laws, and posed no threat to national security, were the subject of wire taps and black bag jobs, among other extra-legal means of investigation and interruption. The real threat was not communism, it was liberalism. Communism… potential infiltration by communists and etc were just excuses for actions taken.

In order to respond appropriately, I would have to know which specific left-wing groups you are referring to. Also, one has to form judgments in the context of what the Bureau knew or suspected -- particularly given the information that they received from outside sources (such as local/state law enforcement, military intelligence, security units within federal agencies etc.) I am not defending the Bureau's behavior -- but it is important to try and understand why their employees (particularly their senior officials including Supervisors and Section Chiefs) believed that left-wing groups posed more of a potential threat to our freedoms or our way of life.

On favoritism… let’s again look at what we find in the Goldwater file: It shows that most of the victims of the threats just happened to be on the Security Index.

What “threats” are you referring to? What “victims” are you referring to?

Again – I posted my review of the files in this forum to give you that type of information. It should not be too difficult to find if you missed it when it was on the first page.

Yet you quote a mid ‘50s Belmont memo as evidence I am wrong about what happened almost a decade later? Were there no “rapid changes” in those 8 to 10 years? Was this period an exception to your rule?

You still are missing my point. A single memo does not constitute a case.

I was not making a case. I was reiterating what was stated in a FBI document.

Very disingenous Greg. You are making broad conclusions based upon that one document and you have expressed no interest whatsoever in the documents appearing in the actual main file on the WCC movement -- as if they are totally irrelevant.

You are falling into the trap which Karl Popper mentioned, i.e. you have found one “confirmation” for a theory you already believe but you are ignoring all of the contradictory evidence because it is fatal to your argument.

Huh? Didn’t I acknowledge you have demonstrated that they were investigated in 1950s?

But as I have repeatedly pointed out -- the "investigations" did not stop in the 1950's. They just assumed a different form.

I was not looking in the Goldwater file for confirmation of anything. I merely summarized what I found accurately and honestly, but with an occasional editorial comment thrown in. I think it is perfectly clear which is straight summary and which is editorial comment.

But you are trying to elevate that ONE document to a degree of importance which it does not deserve

It is quite possible that the memo was intended for distribution outside the Bureau (including to Hoover's superiors within the Justice Dept) so, obviously, the author would re-state the official policy which the Department handed down without acknowledging the actual state of affairs --- see below for more details.

Whilst this may be true of the document I quoted, it would not have been true of the memo IT quoted which was sent from Mobile to Chicago office advising that they did not have a list of WCC of members and WHY they didn’t (i.e. due to FBI policy…). THAT memo was for internal use only – i.e. advice from one office to another.

Greg, that is your assumption. Unless and until you and I can see the full text of both memos, we have no idea if it was intended for “internal use only”. But even if it was, there are other factors that need to be considered.

It was not an assumption. You forget that I have seen the document. If you want to discuss assumptions, let’s talk about your assumption that I was searching through Goldwater’s files looking for “confirmation of a theory you already believe[d]”.

Another falsehood by you. I did not state or hint that you were searching Goldwater's file looking for something to prove a theory you already believed. I said you are elevating bits and pieces of data to fact beyond what is reasonable.

The civil rights laws enacted during Eisenhower's tenure greatly expanded the Bureau's responsibilities and the 1958 Atlanta Temple bombing incident dramatically changed the Bureau's attitude about groups who were considered white supremacy activists. [The original suspects in that bombing were National States Rights Party members--some of whom had connections to the WCC.] But the political sensitivity of formally "investigating" organizations which consisted of very prominent individuals in southern communities (including Governors, state legislators, judges, newspaper publishers, etc.) made it necessary to conduct investigations (in order to acquire intelligence) in a very discreet manner.

Then this change of attitude is noticeably absent in the Goldwater file pertaining to the early ‘60s.

Why would you expect to find the most relevant data about Bureau interest in white supremacy groups and individuals in the Goldwater file? You seem obsessed with Goldwater as if his file is the ONLY significant file in the entire FBI.

Not obsessed with the Goldwater file. It just seems to be the exception to most of the entreaties of propriety on behalf of the FBI you have offered up so far.

Again, this reveals your misunderstanding of everything I have presented thus far. I am making no argument for Bureau "propriety". For some reason, you have great difficulty focusing on what I have actually written. I wrote that you are basing your conclusions upon ONE document you found in the Goldwater file. I also wrote that you seem singularly UNINTERESTED in the main file of the organization we are discussing and I don't understand why that is the case.

[William Kelly]

Get Mel to join the forum and we can have some real debates.

BK

Debating Mel Ayton? If you really want a new paradigm to kick in, your time would probably be better spent handing out COPA flyers on the boardwalk.

Yes, and Gus Russo and Edward J. Epstein agree, and people who want to argue will do so forever (italics added), unless the new paradigm kicks in, and that is to enforce the Constitution of the United States and require the Congress to properly oversee the JFK Act, for grand juries to evaluate the evidence and obtain the testimony of new witnesses under oath, and for the victims to be given a proper forensic autopsy.

Just as JFK listed three things that needed to happen for a coup to take place, there's the there things that need to happen for the truth to be revealed and for Justice for JFK.

Bill Kelly

Thanks for that slap in the face Michael. I needed that. It certainly would be a waste of time to debate Mel.

And Ernie, I'll take Tony Summer's version of events over anyone who has spent their life studying the FBI and conclude that Oswald was responsible for anything and that Hover didn't go after the mob because Commies were more dangerous.

BK

[Ernie Lazar]

In other words you PREFER to believe Tony Summers -- even though he is only a journalist and even though he makes statements or assertions that are manifestly false and even though even he would acknowledge that he has never specialized in FBI history. In fact, he has written only one book on the matter and he has never written any peer-reviewed articles about the FBI or Hoover.

Not all information we confront is of equal value or validity. Intelligent analysis and interpretation requires more than just a superficial acquaintance with available data or repeating every bit of gossip one discovers.

No serious scholar or historian relies upon Tony Summers because so much of what he has written depends upon rumor and gossip -- instead of verifiable facts.

Get Mel to join the forum and we can have some real debates.

BK

Debating Mel Ayton? If you really want a new paradigm to kick in, your time would probably be better spent handing out COPA flyers on the boardwalk.

Yes, and Gus Russo and Edward J. Epstein agree, and people who want to argue will do so forever (italics added), unless the new paradigm kicks in, and that is to enforce the Constitution of the United States and require the Congress to properly oversee the JFK Act, for grand juries to evaluate the evidence and obtain the testimony of new witnesses under oath, and for the victims to be given a proper forensic autopsy.

Just as JFK listed three things that needed to happen for a coup to take place, there's the there things that need to happen for the truth to be revealed and for Justice for JFK.

Bill Kelly

Thanks for that slap in the face Michael. I needed that. It certainly would be a waste of time to debate Mel.

And Ernie, I'll take Tony Summer's version of events over anyone who has spent their life studying the FBI and conclude that Oswald was responsible for anything and that Hover didn't go after the mob because Commies were more dangerous.

BK

Edited June 22, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Government is a giant criminal syndicate with a body of armed men surrounding them.

''Commies'' are against this, against a system that allows it to be so .

Of course ''commies'' are more ''dangerous'' (to the mob).

[William Kelly]

Government is a giant criminal syndicate with a body of armed men surrounding them.

''Commies'' are against this, against a system that allows it to be so .

Of course ''commies'' are more ''dangerous'' (to the mob).

Oh yea, and then who were those armed me who surrounded Stalin, who certainly did make him more dangerous than the mob?

BK

[William Kelly]

In other words you PREFER to believe Tony Summers -- even though he is only a journalist and even though he makes statements or assertions that are manifestly false and even though even he would acknowledge that he has never specialized in FBI history. In fact, he has written only one book on the matter and he has never written any peer-reviewed articles about the FBI or Hoover.

