New Book!

[Paul Brancato]

On 3/12/2017 at 2:19 PM, Ernie Lazar said:

This morning I received an inquiry about a Polish intelligence defector (Michal Goleniewski) which led me to review an article which I had totally forgotten I saved -- which was published in a 1984 issue of the UK conspiracy journal, Lobster.  

An article by Jonathan Marshall entitled "Brief Notes on the Political Importance of Secret Societies" discusses some details pertaining to the JFK assassination which conform to the idea that LHO was a patsy -- BUT -- this analysis differs from the evaluation made by Dr. Caufield (and by others in this forum).

This article mentions that Philip Corso identified LHO as a CIA asset and it goes on to discuss the role played by former CIA official Herman Kinsey (right hand man to Allen Dulles) who supposedly had first-hand information implicating the KGB in JFK's assassination.  In this scenario, LHO thought he was working for U.S. intelligence when the KGB duped him into joining the plot.

Hugh McDonald, former Chief of Detectives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept, claims that he served as an Army Intelligence officer and CIA contract agent.  Supposedly, in the fall of 1964, Herman Kimsey (who had retired from the CIA) was working with McDonald.  At that time McDonald was Chief of Security for GOP Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.  Kimsey reportedly told McDonald at that time, the details of the plot to kill JFK.  The actual assassin, according to Kimsey, was a contract killer sometimes employed by Kimsey on behalf of the CIA.  In McDonald's 1975 book, Appointment in Dallas, McDonald stated that he tracked this killer down in London and learned from him that the paymaster for the hit was codenamed "Troit" and that person set up LHO as the patsy.

In a later book entitled "LBJ and the JFK Conspiracy" - by McDonald and Robin Moore, they "revealed" that the KGB planned the assassination between 1961 and 1963.  

The Birch Society agreed with the McDonald thesis and the JBS believed that George De Morenschildt was "Troit".  Apparently, the JBS got this info originally from its "intelligence analyst", Frank Capell.  However, Capell was not the first person to present DeM as "Troit".  Instead, in 1967, McDonald and his friend Leonard Davidov (a fellow CIA contract agent and friend of retired CIA official Herman Kinsey) obtained info re: DeM's involvement in the assassination from I. Irving Davidson, a CIA-connected Washington lobbyist for Haiti (where DeM was pursuing business deals and involved in intelligence missions).

This story gets more complicated but, interestingly, it involves many of the same characters mentioned in the Caufield book because of their links to the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, along with the Philadelphia-based Catholic Order of the Carmelites and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (religious arm of the White Russian community).  As a result of these links -- names mentioned by Caufield also come up in this conspiracy theory -- including Frank Capell, Maj.General Charles O. Willoughby, Gen. Pedro A. del Valle.

 

Ernie - this interesting post got buried with your perennial war of words with Trejo, and argument you won a long time ago. You've put plenty of nails in the coffin of his theory. I'm curious how much reading you've done on the JFK assassination. Philip Corso of Roswell fame isn't a source I would put much faith in as far as his identification of Oswald as a CIA agent. Herman Kinsey was right hand man to Allen Dulles before he retired. That's interesting, but again not a believable source. The idea that Oswald was actually working for KGB and didn't know it strikes me as deep propaganda. I personally think there is no, and cannot be, any proof nor any reason to believe that KGB killed JFK. But the idea that conspiracies are hatched in secret societies is logical. I believe a lot of the right wing names you see being members of the Shickshinny Knights also belonged to the American Security Council, with its direct ties to the defense establishment. 

I have no problem with Trejo's theory in so far as he puts the blame on the extreme right. Do you? Its his rather limited definition of who is extreme right that bothers me, as he is unwilling to consider that there is little difference between the extreme righties in government and active military at that time, and those out of Government or in military reserve units. It's an artificial demarcation, and he cherry picks sources to prove his point. That gets him in trouble with careful researchers like you and others here. 

