New Book!

[Paul Trejo]

2 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

The "real reason" is the one I have given to you dozens of times.  I am not "attacking Harry Dean".  I have stated over and over again that his story is predominantly fictional.

It is interesting how Paul always converts standard questioning techniques into "attacks".   In other words, Paul does NOT accept the idea that alleged "eyewitness" testimony should be subjected to careful scrutiny.  Instead, Paul's methodology (as he has told us several times) is that all eyewitness testimony should be accepted at face value and never challenged IF that testimony conforms to what Paul prefers to believe.

Anyway, let's get back to the topic of this thread: Dr. Jeff Caufield's NEW BOOK, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I have previously suggested that Harry answer as many of the following questions as he can -- IF he wants to be taken seriously.

I propose the following methodology to minimize any problems with interpretation.  Whenever possible, Harry’s answers should always BEGIN with:

(1) YES

(2) NO

(3) I’m not sure

(4) I don’t remember or

(5) I don’t know. 

THEN Harry can add whatever comments he thinks are appropriate. 

IF Harry would be willing to answer these questions, THEN his final, definitive, unambiguous answers would give interested parties the ability to make well-informed judgments about Harry’s narrative. 

Harry could also use this opportunity to correct any previous misunderstandings or false information which he thinks needs to be addressed. 

So in that spirit here are the questions I would ask Harry to answer: 

 GENERAL QUESTIONS 

1. Is there ANY living person to whom you spoke (or to whom you wrote a letter or note) during the 1960’s (not including family members) who could verify any aspect of your narrative concerning your relationship with the FBI or the CIA?  Particularly with respect to your “reports” about JBS members to FBI-Los Angeles? 

2.  Do you recall writing any correspondence during the 1960’s-1970’s, to any friend or acquaintance (but not to government agencies) in which you mentioned specific information that you allegedly gave to the FBI or CIA or anybody else? 

3.   Prior to 1965, did you ever reveal (in confidence) your alleged FBI/CIA status to any friend or acquaintance?  If "yes" -- are any of those persons still living?  Or do you have any correspondence from them in which they mention your status? 

4.   Which of the following statements is the best description of your relationship to the FBI? 

(4.1)  You periodically and voluntarily contacted the FBI offices in Chicago and in Los Angeles to provide them with information in your possession which YOU thought they might find useful    OR

(4.2) You were “recruited by” the FBI -- i.e. FBI Special Agents in both Chicago and Los Angeles asked you to become their informant and you were instructed by them to submit regular oral and/or written reports about various persons and organizations and you agreed to do that on an ongoing basis over a period of several years?

CHICAGO INFORMANT PERIOD 

1.  When you first contacted the FBI-Chicago, you did not provide your name.  Why? 

2.  Subsequently, you did provide your name and address in Whiting, Indiana.   

2a.  Did FBI Agents from Indianapolis contact you?  If so, what questions did Chicago or Indianapolis FBI Agents ask you about your background? 

2b. For example:  did they ask for your birthdate, birthplace, social security number, names of relatives, employment history, military service history, educational background, criminal record? 

2c.  For some period of time, you left Indiana and went to Detroit.  You then returned to Illinois (Chicago) but you again refused to give FBI Agents your address.  Why did you refuse?   How long were you in Detroit -- and can you give us the specific time period (i.e. dates?)

3.        Did FBI Special Agents in Chicago ever meet with you inside the FBI-Chicago field office?  If yes, where was the Chicago field office located, i.e. what street? 

4.       You have stated that when you returned from your June 1960 trip to Cuba, you were “debriefed” by FBI and CIA.   At what location did that meeting take place? 

5.       Was a stenographer present in the “debriefing” location to make a transcript of your comments? 

6.       Did FBI-Chicago assign you a code name to use whenever you submitted your reports?  If “yes”, what was that code name? 

7.       Were your reports to FBI-Chicago primarily oral or written? 

8.       Were you assigned a Post Office box to mail your reports to?  If yes, at what location? 

9.       Approximately how many different members of FPCC-Chicago did you report on to the FBI? 

10.     Approximately how many different members of other pro-Castro groups in the Chicago area did you report on to the FBI? 

11.      In your November 1963 letter to J. Edgar Hoover, you wrote that you provided information to the FBI in Chicago.  You then stated that after the FBI completed a background investigation into your past, you were “told to quit giving information to the FBI by two Agents whom I met on Chicago’s north side, in a street corner meeting.”  The reason given was (you wrote to Hoover), was “by reason of their findings concerning my past” which you described to Hoover as “many errors in my time, as a younger and unmarried man”. 

However, in August 2006, you posted a comment on the Mary Ferrell website in which you stated that the Chicago FBI office “dumped me when I casually mentioned to my FBI contacts I had confided to a CIA agent about also advising the Bureau re: Cuban affairs…Both agents seemed equally angry and disappointed, adding, ‘You can no longer deal with the Bureau’.” 

In another Ferrell website message, you wrote: 

“Later in 1961 the Bureau fired me when I mentioned previous dealing with CIA agents re: Cuba.” 

WHICH explanation is correct?

(11.1)     The FBI background investigation into your past resulted in you being rejected by the FBI?   OR

(11.2)    A casual comment you made to two FBI Agents about your involvement with the CIA resulted in your dismissal from providing info to FBI?

