Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul: My answers correspond to your numbered comments.

1. Then how do you explain Public Law 105-526 -- since all those documents/files pertain to the JFK assassination. OR is it your contention that Harry's speculations fall into a category of such enormous importance that any documents mentioning Harry or his "reports" to Grapp or whomever, on the Birch Society, on Rousselot, on Welch, on Galdabdon, and on Edwin Walker will ALL be denied?

2/3 Paul, I am the person who keeps telling you explicitly and repeatedly that more substantive documents would be filed into other file classifications -- so how am I am "overstating" anything? Furthermore, you continue to avoid the relevant question. Why has it been possible for FOIA researchers to obtain those other file classifications if they are all (or mostly) being denied? How did I (and others) get the 157-series on Edwin Walker? How did I (and others) get the 157-series on Milteer and Somersett's conversations concerning a plot to murder JFK? How did I (and others) get 157-series documents pertaining to KKK or other hate groups which relate to the JFK investigation? WHY IS HARRY DEAN THE ONE AND ONLY PERSON WHO IS SO UNIQUE AND SPECIAL?

6 You accuse me of something that is patently false. From the very beginning of our debate and as recently as message #229 this morning (above) which reports the content of my email to you, I said Harry could have provided unsolicited information to Chicago or Los Angeles. My contention remains that any SPECULATIONS by Harry regarding JBS-related persons is NOT the type of information that would ever be denied nor even redacted. In fact, I have MANY FBI files that report comments made by various sources about purported "plots". There is, for example, the alleged Edwin Walker "plot" to lead an armed rebellion if Goldwater did not win the Presidency. The FBI file on that is captioned "Alleged Klan Participation in Insurrection Plot" (all 157-series files that were classified!)

I have never "evaded" the content of anything you have stated or quoted. Instead, I have explicitly critiqued what you have written because many of your ideas about FOIA procedures or about what "classified" means are utter nonsense.

Ernie,

I reply as follows:

1. You keep denying that the FBI has classified documents about the JFK assassination that they refuse to release. You can't seem to adapt to that fact, Ernie.

Obviously, those unreleased FBI documents are of tremendous importance. I don't know what they are, and you don't know what they are -- but you keep insisting that you know that Harry Dean's reports CANNOT possibly be in there.

You are over-stating your case, Ernie, and that affects all your arguments.

I encourage you to continue trying to get more information from the FBI about Harry Dean -- I think that you will find more in the future than you have found in the past. I also think you should reconcile yourself to the fact that SOME files will never be released to anybody until the year 2038.

2/3. You are "overstating" your knowledge about what CANNOT be classified. You are certain that nothing Harry Dean told the FBI can be classified. How can you be so certain if you haven't seen it with your own eyes? You can't. That's why I say you are "overstating" your case.

Yes, some researchers have found some things -- but no researcher has ever found the material that Harry Dean has claimed he told them. You take that fact to mean that Harry is either lying or is a "lone nut." I say you're jumping to conclusions, and are not taking seriously enough all the vital information about ground-crew players in the JFK assassination that Harry's confessions link together.

How did the Milteer documents become unclassified? Possibly because they don't mention General Walker or Loran Hall -- that's probably how, in my humble opinion.

Why is Harry Dean so unique and special? Because his eye-witness knowledge identifies the ground-crew that the Warren Commission plainly knows about -- the one's they deliberately hid from the American People, blaming Lee Harvey Oswald as the "lone nut."

I say that the US Government keeps top secret files about the JFK assassination 50 years after the crime because the decision was made 50 years ago to keep them locked up for 75 years. I say that the US Government knew very well who the accomplices were to Lee Harvey Oswald on 22 November 1963. It is precisely because they knew who these accomplices were that they insisted on keeping their identities secret.

Harry Dean can identify many of those persons, and that is why key FBI documents about Harry Dean are locked up. This is my theory. It is not a delusion, it is not some marketing plan -- it has been my theory for years.

I know enough to know that I can't claim this as TRUTH, simply because I have no PROOF -- yet. But all the data that I do accumulate continues to confirm my THEORY. And those many folks who have tried to debunk my THEORY have had weak arguments. Your arguments are not strong, Ernie -- you jump to conclusions based on limited data. You should keep a more open mind, and you should count to ten before you dismiss a valuable witness.

6. You have only recently begun to admit that Harry could have provided unsolicited information to Chicago or Los Angeles, Ernie. So, please don't play the victim here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Incidentally, I forgot to comment about one other aspect of your "theory" regarding documents not being made available i.e. being purged from their original files and moved into a non-releasable JFK-assassination file.

According to YOUR theory, documents which originally were serialized into their appropriate subject main files (such as on JBS or on Rousselot or on Walker, etc.) have been ripped out of their original main files and transferred into a "classified" JFK-type file so that the FBI can refuse to release all of them for "national security" reasons.

There are two HUGE problems with your "theory"

1. As I previously noted, the missing serials would become obvious because there would be gaps in the chronological sequence of the serials appearing in main files from which those serials were purged.

EXAMPLE: Suppose Harry made 4 "reports" to Grapp or to the Los Angeles field office on John Rousselot over a period of 4 different months. Let's say, for sake of our discussion, that the original serials in the Rousselot main file were numbered, #4, #8, #10, and #12 but they were removed (AND any copies of those same serials were also removed from related JBS files (HQ and Los Angeles).

2. If that were the case, then when a requester received Rousselot's HQ main file, there would be a serial number-gap, i.e. serials 4, 8, 10 and 12 would be missing....AND... the FBI would substitute its "deleted page" notice to indicate why those serials were missing and where they went to. [usually, the notice specifies the new file number to which the serials were transferred).

3. Meanwhile, the secondary main files (such as JBS main file) would also have those Rousselot serials purged -- so there would be yet another gap in the chronological sequence of those serials -- along with yet more "deleted page" notices to indicate why those serials were removed and where they were transferred.

In fact, a secondary file normally has wording such as follows handwritten along the right side of each document:

"Original copy filed in..." (enter file number here)

4. To make this even more clear, I am attaching to this message a copy of serial #1007 dated 9/3/58 which appears in the American Bar Association main file which is HQ file 94-1-369. Notice the comment along right margin which says "Original copy filed in 94-8-43-129".

So, this document originated in that file (as serial #129) but a copy of that serial was placed into the ABA file where it was serial #1007. From the content of the serial and its 94-prefix number, I suspect that the original serial was placed in the FBI HQ file on the "Legislative Subcommittee on Criminal Law Enforcement in California".

Now---if for some reason, the original file serial (#129) was purged from its main file, then there would be a gap in the numerical sequence of that file and you would receive a deleted page notice from the FBI to explain what happened.

Similarly, if the FBI also decided to purge serial #1007 from the secondary ABA file because it referenced ultra-sensitive information from serial #129 of the original file, then there would be a gap in the numerical sequence of the serials in the ABA file -- which would also have a deleted page notice to advise the requester what happened.

SO, Paul, for YOUR theory to be reasonable and plausible, you would have to explain WHY NO SUCH GAPS exist in JBS-related files -- EXCEPT for (1) serials which were referred to their originating agency -- such as IRS or State Department or military intelligence for their review before being released and (2) serials which duplicated information already provided in another serial.

In summary -- ALL the main files which originally contained Harry's "reports" would have numerical gaps -- because (according to your theory) those hyper-sensitive documents were purged from their original files so that they could be placed into a non-releasable JFK-assassination file.

You have no explanation for the ABSENCE of such numerical gaps, do you?? But I imagine you are prepared to INVENT something.

ABA doc with Original Filed In notation.PDF

Edited November 4, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

PAUL

1. QUOTE something I have written (as you claim) where I have denied "that the FBI has classified documents about the JFK assassination that they refuse to release." QUOTE IT -- don't merely allege it. Go back to my previous message where I gave you a "worst-case scenario" for your potential FOIA request....then admit that you just deliberately lied.

I have never said what you claim in your second sentence either. ALL I have said, for the 500th time, is that there are no documents in any JBS-related file (on the JBS or on JBS members) that are reports made by Harry or anybody who fits his description. Why do you have to deliberately lie about what I have repeatedly and emphatically written over and over and over again in order to make your argument against me???

Have I not also said, repeatedly, that I will be the first person to acknowledge it IF there ever is any change to be made in my conclusion?

2/3 -- The answer to your comment is in 3 parts: (1) the instructions contained in the FBI Declassification Manual (2) ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with obtaining FBI files via FOIA requests -- including files which contain JFK-related material -- not just my requests but also requests made by other researchers and (3) ordinary common sense:

Apparently, you believe that Harry Dean provided some sort of cosmic revelations to Wesley Grapp that were so staggering in their importance and gravity that every word ever uttered by Harry on the JBS or its members (written or verbal) is being redacted or withheld by the FBI.

But even a cursory review of actual JBS files (HQ and field) plus related files on JBS members reveals that the type of information which YOU think would be redacted or withheld is routinely released in other files --- and yes, that includes JFK-related material. According to your eBook, Wesley Grapp cavalierly dismissed Harry's initial reports about the "plot". Quoting Harry (through you), Grapp told Harry he was "overreacting" to the information he reported to Grapp and then Grapp said "It's just a lot of wishful thinking. We're flooded by these kinds of reports these days, so we can spot a pipe-dream a mile away" and then Grapp told Harry "Harry. Relax. Have a drink and forget about the whole thing."

