William O'Neil

New Book!

1,449 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now