11.    In an 8/22/06 comment you posted on the Mary Ferrell website, you stated that Chicago FBI “Agents also advised me to work out a code for message writing, kindly offering to do it for me if I could not.”   According to your Ferrell comment, you chose "J.R." as your code name. 

12.    However, in your 11/63 letter to Hoover, you stated that “it was my own wish to rely only on the phone method of contact” and you also wrote:  "I used only the telephone method in all my dealings with Agents..."  [up until your street corner meeting with 2 Agents when they dismissed you in June 1961.) 

So which position is correct?  

Did you use only the "telephone method" OR did you also write "messages" to FBI-Chicago?

If you wrote messages, what subjects did you discuss in those messages and how were they transmitted to the FBI?

BIRCH SOCIETY-RELATED 

1.       Did you join the Birch Society as “Harry Dean”?  If not, what name did you use?

2.       What was the code name or number of your JBS chapter(s)?

3.       During your membership, did you belong to more than one JBS chapter? (if “yes”, what were the other chapter code names?)

4.       What were the name(s) of your JBS chapter leader(s)?

5.       What were the name(s) of your JBS section leader(s)?

6.       What were the name(s) of your JBS Coordinators?

7.       Did you normally attend JBS chapter meetings?  If so, approximately how many times and during which specific years?

7a.     Did you submit to JBS HQ (in Belmont MA) any MMM monthly messages?

8.       Did the FBI-Los Angeles ask you to report upon anything specific with respect to the JBS?  If so, what did the FBI want to know?

8a.   Approximately how many different reports did you make to FBI-Los Angeles regarding the JBS as an organization – such as reporting about what happened during chapter meetings or reporting about JBS-sponsored events such as recruitment meetings, or reports about JBS speakers and JBS-front groups (like TACT, SYLP, MOTOREDE, TRAIN, etc)?

9.    Were your reports to the FBI about JBS members primarily written reports OR oral reports?

10.  If you provided oral reports to FBI-Los Angeles, were you asked to subsequently read them and initial the Bureau-typed summaries of your oral reports to signify that they were accurate transcriptions of what you said?

11.  Did FBI-Los Angeles assign you a code name which you were instructed to use when you submitted your JBS-related reports? If so, what was that code name?

12.   Did FBI-Los Angeles assign you a post office box if you wanted to mail your reports to them?  If so--at what location?

13.   Did you ever meet personally with FBI-Los Angeles Special Agents at the FBI’s Los Angeles field office or any other FBI office?

14.   Was Wesley Grapp the FIRST Los Angeles FBI Agent to whom you made your reports?  If not, who was?

15.   What were the name(s) of the other FBI-Los Angeles Agents to whom you made oral or written reports?  If possible, estimate the total number of reports you made to each person, i.e. more than 10 or less than 10, etc.

16.  Please provide a brief physical description of SAC Wesley Grapp (approximate height, weight, any identifying marks, etc)

17.   Approximately how many individual JBS members did you report on to the FBI?  [Less than 10, more than 10 or what?]

18.   You have previously stated that you were paid “expenses” in cash by the FBI.  Were those expenses related to your “informant” work re:  the JBS?  If “yes”, approximately how much (in total) were you paid and over what period of time?  Also, please give us some idea what type of “expenses” you had.

19.  If you were paid “expenses” for anything other than JBS-related – approximately how much were you paid and what for? 

20.    Did you submit paperwork to the FBI to document those expenses?  If yes, please give us some examples of what type of receipts you gave to the FBI. 

MINUTEMEN-RELATED 

1.  Did you join the MM as “Harry Dean”?  If not, what name did you use? 

2.  What code name or identification number were you assigned by MM?

3.  Do you recall the month/year you joined the MM and the date when you stopped paying MM member dues?     

4.  Did you receive any payments from the FBI for your travel or expenses that were related to your “informant” work re: MM?  If “yes”, approximately how much (in total) and over what period of time? 

MISCELLANEOUS 

1.    Did you enlist in the US Army at Dearborn Michigan on 3/8/43 under the name George Robert Baker?  If your answer is “yes” – then WHY did you use another name? 

2.    In a 8/13/06 message you posted on the Mary Ferrell website, you stated that as a result of your proposed appearance on the Joe Pyne Program in early 1965, FBI Agents “forbid my going on this or any TV or radio show re: my association with FBI in Los Angeles, Chicago, or elsewhere. I did go on as a way to end my informant status with them.  The Bureau was furious, No more information, no more expense money!  I was glad!” 

2a  How much “expense money” were you receiving from the FBI during that period of time and what type of expenses did you incur? 

2b  Did you report your FBI expense money on your IRS or California income tax returns?  If so, during what years? 

3.  The transcript of your interview with Tom Snyder indicates that when you were asked by Snyder to identify the agencies you provided information to, you said: 

"The internal security agencies of the United States and other police agencies." 

Please specify what "other police agencies" you were referring to. 

4.  The Snyder transcript also indicates that Snyder asked you the following question: 

"You were an agent of the FBI infiltrating into the John Birch Society, and there you learned of the plans to assassinate John F. Kennedy?".    You replied:  "That's right". 

Is that still your current position? 