OK Paul -- if the information was so quickly dismissed by Grapp as unworthy of serious consideration -- why do you think that the FBI would deny access to a routine memo or FD-71 which summarized what Harry told Grapp BUT nevertheless the FBI recorded all contacts it had where people made other assertions about "plots" but those other reports DO appear in FBI files that have been released? Why are we able to see what Grapp described as the "flood" of similiar reports but we are not allowed to see Harry's alleged comments anywhere?

6. A totally false assertion by you. Anybody familiar with FBI files (and I have posted HUNDREDS of them online) knows that ANYBODY could contact their local FBI office (or write to Hoover) to report unsolicited information they thought had some significance.

Paul, you have become so irrational that you expect people to state obvious facts which were never in dispute? OK, here is another obvious statement:

The FBI memorialized ALL contacts it had with the public on FBI standard form FD-71. In fact, every Special Agent in the history of the FBI was trained to use FD-71 (or comparable forms) to record the details of such unsolicited contacts.

If you review the JBS-Los Angeles field files which I have posted online you will see SCORES of these forms filled in by the Agent who took the phone call or who handled the in-person inquiries or complaints at the field office or who responded to a letter or telegram asking about the JBS or who was involved in following-up on any complaint or any information submitted to the field office about the JBS.

LASTLY -- A genuine "theory" (by definition) must be falsifiable. But you have created a NON-falsifiable theory. Every time you face EVIDENCE which diminishes what Harry asserts, you just claim "key FBI documents about Harry Dean are locked up". How convenient! So, again, the total absence of corroborating evidence becomes PROOF in your scheme of things.

Why do you want me to get "more information" about Harry from the FBI? Whatever I obtain (if it does not support your "theory") will be used by you to "prove" the existence of an even more sinister "cover-up". That is way in which all conspiracy theories are constructed, i.e. they are self-sealing and often circular arguments which automatically dismiss or de-value all contradictory evidence!!!!

Ernie,

1. You should try to control your emotions, at least because they can interfere with your reasoning and logic.

I did not deliberately lie -- I might (or might not) have made a mistake in my writing, but I didn't deliberately lie. (Your emotional outbursts might work against you in the long run.)

My observation about your seeming denials that the FBI keeps secrets over 50 years old was appropriate and was based on your many posts citing example after example of the FBI declassifying this, that and the other.

You also claim that there are "no documents in any JBS-related file...that are reports made by Harry." This suggests to any objective reader that you yourself have seen every JBS_related file in the FBI files. You seem to be prone to exaggeration. I do not lie -- these are your own words. Just admit that you yourself haven't seen any JBS-related file with reports made by Harry -- and there's no issue.

2/3. I don't doubt your skill and knowledge about FBI procedures, instructions, manuals, FOIA requests, or even your rather ordinary common sense. I do doubt that you can keep a cool head under questioning.

You are right in noting that I do believe -- based on mounting evidence -- that Harry Dean provided JFK revelations to Wesley Grapp that were so weighty that they had to be locked up for 75 years.

I also believe that these JFK revelations included names of individual JBS members.

Nor does it impress me that other FBI files would mention these same individuals, because unless those files also included the connections that Harry made with his eye-witness experience, then there was no need to secure those records for 75 years.

As for the narrative that I worked out for Harry's conversations with Wesley Grapp, they are not based on written documents or tape recordings -- they are based on my impressions from the memories by Harry Dean. I asked Harry if he could remember the 50-year old conversation word for word, and he could not -- he could only remember bits and pieces, and we did our best to reconstruct the conversation for the reader.

If the narrative does not conform to FBI standards, that is not surprising to me. This eBook is not a work of fiction, but the real-life confessions of an eye-witness of an honest working man, Harry Dean. We did the best we could under the circumstances.

Now, you ask, Ernie, why do I myself "think that the FBI would deny access to a routine memo or FD-71," and I will say that they might have produced a routine memo or FD-71 -- it simply didn't come up in my interviews with Harry Dean. It is entirely plausible that Harry Dean never heard of a "FD-71", or if he did, that he remembers what it stands for. It is also plausible that a routine memo of this weight would be classified.

I do know for a fact that Harry Dean repeated this bit of Grapp's reply: "It is just wishful thinking" on the part of these JBS members, or words to that effect. So, Grapp told Harry to forget about it -- yet we have no knowledge, nor do we make any claim about what Grapp might have recorded after their conversation, once he returned to his FBI office.

Aside from this, Ernie, I believe it is common knowledge that J. Edgar Hoover had begun leaking his "lone nut" theory to the press since December 1963. FBI agents were obliged to fall in line and walk in Hoover's footsteps. FBI agents were not likely to pursue any line of investigation on the JFK assassination without the express approval of J. Edgar Hoover, who was keen on presenting Lee Harvey Oswald as the "lone nut" killer of JFK. All FBI agents would be pulled into that whirlpool -- I firmly believe that.

6. You have some nerve to call me "irrational" Ernie, when your own emotions pour out of your replies. You misunderstood my theory to be non-falsifiable. On the contrary, I said that in the year 2038, when the FBI finally gives up all its top secret files on the JFK assassination, as mandated by Chief Justice Earl Warren, that my theory will be proven right or wrong at that time.

My theory is falsifiable, but you haven't presented enough evidence to falsify it, Ernie. Nor have your emotional outbursts swayed my opinion one iota.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 5, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - do you think Oswald shot at JFK? If so, do you think there were other shooters? No need for a theory, just a simple question.

[Ernie Lazar]

PAUL

1. QUOTE something I have written (as you claim) where I have denied "that the FBI has classified documents about the JFK assassination that they refuse to release." QUOTE IT -- don't merely allege it. Go back to my previous message where I gave you a "worst-case scenario" for your potential FOIA request....then admit that you just deliberately lied.

I have never said what you claim in your second sentence either. ALL I have said, for the 500th time, is that there are no documents in any JBS-related file (on the JBS or on JBS members) that are reports made by Harry or anybody who fits his description. Why do you have to deliberately lie about what I have repeatedly and emphatically written over and over and over again in order to make your argument against me???

Have I not also said, repeatedly, that I will be the first person to acknowledge it IF there ever is any change to be made in my conclusion?

2/3 -- The answer to your comment is in 3 parts: (1) the instructions contained in the FBI Declassification Manual (2) ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with obtaining FBI files via FOIA requests -- including files which contain JFK-related material -- not just my requests but also requests made by other researchers and (3) ordinary common sense:

Apparently, you believe that Harry Dean provided some sort of cosmic revelations to Wesley Grapp that were so staggering in their importance and gravity that every word ever uttered by Harry on the JBS or its members (written or verbal) is being redacted or withheld by the FBI.

But even a cursory review of actual JBS files (HQ and field) plus related files on JBS members reveals that the type of information which YOU think would be redacted or withheld is routinely released in other files --- and yes, that includes JFK-related material. According to your eBook, Wesley Grapp cavalierly dismissed Harry's initial reports about the "plot". Quoting Harry (through you), Grapp told Harry he was "overreacting" to the information he reported to Grapp and then Grapp said "It's just a lot of wishful thinking. We're flooded by these kinds of reports these days, so we can spot a pipe-dream a mile away" and then Grapp told Harry "Harry. Relax. Have a drink and forget about the whole thing."

OK Paul -- if the information was so quickly dismissed by Grapp as unworthy of serious consideration -- why do you think that the FBI would deny access to a routine memo or FD-71 which summarized what Harry told Grapp BUT nevertheless the FBI recorded all contacts it had where people made other assertions about "plots" but those other reports DO appear in FBI files that have been released? Why are we able to see what Grapp described as the "flood" of similiar reports but we are not allowed to see Harry's alleged comments anywhere?

6. A totally false assertion by you. Anybody familiar with FBI files (and I have posted HUNDREDS of them online) knows that ANYBODY could contact their local FBI office (or write to Hoover) to report unsolicited information they thought had some significance.

Paul, you have become so irrational that you expect people to state obvious facts which were never in dispute? OK, here is another obvious statement:

The FBI memorialized ALL contacts it had with the public on FBI standard form FD-71. In fact, every Special Agent in the history of the FBI was trained to use FD-71 (or comparable forms) to record the details of such unsolicited contacts.

If you review the JBS-Los Angeles field files which I have posted online you will see SCORES of these forms filled in by the Agent who took the phone call or who handled the in-person inquiries or complaints at the field office or who responded to a letter or telegram asking about the JBS or who was involved in following-up on any complaint or any information submitted to the field office about the JBS.

LASTLY -- A genuine "theory" (by definition) must be falsifiable. But you have created a NON-falsifiable theory. Every time you face EVIDENCE which diminishes what Harry asserts, you just claim "key FBI documents about Harry Dean are locked up". How convenient! So, again, the total absence of corroborating evidence becomes PROOF in your scheme of things.

Why do you want me to get "more information" about Harry from the FBI? Whatever I obtain (if it does not support your "theory") will be used by you to "prove" the existence of an even more sinister "cover-up". That is way in which all conspiracy theories are constructed, i.e. they are self-sealing and often circular arguments which automatically dismiss or de-value all contradictory evidence!!!!

Ernie,

1. You should try to control your emotions, at least because they can interfere with your reasoning and logic.

I did not deliberately lie -- I might (or might not) have made a mistake in my writing, but I didn't deliberately lie. (Your emotional outbursts might work against you in the long run.)

