Jump to content
The Education Forum

William King Harvey


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

I believe that Corson's assessments of Harvey's character were accurate. Reading that entire page, the deception I see is by saying that Harvey was Hoover's mole. In this way, it becomes easy to attribute Harvey's involvement in horrible things to J. Edgar Hoover.

I believe that William Harvey's involvement in horrible things more likely relate to his work with Angleton and Staff D and other figures at CIA, and that Hoover did absolutely hate Harvey based on the official memos he wrote trying to get Bill Harvey fired from the CIA. 

Corson deceived Victor Marchetti for James Angleton, he was involved in an operation there targeting a journalist. I suspect that his work with Trento is more of the same.

Trenton Parker stated in an interview with Rodney Stich that he heard Dulles,  Hoover and others conspiring to assassinate Kennedy on tape. I originally thought that Harvey and Hoover work together to kill the president therefore explaining Hoover's voice on tape but thanks to you I now know that Harvey and Hoover working together was not true

Edited by Calvin Ye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 minutes ago, Calvin Ye said:

Trenton Parker stated in an interview with Rodney Stich that he heard Dulles,  Hoover and others conspiring to assassinate Kennedy on tape. I originally thought that Harvey and Hoover work together to kill the president therefore explaining Hoover's voice on tape but thanks to you I now know that Harvey and Hoover working together was not true

I always bear in mind that J. Edgar Hoover would absolutely love to see JFK dead. He hated his guts. Hoover would have certainly made things very easy for the people who did it, especially if those people were powerful peers. Even moreso if those powerful peers had compromising material on Hoover.

It is certain that Hoover was an accessory after the fact. He may have been brought on-board by the planners -- in a compartmentalized fashion -- giving him only the information he would need to accomplish his task as leader of the FBI. It seems almost necessary for someone to have brought Hoover on-board in order to get him on the same page as everyone else. But I do not see him as a planner. He was just a tool: "make sure your report nails Oswald. Make sure your agents seize all of Oswald's pay stubs and school records. There were three shots. He was a Marxist. There was no conspiracy." That sort of thing.

I just can't see Hoover being at the top. I believe Angleton was at the top and surrounded by some of his peers including his former boss Allen Dulles, who continued to receive briefings and meetings at his home after he was fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

I always bear in mind that J. Edgar Hoover would absolutely love to see JFK dead. He hated his guts. Hoover would have certainly made things very easy for the people who did it, especially if those people were powerful peers. Even moreso if those powerful peers had compromising material on Hoover.

It is certain that Hoover was an accessory after the fact. He may have been brought on-board by the planners -- in a compartmentalized fashion -- giving him only the information he would need to accomplish his task as leader of the FBI. It seems almost necessary for someone to have brought Hoover on-board in order to get him on the same page as everyone else. But I do not see him as a planner. He was just a tool: "make sure your report nails Oswald. Make sure your agents seize all of Oswald's pay stubs and school records. There were three shots. He was a Marxist. There was no conspiracy." That sort of thing.

I just can't see Hoover being at the top. I believe Angleton was at the top and surrounded by some of his peers including his former boss Allen Dulles, who continued to receive briefings and meetings at his home after he was fired.

I now wonder, what is the role of Hoover's involvement in the  assassination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Calvin Ye said:

I now wonder, what is the role of Hoover's involvement in the  assassination?

Control over the investigation. Produce a report that says Oswald did it. Interview witnesses. Gather and control all of the evidence. Get the evidence out of Dallas' hands and into the FBI's hands in DC where the evidence can be meddled with if necessary (And this happened -- all evidence went to DC and when it was shipped back to Dallas, MORE pieces of evidence came back to Dallas then went to D.C.!).  Get all of Oswald's pay records and school records. 

His job was to control the investigation and the evidence. As LBJ said on the phone about the Warren Commission "all you're gonna do is evaluate a Hoover report" -- that is, rubber stamp an FBI report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Richard Booth said:

Control over the investigation. Produce a report that says Oswald did it. Interview witnesses. Gather and control all of the evidence. Get the evidence out of Dallas' hands and into the FBI's hands in DC where the evidence can be meddled with if necessary (And this happened -- all evidence went to DC and when it was shipped back to Dallas, MORE pieces of evidence came back to Dallas then went to D.C.!).  Get all of Oswald's pay records and school records. 

His job was to control the investigation and the evidence. As LBJ said on the phone about the Warren Commission "all you're gonna do is evaluate a Hoover report" -- that is, rubber stamp an FBI report.

Oh okay. I get it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Richard Booth said:

Control over the investigation. Produce a report that says Oswald did it. Interview witnesses. Gather and control all of the evidence. Get the evidence out of Dallas' hands and into the FBI's hands in DC where the evidence can be meddled with if necessary (And this happened -- all evidence went to DC and when it was shipped back to Dallas, MORE pieces of evidence came back to Dallas then went to D.C.!).  Get all of Oswald's pay records and school records. 

His job was to control the investigation and the evidence. As LBJ said on the phone about the Warren Commission "all you're gonna do is evaluate a Hoover report" -- that is, rubber stamp an FBI report.

This and your prior post well said Richard imho.  I believe LBJ was also briefed in advanced to usher him in to the presidency without interruption.  " They" had the goods on him as well, happening in real time on 11/22/63 in Washington with the "free" stereo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

This and your prior post well said Richard imho.  I believe LBJ was also briefed in advanced to usher him in to the presidency without interruption.  " They" had the goods on him as well, happening in real time on 11/22/63 in Washington with the "free" stereo. 

Thanks Ron.  I agree, Lyndon and J. Edgar were also neighbors and really good buddies. I think they both would have been pleased to be rid of JFK and if given assurances that it would never in any way get back to them and it was a "sure thing" they would go along. In addition, both of them had their asses on the line if JFK won a second term with LBJ off the ticket due to the Bobby Baker scandal and J. Edgar fired.

I'm not sure if psychological profiles were really in-use at that time, but had one been done on LBJ and/or Hoover by the planners I suspect the results would have told them "you can approach these guys and they won't say a word -- you're giving them exactly what they want and what they need to keep their jobs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Calvin Ye said:

Howard Hunt stated in his 2007 memoir that if Lyndon has anything to do with the assassination, he would have used Harvey

 

I don't put much faith in anything Hunt said.  Between Watergate and Mark Lane basically convicting him of lying about Dallas.  The possibility of Harvey and Angleton collaborating is intriguing and bears further investigation if possible.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I don't put much faith in anything Hunt said.  Between Watergate and Mark Lane basically convicting him of lying about Dallas.  The possibility of Harvey and Angleton collaborating is intriguing and bears further investigation if possible.    

Richard Helms claims in his memoir that he had excellent relationship with Lyndon Johnson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no real reason to go against the idea that Dulles, Helms, Angleton, and Harvey were major players in the planning and execution.

I also don't doubt E. Howard Hunt played a role mid level and maybe also ground level. But he also can't be trusted to have disclosed his role truthfully, so you basically have to take everything he says with great skepticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I have no real reason to go against the idea that Dulles, Helms, Angleton, and Harvey were major players in the planning and execution.

I also don't doubt E. Howard Hunt played a role mid level and maybe also ground level. But he also can't be trusted to have disclosed his role truthfully, so you basically have to take everything he says with great skepticism.

So I should ignore the CIA officials' own memoirs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...