5. The Snyder transcript also reports that when Snyder introduced you, he asked you if you wanted to be described as "Mr X" or "Mr. Agent" and you replied:   "Either, Either will be fine."    Was that your reply? 

6.  The Snyder transcript also reports that Snyder asked you a question which began by describing you "as an employee of the government of the United States of America" and your role when discovering information regarding a plan to murder our President was to "kick it upstairs and let a higher authority handle it." 

Your reply did not correct Snyder's description of you "as an employee of the government of the USA" and you agreed with Snyder that your role was simply to bring the attention of "higher authority" to your information. 

Is that a correct summary of what Snyder asked you and your reply? 

7.  The Snyder transcript also reports that he asked you if you thought Robert Welch knew about "the financial collections that were being conducted on behalf of his organization for the killing of JFK?" and you replied "I would say that he certainly did not."   Is that an accurate summary of what you told Snyder AND is that your position today? 

8.  Dick Russell states in his 2008 book (On The Trail of JFK Assassins) that he interviewed you and both of you tape recorded the interview.  According to Russell's transcript of your interview, you described yourself as an "undercover operative, to inform the FBI as to certain activities."  Was that an accurate quotation by Russell?

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

I have previously suggested that Harry answer as many of the following questions as he can -- IF he wants to be taken seriously.

I propose the following methodology to minimize any problems with interpretation.  Whenever possible, Harry’s answers should always BEGIN with:

(1) YES

(2) NO

(3) I’m not sure

(4) I don’t remember or

(5) I don’t know. 

THEN Harry can add whatever comments he thinks are appropriate. 

IF Harry would be willing to answer these questions, THEN his final, definitive, unambiguous answers would give interested parties the ability to make well-informed judgments about Harry’s narrative. 

Harry could also use this opportunity to correct any previous misunderstandings or false information which he thinks needs to be addressed. 

<snip>

Ernie,

This Gestapo-like approach of putting Harry Dean under an interrogation lamp, "if he wants to be taken seriously," doesn't impress reasonable people.

Harry Dean doesn't answer to you, Ernie.

This thread is about the New Book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, who has interviewed Harry Dean, and has accepted much of what Harry Dean has said -- just like several FBI agents in the 1960's listened to Harry Dean, and accepted much of what he said.  Actual FBI records will attest to that.

Harry Dean reported what he saw.  That's it.  That's all.   Take it or leave it.   If you leave it -- why spend years and years attacking Harry Dean publicly, Ernie? 

What possible benefit could you obtain from this erratic behavior?

Harry Dean is a good man.  Just leave him alone.   We're here to discuss Jeff Caufield's New Book: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

What part of that sentence don't you understand?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 24, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

This Gestapo-like approach of putting Harry Dean under an interrogation lamp, "if he wants to be taken seriously," doesn't impress reasonable people.

Harry Dean doesn't answer to you, Ernie.

This thread is about the New Book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, who has interviewed Harry Dean, and has accepted much of what Harry Dean has said -- just like several FBI agents in the 1960's listened to Harry Dean, and accepted much of what he said.  Actual FBI records will attest to that.

Harry Dean reported what he saw.  That's it.  That's all.   Take it or leave it.   If you leave it -- why spend years and years attacking Harry Dean publicly, Ernie? 

What possible benefit could you obtain from this erratic behavior?

Harry Dean is a good man.  Just leave him alone.   We're here to discuss Jeff Caufield's New Book: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

What part of that sentence don't you understand?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul -- there is no "Gestapo-like approach" involved here.  It is just a list of questions which Harry has never answered in any forum -- including in your Ebook.   [Incidentally -- Harry's previous ambiguous statements or to use to one person's alternative descriptive word to describe Harry i.e. his "inscrutable" thought fragments often require MORE questions to be asked instead of Harry having clarified anything.]

And why are YOU the only arbiter of what is "reasonable"??  

As Larry Hancock pointed out, my questions are the type of questions which are fairly standard when confronting someone like Harry.  The problem here is that YOU are NOT a genuine researcher nor do you have ANY knowledge regarding how journalists, historians, or students go about establishing what is true versus what is false or exaggerated.

Harry doesn't answer to me?  

Well, why limit your comment to me?  Harry doesn't answer to anybody else either! 

The ONLY time Harry answers questions is when the questioner fawns all over Harry and immediately and uncritically accepts whatever he says or writes (see the original Memoirs thread here in EF for numerous examples).

What you never seem able to understand (and furthermore you do not even care about this) is that PROBING questions are always required for anybody who claims to possess some kind of unique knowledge -- especially about some major crime, historical event, or controversy.  

Apparently, you have never even acquainted yourself with "witness impeachment" techniques and categories -- such as: 

1.  BIAS

2.  INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS

3.  CHARACTER

4.  COMPETENCE

5.  CONTRADICTION

What benefit could result from questioning Harry?  

Well, for starters, if Harry answered the type of questions I presented -- everybody (even including YOU) would have considerably more data about his alleged background and his assertions in order to make much better-informed judgments about his veracity and credibility.

In addition, answers provided by Harry would give interested parties more potential research avenues to pursue.  Too bad you don't even understand the purpose of research.

Leave Harry alone?   Why?  Just because YOU tell us to do so?  

Why does Harry still post messages online (in EF or elsewhere)?  Isn't it because he still wants to find people who will believe his story?