Not all information we confront is of equal value or validity. Intelligent analysis and interpretation requires more than just a superficial acquaintance with available data or repeating every bit of gossip one discovers.

No serious scholar or historian relies upon Tony Summers because so much of what he has written depends upon rumor and gossip -- instead of verifiable facts.

ERNIE,

What do you mean Tony "is only a journalist"?

Indeed, I PREFER to believe Tony Summers, who I know, admire and respect and have contributed reseach to his book (Not In Your Lifetime) on the subjects of Jim Braden, Carl Mather and John Martino, and am looking forward to his difinitive study of the events of 9/11. And if he has made any statements that can be shown to be manifestly false I know, as everyone who knows him will acknowledge, he would correct, as he is a real journalist and historian whose perspective on events changes with new information.

Certainly not all information is of equal value, and you have certainly acknowledged Mel, whose body of work certainly doesn't compare to that of Tony Summers, and whose conclusions are certaily questionable, while those of Tony Summers are generally acknowledged - that JFK was the victim of a conspircy rather than a Lone Nut and that Hover was in bed with the mob, points you and serious scholars and historians refuse to recognize. All of the serious scholars and historians have been shown to be wrong about what happened at Dealey Plaza, while Tony has pointed independent researchers in the right direction for decades, and gave a new generation the reseach methods and styles that will lead to the truth.

Now let's get back to Dealey Plaza and what the John Birch Society had to do with what happened there.

If Harry Dean wasn't informing for the FBI as you contend, who was he working for?

What were the connections between the JBSers who put out the Kennedy Wanted For Treason ad and the assassination?

Why did Ruby think the Impeach Earl Warren billboard was connected to the assassination, and suspect the JBSers who propagated the idea that the United Nations would take over the world were somehow involved?

And who was Austin, the JBS member who owned the drive in barbeque where JD Tippit moonlighted, and what did that have to do with his murder?

And who are those other guys Harry Dean keeps bringing up - Rousselot, Guy Gab, Hall and Seymore, and what did they have to do with what happened at Dealey Plaza?

Bill Turner zoomed in on these same guys when he reported on the Garrison investigation for Ramparts, and they are mentioned prominantly in Peter Noyes "Legacy of Doubt" (recently republished and available at Amazon), so these should not be new questions for some people, especially those who have studied the JBS society for years.

The verifiable facts are that the President of the United States was murdered in Dealey Plaza, Oswald was set up as a Patsy and the real assassins got away, thanks in part to JBSers who propagated the disinformation cover story that the accused assassin was a Commie.

BK

Get Mel to join the forum and we can have some real debates.

BK

Debating Mel Ayton? If you really want a new paradigm to kick in, your time would probably be better spent handing out COPA flyers on the boardwalk.

Yes, and Gus Russo and Edward J. Epstein agree, and people who want to argue will do so forever (italics added), unless the new paradigm kicks in, and that is to enforce the Constitution of the United States and require the Congress to properly oversee the JFK Act, for grand juries to evaluate the evidence and obtain the testimony of new witnesses under oath, and for the victims to be given a proper forensic autopsy.

Just as JFK listed three things that needed to happen for a coup to take place, there's the there things that need to happen for the truth to be revealed and for Justice for JFK.

Bill Kelly

Thanks for that slap in the face Michael. I needed that. It certainly would be a waste of time to debate Mel.

And Ernie, I'll take Tony Summer's version of events over anyone who has spent their life studying the FBI and conclude that Oswald was responsible for anything and that Hover didn't go after the mob because Commies were more dangerous.

BK

Edited June 23, 2010 by William Kelly

[Ernie Lazar]

Bill, with respect to this question by you:

"If Harry Dean wasn't informing for the FBI as you contend, who was he working for?"

I have no clue. My point is that (-a-) there is no verifiable factual evidence that Harry's description of himself is accurate and truthful with respect to his claims about the FBI but (-b-) there is verifiable factual evidence that he was never an FBI informant.

If someone cannot accurately and truthfully describe their status or background -- then it does call into question the veracity of whatever assertions they make.

For some reason you continue to misrepresent my use of the Mel Ayton article. I copied that article ONLY because it accurately summarizes the statements of many people who have devoted considerable time to researching the assertions made by Tony Summers and others about Hoover. NOT ONE STATEMENT in the article relies upon what Mel Ayton believes. I repeat: it is a summary of what other people have concluded -- including, arguably, our nation's foremost expert about the FBI - Dr. Athan Theoharis.

Let me put it this way: Suppose I had copied that article BUT I never even identified the author. You then would need to make your judgments based upon the substantive content, i.e. the quotations/summaries of what all the specific writers mentioned in the article concluded. NOTHING depends upon Mel Ayton!

In the past, I have prepared my own summary of what scholars/researchers have produced regarding your claims about Hoover. Instead of re-typing all that data, I copied Mel Ayton's article because it is an excellent summary of the evidence which contradicts Tony Summers' assertions.

With respect to your other questions -- most of which pertain to the anti-JFK beliefs of JBS members -- so what? What is your point? You think EVERYONE who despised JFK should be considered a suspect in his assassination? Yes, Robert Surrey was a JBS member. Yes, Joseph Grinnan was a JBS member. Yes, Gen. Walker was a JBS member. And many other Texans who were JBS members thought JFK was, at best, a dupe of Communist influences within his administration. But it is a huge leap to ASSUME that any of these people were involved in or facilitated the murder of JFK.

In other words you PREFER to believe Tony Summers -- even though he is only a journalist and even though he makes statements or assertions that are manifestly false and even though even he would acknowledge that he has never specialized in FBI history. In fact, he has written only one book on the matter and he has never written any peer-reviewed articles about the FBI or Hoover.

Not all information we confront is of equal value or validity. Intelligent analysis and interpretation requires more than just a superficial acquaintance with available data or repeating every bit of gossip one discovers.

No serious scholar or historian relies upon Tony Summers because so much of what he has written depends upon rumor and gossip -- instead of verifiable facts.

ERNIE,

What do you mean Tony "is only a journalist"?

Indeed, I PREFER to believe Tony Summers, who I know, admire and respect and have contributed reseach to his book (Not In Your Lifetime) on the subjects of Jim Braden, Carl Mather and John Martino, and am looking forward to his difinitive study of the events of 9/11. And if he has made any statements that can be shown to be manifestly false I know, as everyone who knows him will acknowledge, he would correct, as he is a real journalist and historian whose perspective on events changes with new information.

Certainly not all information is of equal value, and you have certainly acknowledged Mel, whose body of work certainly doesn't compare to that of Tony Summers, and whose conclusions are certaily questionable, while those of Tony Summers are generally acknowledged - that JFK was the victim of a conspircy rather than a Lone Nut and that Hover was in bed with the mob, points you and serious scholars and historians refuse to recognize. All of the serious scholars and historians have been shown to be wrong about what happened at Dealey Plaza, while Tony has pointed independent researchers in the right direction for decades, and gave a new generation the reseach methods and styles that will lead to the truth.

Now let's get back to Dealey Plaza and what the John Birch Society had to do with what happened there.

If Harry Dean wasn't informing for the FBI as you contend, who was he working for?

What were the connections between the JBSers who put out the Kennedy Wanted For Treason ad and the assassination?

Why did Ruby think the Impeach Earl Warren billboard was connected to the assassination, and suspect the JBSers who propagated the idea that the United Nations would take over the world were somehow involved?

And who was Austin, the JBS member who owned the drive in barbeque where JD Tippit moonlighted, and what did that have to do with his murder?

And who are those other guys Harry Dean keeps bringing up - Rousselot, Guy Gab, Hall and Seymore, and what did they have to do with what happened at Dealey Plaza?

Bill Turner zoomed in on these same guys when he reported on the Garrison investigation for Ramparts, and they are mentioned prominantly in Peter Noyes "Legacy of Doubt" (recently republished and available at Amazon), so these should not be new questions for some people, especially those who have studied the JBS society for years.