My observation about your seeming denials that the FBI keeps secrets over 50 years old was appropriate and was based on your many posts citing example after example of the FBI declassifying this, that and the other.

You also claim that there are "no documents in any JBS-related file...that are reports made by Harry." This suggests to any objective reader that you yourself have seen every JBS_related file in the FBI files. You seem to be prone to exaggeration. I do not lie -- these are your own words. Just admit that you yourself haven't seen any JBS-related file with reports made by Harry -- and there's no issue.

2/3. I don't doubt your skill and knowledge about FBI procedures, instructions, manuals, FOIA requests, nor even your rather ordinary common sense. I do doubt that you can keep a cool head under questioning.

You are right in noting that I do believe -- based on mounting evidence -- that Harry Dean provided JFK revelations to Wesley Grapp that were so weighty that they had to be locked up for 75 years.

I also believe that these JFK revelations included names of individual JBS members.

Nor does it impress me that other FBI files would mention these same individuals, because unless they also included the connections that Harry made with his eye-witness experience, then there was no need to secure those records for 75 years.

As for the narrative that I worked out for Harry's conversations with Wesley Grapp, they are not based on written documents or tape recordings -- they are based on my impressions from the memories by Harry Dean. I asked Harry if he could remember the 50-year old conversation word for word, and he could not -- he could only remember bits and pieces, and we did our best to reconstruct the conversation for the reader.

If the narrative does not conform to FBI standards, that is not surprising to me. This eBook is not a work of fiction, but the real-life confessions of an eye-witness of an honest working man, Harry Dean. We did the best we could under the circumstances.

Now, you ask, Ernie, why do I myself "think that the FBI would deny access to a routine memo or FD-71," and I will say that they might have produced a routine memo or FD-71 -- it simply didn't come up in my interviews with Harry Dean. It is entirely plausible that Harry Dean never heard of a "FD-71", or if he did, that he remembers what it stands for. It is also plausible that a routine memo of this weight would be classified.

I do know for a fact that Harry Dean repeated this bit of Grapp's reply: "It is just wishful thinking" on the part of these JBS members, or words to that effect. So, Grapp told Harry to forget about it -- yet we have no knowledge, nor do we make any claim about what Grapp might have recorded after their conversation, once he returned to his FBI office.

Aside from this, Ernie, I believe it is common knowledge that J. Edgar Hoover had begun leaking his "lone nut" theory to the press since December 1963. FBI agents were obliged to fall in line and walk in Hoover's footsteps. FBI agents were not likely to pursue any line of investigation on the JFK assassination without the express approval of J. Edgar Hoover, who was keen on presenting Lee Harvey Oswald as the "lone nut" killer of JFK. All FBI agents would be pulled into that whirlpool -- I firmly believe that.

6. You have some nerve to call me "irrational" Ernie, when your own emotions pour out of your replies. You misunderstood my theory to be non-falsifiable. On the contrary, I said that in the year 2038, when the FBI finally gives up all its top secret files on the JFK assassination, as mandated by Chief Justice Earl Warren, that my theory will be proven right or wrong at that time.

My theory is falsifiable, but you haven't presented enough evidence to falsify it, Ernie. Nor have your emotional outbursts swayed my opinion one iota.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. Paul, it is YOUR reasoning and logic which are subject to rigorous examination (and dispute).

A "mistake" happens when you unintentionally make a statement which is not true. But I have REPEATEDLY made statements in this thread that contradict what you claim I believe or that you claim I have written.

Paul. you cannot make a broad, generalized statement and then pretend that it applies to everything inconvenient to your argument. You do not appear to be familiar with the FBI's declassification of files. Let me correct that last statement. You do not appear to be familiar with Mandatory Declassification policies employed throughout the United States government.

MY "EXAGGERATIONS" ABOUT RELATED JBS FILES: OK---I am willing to entertain your criticism. Tell me which files I have not seen (and you have) which I need to see in order to make an informed and more fact-based judgment. In other words, where do these "reports" by Harry exist? In which specific files?(be as clear as possible). Harry has identified the main actors in the "plot" in your new eBook -- so please tell me which files I am missing that have to be reviewed before making a judgment. is it Rousselot (the key figure since he supposedly provided the money and the encouragement to the foot soldiers?) Is it Edwin Walker? Is it Robert Welch? Is it JBS? WHICH files do I need to review that I have not seen?

2/3 -- Not sure I understand your first point. Yes, I am emphatic about some matters because I have a lot of personal experience with respect to those matters. I am not "losing" my cool. I am asking you probing questions and I am attempting to demonstrate why your "logic" is flawed. Let's stop the personal psychological analysis and just concentrate on EVIDENCE -- ok?

WESLEY GRAPP: Hmm---very strange argument. Harry's "revelations" were "so weighty that they had to be locked up for 75 years". Oh really? Where do you get that from? Which specific Grapp documents are you referring to? And if they are so "weighty" why did Grapp immediately dismiss Harry's comments as worthless speculation? Are you also telling me that there is nothing in Wesley Grapp's personnel file which mentions Harry because whatever was there re: Harry will have been purged? OR are you telling me that my FOIA request for Grapp's file will be denied?

JFK REVELATIONS/JBS MEMBERS: Of course there are references to JBS members. Some of them testified before the Warren Commission. So what? See my separate message (posted a few minutes ago) where I address your argument about the JBS-related files which originally contained Harry's "reports" but which have had Harry's reports purged.

HARRY's NARRATIVE: Yes---like almost all memoirs, comments are based upon subjective recollections -- although it is somewhat strange that Harry kept no contemporaneous written notes of any kind on such momentous events which he claims to have witnessed (and participated in) personally. Thanks for acknowledging that Harry recalled only "bits and pieces" and not word-for-word direct quotations. Which is why I object to the use of quotation marks in your eBook. I suggest you review any standard "Style Guide" for reporting such as the Chicago Manual of Style or Strunk's "Elements of Style". There is no "FBI standard" for such reporting -- only normal rules of evidence and logic as discussed in Stylebooks. Quotation marks are used to attribute literal actual verbatim word-for-word comments -- not paraphrases. [They also can be used to sarcastically refer to what someone claims to be factual but is not].

FD-71: It is totally irrelevant if Harry knows what an FD-71 is. My point (surely you understood this?) is that FBI SPECIAL AGENTS were all trained to use that form to record their contacts with the public. With respect to your comment about such a form being "classified" (and withheld) -- see my recent message which addresses the matter of purging files of ultra-sensitive serials.

GRAPP RETURN TO OFFICE: Yes, you have no knowledge about it. But, significantly, no such forms exist in the JBS-related files I have seen where Harry's "reports" should appear -- and there are no serial gaps other than the ones I previously identified. So come up with a plausible explanation for that.

HOOVER'S THEORY: Who cares? We are not discussing HIS theory. We are discussing FBI filing practices and procedures. Hoover did not review every FBI file to see how Agents recorded information on their FD-71's. In fact, he never saw an FD-71. He saw summary memos and reports prepared by his SAC's. Also---your comment about what Agents were allowed to "pursue" is totally ridiculous. They pursued whatever leads came into their office and they memorialized those contacts in memos, reports, and FD-71 forms. Otherwise, nobody could write anything factual about FBI history. My suggestion to you is this: contact ANY historian or political scientist of your choice who has specialized in researching FBI history (especially those who are obviously HOSTILE toward Hoover) and ask them if they agree with your theory that Agents would not pursue incoming leads or HQ and field office main files would be purged of ultra-sensitive information so that none of it could be found. Then let us know the result. Keep in mind that when all these events occurred, there was no such thing as a Freedom of Information Act so there was no possibility of anything in FBI files ever being made public unless the Bureau shared it with another agency and it leaked -- which did happen a few times.

YEAR 2038: Which documents (exactly) are you expecting to be available in 2038 that are not currently available and will not be available by 2017 -- which is the date specified in the 1992 JFK law? I disagree with your predicate re: your theory being "proven right or wrong at that time". I won't be alive to see it but I guarantee you that when the evidence is not found, a NEW conspiracy theory will surface which "explains" why the documentation does not exist to "prove" your theory.

FALSIFIABLE THEORY: Paul, I don't think you even understand the actual meaning of the word "theory". I suggest you read Karl Popper.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - do you think Oswald shot at JFK? If so, do you think there were other shooters? No need for a theory, just a simple question.

Frankly, I have never considered the matter in any depth. I am NOT defending the Warren Commission, nor am I defending Hoover or the FBI. I am simply questioning Harry Dean's recollections which pertain to his involvement with the JBS and his supposed relationship with the FBI.

[Paul Trejo]

Incidentally, I forgot to comment about one other aspect of your "theory" regarding documents not being made available i.e. being purged from their original files and moved into a non-releasable JFK-assassination file.

According to YOUR theory, documents which originally were serialized into their appropriate subject main files (such as on JBS or on Rousselot or on Walker, etc.) have been ripped out of their original main files and transferred into a "classified" JFK-type file so that the FBI can refuse to release all of them for "national security" reasons.

There are two HUGE problems with your "theory"

1. As I previously noted, the missing serials would become obvious because there would be gaps in the chronological sequence of the serials appearing in main files from which those serials were purged.