Edited March 24, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

2 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

We're here to discuss Jeff Caufield's New Book: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Actually, the "General Walker/JBS Plot" theory is the overarching subject matter of this thread.  Caufield covers an enormous number of subjects in pursuit of his Walker-Did-It arguments.

During the course of this debate, YOU have assured us that October 2017 will produce mind-boggling new insights that will substantiate not only Harry Dean's "recollections" but also Caufield's theory.  When October 2017 rolls around and nothing is there to substantiate your assertions -- then what?

[Ernie Lazar]

9 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

just like several FBI agents in the 1960's listened to Harry Dean, and accepted much of what he said.  Actual FBI records will attest to that.

Whom, specifically, are you referring to as the "FBI agents" (plural) "in the 1960's" who have "accepted much of what [Harry] said?

And what "FBI records" are you referring to?

Edited March 24, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie,

You should leave Harry Dean alone because your incessant attacks make you look like a bully.

Harry Dean has real, historical truth to tell apart from his political opinions.

It takes a sensitive reader to discern the great value of Harry's biography for US History in the 21st century.

Jeff Caufield's CT is getting a slow start, but after the JFK Records Act comes to maturity in October of this year, I predict a mammoth interest in Caufield by Universities worldwide.

And Harry stands to benefit from this.

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

[Ernie Lazar]

3 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

You should leave Harry Dean alone because your incessant attacks make you look like a bully.

Harry Dean has real, historical truth to tell apart from his political opinions.

It takes a sensitive reader to discern the great value of Harry's biography for US History in the 21st century.

Jeff Caufield's CT is getting a slow start, but after the JFK Records Act comes to maturity in October of this year, I predict a mammoth interest in Caufield by Universities worldwide.

And Harry stands to benefit from this.

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

You still don't get it Paul.  "Real historical truth" is achieved through arduous research -- not by simply granting mindless belief to everything someone says or writes.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

27 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

You should leave Harry Dean alone because your incessant attacks make you look like a bully.

Harry Dean has real, historical truth to tell apart from his political opinions.

It takes a sensitive reader to discern the great value of Harry's biography for US History in the 21st century.

Jeff Caufield's CT is getting a slow start, but after the JFK Records Act comes to maturity in October of this year, I predict a mammoth interest in Caufield by Universities worldwide.

And Harry stands to benefit from this.

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

Incidentally, this ploy by Paul is also used by JBS members (and other political extremists) when they confront inconvenient data which they cannot refute.  

PLOY #1

(1)  Typically, a JBS member will start a discussion (just like Paul Trejo does) by characterizing and praising the purported personal qualities of the people they admire or support (i.e. they are sincere, patriotic, decent, moral, intelligent, etc).  

(2)  This is done to divert attention from or neutralize whatever faults or grave mistakes are attributed to these folks -- because (according to this argument) "good people" should always be believed or given the benefit of any doubt.

PLOY #2

(3)  When ploy #1 does not produce its intended effect, the next tactic is to de-value or diminish whatever (legitimate) criticisms are made.  This is done by trivializing whatever evidence is presented or using phrases like "making mountains out of molehills" or "nitpicking" or any other comparable terminology which makes the criticism seem unjustified.

PLOY #3

(4)  When both ploy #1 and ploy #2 do not achieve the desired result (i.e. acquiescence to whatever is being presented) -- the final gambit used by intellectually dishonest people as well as intellectual cowards -- is to malign the messenger.  For example:  my JBS critics NEVER address the accumulation of factual evidence I present (even when it originates from sources they normally respect and recommend).  Instead---their final ploy is to go for the jugular by claiming that I am "obsessed" with the JBS and I am engaged in a "vendetta" against the JBS.  Paul's equivalent ploy is use of terms like "incessant attacks",  "Gestapo-like approach", and "bully"

I've written this before -- but it bears repeating:   Paul Trejo's mind operates identically to the mind of the most committed Birch Society fanatic.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie hopes to earn my ire by comparing me with John Birch Society loonies, whose treasonous form of pseudo-patriotism in the 1960's helped (IMHO) to assassinate one of our greatest US Presidents -- JFK.

I won't fall for his nonsense.

However, I will take this opportunity to explain one of the themes of this New Book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), namely, that the John Birch Society was knee deep in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Ernie pretends here that he is critical of the JBS, but really, in comparison to Harry Dean, we must find that Ernie is a staunch defender of the JBS.

Because Harry Dean's witness to history tells a realistic story about the John Birch Society chapter in Southern California, deep east of Los Angeles, where General Walker would come to address the faithful Birchers in their hatred of all Communists -- including US Presidents.

Harry Dean's biography is a living witness to the sins of the John Birch Society -- and perhaps this is why Ernie continues to attack Harry Dean, year after year -- even here on this very FORUM.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 25, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

15 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie hopes to earn my ire by comparing me with John Birch Society loonies, whose treasonous form of pseudo-patriotism in the 1960's helped (IMHO) to assassinate one of our greatest US Presidents -- JFK.

I won't fall for his nonsense.

However, I will take this opportunity to explain one of the themes of this New Book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), namely, that the John Birch Society was knee deep in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Ernie pretends here that he is critical of the JBS, but really, in comparison to Harry Dean, we must find that Ernie is a staunch defender of the JBS.