The verifiable facts are that the President of the United States was murdered in Dealey Plaza, Oswald was set up as a Patsy and the real assassins got away, thanks in part to JBSers who propagated the disinformation cover story that the accused assassin was a Commie.

BK

Get Mel to join the forum and we can have some real debates.

BK

Debating Mel Ayton? If you really want a new paradigm to kick in, your time would probably be better spent handing out COPA flyers on the boardwalk.

Yes, and Gus Russo and Edward J. Epstein agree, and people who want to argue will do so forever (italics added), unless the new paradigm kicks in, and that is to enforce the Constitution of the United States and require the Congress to properly oversee the JFK Act, for grand juries to evaluate the evidence and obtain the testimony of new witnesses under oath, and for the victims to be given a proper forensic autopsy.

Just as JFK listed three things that needed to happen for a coup to take place, there's the there things that need to happen for the truth to be revealed and for Justice for JFK.

Bill Kelly

Thanks for that slap in the face Michael. I needed that. It certainly would be a waste of time to debate Mel.

And Ernie, I'll take Tony Summer's version of events over anyone who has spent their life studying the FBI and conclude that Oswald was responsible for anything and that Hover didn't go after the mob because Commies were more dangerous.

BK

Edited June 23, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Government is a giant criminal syndicate with a body of armed men surrounding them.

''Commies'' are against this, against a system that allows it to be so .

Of course ''commies'' are more ''dangerous'' (to the mob).

Oh yea, and then who were those armed me who surrounded Stalin, who certainly did make him more dangerous than the mob?

BK

Why do dovernments surr..etc at all?

Maybe for protection?

I suspect you think Stalin was a ''commie''.

[Greg Parker]

MY REPLIES ARE IN BLUE FONT

It appears from the subject matter and language that the Belmont memo was written for the Justice Dept. Is that correct?

Greg:

No – it was an internal memo intended for senior FBI officials.

Okay. Thanks, Ernie.

Getting back to your observations for a minute:

(3) The Bureau often established general guidelines which allowed for exceptions. Sometimes memos were written in language which could be forwarded outside the Bureau to make it appear that the Bureau was adhering to instructions they received from the Department (i.e. nominally Hoover's superiors) but the ACTUAL policy was different.

Was this an admission that there was a culture of “getting around” instructions/protocols/policies? I ask because what you are describing here as to what Hoover did to fool his superiors is no different to what some agents did to fool Hoover.

You have difficulty with fact-based discussions so, instead, you find some exception to a general rule and you then want to inflate that exception into the general rule.

I asked a question based on your assertion that sometimes, Hoover deceived his superiors because when I pointed out that sometimes agents deceived Hoover (by manufacturing informants on paper to meet an unofficial quota), you almost had apoplexy at the mere thought this could have been achieved. Your logic? There were severe punishments for agents who did not follow protocols, ergo agents always followed protocols.

This is always the general problem with conspiracy "logic", i.e. inability to make careful distinctions OR using some piece of evidence in ways which exceeds the actual import of the data.

And having wrongly castigated me for taking an exception and inflating to the status of the general rule… you immediately do that very thing yourself.

Maybe it is about time someone pointed out to you that some of what you consider worthy historical research is just garbage. For example:

When asked about rumors of a Hoover/Tolson homosexual relationship Hack answered,"Oh, I know it wasn't. I know he wasn't." Hack's view is that the mere fact that Tolson and Hoover allowed themselves to constantly be seen in public, meant they could not have been more than close colleagues. Hack said, "It became clear to me as I went deeper into the man's psyche that if they were indeed lovers, they never would have been seen together." You think this trrumps Summers? They could not have been lovers because they WERE OFTEN SEEN TOGETHER!!!!???? Yeah… great stuff you rely on there… Hack lives up to his name.

Then there is this : “There are more compelling reasons to explain Hoover's pre-1961 poor record on dealing with organized crime. Until 1961, there was no federal law authorizing or enabling the FBI to investigate organized criminal activities or groups such as the Mafia.” Which deceives by omitting the fact that this law did not exist previously because Hoover fought tooth and nail to keep such a statute off the books.

Incidentally, you claim elsewhere that none of the article is based on Ayton’s own thoughts, but I’d point out to you that the above quote was not inside quotation marks in the article which is either an oversight by Ayton, or an indication those were indeed his own thoughts.

Appearance was everything to the FBI, substance hardly mattered.

Such a gross overstatement but it certainly relieves you of any requirement to prove specific assertions because you can always return to your blanket generalizations--whether or not they are accurate or helpful for understanding some Bureau policy or practice.

It WAS a bureau practice to put protection of the bureau’s reputation ahead of investigative imperatives. You are free to dispute that, but the evidence is overwhelming.

This highlights the problem in dealing with you; If I fail to cite examples, I’m accused of using blanket “generalizations” and if I do cite examples, this only shows I have been “searching for confirmations” of whatever bias you want to accuse me of.

Now let’s look at the Bureau’s efforts in the matters under investigation in the Goldwater file, and see how well they do against Belmont’s policy summation:

The Mobile office advised the Chicago office that they did not have a membership list of the local WCC because of Bureau regs prohibiting active investigation of that organization. Was the Mobile Office not one of the 12 “Southern Offices” instructed per Belmont’s memo to maintain pertinent data on the WCC? Or was Belmont’s memo just so much BS for dept consumption?

Having not seen the full text and the context of what the Mobile office said – and, especially, not knowing how Chicago field comes into this matter –

Threatening mail was received in Chicago from someone claiming to be a member of the Mobile chapter of the WCC. Mobile got back to Chicago advising they had no membership because … well, you know why by now what they claimed was the reason, I hope!

Nothing surprising here because as I have already pointed out, there were different methodologies employed by field offices to develop factual data. Securing actual membership lists (as opposed to more limited interest in key leaders of a group), usually occurred only when a "full" or "official" investigation was in progress because the group under scrutiny was suspected of violations of law or inciting violations of law.

And the FBI sometimes relieved itself of any further responsibility to investigate by interviewing WCC leaders… who… miracle of miracles… seemed to know just the right things to say (“we only apply legal means to try and reach our objects” we abhor violence” etc etc… Case closeed.

The JBS is a pertinent example: the Bureau never had any complete membership list nor did it seek one. It did, however, know the identity of all of its national leaders as well as many of the local chapter leaders and most of their Coordinators. In fact, many of these individuals contacted their local field office for various reasons. When the Bureau realized that the JBS and WCC were non-subversive groups which attracted many prominent people in their communities, there was no interest in complete membership lists or any "active investigation". However, unlike the JBS, the Bureau was concerned about the potential for "extra-legal" actions by WCC members and possible future violations of law - particularly in those cases where Klan members were known to also be WCC members.

See: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/22/2206-001.gif

it is difficult to answer your question appropriately except to note that one characteristic of an official investigation is that efforts are made to obtain membership lists (and mailing lists) of groups under official investigation.

Yes, and Chicago made that effort, albeit rather meekly and unsuccessfully.

What games would they be, Ernie? All I’ve asked you to do is answer “yes” or “no” as to whether the Mobile Office was being truthful.

The “game” is your continual refusal to answer first-principles questions so we all understand the same terms of reference.

No. It has been your game to try and embarrass me into doing something which you seem to believe is beneath you to do yourself.Like I said, even if I didn't know, I could avoid embarrassment by looking it up, so the continued harping about it has nothing to do with wanting to know "terms of reference". The only term of reference needed is the quote from the Mobile Office. It is either true or false on its face.

Greg -- I am not trying to embarrass you but it is quite significant that you perceive my repeated requests in that manner.

Yeah, I thought it would be. That’s the anti-conspiricist mind-set for you. You see significance in the darndest places! Even a significance free zone like a Mel Ayton article!