EXAMPLE: Suppose Harry made 4 "reports" to Grapp or to the Los Angeles field office on John Rousselot over a period of 4 different months. Let's say, for sake of our discussion, that the original serials in the Rousselot main file were numbered, #4, #8, #10, and #12 but they were removed (AND any copies of those same serials were also removed from related JBS files (HQ and Los Angeles).

2. If that were the case, then when a requester received Rousselot's HQ main file, there would be a serial number-gap, i.e. serials 4, 8, 10 and 12 would be missing....AND... the FBI would substitute its "deleted page" notice to indicate why those serials were missing and where they went to. [usually, the notice specifies the new file number to which the serials were transferred).

3. Meanwhile, the secondary main files (such as JBS main file) would also have those Rousselot serials purged -- so there would be yet another gap in the chronological sequence of those serials -- along with yet more "deleted page" notices to indicate why those serials were removed and where they were transferred.

In fact, a secondary file normally has wording such as follows handwritten along the right side of each document:

"Original copy filed in..." (enter file number here)

4. To make this even more clear, I am attaching to this message a copy of serial #1007 dated 9/3/58 which appears in the American Bar Association main file which is HQ file 94-1-369. Notice the comment along right margin which says "Original copy filed in 94-8-43-129".

So, this document originated in that file (as serial #129) but a copy of that serial was placed into the ABA file where it was serial #1007. From the content of the serial and its 94-prefix number, I suspect that the original serial was placed in the FBI HQ file on the "Legislative Subcommittee on Criminal Law Enforcement in California".

Now---if for some reason, the original file serial (#129) was purged from its main file, then there would be a gap in the numerical sequence of that file and you would receive a deleted page notice from the FBI to explain what happened.

Similarly, if the FBI also decided to purge serial #1007 from the secondary ABA file because it referenced ultra-sensitive information from serial #129 of the original file, then there would be a gap in the numerical sequence of the serials in the ABA file -- which would also have a deleted page notice to advise the requester what happened.

SO, Paul, for YOUR theory to be reasonable and plausible, you would have to explain WHY NO SUCH GAPS exist in JBS-related files -- EXCEPT for (1) serials which were referred to their originating agency -- such as IRS or State Department or military intelligence for their review before being released and (2) serials which duplicated information already provided in another serial.

In summary -- ALL the main files which originally contained Harry's "reports" would have numerical gaps -- because (according to your theory) those hyper-sensitive documents were purged from their original files so that they could be placed into a non-releasable JFK-assassination file.

You have no explanation for the ABSENCE of such numerical gaps, do you?? But I imagine you are prepared to INVENT something.

Ernie, there are several problems in the scenario you imagined.

(I) Do you have any proof that the "serial number" methodology that you described was used in the case of JFK assassination files? Have you seen even one single example to back up your claim? Or are you continuing to rely on your presumptions and assumptions?

I'll bet that you have no proof. The example you did share with us had nothing to do with the JFK assassination, so it really doesn't apply to this case.

(II) Do you have any evidence from the FBI Rousselot files, or the FBI John Birch Society files, to suggest that you've accounted for all the gaps? I ask because you're citing the Rousselot and JBS files as if you've seen each and every single one of them, and that there's nothing about the FBI methods that you haven't observed.

It seems that you believe that although the FBI did not show you their top secret files, however, they did allow you to see seams and stitches in their framework that would suggest to you which documents from which files were removed to a top secret file. Is this what you suggest?

Because if that's not what you're suggesting, Ernie, then you're merely saying that you know the FBI record-keeping methods that they allow the public to see -- and as for top secret methods, you're only guessing that the FBI adheres to precisely the same methods, without the slightest variation.

(III) Therefore, Ernie, I don't need to explain one single thing about gaps in the JBS-related files. The burden of proof remains on your shoulders to prove that FBI Top Secret classified procedures conform to the model that you've seen in less secure files.

Nor do I need to INVENT anything; and actually you're making assumptions about FBI top secret methods that amount to your own INVENTION.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 5, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

1. Paul, it is YOUR reasoning and logic which are subject to rigorous examination (and dispute).

A "mistake" happens when you unintentionally make a statement which is not true. But I have REPEATEDLY made statements in this thread that contradict what you claim I believe or that you claim I have written.

Paul. you cannot make a broad, generalized statement and then pretend that it applies to everything inconvenient to your argument. You do not appear to be familiar with the FBI's declassification of files. Let me correct that last statement. You do not appear to be familiar with Mandatory Declassification policies employed throughout the United States government.

MY "EXAGGERATIONS" ABOUT RELATED JBS FILES: OK---I am willing to entertain your criticism. Tell me which files I have not seen (and you have) which I need to see in order to make an informed and more fact-based judgment. In other words, where do these "reports" by Harry exist? In which specific files?(be as clear as possible). Harry has identified the main actors in the "plot" in your new eBook -- so please tell me which files I am missing that have to be reviewed before making a judgment. is it Rousselot (the key figure since he supposedly provided the money and the encouragement to the foot soldiers?) Is it Edwin Walker? Is it Robert Welch? Is it JBS? WHICH files do I need to review that I have not seen?

2/3 -- Not sure I understand your first point. Yes, I am emphatic about some matters because I have a lot of personal experience with respect to those matters. I am not "losing" my cool. I am asking you probing questions and I am attempting to demonstrate why your "logic" is flawed. Let's stop the personal psychological analysis and just concentrate on EVIDENCE -- ok?

WESLEY GRAPP: Hmm---very strange argument. Harry's "revelations" were "so weighty that they had to be locked up for 75 years". Oh really? Where do you get that from? Which specific Grapp documents are you referring to? And if they are so "weighty" why did Grapp immediately dismiss Harry's comments as worthless speculation? Are you also telling me that there is nothing in Wesley Grapp's personnel file which mentions Harry because whatever was there re: Harry will have been purged? OR are you telling me that my FOIA request for Grapp's file will be denied?

JFK REVELATIONS/JBS MEMBERS: Of course there are references to JBS members. Some of them testified before the Warren Commission. So what? See my separate message (posted a few minutes ago) where I address your argument about the JBS-related files which originally contained Harry's "reports" but which have had Harry's reports purged.

HARRY's NARRATIVE: Yes---like almost all memoirs, comments are based upon subjective recollections -- although it is somewhat strange that Harry kept no contemporaneous written notes of any kind on such momentous events which he claims to have witnessed (and participated in) personally. Thanks for acknowledging that Harry recalled only "bits and pieces" and not word-for-word direct quotations. Which is why I object to the use of quotation marks in your eBook. I suggest you review any standard "Style Guide" for reporting such as the Chicago Manual of Style or Strunk's "Elements of Style". There is no "FBI standard" for such reporting -- only normal rules of evidence and logic as discussed in Stylebooks. Quotation marks are used to attribute literal actual verbatim word-for-word comments -- not paraphrases. [They also can be used to sarcastically refer to what someone claims to be factual but is not].

FD-71: It is totally irrelevant if Harry knows what an FD-71 is. My point (surely you understood this?) is that FBI SPECIAL AGENTS were all trained to use that form to record their contacts with the public. With respect to your comment about such a form being "classified" (and withheld) -- see my recent message which addresses the matter of purging files of ultra-sensitive serials.

GRAPP RETURN TO OFFICE: Yes, you have no knowledge about it. But, significantly, no such forms exist in the JBS-related files I have seen where Harry's "reports" should appear -- and there are no serial gaps other than the ones I previously identified. So come up with a plausible explanation for that.

HOOVER'S THEORY: Who cares? We are not discussing HIS theory. We are discussing FBI filing practices and procedures. Hoover did not review every FBI file to see how Agents recorded information on their FD-71's. In fact, he never saw an FD-71. He saw summary memos and reports prepared by his SAC's. Also---your comment about what Agents were allowed to "pursue" is totally ridiculous. They pursued whatever leads came into their office and they memorialized those contacts in memos, reports, and FD-71 forms. Otherwise, nobody could write anything factual about FBI history. My suggestion to you is this: contact ANY historian or political scientist of your choice who has specialized in researching FBI history (especially those who are obviously HOSTILE toward Hoover) and ask them if they agree with your theory that Agents would not pursue incoming leads or HQ and field office main files would be purged of ultra-sensitive information so that none of it could be found. Then let us know the result. Keep in mind that when all these events occurred, there was no such thing as a Freedom of Information Act so there was no possibility of anything in FBI files ever being made public unless the Bureau shared it with another agency and it leaked -- which did happen a few times.

YEAR 2038: Which documents (exactly) are you expecting to be available in 2038 that are not currently available and will not be available by 2017 -- which is the date specified in the 1992 JFK law? I disagree with your predicate re: your theory being "proven right or wrong at that time". I won't be alive to see it but I guarantee you that when the evidence is not found, a NEW conspiracy theory will surface which "explains" why the documentation does not exist to "prove" your theory.

FALSIFIABLE THEORY: Paul, I don't think you even understand the actual meaning of the word "theory". I suggest you read Karl Popper.

1. Ernie, you're right, you do repeat yourself a lot -- and that still doesn't convince me. Here's a hint -- logic and evidence will convince me, but repetition has no effect at all.