Because Harry Dean's witness to history tells a realistic story about the John Birch Society chapter in Southern California, deep east of Los Angeles, where General Walker would come to address the faithful Birchers in their hatred of all Communists -- including US Presidents.

Harry Dean's biography is a living witness to the sins of the John Birch Society -- and perhaps this is why Ernie continues to attack Harry Dean, year after year -- even here on this very FORUM.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

More lunacy from Paul.  I am a "staunch defender" of the JBS who "pretends" to be critical of the JBS ??   AGAIN:  This reveals the "quality" of Paul's analytical processes.   

MAYBE Paul can explain the following?

(1)   BOOKS AND ARTICLES CRITICAL OF THE JBS / DEBATES WITH JBS MEMBERS AND SYMPATHIZERS

How does Paul explain the huge number of very critical books and articles about the JBS whose authors have acknowledged me as one of the persons who gave them ANTI-JBS documents to include in their publications?  

For example, check out the acknowledgements page of Claire Conner's hostile memoir about her parents.  Her father, Stillwell J. Conner, was an original JBS National Council member.  Claire describes her parents as racist and right-wing extremists -- but she acknowledged ME for providing her with substantial info to prove her case!

https://books.google.com/books?id=JWPhb5Jet-wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ernie1241+and+Birch+Society&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTgqCog_LSAhWEMGMKHX4cCTIQ6AEISzAI#v=onepage&q=lazar&f=false

OR

How does Paul explain the SCORES of debates I have had online with JBS members -- during which they have been extremely hostile and rude toward me because of my severe criticisms of the JBS?  Such as when a JBS chapter leader in South Carolina (John Perna) used the following descriptive terms in reference to me during our numerous debates in Yahoo conspiracy groups?

"Communist"

"Communist sympathizer" 

"New World Order stooge"

"neutralizer"

"disinformation agent"

"disinformer"

"Fed Gov agent" [because I requested FBI files!]

"false patriot"

"obsessed"

"government shill"

"l-i-a-r"

"an agent of totalitarianism"

OR

How does Paul explain why MSNBC's Rachel Maddow used material provided BY ME to her producer for an ANTI-JBS segment which Rachel broadcast on TV in December 2009 -- and during which Rachel acknowledged ME as her source for that anti-JBS material?

OR

(2)  How does Paul explain the reply (copied below) which the Virginia State Coordinator for the JBS (Jim Capo) posted on the JBS website after I responded to a JBS article about what Salon.com published re: the JBS and Glen Beck and Cleon Skousen?  

NOTE:  Capo correctly predicted in his message that I would shortly be banned by the JBS from posting any further messages on the JBS website.

"Subject: Re: Salon.com launches attack against Glenn Beck, Cleon Skousen, and the John Birch Society

Please don't waste your time with Ernie regardless of set of numbers he adds to his name on this occurrence of his surfacing.  He has been trolling Birch sites and references in the news for years.  He will probably be blocked from this forum again shortly.

Here are just some of the red flags in his latest con job :

1.      No links to source data.  No reprints of material gained from FOIA requests that would have brought these titillating FBI files into his hands.   (Charges that are only in Ernie's or his handler's imagination cannot be refuted.)

2.      Birchite, as in Trotskyite, is a term coined by and used by the communists and their collaborators to describe the John Birch Society.  It would be rather shocking for the penultimate anti-communist in the FBI to simply parrot this communist slur.  But, maybe Hoover was a secret communist too, and the praise given to him by the JBS was just part the diabolical plot to mislead good Americans.

Final word: When Ernie can show us what he has done to stop the advance of tyranny in this country, or tell us what group out there is doing a better job fighting it, then we'll consider paying attention to him.   Until then, he will retain his status as a certified xxxxx."

(3)   MESSAGES I RECEIVED FROM JBS EAST COAST COORDINATOR, HAL SHURTLEFF

(A)  The first message by Hal was his reply to my inquiry about why he blocked me from commenting upon his pro-JBS Youtube videos

-----Original Message-----
From: shurtleffhal <shurtleffhal@aol.com>
To: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 7:01 am

Ernie:  Why don't you start your own Youtube Channel, let me comment and post articles, and I will remove the block I put on you.

(B)  The following message is from me to Hal.  I attempted to briefly summarize the problem with the JBS and why it has never contributed anything positive to our country and I mentioned the historic precedent-setting libel lawsuit by Chicago lawyer Elmer Gertz against the JBS which resulted in the JBS paying Gertz $400,000 for malicious defamation.

MY MESSAGE TO HAL:

"I was not referring to only the Gertz lawsuit but it should be born in mind that two different juries, on two different occasions, concluded that Gertz was "harmed" through malice.  To my knowledge, in the entire history of the JBS, it has never PUBLICLY admitted that it (as you claim) "made wrong decisions" or "exercised bad judgment".  If you think I am wrong, please advise me about some examples and I will acknowledge that I am mistaken.  Instead, JBS literature makes it unmistakable that the JBS has always presented itself only as a wrongly persecuted "patriot" group.  

The past is prologue.  I am not "obsessed" about the JBS -- but one wonders what definition of "obsessed" you operate under??  The JBS has presented its bizarre and poisonous theories for over 50 years and it sells and recommends publications it originally published or recommended 50 years ago.....Is that evidence of an "obsession"??  If not, why not?