I would suggest to you and anyone reading to consider, when reading about all these players in Dallas, DPD, motorcade, military reserve, ex military, etc, how many of them are connected to Army Intelligence. And when you look at the top of the chain in the Army at that time you see General Lemnitzer, a man with vitriolic hatred of JFK, and connections to all the players through very few intermediaries, and no paper trail to even investigate. CIA and military Intel share assets, agents, regularly. I don't see the demarcation there. So easy to hide CIA operations within military and vice versa. And Oswald, if he was working for US intelligence, was more likely to be connected to military Intel than CIA. 

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Ernie Lazar]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ernie - this interesting post got buried with your perennial war of words with Trejo, and argument you won a long time ago. You've put plenty of nails in the coffin of his theory. I'm curious how much reading you've done on the JFK assassination. Philip Corso of Roswell fame isn't a source I would put much faith in as far as his identification of Oswald as a CIA agent. Herman Kinsey was right hand man to Allen Dulles before he retired. That's interesting, but again not a believable source. The idea that Oswald was actually working for KGB and didn't know it strikes me as deep propaganda. I personally think there is no, and cannot be, any proof nor any reason to believe that KGB killed JFK. But the idea that conspiracies are hatched in secret societies is logical. I believe a lot of the right wing names you see being members of the Shickshinny Knights also belonged to the American Security Council, with its direct ties to the defense establishment. 

I have no problem with Trejo's theory in so far as he puts the blame on the extreme right. Do you? Its his rather limited definition of who is extreme right that bothers me, as he is unwilling to consider that there is little difference between the extreme righties in government and active military at that time, and those out of Government or in military reserve units. It's an artificial demarcation, and he cherry picks sources to prove his point. That gets him in trouble with careful researchers like you and others here. 

I would suggest to you and anyone reading to consider, when reading about all these players in Dallas, DPD, motorcade, military reserve, ex military, etc, how many of them are connected to Army Intelligence. And when you look at the top of the chain in the Army at that time you see General Lemnitzer, a man with vitriolic hatred of JFK, and connections to all the players through very few intermediaries, and no paper trail to even investigate. CIA and military Intel share assets, agents, regularly. I don't see the demarcation there. So easy to hide CIA operations within military and vice versa. And Oswald, if he was working for US intelligence, was more likely to be connected to military Intel than CIA. 

 

I was just sharing what I saw in that particular issue of the UK conspiracy journal Lobster -- not because I was advocating its views -- but just to show how an alternative theory is constructed using many of the same players as are mentioned by Dr. Caufield.

There are always "links" or "connections" between and among people who have similar political viewpoints but it is a major logical fallacy to ASSUME that such people do not have irreconcilable differences which render them incompatible with each other.  For example:  the Birch Society is NOT the same as the Tea Party Movement and many people whom you might consider "extreme" conservatives are rejected by the JBS or thought to be highly suspect.  For example: the former President of the JBS described Ronald Reagan as a "phony conservative" and a "lackey of the Communists".  Not many Tea Party movement adherents would ever accept those ideas.

With respect to Paul Trejo:  he is Education Forum's version of Donald Trump -- i.e. neither of them use any discernible logic or accept and use the customary meanings of words in the English language and neither of them ever is willing to acknowledge error.

 

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie,

1. Just because "numerous" members here agree with you does not prove you are right.   Surely logic tells you that.

2. Just because I have not yet responded to your countless accusations does not mean I agree with you.

This is what I mean about your analytical skills.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo 

[Ernie Lazar]

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

1. Just because "numerous" members here agree with you does not prove you are right.   Surely logic tells you that.

2. Just because I have not yet responded to your countless accusations does not mean I agree with you.

This is what I mean about your analytical skills.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo 

1.  While it is true that numbers do not always correlate to being correct, it is also true and significant that you are one of the very few subjects which so many readers here agree upon.