Notice too your deliberate falsehood about what I am willing to do. In this thread I have repeatedly discussed the difference between "full" or "official" investigations versus other methods of obtaining information such as reliance upon "established sources", and public source material, public records, etc. So, what this shows is that you feel unconstrained by facts when you want to trash a critic or skeptic.

“Repeatedly”? Then maybe you should start thinking “conspiracy”! because someone is deleting all this pertinent information. I just used the search function to see how many times you’ve mentioned public source documents. The answer, apart from the instance above is ONCE – and that was in reply to someone else (which I had not read previously) and was about deletions – not about appropriate usage.

The Mobile office memo is merely one piece of information. For you to pretend that it is the ONLY piece of information worth considering is absurd.

I have pretended no such thing. I have acknowledged what you have posted which seems to contradict the Mobile document. What I have tried to extract from you is whether or not the Mobile office was being truthful. Why have I been doing that, unless I am willing to accept the contradictory evidence?

But again, this is how conspiracy believers operate. They want laser-like attention to ONE piece of data while ignoring or de-valuing all other data...which, again, is the type of defective reasoning which Karl Popper discussed.

I could equally say – and equally be wrong – that no amount of data is enough for you to answer your original question/s which started you on this mission. To turn Popper on his head, in the universe of available data, there is always contradictory evidence to be found.

How does one avoid the twin trap of “confirmation/contradiction”? By using various methods of weighing evidence. THAT is what really differentiates us. How we weigh evidence.

Truthful that their specific field office did not have a complete WCC membership list for the one WCC unit mentioned? Probably yes.

Truthful about Bureau policy at that moment in time? – depends upon what, exactly, they were addressing,

If you had read my summaries of the files that I posted mostly for your benefit, you would know.

No, Greg, I only "know" what little data you have presented. Unlike yourself, I do not form conclusions based upon one piece of information.

Excuse me! You don’t believe my summaries indicate what the request to the Mobile office was all about?

and whom in the Mobile office wrote the memo

Since it was in response to a request from the Chicago office on a matter of some importance, I would presume it was someone knowledgeable regarding the subject of the request. Or are you going to suggest that FBI let the cleaner respond to such matters?

I was only pointing out that one has to read the entire document and see the context before making conclusions.

Jeeze. I gave the context.

and their familiarity with what data was actually being developed in all the FBI’s field offices and how they chose to characterize practices in all field offices.

Let me blunt here. If the Mobile office was being loose with the facts in “how they chose to characterized practices”, it was most likely because they sympathized with the local WCC.

That is totally absurd. Honest mistakes are made by human beings all the time. Again, without seeing the entire document, I cannot make any judgments about what was actually said but so far all you have done is present something which does not in any way contradict what I have already expressed, i.e. "full" or "official" investigations may be forbidden but there are other methodologies used which produce nearly the same results. Suppose, for example, you were a public figure and I wanted to develop a factual profile of you. I could hire a private investigator OR I could use alternative means to develop factual data about you. The private investigator option would be roughly equivalent to a "full" investigation but are you suggesting that I could not discover anything about you by using an alternate method?

After the Mobile Office made its reply to the requesting office. The requesting office (Chicago) seemed to get the hint, and no further requests were made to check the name they had.

I submit on these grounds that the reasoning for not investigating such groups was spurious. I would further submit that your support for such spurious reasoning makes you look rather like an FBI apologist (willing when cornered to offer up limited hangouts).

I have no clue what you are driving at here. The Bureau DID “investigate” these groups within the parameters of what they could do without being accused of harassment or illegal activities.

No. They investigated such groups within the parameters of how little investigating they could get away with.

Sorry, Greg, your personal speculations are contradicted by reams of evidence in FBI files concerning when and how investigations were to be conducted. Absent violations of federal laws which fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI they had no authority to "investigate" -- and, incidentally, WHO among us wants the kind of pervasive type of national police which apparently YOU think the FBI should have been?

My my. All this just by suggesting that Right Wing groups got treated with deference by the FBI as opposed to how Left Wing groups were treated. I think there is reams of evidence to support this.

On the other hand, groups on the Left, who had also broken no laws, and posed no threat to national security, were the subject of wire taps and black bag jobs, among other extra-legal means of investigation and interruption. The real threat was not communism, it was liberalism. Communism… potential infiltration by communists and etc were just excuses for actions taken.

In order to respond appropriately, I would have to know which specific left-wing groups you are referring to. Also, one has to form judgments in the context of what the Bureau knew or suspected -- particularly given the information that they received from outside sources (such as local/state law enforcement, military intelligence, security units within federal agencies etc.)

Many of whom were supporters of groups such as the JBS… so of course they were going to receive information about left wing groups. What you give your blessing to is almost incestuous.

I am not defending the Bureau's behavior -- but it is important to try and understand why their employees (particularly their senior officials including Supervisors and Section Chiefs) believed that left-wing groups posed more of a potential threat to our freedoms or our way of life.

Oh, I do understand! Dem Reds wuz under dem beds! In numbers! Dey were coming over da mountains – Red Chinee – millions of ‘em! Dey wuz breedin' in da ghettos an’ maybe even in da sewers wit’ dem urban myth type alligataws! Day wuz every where like God but uglier and only slightly more malevolent! Phew! Thank you Mr Hoover! Thank you John Birch Society and thank you Jesus!

On favoritism… let’s again look at what we find in the Goldwater file: It shows that most of the victims of the threats just happened to be on the Security Index.

What “threats” are you referring to? What “victims” are you referring to?

Again – I posted my review of the files in this forum to give you that type of information. It should not be too difficult to find if you missed it when it was on the first page.

Yet you quote a mid ‘50s Belmont memo as evidence I am wrong about what happened almost a decade later? Were there no “rapid changes” in those 8 to 10 years? Was this period an exception to your rule?

You still are missing my point. A single memo does not constitute a case.

I was not making a case. I was reiterating what was stated in a FBI document.

Very disingenous Greg. You are making broad conclusions based upon that one document and you have expressed no interest whatsoever in the documents appearing in the actual main file on the WCC movement -- as if they are totally irrelevant.

Well, let me address that shortcoming here and now. Thank you, Ernie, for the information you have provided. I mean that sincerely.

You are falling into the trap which Karl Popper mentioned, i.e. you have found one “confirmation” for a theory you already believe but you are ignoring all of the contradictory evidence because it is fatal to your argument.

Huh? Didn’t I acknowledge you have demonstrated that they were investigated in 1950s?

But as I have repeatedly pointed out -- the "investigations" did not stop in the 1950's. They just assumed a different form.

Sorry. All but 2 was it stopped in the ‘50s? And I think one of those, if I remember correctly, was actually on an individual head of one of the chapters – not the chapter itself?

I was not looking in the Goldwater file for confirmation of anything. I merely summarized what I found accurately and honestly, but with an occasional editorial comment thrown in. I think it is perfectly clear which is straight summary and which is editorial comment.

But you are trying to elevate that ONE document to a degree of importance which it does not deserve.

How do you know what it does and does not deserve when elsewhere you repeatedly claim you need to see it before making any judgments?

It is quite possible that the memo was intended for distribution outside the Bureau (including to Hoover's superiors within the Justice Dept) so, obviously, the author would re-state the official policy which the Department handed down without acknowledging the actual state of affairs --- see below for more details.

Whilst this may be true of the document I quoted, it would not have been true of the memo IT quoted which was sent from Mobile to Chicago office advising that they did not have a list of WCC of members and WHY they didn’t (i.e. due to FBI policy…). THAT memo was for internal use only – i.e. advice from one office to another.

Greg, that is your assumption. Unless and until you and I can see the full text of both memos, we have no idea if it was intended for “internal use only”. But even if it was, there are other factors that need to be considered.

It was not an assumption. You forget that I have seen the document. If you want to discuss assumptions, let’s talk about your assumption that I was searching through Goldwater’s files looking for “confirmation of a theory you already believe[d]”.