I have never in my lifetime criticized or "denounced" the JBS (or anybody else) for disagreeing with FDR policies. In fact, I don't agree with many FDR policies myself.  That is just another example of your inability to understand or accurately characterize what somebody actually believes (a typical Bircher problem).  What I have said (over and over again) is that the tone and substance of JBS criticisms are poisonous to the type of debates which sustain a free society.  [The JBS position about our civil rights movement is arguably the most obvious example---particularly since some of your own members [Delmar Dennis and George Schuyler and Lola Belle Holmes and Julia Brown] falsified major premises of the JBS.  It is obvious to everyone (except the JBS) that honorable, decent, intelligent, principled and entirely patriotic individuals can arrive at different positions and judgments.  

But the JBS believes that ALL of its critics are evil, sinister, stupid, and probably traitors or (at a minimum) "agents" of a "conspiracy of gangsters".  A free society cannot exist with that as the prevailing attitude about people who arrive at different viewpoints. As I have told you before, the JBS has nothing whatsoever to fear from someone like me because I advocate NOTHING WHATSOEVER which would interfere or impede with the JBS being able to present its views or solicit new members and supporters.  

BY CONTRAST, if JBS adherents were in positions of power in our country -- MANY individuals (conservatives and liberals) would be subject to arrest, imprisonment, or worse --- INCLUDING many prominent and respected and admired political figures including former Presidents, U.S. Senators and Representatives, and leaders of all sorts of civic and political organizations--whom the JBS has described in highly derogatory (and libelous) terms.   ONLY the JBS has explicitly stated that the U.S. was "60-80%" under "Communist influence and control".  Once before I showed you an example of how disingenuous the JBS is (when I quoted Welch's two diametrically opposite positions about the Americans For Democratic Action; the first in The Politician and the second in the Blue Book). 

You will find dozens of bigoted references ABOUT me online -- including neo-nazis, racists, and Birchers who falsely describe me as a Communist or Communist sympathizer or other pejorative and libelous characterizations simply because I know more than they do about JBS history OR because I quote verbatim excerpts from FBI investigative reports about the JBS or about the CPUSA which falsify statements and conclusions made by the JBS.

IF the JBS was TRULY an "educational" organization, it would welcome such data and then present its best case against that data.  Instead, the JBS just presents defamatory comments about anybody who dares to bring such information to public attention OR (at a minimum) Birchers claim that the person making that information available is "obsessed".  "

-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Shurtleff <shurtleffhal@aol.com>
To: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 7:05 pm

Why don't you answer my questions about King and Kennedy?    The law suit issue is well known,.  Do you really believe that Gertz was harmed because of what was published in AO?  I have been called far worse by many reporters and entities like the Boston Archdiocese.  I could have filed numerous lawsuits.  You never mention the case we won like Long Island Trim. Sure The JBS has made mistakes, made wrong decisions, and exercised bad judgment at times.  We are human.  But you are obsessed about The JBS.  You seem to be compelled to post your comments almost every time we are mentioned in the media. We have generated plenty of media about Agenda 21 and here's faceless Ernie talking about Hoover and Welch. You say that you are libertarian but denounce us because we want to roll back FDR's policies.  You denounce us because of our stance against Civil Rights which are diametrically opposed to libertarian views.  

(C)  After I responded to Hal's criticisms of JFK and MLK Jr. and Hal's contention that I am "obsessed" with the JBS - his final message to me was simply:

Ernie:   I think we are wasting each other's time.    

Hal Shurtleff
12 March Ave.
West Roxbury, MA  02132
857-498-1309

(D)  Another message from me to Hal re: JBS

-----Original Message-----
From: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com>
To: shurtleffhal <shurtleffhal@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 10:53 am

Hal:  I cannot address your comment because I am not familiar with every American history textbook used in our classrooms today but, normally, societies focus upon achievements, i.e. what moves a society forward in terms of social justice or prosperity. A textbook is not meant to be an entire biography of prominent people who have impacted our history.  Suppose, just for sake of argument, that we asked the Birch Society to write an American history textbook.  What adverse information would the JBS permit to be included about ITSELF in that textbook? Probably NONE!
 
Hal--there are VERY few prominent individuals that do not have MAJOR flaws---sometimes horrific ones.  But when we are asked to make judgments about the totality of their lives -- we normally want to know what impact they have had upon their contemporaries and succeeding generations of Americans.  
 
Robert Welch was a very intelligent man.  After he joined his brother's candy business, he became wealthy and, through that business, he met many other wealthy and influential men.  But nobody other than his admirers in the JBS celebrates Welch's life.  Nobody wants to build a statue, or name a school or a street or building after him.  Nobody consults his writings to learn anything about our history---except, again, JBS members and sympathizers.
 
MLK Jr. was intelligent and he was able, through both his words and his deeds, to influence MILLIONS of his contemporaries and many more MILLIONS of Americans in later decades plus MILLIONS more around the world.  More importantly, MLK Jr. positively impacted people across the political spectrum --  conservatives, liberals, and libertarians  -- because they believed that his ultimate contribution moved our country FORWARD with respect to social justice. [One can make a similar argument for why Ronald Reagan remains such a popular President--i.e. his countrymen of all political persuasions believed he moved us forward as a country.  Which perhaps is why Mrs. Robert Welch was so angry with the new leadership of the JBS when they started savaging Reagan in TNA.]
 