Although I'm clearly not as familiar with FBI operating procedures as you are, Ernie, I continue to doubt that your knowledge of FBI SOP is equivalent to that of a senior FBI agent. That is, I believe there are still some things about the FBI that you don't know about. For example, does Top Secret National Security trump the so-called Mandatory Declassification policies that the FBI observes, or not? You seem to think not.

I have no idea why you ask me to produce FBI records about the JBS, Ernie. I have only a fraction of what others have found, and I got mine from others. I've no doubt that you have more than I do -- however, I doubt that you have all of them PERIOD.

As for the main players in the JFK assassination identified by Harry Dean in his latest true story, "Confessions," by far the major player is the resigned General Edwin Walker -- the only US General to resign in the 20th century. If you'd be willing to review what you have on Walker for us, Ernie, then that would buy a great deal of good will around here.

2/3. I'm very happy to concentrate on the EVIDENCE and stop the personal jabs.

As for my claim that Harry's revelations to FBI SAC Wesley Grapp were so weighty that they had to be locked up for 75 years, I find that this follows logically from my premises: (i) that Harry Dean is telling the truth; and (ii) that nobody has been able to find Wesley Grapp's file on Hary Dean (to the best of my knowledge).

If that file exists, and if Wesley Grapp reported something directly contrary to what Harry Dean told me -- then I will admit that this falsifies my theory. Until then, the jury is still out.

Also, I never said that Grapp would "immediately dismiss Harry's comments as worthless speculation." Those are your words, not mine. My report, from Harry, was that Grapp TOLD HARRY to drop the story, and forget about it. This is different from saying that FBI SAC Wesley Grapp himself forgot about it. For all I know, Grapp might have written a 200 page report about it. (If so, I'd pay a lot of money to read that report.)

So, Ernie, I'm saying that one of three scenarios is likely in the case of an FOIA request for a classfied JFK-assassination-related FBI document by Wesley Grapp involving Harry Dean: (i) the FBI will deny the FOIA request; (ii) the FBI will claim that such a file never existed; or (iii) the FBI will say that the file was destroyed.

HARRY's NARRATIVE: I don't see why you find it "strange" that Harry kept no notes about these events, Ernie. Harry wrote poems, but as for historical records, Harry depended on other people to record the facts about history. Many people just don't keep journals, Ernie, but that doesn't make their behavior "strange."

FD-71: It is relevant if Harry knows what an FD-71 is, but didn't tell me about it. I'm sure that every FBI SAC knows what it is -- but I didn't interview a single FBI agent in the course of my work with Harry. I only interviewed Harry.

GRAPP RETURN TO OFFICE: Evidently, Ernie, you think that Grapp's report should have been cross-filed under the JBS files, and therefore there should be 'gaps' where they were later removed to be placed in a top secret classfied file. You see no gaps and you want an explanation.

Well, if I were to imagine a plausible explanation, I'd say that the JFK assassination was a special case, and that all files relating to it -- and to the principals involved -- would never appear in an ordinary cross-file index of other files. Or, in cases where such cross-filing occurred after-the-fact, the records would be modified, possibly by substituting another document in its place. In short, the JFK assassination was unique in the entire history of FBI record keeping, and marks the unique exception to all subordinate FBI policies and procedures.

HOOVER'S THEORY: Again, Ernie, I'm not claiming that FBI Agents would neglect or purge JFK-related information, but might plausibly treat JFK related files differently than other files. It might be simply Hollywood hype, but the recent movie about J. Edgar Hoover by Clint Eastwood portrayed that Hoover kept top secret files in his private office -- which were shredded on the day he died. I sort of doubt the shredding claim, but I find it plausible that Hoover kept top secret documents in his private office, and that the FBI had a super-secret procedure for dealing with such records.

YEAR 2038: You mention a 2017 date -- so, am I behind the times? Are we to hope that all FBI and CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald will be released in only four more years? If so, then my theory could be proven right or wrong at that time!

FALSIFIABLE THEORY: Ernie, I've read Karl Popper and I was unimpressed. I'm a student of formal logic and I far prefer Bertrand Russell (who was also a JFK conspiracy buff).

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 9, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Incidentally, I forgot to comment about one other aspect of your "theory" regarding documents not being made available i.e. being purged from their original files and moved into a non-releasable JFK-assassination file.

According to YOUR theory, documents which originally were serialized into their appropriate subject main files (such as on JBS or on Rousselot or on Walker, etc.) have been ripped out of their original main files and transferred into a "classified" JFK-type file so that the FBI can refuse to release all of them for "national security" reasons.

There are two HUGE problems with your "theory"

1. As I previously noted, the missing serials would become obvious because there would be gaps in the chronological sequence of the serials appearing in main files from which those serials were purged.

EXAMPLE: Suppose Harry made 4 "reports" to Grapp or to the Los Angeles field office on John Rousselot over a period of 4 different months. Let's say, for sake of our discussion, that the original serials in the Rousselot main file were numbered, #4, #8, #10, and #12 but they were removed (AND any copies of those same serials were also removed from related JBS files (HQ and Los Angeles).

2. If that were the case, then when a requester received Rousselot's HQ main file, there would be a serial number-gap, i.e. serials 4, 8, 10 and 12 would be missing....AND... the FBI would substitute its "deleted page" notice to indicate why those serials were missing and where they went to. [usually, the notice specifies the new file number to which the serials were transferred).

3. Meanwhile, the secondary main files (such as JBS main file) would also have those Rousselot serials purged -- so there would be yet another gap in the chronological sequence of those serials -- along with yet more "deleted page" notices to indicate why those serials were removed and where they were transferred.

In fact, a secondary file normally has wording such as follows handwritten along the right side of each document:

"Original copy filed in..." (enter file number here)

4. To make this even more clear, I am attaching to this message a copy of serial #1007 dated 9/3/58 which appears in the American Bar Association main file which is HQ file 94-1-369. Notice the comment along right margin which says "Original copy filed in 94-8-43-129".

So, this document originated in that file (as serial #129) but a copy of that serial was placed into the ABA file where it was serial #1007. From the content of the serial and its 94-prefix number, I suspect that the original serial was placed in the FBI HQ file on the "Legislative Subcommittee on Criminal Law Enforcement in California".

Now---if for some reason, the original file serial (#129) was purged from its main file, then there would be a gap in the numerical sequence of that file and you would receive a deleted page notice from the FBI to explain what happened.

Similarly, if the FBI also decided to purge serial #1007 from the secondary ABA file because it referenced ultra-sensitive information from serial #129 of the original file, then there would be a gap in the numerical sequence of the serials in the ABA file -- which would also have a deleted page notice to advise the requester what happened.

SO, Paul, for YOUR theory to be reasonable and plausible, you would have to explain WHY NO SUCH GAPS exist in JBS-related files -- EXCEPT for (1) serials which were referred to their originating agency -- such as IRS or State Department or military intelligence for their review before being released and (2) serials which duplicated information already provided in another serial.

In summary -- ALL the main files which originally contained Harry's "reports" would have numerical gaps -- because (according to your theory) those hyper-sensitive documents were purged from their original files so that they could be placed into a non-releasable JFK-assassination file.

You have no explanation for the ABSENCE of such numerical gaps, do you?? But I imagine you are prepared to INVENT something.

Ernie, there are several problems in the scenario you imagined.

(I) Do you have any proof that the "serial number" methodology that you described was used in the case of JFK assassination files? Have you seen even one single example to back up your claim? Or are you continuing to rely on your presumptions and assumptions?

I'll bet that you have no proof. The example you did share with us had nothing to do with the JFK assassination, so it really doesn't apply to this case.

(II) Do you have any evidence from the FBI Rousselot files, or the FBI John Birch Society files, to suggest that you've accounted for all the gaps? I ask because you're citing the Rousselot and JBS files as if you've seen each and every single one of them, and that there's nothing about the FBI methods that you haven't observed.

It seems that you believe that although the FBI did not show you their top secret files, however, they did allow you to see seams and stitches in their framework that would suggest to you which documents from which files were removed to a top secret file. Is this what you suggest?

Because if that's not what you're suggesting, Ernie, then you're merely saying that you know the FBI record-keeping methods that they allow the public to see -- and as for top secret methods, you're only guessing that the FBI adheres to precisely the same methods, without the slightest variation.

(III) Therefore, Ernie, I don't need to explain one single thing about gaps in the JBS-related files. The burden of proof remains on your shoulders to prove that FBI Top Secret classified procedures conform to the model that you've seen in less secure files.

Nor do I need to INVENT anything; and actually you're making assumptions about FBI top secret methods that amount to your own INVENTION.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul--

(1) All my comments are based upon 33 years of actual experience dealing with FBI filing practices. There are no "assumptions" or "guesses" or "speculation" here. You ask for "one single example" -- but I have provided you with multiple examples. Do you recall my previous message where I told you about the one 1960 serial on the JBS which was located in FIVE different main files which I received. That same memo probably appears in more files -- such as on the other individuals mentioned in the memo (Adolphe Menjou, Zasu Pitts, Morrie Ryskind). I also attached a copy of the American Bar Association serial to one of my messags to show you standard Bureau practice which identified the original file from which any particular serial came. Just appy common sense and logic Paul...If ANY of those JBS serials were "purged" (after November 1963) to be placed into a non-releasable JFK-file, then, obviously, there would be gaps in the numerical sequence of the original JBS file serials. I have many THOUSANDS of "deleted page" notices so, yes, I know from actual experience how the FBI managed its files.