Another falsehood by you. I did not state or hint that you were searching Goldwater's file looking for something to prove a theory you already believed. I said you are elevating bits and pieces of data to fact beyond what is reasonable.

Here is exactly what you said: “You are falling into the trap which Karl Popper mentioned, i.e. you have found one “confirmation” for a theory you already believe but you are ignoring all of the contradictory evidence because it is fatal to your argument.”

The civil rights laws enacted during Eisenhower's tenure greatly expanded the Bureau's responsibilities and the 1958 Atlanta Temple bombing incident dramatically changed the Bureau's attitude about groups who were considered white supremacy activists. [The original suspects in that bombing were National States Rights Party members--some of whom had connections to the WCC.] But the political sensitivity of formally "investigating" organizations which consisted of very prominent individuals in southern communities (including Governors, state legislators, judges, newspaper publishers, etc.) made it necessary to conduct investigations (in order to acquire intelligence) in a very discreet manner.

Then this change of attitude is noticeably absent in the Goldwater file pertaining to the early ‘60s.

Why would you expect to find the most relevant data about Bureau interest in white supremacy groups and individuals in the Goldwater file? You seem obsessed with Goldwater as if his file is the ONLY significant file in the entire FBI.

Not obsessed with the Goldwater file. It just seems to be the exception to most of the entreaties of propriety on behalf of the FBI you have offered up so far.

Again, this reveals your misunderstanding of everything I have presented thus far. I am making no argument for Bureau "propriety".

Yes you are. For example, you believe it was completely appropriate for the bureau to “investigate” the Left Wing more so than the Right based on the fact that they received more tips about the Left. But where did those tips come from? Bureau informants who had infiltrated Leftist groups, and police and other intelligence sources at least some of whom were sympathetic to JBS and like groups, if not actual members. You also seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to go “softly softly” with extreme right groups because their membership included civic leaders! And you have the hide to suggest equal treatment for them as the rest of us would receive (at least those on the left in any case) would be tantamount to having a Police State!

For some reason, you have great difficulty focusing on what I have actually written. I wrote that you are basing your conclusions upon ONE document you found in the Goldwater file. I also wrote that you seem singularly UNINTERESTED in the main file of the organization we are discussing and I don't understand why that is the case.

Funny, as I’ve demonstrated, it is you who has trouble focussing on recalling what you have previously said. And I am not uninterested in the main files, but as you know, I do not have them. Your take on them insofar as you have discussed in this thread, is like the Curate’s egg; only good in parts. I fully understand that you feel the same (or perhaps are even more disdainful of) some of my positions.

[Ernie Lazar]

Greg -- I will try to answer your questions/concerns but I think you continue to misinterpret what I have previously written so I now need to address your legitimate points as well as your straw men arguments as well as your sarcasm.

I want to start by yet again stating the obvious.

If at any point you had been willing to define your terms i.e. what YOU considered to constitute an FBI investigation -- all of this back/forth and most of our misunderstandings would have been prevented because we both would be operating with the same terms of reference.

MY REPLIES ARE IN BLUE FONT

It appears from the subject matter and language that the Belmont memo was written for the Justice Dept. Is that correct?

Greg:

No – it was an internal memo intended for senior FBI officials.

Okay. Thanks, Ernie.

Getting back to your observations for a minute:

(3) The Bureau often established general guidelines which allowed for exceptions. Sometimes memos were written in language which could be forwarded outside the Bureau to make it appear that the Bureau was adhering to instructions they received from the Department (i.e. nominally Hoover's superiors) but the ACTUAL policy was different.

Was this an admission that there was a culture of “getting around” instructions/protocols/policies? I ask because what you are describing here as to what Hoover did to fool his superiors is no different to what some agents did to fool Hoover.

You have difficulty with fact-based discussions so, instead, you find some exception to a general rule and you then want to inflate that exception into the general rule.

I asked a question based on your assertion that sometimes, Hoover deceived his superiors because when I pointed out that sometimes agents deceived Hoover (by manufacturing informants on paper to meet an unofficial quota), you almost had apoplexy at the mere thought this could have been achieved. Your logic? There were severe punishments for agents who did not follow protocols, ergo agents always followed protocols.

Totally unfair Greg. First, we have to ASSUME that your reliance upon the Swearingen memoir is justified because it is accurate and truthful. Do you recall the message where I asked you how you went about verifying the statements he made in his memoir?

Second, I did not go into "apoplexy" -- why should I?

I am just questioning, even if Swearingen's recollection is accurate, why do you think that incident is helpful to understand the prevailing culture within the FBI? Do you remember the message where I quoted the section from Swearingen's memoir where he indicated that he and Culkin would have been in trouble if the Chicago SAC learned of the phony informants?

I never once stated or hinted that "agents always followed protocols" -- that is your straw man argument. I stated that the culture inside the Bureau was designed to hold agents accountable for their shortcomings and that quoted excerpt by Swearingen supports my contention.

But here is the point Greg: I have many personnel files of former FBI Special Agents. I also have copies of field office and HQ inspection reports. Do you? I have seen the types of incidents which resulted in formal censure of agents - and I have seen the type of disciplinary measures that were taken. Beyond my own knowledge from reviewing dozens of Special Agent personnel files and field office inspection reports, there is the research done by historians. So what do you expect me to believe? Your rants and speculations or the specific data I know about and can verify?

This is always the general problem with conspiracy "logic", i.e. inability to make careful distinctions OR using some piece of evidence in ways which exceeds the actual import of the data.

And having wrongly castigated me for taking an exception and inflating to the status of the general rule… you immediately do that very thing yourself.

Huh?

Maybe it is about time someone pointed out to you that some of what you consider worthy historical research is just garbage. For example:

When asked about rumors of a Hoover/Tolson homosexual relationship Hack answered,"Oh, I know it wasn't. I know he wasn't." Hack's view is that the mere fact that Tolson and Hoover allowed themselves to constantly be seen in public, meant they could not have been more than close colleagues. Hack said, "It became clear to me as I went deeper into the man's psyche that if they were indeed lovers, they never would have been seen together." You think this trrumps Summers? They could not have been lovers because they WERE OFTEN SEEN TOGETHER!!!!???? Yeah… great stuff you rely on there… Hack lives up to his name.

Greg, Greg, Greg -- please stop! Do you want me to apply YOUR standards to your own comments?

For example: if you make any statement based upon the comments of one person who is flawed in any way, then should I totally trash the entire thrust of your argument and ignore all of the supporting evidence which you provide from other sources?

Think of it this way: assign a point value to all evidence presented. Let's say 5 points is what you consider "totally reliable" and "verified". Then, let's assume that you think Hack never presents anything reliable or verified -- so he gets a zero in your judgment BUT other people in an article present data that is accurate, reliable, and verified so you give them high scores. Do you then characterize the overall article as worthless because one source referenced is a zero in your judgment?

Then there is this : “There are more compelling reasons to explain Hoover's pre-1961 poor record on dealing with organized crime. Until 1961, there was no federal law authorizing or enabling the FBI to investigate organized criminal activities or groups such as the Mafia.” Which deceives by omitting the fact that this law did not exist previously because Hoover fought tooth and nail to keep such a statute off the books.

What is your source for that "tooth and nail" assertion? And, if true, what was Hoover's rationale?

Incidentally, you claim elsewhere that none of the article is based on Ayton’s own thoughts, but I’d point out to you that the above quote was not inside quotation marks in the article which is either an oversight by Ayton, or an indication those were indeed his own thoughts.

Appearance was everything to the FBI, substance hardly mattered.

Such a gross overstatement but it certainly relieves you of any requirement to prove specific assertions because you can always return to your blanket generalizations--whether or not they are accurate or helpful for understanding some Bureau policy or practice.

It WAS a bureau practice to put protection of the bureau’s reputation ahead of investigative imperatives. You are free to dispute that, but the evidence is overwhelming.