2.  You have no response to my "countless accusations" that would persuade anybody that I am wrong.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Harry J.Dean]

Why the expanding 'hot air' bubble, when the air-less facts, direct from the 'horses mouth' and not from

the other end, can be discovered in a read of the 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS ? Your choice!

[Harry J.Dean]

my request to J E Hoover re; my association with the Bureau on Cuban matters

resulted in his shootdown of my being a regular asset, in this and other

intelligence requests by Bureau. Bureau exposed my loose cannon past  to deny

our almost five year intelligence connections.

Scan.BMP.pdf

[Ernie Lazar]

11 hours ago, Harry J.Dean said:

my request to J E Hoover re; my association with the Bureau on Cuban matters

resulted in his shootdown of my being a regular asset, in this and other

intelligence requests by Bureau. Bureau exposed my loose cannon past  to deny

our almost five year intelligence connections.

Scan.BMP.pdf

There he goes again!  

As this message reveals, Paul Trejo's previous assurances regarding some new change in Harry's story is as phony as a $3 bill.  

Harry STILL claims he had a long-term relationship with the FBI which he now describes as "our almost five year intelligence connection" during which Harry thinks he was some kind of "asset"  but he was personally rejected by Hoover for becoming a "regular asset".

Geez!  

We can now add yet another linguistic ploy by which Harry wants us to believe he was NOT what Paul Trejo claims....i.e. merely voluntarily providing unsolicited information like any other person might do.  Instead, Harry still wants us to believe that he had some kind of formal connection to our primary domestic intelligence agency which is why he uses a term ("asset") which everyone recognizes has a specific purpose when discussing intelligence agencies, i.e. "A clandestine source or method, usually an agent"

[Harry J.Dean]

Hoover was upset 'pissed-off', as was SAC Grapp later in Los Angeles, realizing that what I was asking for was letter of verification of

being involved with FBI since 1960. My aim upon receiving such was to quit further and increasingly dangerous dealings with 

ongoing/endless and fearful connections with all FBI, Cuban and domestic subversives. The result of such efforts were made by two

grouchy old guys, Hoover and Grapp using the key word "EXPEDITIOUSLY" in their 2/19/1964 above. 

 

[Ernie Lazar]

1 hour ago, Harry J.Dean said:

Hoover was upset 'pissed-off', as was SAC Grapp later in Los Angeles, realizing that what I was asking for was letter of verification of

being involved with FBI since 1960. My aim upon receiving such was to quit further and increasingly dangerous dealings with 

ongoing/endless and fearful connections with all FBI, Cuban and domestic subversives. The result of such efforts were made by two

grouchy old guys, Hoover and Grapp using the key word "EXPEDITIOUSLY" in their 2/19/1964 above. 

 

Hoover did not even know who you were.  All he knew about you was what Chicago and Los Angeles told him when they replied to his airtel, i.e. that you had NO connection to the FBI and you had a criminal record in Canada as well as a history of mental instability.  

At no time did you ever ask for any "letter of verification" from the FBI.  All you ever asked the FBI (several times) is how you might go about "clearing" your name (because your name was mentioned in an obscure Senate committee document re: FPCC) and the FBI pointed out not once, but several times, that the FBI did not issue clearances and they also added that you were not even on their radar.  [IF you actually had been "involved" with the FBI, you would have been aware of that from the beginning because of standard FBI protocols with respect to what they tell anybody connected to them in any way.]

Furthermore, once an FBI confidential source or informant surfaces and acknowledges his/her role (through public interviews, court testimony, public statements, newspaper articles, radio/TV appearances etc) the FBI always responded to inquiries about those individuals via specific standardized wording (which I have previously quoted verbatim).   The very fact that the FBI never produced such a statement regarding you is yet another indication of how dishonest your story is.

There is no particular significance to the use of the word "expeditiously" in the document you linked other than Hoover STILL did not know who you were --- which is why he asked for "background information" about you and he wanted a prompt reply -- i.e. he did not want the field office to delay by putting Hoover's inquiry to the bottom of the pile.  