((2) the JFK assassination files came into existence AFTER November 22, 1963, right?

So your first question does not have any relevance to Harry's alleged reports to Grapp (or others) BEFORE November 22, 1963 because if he submitted a report on (for example), John Rousselot or Edwin Walker or Robert Welch (in, say, August, September or October), then those "reports" would have been serialized into their appropriate HQ and/or field office main files ALONG WITH being filed into appropriate secondary files.

Standard Bureau filing practice filed copies of memos or reports in the main subject file as well as into related subsidiary files. THUS: a report on an individual would also be placed into a file about the organization(s) which that individual belonged to (particularly if he was an officer of the organization) and reports about organizations often included copies of serials which originated in main files which were created on the officers of that organization.

Also, sometimes a new main file was created just for a publication published by an organization. EXAMPLE: The FBI created a file on the John Birch Society Bulletin, on its magazines, American Opinion and Review of the News and on Welch's "private letter" The Politician The FBI even created main files on JBS-promoted filmstrips such as "Communism on the Map" and "Anarchy USA"

The FBI also created files on many JBS-front groups (such as TACT -- Truth About Civil Turmoil). And, of course, individual files were created on numerous JBS members. I have even seen individual main files created for specific articles appearing in JBS publications because the Bureau received inquiries about the article OR it contained information which the FBI wanted to index and monitor (usually about left-wing radical groups).

As previously mentioned, a report on Rousselot would be in his main HQ file and copies of that same document usually would be placed into his Los Angeles field file along with the HQ and field files on the JBS PLUS any other subjects which Harry mentioned during the course of his report on Rousselot.

For example, if Harry mentioned Edwin Walker or Guy Galbadon and their connections to a JBS-plot, then copies of those Rousselot memos or reports would be filed into the Walker and Galbadon files.

One reason why the FBI cross-referenced data so extensively is so that they could quickly know where original information came from. This was particularly important for future use in "applicant" type investigations or Presidential appointments. Example: when President Reagan appointed Rousselot as Special Assistant to the President, the FBI would want to know quickly what information it had on Rousselot's background and history without searching through potentially dozens of different files. IF, as you suggest, there was a "TOP SECRET" file pertaining to Rousselot's connection to (and financing) of a murder plot against JFK -- then, obviously, Rousselot would have had ZERO chance of being appointed to anything -- much less as Special Assistant to President Reagan!

Let me also mention for clarity that when I use the term "FBI file" -- that does not always mean a large collection of documents. Sometimes, a main file only had 20-30 pages of material and then the file was closed.

2. What "gaps" are you referring to? The only "gaps" in my files are what I told you about, i.e.

(1) serials that were initially withheld because they were routed to the agency which originated the information since they had the responsibility for authorizing release. Usually, those serials show up within a time period ranging from a few weeks to almost a year -- depending upon the workload of the originating agency. CIA, for example, often takes a year or more to release documents that were referred to them by the FBI for review and

(2) the other "gap" consists of serials which duplicate what already has been released. Example: Suppose HQ types up a summary memo which quotes verbatim all the relevant data from a field office report it received. The HQ main file has both the original field office report AND the subsequent HQ summary memo which regurgitates the exact same information appearing in the field office document. So, if a requester asks that duplicate documents be withheld, then the FBI will eliminate one of those documents (probably the field office document) because it just duplicates the info already copied into the HQ file document.

(3) Another good example is something that astounded me when I first discovered it. FBI HQ routinely decided to have its clerical staff TYPE the text of all incoming hand-written correspondence. So, a requester has a choice to make. Do you want to pay 10 cents per page for the original handwritten document and mailing envelope (which might be 5 or 10 pages in length) and then also pay another 10 cents for the typed "true copy" version? OR would you prefer to save some money and ask the FBI to process only the typed "true copy". I have done both. My FBI HQ main file on JBS contains both handwritten and typed "true copies" for the first 12 years (i.e. up to about 1970); then I asked the Bureau to process only typed true copies of incoming correspondence to save me reproduction costs. One other similar example: The FBI was in the habit of having its clerical staff type out the entire text of newspaper articles and incorporate that text into its summary memos. The actual original newspaper article would then be placed in a sub-A file or sub-B file.

You refer to the example I used being irrelevant. I assume you mean the ABA document? I used it because it was easy to find it quickly. But you are welcome to review any or all of my JBS files posted online and you will see comparable examples of everything I have described to you. You will see

1. documents which are marked "referral/consult" -- which means the document had to be referred to the originating agency for further processing

2. documents which contain "original filed in file #" -- to reflect where the original serial was located and only a copy was placed into a JBS file

3. files which contain "search slips" showing how FBI clerks searched for all possible name combinations to locate documents on any specific subject matter

4. documents marked "confidential" or "secret" which contain "declassified" notations with the date when the declassification took place

5. a HUGE number of FD-71's where FBI Special Agents recorded all details concerning their contacts with the public [there was also another similar form used called "Agent Report]

I attach one copy of an older version of the "deleted page" advisory -- this one is from the Boston field file on the Birch Society. The newer versions are usually inserted into the file at at the specific point where the deleted serial appears and it usually contains the file number to which it was transferred. Obviously, I never anticipated having to keep notes on "deleted page" advisory notices from hundreds of FBI files so perhaps this won't suffice for your purposes.

With respect to "gaps", JBS-related files do not usually contain a lot of "gaps". Most of the time, the "gap" is a referral to the original agency or it refers to a duplicate document. However, the cover letter which accompanies every FBI release states the total number of responsive pages found and then the total number of pages released.

I attach one example of a cover page --- i.e. the San Francisco field file on the JBS. (I've excised my address). As you can see, 144 pages were found and 144 pages were released. It would take me hours of research (not to mention considerable physical hardship) to find every JBS-related cover letter I have received during the past 33 years -- since all of my paper documents are stored in boxes, I'm sorry if you do not believe me -- but the easiest way for you to discover the truth is simply to review FBI files posted online. ALSO: I suggest you go to the "Government Attic" website http://www.governmentattic.org/DocumentsDoJ.html and review some of the FBI files they have posted online. You can see cover letters and deleted page notices. If you really want to see "TOP SECRET" files (declassified and released) -- take a look at the FBI "Bureau War Plans" posted online by Government Attic.

TOP SECRET: There are no JBS files I have seen which are marked "Top Secret" although occasionally a specific document in the file is so marked -- for example, many JBS files contain reports on CPUSA meetings and those CPUSA documents are sometimes marked Top Secret because of the sensitivity of the information and how it was obtained, i.e. by ELSUR (electronic surveillance) or mail covers (Post Office monitoring of incoming and outgoing mail), and/or via specific very important moles inside the Party (such as the Childs brothers). However, as previously noted, the FBI files on the Childs brothers are now available even when documents were originally classified "Top Secret". Also check out the various "TOP SECRET" files (de-classified and released) which appear on the National Security Archive website. http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/index.html

Paul -- since you ADMIT that you have never seen any of these "withheld" files -- then you have no way to know how they are marked, i.e. what classification.

I assume that you do not have any Q-security clearance, right? Nor an SCI or SAP clearance?

If I am correct, then you will NEVER be allowed to see such sensitive information. But as I previously have stated repeatedly, NONE of the JBS-related files are subject to your assumptions. As stated before, the FBI was not even investigating the JBS. Nor were they investigating Rousselot (other than his background check when Reagan appointed him). Nor was any file on Robert Welch marked "TOP SECRET" -- because there was no "investigation" on him after the brief preliminary inquiry into JBS. -- so there would be no reason to mark anything "TOP SECRET"

So, I guess your argument comes down to Edwin Walker and Guy Galbadon?

IF, as you suggest, there are "TOP SECRET" files on one or both of them, then if you make an FOIA request, you will receive a letter stating something to the effect that they located responsive files but all of them are being denied and then they will cite the specific FOIA Exemption Code which is applicable.

The most likely code (given your theory) would be "B7" -- i.e. EXEMPT because "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes...the production of such law enforcement records or information (_A_) could be reasonably expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (_B_) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial...(_C_) could be reasonably expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (_D_) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis...(_E_) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigation or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (_F_) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."

The problem which you have to confront, however, with respect to the "B7" exemption is that, normally, all those criteria (listed above) apply to CURRENT law enforcement proceedings -- not to 40 or 50 year old records and not records which are subject to automatic declassification, and not records which, per the 1992 JFK Law, have already been released (and exist at Presidential libraries for example) or will be released by 2017.

Deleted Page Advisory.PDF

JBS-SFO cover page.PDF

Edited November 5, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Steve Rosen]

There are a few documents at the National Archives JFK Collection on Harry J. Dean that aren't on www.MaryFerrell.org.

There is also one HSCA document on Dean that is "postponed in full".

It is a 1977 memo to Robert K. Tanenbaum, chief investigator under Richard Sprague, about an interview with Harry J. Dean (presumably) done by Kenneth Klein, about Dean, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and the FBI.

These documents can easily be found searching the online JFK NARA database, using the expert search, for Harry and Dean and "Referred" in the Restrictions box.

See http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/search.html

- Steve

Edited November 5, 2013 by Steve Rosen

[Ernie Lazar]

1. Paul, it is YOUR reasoning and logic which are subject to rigorous examination (and dispute).

A "mistake" happens when you unintentionally make a statement which is not true. But I have REPEATEDLY made statements in this thread that contradict what you claim I believe or that you claim I have written.