I'm not sure what you mean by this (yet again) broad generalization. Can you provide some examples of things that SHOULD have been investigated (which they had the authority to investigate) but were NOT investigated because the Bureau's reputation needed to be protected?

This highlights the problem in dealing with you; If I fail to cite examples, I’m accused of using blanket “generalizations” and if I do cite examples, this only shows I have been “searching for confirmations” of whatever bias you want to accuse me of.

What "examples" are you referring to?

Now let’s look at the Bureau’s efforts in the matters under investigation in the Goldwater file, and see how well they do against Belmont’s policy summation:

The Mobile office advised the Chicago office that they did not have a membership list of the local WCC because of Bureau regs prohibiting active investigation of that organization. Was the Mobile Office not one of the 12 “Southern Offices” instructed per Belmont’s memo to maintain pertinent data on the WCC? Or was Belmont’s memo just so much BS for dept consumption?

Having not seen the full text and the context of what the Mobile office said – and, especially, not knowing how Chicago field comes into this matter –

Threatening mail was received in Chicago from someone claiming to be a member of the Mobile chapter of the WCC. Mobile got back to Chicago advising they had no membership because … well, you know why by now what they claimed was the reason, I hope!

Nothing surprising here because as I have already pointed out, there were different methodologies employed by field offices to develop factual data. Securing actual membership lists (as opposed to more limited interest in key leaders of a group), usually occurred only when a "full" or "official" investigation was in progress because the group under scrutiny was suspected of violations of law or inciting violations of law.

And the FBI sometimes relieved itself of any further responsibility to investigate by interviewing WCC leaders… who… miracle of miracles… seemed to know just the right things to say (“we only apply legal means to try and reach our objects” we abhor violence” etc etc… Case closeed.

Which WCC "leaders" are you suggesting made that type of comment which the Bureau naively accepted at face value? Which specific FBI reports are you quoting from that establish that the Bureau relieved itself of any further responsibility to investigate?

I feel like Alice in Wonderland Greg. Please answer yes or no to this question: DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF OR HAVE YOU SEEN ANY FBI FILE ON ANY WCC UNIT?

The JBS is a pertinent example: the Bureau never had any complete membership list nor did it seek one. It did, however, know the identity of all of its national leaders as well as many of the local chapter leaders and most of their Coordinators. In fact, many of these individuals contacted their local field office for various reasons. When the Bureau realized that the JBS and WCC were non-subversive groups which attracted many prominent people in their communities, there was no interest in complete membership lists or any "active investigation". However, unlike the JBS, the Bureau was concerned about the potential for "extra-legal" actions by WCC members and possible future violations of law - particularly in those cases where Klan members were known to also be WCC members.

See: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/22/2206-001.gif

it is difficult to answer your question appropriately except to note that one characteristic of an official investigation is that efforts are made to obtain membership lists (and mailing lists) of groups under official investigation.

Yes, and Chicago made that effort, albeit rather meekly and unsuccessfully.

What games would they be, Ernie? All I’ve asked you to do is answer “yes” or “no” as to whether the Mobile Office was being truthful.

The “game” is your continual refusal to answer first-principles questions so we all understand the same terms of reference.

No. It has been your game to try and embarrass me into doing something which you seem to believe is beneath you to do yourself.Like I said, even if I didn't know, I could avoid embarrassment by looking it up, so the continued harping about it has nothing to do with wanting to know "terms of reference". The only term of reference needed is the quote from the Mobile Office. It is either true or false on its face.

Greg -- I am not trying to embarrass you but it is quite significant that you perceive my repeated requests in that manner.

Yeah, I thought it would be. That’s the anti-conspiricist mind-set for you. You see significance in the darndest places! Even a significance free zone like a Mel Ayton article!

Notice too your deliberate falsehood about what I am willing to do. In this thread I have repeatedly discussed the difference between "full" or "official" investigations versus other methods of obtaining information such as reliance upon "established sources", and public source material, public records, etc. So, what this shows is that you feel unconstrained by facts when you want to trash a critic or skeptic.

“Repeatedly”? Then maybe you should start thinking “conspiracy”! because someone is deleting all this pertinent information. I just used the search function to see how many times you’ve mentioned public source documents. The answer, apart from the instance above is ONCE – and that was in reply to someone else (which I had not read previously) and was about deletions – not about appropriate usage.

Greg: this illustrates how totally unfair you are. Why don't we stop sniping at each other? Just explain what you consider to be the elements of an official FBI investigation? What type of data exists in an investigative file that does NOT exist in other types of files. If we both focus on that question we can avoid sarcasm, straw men, misunderstandings, "gotcha's" -- and maybe we both can learn something important and have a productive discussion.

The Mobile office memo is merely one piece of information. For you to pretend that it is the ONLY piece of information worth considering is absurd.

I have pretended no such thing. I have acknowledged what you have posted which seems to contradict the Mobile document. What I have tried to extract from you is whether or not the Mobile office was being truthful. Why have I been doing that, unless I am willing to accept the contradictory evidence?

I am not aware that you "acknowledged" any such thing.

From the very inception of our discussion about WCC, you presented the Mobile memo as supremely important evidence to consider. Let's try to get past this OK?

Let's assume for the purposes of our discussion that the Mobile memo is truthful -- because I already posted the explicit statement by the Bureau (in 1955) that they did not conduct official or full investigations of the WCC.

Let's further stipulate that absent an official or full investigation, a field office was unlikely to have any interest in pursuing (on an ongoing basis) a complete list (periodically updated) of WCC members.

How does all that change the FACT, as I previously have stated, that field offices amassed a huge amount of data about the WCC movement, its leaders, its activities, its connections to other persons and groups, its publications, its political activities, its speakers, its rallies, its internal disputes, etc.

How does that change the fact, for example, that Los Angeles field opened its WCC file in 1964?

But again, this is how conspiracy believers operate. They want laser-like attention to ONE piece of data while ignoring or de-valuing all other data...which, again, is the type of defective reasoning which Karl Popper discussed.

I could equally say – and equally be wrong – that no amount of data is enough for you to answer your original question/s which started you on this mission. To turn Popper on his head, in the universe of available data, there is always contradictory evidence to be found.

I have no clue what you mean by this comment. "No amount of data is enough" to answer which of my questions?

Are you asserting an equivalence between confirming and contradictory evidence and you think Popper was mistaken by elevating the importance of contradictory evidence over confirming evidence?

More broadly, is that your understanding of how the scientific method should operate i.e. confirmations should be more important than contradictions?

How does one avoid the twin trap of “confirmation/contradiction”? By using various methods of weighing evidence. THAT is what really differentiates us. How we weigh evidence.

Not just how we "weigh" evidence Greg. But which evidence we SELECT.

Suppose, for example, I wanted to write an article about YOU.

Suppose, further, that I had a total of 100 pieces of evidence. Of those 100 pieces, suppose 29 were negative or derogatory; 47 were positive and 24 were neutral or ambiguous.

Suppose, further, that when I write my article about you I select/use 15 of the negative, 11 of the positive, and 18 of the neutral or ambiguous references to you. Would my article about you be likely to be accurate and truthful?

Truthful that their specific field office did not have a complete WCC membership list for the one WCC unit mentioned? Probably yes.

Truthful about Bureau policy at that moment in time? – depends upon what, exactly, they were addressing,

If you had read my summaries of the files that I posted mostly for your benefit, you would know.

No, Greg, I only "know" what little data you have presented. Unlike yourself, I do not form conclusions based upon one piece of information.

Excuse me! You don’t believe my summaries indicate what the request to the Mobile office was all about?

I still don't understand your obsession with this ONE document to the exclusion of all other data. Is that how you propose that we "weigh" evidence?

Help me understand why you think the Mobile memo is the single most important piece of evidence we should consider.

and whom in the Mobile office wrote the memo

Since it was in response to a request from the Chicago office on a matter of some importance, I would presume it was someone knowledgeable regarding the subject of the request. Or are you going to suggest that FBI let the cleaner respond to such matters?