Lastly, Grapp was not even in Los Angeles in February 1964.  He was still SAC in Miami so your reference to "Hoover and Grapp" is yet another indication of your phony narrative.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Harry J.Dean]

Hay Lazar, Paul Trejo today kindly reference  you as an BORE, is that better than being referred to by me

as just an Old grouch like Hoover and Grapp? or should I say you are just a old contrarian word twister? .

Seriously the sweaty low desert intense heat of that Palm Springs hole in the desert is baking your

brain.

As of now we, you and I will speak no more forever of this, or anything until the grass grows and a river runs

in 'your brain-baked' desert inferno .

 

[Ernie Lazar]

11 hours ago, Harry J.Dean said:

Hay Lazar, Paul Trejo today kindly reference  you as an BORE, is that better than being referred to by me

as just an Old grouch like Hoover and Grapp? or should I say you are just a old contrarian word twister? .

Seriously the sweaty low desert intense heat of that Palm Springs hole in the desert is baking your

brain.

As of now we, you and I will speak no more forever of this, or anything until the grass grows and a river runs

in 'your brain-baked' desert inferno .

 

Harry-- thanks for your kind words.  Everybody here now knows you are a fake.  The only person who believes you is Paul and that is because he has no ability to separate fact from fiction.

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie -- it is not the case that Harry is a fake. -- despite your many years of trying to silence him. 

Nor is it the case that I'm the only person here who believes the substance of Harry Dean's claims.

Nor is it the case that I'm unrealistic.

The Walker-did-it CT is the correct solution to the JFK assassination conspiracy.   Harry Dean is one of the key witnesses, and he is brilliant at this.

Harry Dean was there.  He is one of the last remaining living witnesses, along with Larry Schmidt and Bernie Weismann.

Your continual, incessant attacks on Harry Dean suggest to me some twisted form of envy -- that this simple sailor from WW2 could be more important to history than a self-proclaimed FBI expert like you.

Your continual attacks on Harry Dean are merely unlovely, Ernie.   If not for the CIA-did-it hacks who hate the Walker-did-it CT, you would have no audience here anyway.

And yet you have no opinion about anyJFK conspiracy, anyway.   You're a light-weight on the topic of a CT.  You're only here to attack Harry Dean, evidently -- for years -- and it's a bizarre pattern of behavior.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 22, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

21 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie -- it is not the case that Harry is a fake. -- despite your many years of trying to silence him. 

Nor is it the case that I'm the only person here who believes the substance of Harry Dean's claims.

Nor is it the case that I'm unrealistic.

The Walker-did-it CT is the correct solution to the JFK assassination conspiracy.   Harry Dean is one of the key witnesses, and he is brilliant at this.

Harry Dean was there.  He is one of the last remaining living witnesses, along with Larry Schmidt and Bernie Weismann.

Your continual, incessant attacks on Harry Dean suggest to me some twisted form of envy -- that this simple sailor from WW2 could be more important to history than a self-proclaimed FBI expert like you.

Your continual attacks on Harry Dean are merely unlovely, Ernie.   If not for the CIA-did-it hacks who hate the Walker-did-it CT, you would have no audience here anyway.

And yet you have no opinion about anyJFK conspiracy, anyway.   You're a light-weight on the topic of a CT.  You're only here to attack Harry Dean, evidently -- for years -- and it's a bizarre pattern of behavior.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

SILENCE HIM?  You've got to be kidding!  Instead, I have tried repeatedly to get him to answer obvious questions.  But, again, this shows how intellectually dishonest you are.

Nor does this have anything to do with me (except incidentally).  As previously mentioned, there are no JFK-assassination researchers or scholars who believe Harry's story.

With respect to my "years" of "attacking" Harry Dean --- what you continue to ignore (and mis-characterize) is that Harry invites careful scrutiny of his "recollections" because he has been on a 50-year self-promoting publicity campaign!  