Paul. you cannot make a broad, generalized statement and then pretend that it applies to everything inconvenient to your argument. You do not appear to be familiar with the FBI's declassification of files. Let me correct that last statement. You do not appear to be familiar with Mandatory Declassification policies employed throughout the United States government.

MY "EXAGGERATIONS" ABOUT RELATED JBS FILES: OK---I am willing to entertain your criticism. Tell me which files I have not seen (and you have) which I need to see in order to make an informed and more fact-based judgment. In other words, where do these "reports" by Harry exist? In which specific files?(be as clear as possible). Harry has identified the main actors in the "plot" in your new eBook -- so please tell me which files I am missing that have to be reviewed before making a judgment. is it Rousselot (the key figure since he supposedly provided the money and the encouragement to the foot soldiers?) Is it Edwin Walker? Is it Robert Welch? Is it JBS? WHICH files do I need to review that I have not seen?

2/3 -- Not sure I understand your first point. Yes, I am emphatic about some matters because I have a lot of personal experience with respect to those matters. I am not "losing" my cool. I am asking you probing questions and I am attempting to demonstrate why your "logic" is flawed. Let's stop the personal psychological analysis and just concentrate on EVIDENCE -- ok?

WESLEY GRAPP: Hmm---very strange argument. Harry's "revelations" were "so weighty that they had to be locked up for 75 years". Oh really? Where do you get that from? Which specific Grapp documents are you referring to? And if they are so "weighty" why did Grapp immediately dismiss Harry's comments as worthless speculation? Are you also telling me that there is nothing in Wesley Grapp's personnel file which mentions Harry because whatever was there re: Harry will have been purged? OR are you telling me that my FOIA request for Grapp's file will be denied?

JFK REVELATIONS/JBS MEMBERS: Of course there are references to JBS members. Some of them testified before the Warren Commission. So what? See my separate message (posted a few minutes ago) where I address your argument about the JBS-related files which originally contained Harry's "reports" but which have had Harry's reports purged.

HARRY's NARRATIVE: Yes---like almost all memoirs, comments are based upon subjective recollections -- although it is somewhat strange that Harry kept no contemporaneous written notes of any kind on such momentous events which he claims to have witnessed (and participated in) personally. Thanks for acknowledging that Harry recalled only "bits and pieces" and not word-for-word direct quotations. Which is why I object to the use of quotation marks in your eBook. I suggest you review any standard "Style Guide" for reporting such as the Chicago Manual of Style or Strunk's "Elements of Style". There is no "FBI standard" for such reporting -- only normal rules of evidence and logic as discussed in Stylebooks. Quotation marks are used to attribute literal actual verbatim word-for-word comments -- not paraphrases. [They also can be used to sarcastically refer to what someone claims to be factual but is not].

FD-71: It is totally irrelevant if Harry knows what an FD-71 is. My point (surely you understood this?) is that FBI SPECIAL AGENTS were all trained to use that form to record their contacts with the public. With respect to your comment about such a form being "classified" (and withheld) -- see my recent message which addresses the matter of purging files of ultra-sensitive serials.

GRAPP RETURN TO OFFICE: Yes, you have no knowledge about it. But, significantly, no such forms exist in the JBS-related files I have seen where Harry's "reports" should appear -- and there are no serial gaps other than the ones I previously identified. So come up with a plausible explanation for that.

HOOVER'S THEORY: Who cares? We are not discussing HIS theory. We are discussing FBI filing practices and procedures. Hoover did not review every FBI file to see how Agents recorded information on their FD-71's. In fact, he never saw an FD-71. He saw summary memos and reports prepared by his SAC's. Also---your comment about what Agents were allowed to "pursue" is totally ridiculous. They pursued whatever leads came into their office and they memorialized those contacts in memos, reports, and FD-71 forms. Otherwise, nobody could write anything factual about FBI history. My suggestion to you is this: contact ANY historian or political scientist of your choice who has specialized in researching FBI history (especially those who are obviously HOSTILE toward Hoover) and ask them if they agree with your theory that Agents would not pursue incoming leads or HQ and field office main files would be purged of ultra-sensitive information so that none of it could be found. Then let us know the result. Keep in mind that when all these events occurred, there was no such thing as a Freedom of Information Act so there was no possibility of anything in FBI files ever being made public unless the Bureau shared it with another agency and it leaked -- which did happen a few times.

YEAR 2038: Which documents (exactly) are you expecting to be available in 2038 that are not currently available and will not be available by 2017 -- which is the date specified in the 1992 JFK law? I disagree with your predicate re: your theory being "proven right or wrong at that time". I won't be alive to see it but I guarantee you that when the evidence is not found, a NEW conspiracy theory will surface which "explains" why the documentation does not exist to "prove" your theory.

FALSIFIABLE THEORY: Paul, I don't think you even understand the actual meaning of the word "theory". I suggest you read Karl Popper.

1. Ernie, you're right, you do repeat yourself a lot -- and that still doesn't convince me. Here's a hint -- logic and evidence will convince me, but repetition has no effect at all.

Although I'm clearly not as familiar with FBI operating procedures as you are, Ernie, I continue to doubt that your knowledge of FBI SOP is equivalent to that of a senior FBI agent. That is, I believe there are still some things about the FBI that you don't know about. For example, does Top Secret National Security trump the so-called Mandatory Declassification policies that the FBI observes, or not? You seem to think not.

I have no idea why you ask me to produce FBI records about the JBS, Ernie. I have only a fraction of what others have found, and I got mine from others. I've no doubt that you have more than I do -- however, I doubt that you have all of them PERIOD.

As for the main players in the JFK assassination identified by Harry Dean in his latest true story, "Confessions," by far the major player is the resigned General Edwin Walker -- the only US General to resign in the 20th century. If you'd be willing to review what you have on Walker for us, Ernie, then that would buy a great deal of good will around here.

2/3. I'm very happy to concentrate on the EVIDENCE and stop the personal jabs.

As for my claim that Harry's revelations to FBI SAC Wesley Grapp were so weighty that they had to be locked up for 75 years, I find that this follows logically from my premises: (i) that Harry Dean is telling the truth; and (ii) that nobody has been able to find Wesley Grapp's file on Hary Dean (to the best of my knowledge).

If that file exists, and if Wesley Grapp reported something directly contrary to what Harry Dean told me -- then I will admit that this falsifies my theory. Until then, the jury is still out.

Also, I never said that Grapp would "immediately dismiss Harry's comments as worthless speculation." Those are your words, not mine. My report, from Harry, was that Grapp TOLD HARRY to drop the story, and forget about it. This is different from saying that FBI SAC Wesley Grapp himself forgot about it. For all I know, Grapp might have written a 200 page report about it. (If so, I'd pay a lot of money to read that report.)

So, Ernie, I'm saying that one of three scenarios is likely in the case of an FOIA request for a classfied JFK-assassination-related FBI document by Wesley Grapp involving Harry Dean: (i) the FBI will deny the FOIA request; (ii) the FBI will claim that such a file never existed; or (iii) the FBI will say that the file was destroyed.

HARRY's NARRATIVE: I don't see why you find it "strange" that Harry kept no notes about these events, Ernie. Harry wrote poems, but as for historical records, Harry depended on other people to record the facts about history. Many people just don't keep journals, Ernie, but that doesn't make their behavior "strange."

FD-71: It is relevant if Harry knows what an FD-71 is, but didn't tell me about it. I'm sure that every FBI SAC knows what it is -- but I didn't interview a single FBI agent in the course of my work with Harry. I only interviewed Harry.

GRAPP RETURN TO OFFICE: Evidently, Ernie, you think that Grapp's report should have been cross-filed under the JBS files, and therefore there should be 'gaps' where they were later removed to be placed in a top secret classfied file. You see no gaps and you want an explanation.

Well, if I were to imagine a plausible explanation, I'd say that the JFK assassination was a special case, and that all files relating to it -- and to the principals involved -- would never appear in an ordinary cross-file index of other files. Or, in cases where such cross-filing occurred after-the-fact, the records would be modified, possibly by substituting another document in its place. In short, the JFK assassination was unique in the entire history of FBI record keeping, and marks the unique exception to all subordinate FBI policies and procedures.

HOOVER'S THEORY: Again, Ernie, I'm not claiming that FBI Agents would neglect or purge JFK-related information, but might plausibly treat JFK related files differently than other files. It might be simply Hollywood hype, but the recent movie about JFK by Clint Eastwood portrayed that Hoover kept top secret files in his private office -- which were shredded on the day he died. I sort of doubt the shredding claim, but I find it plausible that Hoover kept top secret documents in his private office, and that the FBI had a super-secret procedure for dealing with such records.

YEAR 2038: You mention a 2017 date -- so, am I behind the times? Are we to hope that all FBI and CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald will be released in only four more years? If so, then my theory could be proven right or wrong at that time!

FALSIFIABLE THEORY: Ernie, I've read Karl Popper and I was unimpressed. I'm a student of formal logic and I far prefer Bertrand Russell (who was also a JFK conspiracy buff).