I was only pointing out that one has to read the entire document and see the context before making conclusions.

Jeeze. I gave the context.

Jeeze -- we have your recollection of the excerpt -- not the entire context.

and their familiarity with what data was actually being developed in all the FBI’s field offices and how they chose to characterize practices in all field offices.

Let me blunt here. If the Mobile office was being loose with the facts in “how they chose to characterized practices”, it was most likely because they sympathized with the local WCC.

That is totally absurd. Honest mistakes are made by human beings all the time. Again, without seeing the entire document, I cannot make any judgments about what was actually said but so far all you have done is present something which does not in any way contradict what I have already expressed, i.e. "full" or "official" investigations may be forbidden but there are other methodologies used which produce nearly the same results. Suppose, for example, you were a public figure and I wanted to develop a factual profile of you. I could hire a private investigator OR I could use alternative means to develop factual data about you. The private investigator option would be roughly equivalent to a "full" investigation but are you suggesting that I could not discover anything about you by using an alternate method?

After the Mobile Office made its reply to the requesting office. The requesting office (Chicago) seemed to get the hint, and no further requests were made to check the name they had.

And you arrived at that conclusion because you saw the Chicago field file on the WCC?

I submit on these grounds that the reasoning for not investigating such groups was spurious. I would further submit that your support for such spurious reasoning makes you look rather like an FBI apologist (willing when cornered to offer up limited hangouts).

I have no clue what you are driving at here. The Bureau DID “investigate” these groups within the parameters of what they could do without being accused of harassment or illegal activities.

No. They investigated such groups within the parameters of how little investigating they could get away with.

Sorry, Greg, your personal speculations are contradicted by reams of evidence in FBI files concerning when and how investigations were to be conducted. Absent violations of federal laws which fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI they had no authority to "investigate" -- and, incidentally, WHO among us wants the kind of pervasive type of national police which apparently YOU think the FBI should have been?

My my. All this just by suggesting that Right Wing groups got treated with deference by the FBI as opposed to how Left Wing groups were treated. I think there is reams of evidence to support this.

Another straw man.

I do not dispute the fact that right-wing groups were treated differently from left-wing groups but it was not a matter of "deference" -- whatever that means.

Here again we need to discuss specifics instead of broad generalizations. Tell me what you mean. Give me examples of two groups, one right-wing and one left-wing -- and both have precisely the same attributes -- but the Bureau treated one differently than the other -- and then explain your reasoning for why that was the case. All of this presumes, of course, that (like myself) you have actual copies of these files so you can see all of the relevant documents.

On the other hand, groups on the Left, who had also broken no laws, and posed no threat to national security, were the subject of wire taps and black bag jobs, among other extra-legal means of investigation and interruption. The real threat was not communism, it was liberalism. Communism… potential infiltration by communists and etc were just excuses for actions taken.

In order to respond appropriately, I would have to know which specific left-wing groups you are referring to. Also, one has to form judgments in the context of what the Bureau knew or suspected -- particularly given the information that they received from outside sources (such as local/state law enforcement, military intelligence, security units within federal agencies etc.)

Many of whom were supporters of groups such as the JBS… so of course they were going to receive information about left wing groups. What you give your blessing to is almost incestuous.

Again---more generalizations and no specifics. TO WHOM are you referring to as "supporters of the JBS"?

Certainly not the FBI which characterized the JBS as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible", "lunatic fringe" and "fanatics" -- and whose field offices were told not to send Bureau publications to any person or group connected to the JBS, and which refused to send Bureau speakers to functions which Birchers organized or were predominantly in control of.

Do you mean that "outside sources" sending info to the Bureau were "supporters of the JBS"?

If so, then, as a general rule, you would be VERY mistaken -- but even to the degree that was true, it certainly did not impact the Bureau's evaluations of the JBS or anyone connected to the JBS.

I am not defending the Bureau's behavior -- but it is important to try and understand why their employees (particularly their senior officials including Supervisors and Section Chiefs) believed that left-wing groups posed more of a potential threat to our freedoms or our way of life.

Oh, I do understand! Dem Reds wuz under dem beds! In numbers! Dey were coming over da mountains – Red Chinee – millions of ‘em! Dey wuz breedin' in da ghettos an’ maybe even in da sewers wit’ dem urban myth type alligataws! Day wuz every where like God but uglier and only slightly more malevolent! Phew! Thank you Mr Hoover! Thank you John Birch Society and thank you Jesus!

Cute -- but not correct.

The FBI in general (and Hoover in particular) demolished the entire premise upon which the JBS was founded. Thousands of people sent letters to Hoover asking his views about the JBS/Robert Welch and their assertions. The two most frequent Hoover replies were variations of the following:

(1) "Personally, I have little respect for the head of the John Birch Society since he linked the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism."

(2) "The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent, and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator."

Beyond those two explicit statements by Hoover -- there are all the speeches made by Hoover or senior FBI officials which flatly contradicted JBS premises and conclusions about such matters as, for example, the civil rights movement and our clergy/religious institutions.

On favoritism… let’s again look at what we find in the Goldwater file: It shows that most of the victims of the threats just happened to be on the Security Index.

What “threats” are you referring to? What “victims” are you referring to?

Again – I posted my review of the files in this forum to give you that type of information. It should not be too difficult to find if you missed it when it was on the first page.

Yet you quote a mid ‘50s Belmont memo as evidence I am wrong about what happened almost a decade later? Were there no “rapid changes” in those 8 to 10 years? Was this period an exception to your rule?

You still are missing my point. A single memo does not constitute a case.

I was not making a case. I was reiterating what was stated in a FBI document.

Very disingenous Greg. You are making broad conclusions based upon that one document and you have expressed no interest whatsoever in the documents appearing in the actual main file on the WCC movement -- as if they are totally irrelevant.

Well, let me address that shortcoming here and now. Thank you, Ernie, for the information you have provided. I mean that sincerely.

Cool.

You are falling into the trap which Karl Popper mentioned, i.e. you have found one “confirmation” for a theory you already believe but you are ignoring all of the contradictory evidence because it is fatal to your argument.

Huh? Didn’t I acknowledge you have demonstrated that they were investigated in 1950s?

But as I have repeatedly pointed out -- the "investigations" did not stop in the 1950's. They just assumed a different form.

Sorry. All but 2 was it stopped in the ‘50s? And I think one of those, if I remember correctly, was actually on an individual head of one of the chapters – not the chapter itself?

I'm not sure what you are asking me here. Would you care to re-phrase?

The "official" investigation of the original 2 groups ended before January 1956 but the Bureau and its field offices subsequently opened HUNDREDS of files on WCC units and their leaders. But we are back to the problem of understanding what type of information was being collected and whether or not YOU think it rises to your definition (up to this point undefined) of an "investigation"

I was not looking in the Goldwater file for confirmation of anything. I merely summarized what I found accurately and honestly, but with an occasional editorial comment thrown in. I think it is perfectly clear which is straight summary and which is editorial comment.

But you are trying to elevate that ONE document to a degree of importance which it does not deserve.

How do you know what it does and does not deserve when elsewhere you repeatedly claim you need to see it before making any judgments?

Because, unlike yourself, I have copies of DOZENS of WCC files.

Your question is equivalent to this scenario:

1. Suppose I was researching Greg Parker in FBI files.

2. Suppose, further, I found a 1963 memo in a Mobile AL field office file which pertained to an organization Greg belonged to and that Mobile field memo made some sort of favorable comment about Greg.

3. BUT -- suppose I also had copies of numerous other files, both HQ and originating field office file (let's say Chicago) on Greg Parker -- and THOSE files (years 1960-1966) had very derogatory statements about Greg.

4. Obviously, the HQ and Chicago files would trump that one Mobile memo because they would give me a more complete picture of what the Bureau thought about Greg.