Neither Robert Welch or the JBS has ever moved our country forward in any way -- nor does it seem they ever wanted to.  Instead, Welch and the JBS told us to look backward and return to some purported golden age (which never really existed).
Ernie

 

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

...Neither Robert Welch or the JBS has ever moved our country forward in any way -- nor does it seem they ever wanted to.  Instead, Welch and the JBS told us to look backward and return to some purported golden age (which never really existed).

Ernie

Ernie,

This underhanded defense of the JBS turns out to be your trademark.

Harry Dean, on the other hand, was inside the JBS in Southern California in 1962-1963, and he saw it from the street perspective.

Harry first told me of his initial attraction to the JBS, namely, its strident Anticommunism.   Harry had just been bitten by the illusion that Fidel Castro and his 26th of July Movement, and his FPCC, were Democratic -- and they turned out to be Communist.

So -- in response -- Harry began to tell the FBI everything he knew about them -- whether they wanted to hear it or not.  (Some of the FBI agents did want to hear it.)

Also in response, Harry joined the JBS in Southern California, and very much enjoyed their literature and patriotic revival meetings.   Harry told me that he knew the JBS was a bit extreme -- a bit too far right-leaning -- but Harry justified this in his own mind by believing independently that the JBS was merely pulling hard right in order to weaken the Democratic Party and strengthen the Republic Party.

Harry was a Republican in politics in those days, as he remains a Republican in politics to this very day.

Anyway, that was Harry's personal justification for the Radical Right language -- he did not take it seriously.   With this in mind, Harry also accepted the invitation of some of the more extreme folks in his circle to join the Minutemen -- an armed cadre of militia who met in the Hemet foothills of Riverside County, for weapons training and target practice -- and even some war games.   

At these Minutemen training camps, says Harry, there was a continual banter about killing JFK.  Harry thought of it merely as big talk -- blowing off steam.   Harry never took it seriously.

Then, according to Harry Dean, there was an exclusive meeting of the JBS in Southern California, to which he was invited in early September, 1963.  General Walker spoke there, and announced that he would lead a plot to assassinate JFK, and blame a Patsy named "Lee Harvey Oswald" -- an alleged officer of the FPCC in New Orleans.  

Harry Dean also took this as 'big talk' and 'blowing off steam.'   Harry himself contributed to the meeting that he himself had previously been a secretary of the FPCC in Chicago, and that he could vouch for the fact that the FPCC was Communist -- and that some of its members were dangerous and even deadly.  

Harry added that others in the meeting chimed in that it was a rich irony to use a Communist to kill a Communist.  They all had a big laugh about it.  Again, Harry Dean laughed, too, but he didn't take it seriously.  Harry thought it was just more 'big talk' to which he had become accustomed over these many months.

However, when JFK really was killed on 11/22/1963, and when Lee Harvey Oswald was named as the "Lone Assassin," Harry practically fainted.  That name had been burned in his soul since that day -- all the memories came rushing back to him.  Everything fell into place for him.  

HERE is the solution to the JFK assassination, I say.   Even independently from Harry Dean, and from my study of the 90 boxes of General Walker's personal papers in Austin, Texas, under Professor Brands, I came to this conclusion by 2010.   

From this very FORUM I met Harry Dean in 2011, and later met him personally.  Everything he told me matched my independent study.   I am convinced that Harry Dean's personal witness is fully correct in its relevant details.

However -- Harry Dean's personal politics remain a different story.  Harry remains convinced, I have heard, that the Mormon Church was behind the JBS in this plot.   Dr. Jeff Caufield and I both discount that aspect of Harry's opinion. 

Nevertheless -- when it comes to Harry's personal experience in Southern California with the JBS and the Minutemen  -- I believe that honest, independent, objective historians will find -- sooner or later -- that Harry Deans' personal witness has always been true and correct -- and will become a lasting part of US History.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 25, 2017 by Paul Trejo
grammar

[Michael Clark]

35 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

This underhanded defense of the JBS turns out to be your trademark.

Harry Dean, on the other hand, was ...........

Harry ........

So -- in response -- Harry began to ..........

Also in response, Harry joined the ..........

Harry was a  ........

Anyway, that was Harry's............ - he did not .......   With this in mind, Harry also ..........   

.................., says Harry,  ..........  Harry thought .............   Harry never .........

Then, according to Harry Dean, ...........

Harry Dean also took this as ...... Harry ......he himself..........he could 

Harry added that ........ Harry Dean laughed......... he didn't ........  Harry thought .........  he had.......

However, when JFK really was killed on 11/22/1963, and when Lee Harvey Oswald was named as the "Lone Assassin," Harry practically fainted.  That name had been burned in his soul since that day -- all the memories came rushing back to him.  Everything fell into place for him.  

However -- Harry Dean's personal politics remain a different story.  Harry remains convinced, I have heard, that the Mormon Church was behind the JBS in this plot.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Harry is a member here. Do you have his blessing to speak for him, and tell HIS tale? Is he OK with your marriage of your exploits with his?

Cheers,

Michael

[Ernie Lazar]

47 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

This underhanded defense of the JBS turns out to be your trademark.