It occurs to me that (yet again) YOU accuse your critics/opponents of your own worst qualities.  It is YOU who wants to SILENCE anybody who challenges what Harry believes. Worse---you have NO respect for factual evidence.

As Harry's most recent messages clearly demonstrate -- your previous assurances about some change of heart by Harry (i.e. him acknowledging that he only voluntarily provided unsolicited information) was pure bunk.  

Harry STILL wants us to believe he was an intelligence asset for our intelligence agencies and that he was requested by them to do certain things and "assigned" specific tasks to perform because (according TO HARRY -- not W.R. Morris) "Bureau exposed my loose cannon past to deny our almost five year intelligence connections."

With respect to the quality and acumen of YOUR analytical skills -- I refer you back to my recent message where I quoted your November 2013 message verbatim -- which reveals how you made a total FOOL of yourself by INVENTING malicious falsehoods -- comparable to your current efforts.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie,

Your analytical skills are shown in your obsession to attack Harry Dean at every turn.   Your only use of logic seems to be to attack Harry Dean.

Your literalism and nitpicking at every punctuation mark reveals your bureaucratic orientation -- but your motive is one-sided and crystal clear -- TO SLAM HARRY DEAN.

Everybody here can see it.   The only support you have here are the CIA-did-it CTers who have no use for Harry Dean in their CT's.   But you don't see that.

Politics surely make for strange bedfellows.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

Your analytical skills are shown in your obsession to attack Harry Dean at every turn.   Your only use of logic seems to be to attack Harry Dean.

Your literalism and nitpicking at every punctuation mark reveals your bureaucratic orientation -- but your motive is one-sided and crystal clear -- TO SLAM HARRY DEAN.

Everybody here can see it.   The only support you have here are the CIA-did-it CTers who have no use for Harry Dean in their CT's.   But you don't see that.

Politics surely make for strange bedfellows.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

That's pretty funny coming from you Paul.  Everything factual we know about Harry Dean (with respect to any connections between him and the FBI or CIA) is known only because of what we discovered from actually obtaining his FBI-Los Angeles and FBI-HQ files and his CIA file.

If it were not for everybody being able to see those files, we would STILL be debating your totally bogus argument about how the FBI "forged" documents which they falsely and maliciously attributed to Harry because they were "persecuting" him and making him appear to be a weirdo because (according to you) nobody could possibly type their letters in ALL CAPS.

My "only support" comes from anybody who carefully reviews documentary evidence -- regardless of their position on the motives for, or participants in, JFK's murder.

YOU and DR. CAUFIELD'S BOOK

(1)  YOUR support is non-existent.  

YOU want everybody to believe that Dr. Caufield's book represents the new GOLD STANDARD for all contemporary research into JFK's murder or as you succinctly put it:

"This book overturns 50 years of JFK research. General Walker is the most likely mastermind of the JFK murder."

HOWEVER..............let's review some FACTS

(2)  As of this morning, according to "WorldCat" which is the world's largest database of library holdings (72,000 libraries in 170 countries), Dr. Caufield's book is in (give me a drum roll!) a total of TWELVE (12) libraries!

(3)  As of this morning, according to EBSCO's "Academic Research Complete" database, which indexes the content of 6100 peer-reviewed journals along with 11,700 other journals, conference proceedings, monographs, and reports -- the total number which contain any references to Dr. Caufield's book is ZERO

(4)  As of this morning, according to the Eric "Infotrac Newsstand" database, which indexes the content of 1000 U.S. and international newspapers (for a total of 181,110,874 documents), the total number which contain any references to Dr. Caufield's book is ZERO.

(5)  As of this morning, according to EBSCO's "Master File Complete" database which reflects the content of 2000 periodicals, the total number which contain any references to Dr. Caufield's book is ZERO

(6)  As far as I can ascertain, no reputable historian or political scientist has even reviewed Dr. Caufield's book

THAT is the quality of evidence and research which you think is credible.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Ernie Lazar