Incidentally, the scenario I just hypothesized is not hypothetical. There are many instances where the Bureau's judgments changed over time, or they changed depending upon specific events and circumstances.

For example: the Bureau had cordial relationships with many people whom both you and I would consider "extreme right" -- but that did not prevent the Bureau from candidly acknowledging the flaws of those individuals or becoming livid over incidents involving those individuals.

This is especially true regarding persons whom, at one time or another, were Bureau informants or Bureau employees who later associated themselves with groups like the JBS.

It is quite possible that the memo was intended for distribution outside the Bureau (including to Hoover's superiors within the Justice Dept) so, obviously, the author would re-state the official policy which the Department handed down without acknowledging the actual state of affairs --- see below for more details.

Whilst this may be true of the document I quoted, it would not have been true of the memo IT quoted which was sent from Mobile to Chicago office advising that they did not have a list of WCC of members and WHY they didn’t (i.e. due to FBI policy…). THAT memo was for internal use only – i.e. advice from one office to another.

Greg, that is your assumption. Unless and until you and I can see the full text of both memos, we have no idea if it was intended for “internal use only”. But even if it was, there are other factors that need to be considered.

It was not an assumption. You forget that I have seen the document. If you want to discuss assumptions, let’s talk about your assumption that I was searching through Goldwater’s files looking for “confirmation of a theory you already believe[d]”.

Another falsehood by you. I did not state or hint that you were searching Goldwater's file looking for something to prove a theory you already believed. I said you are elevating bits and pieces of data to fact beyond what is reasonable.

Here is exactly what you said: “You are falling into the trap which Karl Popper mentioned, i.e. you have found one “confirmation” for a theory you already believe but you are ignoring all of the contradictory evidence because it is fatal to your argument.”

Yes -- my reference to "a theory" - is your contention that the WCC was not investigated -- but I am not suggesting that you looked through Goldwater's file to find something to discredit that theory. My contention is that you are elevating that one Mobile memo to importance it does not deserve because you are ignoring the more important data which exists in actual WCC files.

The civil rights laws enacted during Eisenhower's tenure greatly expanded the Bureau's responsibilities and the 1958 Atlanta Temple bombing incident dramatically changed the Bureau's attitude about groups who were considered white supremacy activists. [The original suspects in that bombing were National States Rights Party members--some of whom had connections to the WCC.] But the political sensitivity of formally "investigating" organizations which consisted of very prominent individuals in southern communities (including Governors, state legislators, judges, newspaper publishers, etc.) made it necessary to conduct investigations (in order to acquire intelligence) in a very discreet manner.

Then this change of attitude is noticeably absent in the Goldwater file pertaining to the early ‘60s.

Why would you expect to find the most relevant data about Bureau interest in white supremacy groups and individuals in the Goldwater file? You seem obsessed with Goldwater as if his file is the ONLY significant file in the entire FBI.

Not obsessed with the Goldwater file. It just seems to be the exception to most of the entreaties of propriety on behalf of the FBI you have offered up so far.

Again, this reveals your misunderstanding of everything I have presented thus far. I am making no argument for Bureau "propriety".

Yes you are. For example, you believe it was completely appropriate for the bureau to “investigate” the Left Wing more so than the Right based on the fact that they received more tips about the Left. But where did those tips come from? Bureau informants who had infiltrated Leftist groups, and police and other intelligence sources at least some of whom were sympathetic to JBS and like groups, if not actual members. You also seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to go “softly softly” with extreme right groups because their membership included civic leaders! And you have the hide to suggest equal treatment for them as the rest of us would receive (at least those on the left in any case) would be tantamount to having a Police State!

Greg, how could we so massively misunderstand each other?

I do NOT believe that it was "completely appropriate for the bureau to investigate the left wing more so than the right" based on "tips" from informants etc.

Nor do I believe it is "perfectly acceptable to go softly with extreme right groups because their membership included civic leaders".

I am dumbfounded (and exasperated) that you think this is what I believe.

What did I actually write? I wrote that we should try to understand the rationale for why Bureau employees focused more attention upon left-wing groups. We should leave our personal feelings aside and just try to put ourselves in their shoes.

By law, the FBI is our nation's primary internal security agency. By law, the Bureau is responsible for investigating certain categories of crimes as well as applicants for, and appointees to, certain federal positions.

In addition, the Bureau received huge amounts of data from numerous outside independent sources. Do you think they should have ignored all of that data --if, for example, more of it, at some point in time, pertained to left-wing individuals/groups instead of right-wing individuals/groups?

For example: if the Bureau received info that some left wing persons/groups were planning to incite violence, or engage in criminal activity, or bomb a building or whatever -- they should have said to themselves: "Gee, we can't pursue the leads we received about this left-wing activity because we first need to compare it to the number of leads regarding derogatory info on right-wing groups so we don't exceed our formula re: right vs left?"

Maybe you should write a few paragraphs to tell us what YOU think should be the criteria for whom the FBI should investigate?

This is always the problem when we deal in generalities instead of specific details. You rush to conclusions which are TOTALLY FALSE concerning what I believe because you don't even have the decency to ask pertinent questions.

You are so focused upon demonizing me as some sort of "apologist" for the FBI that you don't even care what I actually believe. Shame on you!

We may never agree about JFK, or about what constitutes an FBI investigation, or whether or not some specific person or group should have come under FBI scrutiny---but it is wrong of you to misrepresent what I believe

Frankly, Greg, I am weary of your holier-than-thou arrogant disdain and misrepresentation of what I believe. You might like to review the following information:

(1) A recent doctoral dissertation by Samuel Brenner about the development of the extreme right in our country...Notice the acknowledgements page (page v) where Sam refers to his use of material he got from me

http://www.samuelbrenner.com/Resume%20and%20Professional/Dissertation.htm

(2) Dr. John Drabble is one of our nation's foremost scholars on the Bureau's COINTELPRO program involving White Hate Groups. He is also a friend of mine. He has written numerous articles (and he is working on a book) which reveals FBI illegal and improper activities. He, too, has cited me as his source for data in several of his articles. http://cointelprowhitehate.blogspot.com/

(3) Numerous other authors, researchers, and representatives of the news media have cited documents or information which they obtained from me in their own writings or reports about the extreme right in our country: the most recent examples being Alex Zaitchik's salon.com articles (and book) about Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow's reports on MSNBC with respect to the JBS.

So I have TWO WORDS for you: The first begins with F and the second with Y.

For some reason, you have great difficulty focusing on what I have actually written. I wrote that you are basing your conclusions upon ONE document you found in the Goldwater file. I also wrote that you seem singularly UNINTERESTED in the main file of the organization we are discussing and I don't understand why that is the case.

Funny, as I’ve demonstrated, it is you who has trouble focussing on recalling what you have previously said. And I am not uninterested in the main files, but as you know, I do not have them. Your take on them insofar as you have discussed in this thread, is like the Curate’s egg; only good in parts. I fully understand that you feel the same (or perhaps are even more disdainful of) some of my positions.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[William Kelly]

Bill: What you consider "fact" has been discredited as false by almost every scholar/historian who has carefully studied Hoover and the FBI and, significantly, those scholars are uniformly hostile toward Hoover. There are no "photos" of Hoover "in drag". That rumor originated with the wife of a Mafia-connected figure whom, incidentally, had been convicted of perjury.

And for the life of me I can't figure out how you arrived at the absurd idea that the Bureau never even acknowledged the existence of the Mafia. If you give me your email address, I will send you a copy of the FBI's 72-page monograph on the Mafia from 1958. There is so much mythology about this matter that it would take hours to address all of it. What is true, however, is that Hoover initially thought there was no single Mafia Boss in control of organized crime in the U.S. He also thought that local police departments should have the primary responsibility for dealing with organized crime.

Ernie, Can I still take you up on this offer? I'd like to read it. Can't you just scan it and email it to me?

Thanks, BK