Harry Dean, on the other hand, was inside the JBS in Southern California in 1962-1963, and he saw it from the street perspective.

Harry first told me of his initial attraction to the JBS, namely, its strident Anticommunism.   Harry had just been bitten by the illusion that Fidel Castro and his 26th of July Movement, and his FPCC, were Democratic -- and they turned out to be Communist.

So -- in response -- Harry began to tell the FBI everything he knew about them -- whether they wanted to hear it or not.  (Some of the FBI agents did want to hear it.)

Also in response, Harry joined the JBS in Southern California, and very much enjoyed their literature and patriotic revival meetings.   Harry told me that he knew the JBS was a bit extreme -- a bit too far right-leaning -- but Harry justified this in his own mind by believing independently that the JBS was merely pulling hard right in order to weaken the Democratic Party and strengthen the Republic Party.

Harry was a Republican in politics in those days, as he remains a Republican in politics to this very day.

Anyway, that was Harry's personal justification for the Radical Right language -- he did not take it seriously.   With this in mind, Harry also accepted the invitation of some of the more extreme folks in his circle to join the Minutemen -- an armed cadre of militia who met in the Hemet foothills of Riverside County, for weapons training and target practice -- and even some war games.   

At these Minutemen training camps, says Harry, there was a continual banter about killing JFK.  Harry thought of it merely as big talk -- blowing off steam.   Harry never took it seriously.

Then, according to Harry Dean, there was an exclusive meeting of the JBS in Southern California, to which he was invited in early September, 1963.  General Walker spoke there, and announced that he would lead a plot to assassinate JFK, and blame a Patsy named "Lee Harvey Oswald" -- an alleged officer of the FPCC in New Orleans.  

Harry Dean also took this as 'big talk' and 'blowing off steam.'   Harry himself contributed to the meeting that he himself had previously been a secretary of the FPCC in Chicago, and that he could vouch for the fact that the FPCC was Communist -- and that some of its members were dangerous and even deadly.  

Harry added that others in the meeting chimed in that it was a rich irony to use a Communist to kill a Communist.  They all had a big laugh about it.  Again, Harry Dean laughed, too, but he didn't take it seriously.  Harry thought it was just more 'big talk' to which he had become accustomed over these many months.

However, when JFK really was killed on 11/22/1963, and when Lee Harvey Oswald was named as the "Lone Assassin," Harry practically fainted.  That name had been burned in his soul since that day -- all the memories came rushing back to him.  Everything fell into place for him.  

HERE is the solution to the JFK assassination, I say.   Even independently from Harry Dean, and from my study of the 90 boxes of General Walker's personal papers in Austin, Texas, under Professor Brands, I came to this conclusion by 2010.   

From this very FORUM I met Harry Dean in 2011, and later met him personally.  Everything he told me matched my independent study.   I am convinced that Harry Dean's personal witness is fully correct in its relevant details.

However -- Harry Dean's personal politics remain a different story.  Harry remains convinced, I have heard, that the Mormon Church was behind the JBS in this plot.   Dr. Jeff Caufield and I both discount that aspect of Harry's opinion. 

Nevertheless -- when it comes to Harry's personal experience in Southern California with the JBS and the Minutemen  -- I believe that honest, independent, objective historians will find -- sooner or later -- that Harry Deans' personal witness has always been true and correct -- and will become a lasting part of US History.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I suggest that you ask everybody here in EF (or especially any JBS officials, JBS member or JBS sympathizer) if they think I have ever written any "underhanded defense" of the JBS.

1.  Unlike Harry Dean, I have fought the JBS (and similar groups) since I was a teenager (starting circa 1963).

2.  Unlike Harry Dean, I have written major critiques of JBS arguments since the 1960's - many of which have been published in anti-right-wing newsletters

3.  Unlike Harry Dean, I have spent tens of thousands of dollars of my income to obtain ANTI-JBS documentation which has never been previously available publicly AND which I then gave, at no cost, to literally hundreds of researchers and authors AND which I also donated, again at my own expense, to various colleges, universities, and organizations -- including the University of California (Berkeley):  http://crws.berkeley.edu/fbi-foia-archive  and Internet Archive website.

Only on Planet Trejo is such a record considered evidence of "underhanded defense" of the JBS.

[Paul Trejo]

32 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Paul -- I suggest that you ask everybody here in EF (or especially any JBS officials, JBS member or JBS sympathizer) if they think I have ever written any "underhanded defense" of the JBS.

1.  Unlike Harry Dean, I have fought the JBS (and similar groups) since I was a teenager (starting circa 1963).

2.  Unlike Harry Dean, I have written major critiques of JBS arguments since the 1960's - many of which have been published in anti-right-wing newsletters

3.  Unlike Harry Dean, I have spent tens of thousands of dollars of my income to obtain ANTI-JBS documentation which has never been previously available publicly AND which I then gave, at no cost, to literally hundreds of researchers and authors AND which I also donated, again at my own expense, to various colleges, universities, and organizations -- including the University of California (Berkeley):  http://crws.berkeley.edu/fbi-foia-archive  and Internet Archive website.

Only on Planet Trejo is such a record considered evidence of "underhanded defense" of the JBS.

Ernie,

Did you omit to mention that you were once a member of the JBS?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 25, 2017 by Paul Trejo