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. There are many things about the FBI which I do not know -- I am the first person to admit that. But, Paul, no historian or political scientist familiar with FBI history has ever made the assertions which are essential to your theory. As I previously suggested, why don't you contact someone like Dr. Athan Theoharis, who is arguably our nation's most prominent expert about FBI history and FBI filing practices and ask him if he agrees with your premises and conclusions. Theoharis spent his entire academic career researching and writing about FBI history. Much of what we know about FBI abuses is due to his research. [Don't get me wrong....there are convoluted filing practices for stuff the FBI wanted segregated outside its normal filing system -- such as documents marked "JUNE mail" for information acquired by wiretaps, bugs, break-ins etc.]

2. What do you mean by your comment "Wesley Grapp's file on Harry Dean"? Are you saying you have some knowledge about some specific personal file which Grapp created on Dean -- apart from the Los Angeles field file (100-12933) we know about?

3. Sorry Paul, but your "plausible explanation" regarding JFK-related files being "a special case" does not make much sense when you consider the logic. However, let's assume you are correct, ok? Let's assume that by some incredible procedure, the FBI tasked God-knows how many of its employees to go through every known file which contained documents which you think required "special handling" due to their ultra-sensitivity. Let's assume you are also correct that FBI employees "modified" records and "substituted" another document or changed serial numbers or whatever else you want to posit as an explanation.

Here is the next problem with your "plausible explanation". Are you saying that when FBI employees finished altering is own Central Records System as well as all of the individual index cards used by its 56 field offices -- then FBI employees were sent over to G-2 (Army Intelligence), ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence), OSI (Air Force Intelligence), and then the White House and/or Presidential libraries, plus over to the U.S. Secret Service -- and those employees spent months altering the record systems of all those agencies because they had to make sure that other agencies which received copies of FBI memos and reports were required to either destroy them OR alter them to reflect a new serial number or a new date or purge references which YOU think might confirm something which Harry reported?

We won't even get into how it might possible for such an enormous undertaking to take place for long periods of time but, somehow, no FBI employee (or any other agency employee) has ever come forward in 50 years to confirm your "plausible explanation.

4. HOOVER's "SECRET" FILES -- Yes, Hoover kept "Official and Confidential" files in his office. See: http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2005/nr05-89.html

And YES, Helen Gandy (Hoover's personal secretary for 54 years) destroyed what she described as Hoover's "personal papers" within hours of being notified about his death by Associate Director Tolson. She claimed the "personal papers" were only private correspondence between Hoover and his friends plus his tax returns and the like -- but many historians doubt her testimony.

5. 2017 date = Are you saying that you are not aware of the 1992 JFK Law or the NARA information whose link I previously gave you?

6. FALSIFIABLE THEORY: Sorry to learn that you don't think Karl Popper had anything useful to contribute. He is a well-known philosopher of science and he was particularly interested in the methods by which we confirm or falsify theories.

Conspiracy theories are largely works of fiction accompanied by kernels of fact--which is what makes them so alluring. A fiction writer creates a story-line and he then invents his villains and heroes, puts thoughts into their heads, words into their mouths, and motives into their hearts --- all of which moves along toward a pre-determined conclusion which is shared with readers.

That is why there is no way to falsify a conspiracy theory to the satisfaction of its author or adherents -- because all contradictory evidence will be ignored, dismissed, or de-valued. Nothing is allowed to diminish the theory. No test is permitted if it actually has the chance of disproving the theory.

You have said nothing I have presented has altered your viewpoints -- which I expected. The difference between your position and mine is epistemological, i.e. how we go about ascertaining what constitutes proof. You want to discard all existing knowledge about FBI filing practices and internal Bureau procedures. As you wrote, you want JFK-related matters to be considered a unique "special exception". Of course, you do not have any empirical evidence of that and nobody employed by the FBI has come forward to corroborate your theory about a upending of Bureau filing procedures and practices, but that doesn't matter because your primary focus is upon finding data which conforms to your basic "premise" that Harry "is telling the truth".

Incidentally, if I understand your position correctly, you are saying that Harry Dean is the ONLY person working with the FBI (i.e. regularly reporting to a Special Agent) who had any knowledge about the Birch Society "plot" to murder JFK?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you do not know of any other FBI employee (or any other FBI informant or Bureau information source) who confirms Harry's recollections regarding his meetings with Wesley Grapp? You also do not know of any friend of Harry's who can confirm that he saw Harry and Wesley Grapp meeting together in Harry's home or in Grapp's car or whatever? And you do not know of ANY documentary evidence in ANY FBI file or contained in any FBI memo which was sent outside the FBI to some other agency or to the White House which supports Harry's story about his "contacts" with Grapp?

HARRY'S NARRATIVE: Lastly, you say you don't think it is strange that Harry kept no contemporaneous notes about these events. Well, Paul, when people are involved in historical events (especially momentous plots which they witnessed or participated in) they often keep some sort of record. Doesn't have to be a journal. Might be an appointment book which lists dates/times of meetings, Perhaps a copy of a letter they wrote or a copy of a letter they received. Or, as I mentioned before, perhaps a Christmas card from somebody whom was a direct connection to the most important historical event of one's lifetime. To this day, men and women of my generation ask: "Where were you when Kennedy was shot?" Many Americans kept copies of their November 22 and 23 and 24, 1963 newspapers. So, yes, Paul, it does seem strange to me -- particularly given the ethos which FBI informants operated under because they were expected to be very detail-oriented.

In conclusion, I repeat a comment from a previous message. As you might expect, there are new books being published to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the assassination. Significantly, the ones I have seen do not even mention Harry Dean's story. I know what you will say about that --- but since scholars now have over 5 million pages of JFK-related papers available for research at NARA -- it does seem odd that nobody thinks Harry's story merits any serious attention -- not even as a footnote. Even the Wikipedia page which summarizes all the various JFK conspiracy theories does not mention Harry Dean -- unless you want to subsume Harry under the more generic anti-Castro Cubans theory.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

In conclusion, I repeat a comment from a previous message. As you might expect, there are new books being published to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the assassination. Significantly, the ones I have seen do not even mention Harry Dean's story. I know what you will say about that --- but since scholars now have over 5 million pages of JFK-related papers available for research at NARA -- it does seem odd that nobody thinks Harry's story merits any serious attention -- not even as a footnote. Even the Wikipedia page which summarizes all the various JFK conspiracy theories does not mention Harry Dean -- unless you want to subsume Harry under the more generic anti-Castro Cubans theory.

Ernie, it is significant that very few writers in the JFK assassination research field mention Harry Dean.

However, it is equally significant that very few writers in the JFK assassination research field mention General Walker.

It is equally significant that no JFK researcher in the past 50 years has solved the riddles of the JFK assassination.

It is also significant that the Warren Commission volumes mentioned General Walker more than 500 times, while the HSCA decided to ignore General Walker's testimony.

In my humble opinion, after years of reading JFK research books, General Walker has been overlooked in history.

If I am correct, this explains very well why Harry Dean has been overlooked in history -- because Harry's eye-witness confessions also place General Walker front and center in the JFK assassination scenario.

I suppose that it is difficult -- if not impossible -- for Americans to suspect one of the victorious Generals of WW2 of anything criminal. Only in the immediate wake of the JFK assassination would America tolerate the examination of General Walker.

In my humble opinion, General Edwin Walker got away with fomenting a riot at Ole Miss in 1962 in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. Also, General Walker got away with humiliating Adlai Stevenson in Dallas in October, 1963. Also, General Walker got away with making Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy of the Dallas plot against JFK in November, 1963.

We Americans honor our Generals -- and if he denied any wrong-doing in any of these cases, we are inclined to take him at his word. Harry Dean is, to the best of my knowledge, the only living eye-witness who challenges the testimony of General Walker to the Warren Commission. (By analogy, Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi is the only living eye-witness who challenges the testimony of General Walker to the Mississippi Grand Jury.)

It is the general consensus of this Forum that *one* of the conspiracy theories being circulated in America about the JFK assassination will be proved to be substantially true, while the others will be prove to be largely false.

According to you, Ernie, it should be impossible for any conspiracy theory to be true, because they are all based on closed-minded reasoning. Yet 20 years ago Robert MacNeil said on film: “We’ve seen revealed one conspiracy after another. Anybody would have to be a fool nowadays to dismiss conspiracies. Perhaps we lived in a fool’s paradise before the Kennedy assassination.”

Those are stronger words than I would have used, but Karl Popper's criteria are too abstract. What is needed is a logical method that is more concrete and realistic.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 9, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Before I ever knew him I had a thick file on Harry Dean of documents that were released under the JFK Act. I haven't looked at it in years, but the US government records on Harry Dean are extensive, and detail his role with FPCC in Chicago, his trip(s) to Cuba and his cooperation with various domestic intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI, and the use of him as a informant and agent provocateur.

...Harry Dean personally knew Hall and Howard and others who became entwined in the Dealey Plaza operation, so he is a valuable informant, especially to those who are interested in these affairs.

Since I have known Harry, I have found him to be an opinionated, but valuable source on the activities of the FPCC, JBS and other groups who were active in the Sixties and became entwined in the assassination events...

Bill Kelly

Bill, I'm interested in your claim that "the US government records on Harry Dean are extensive." Not only does this seem to marginalize Ernie Lazar's claims about the relative ABSENCE of material on Harry Dean in FBI files, but it also intrigues me as somebody who is interested in known accounts about Loran Hall and Larry Howard.

Are there links I can follow to see some of your writing on this topic?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 5, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[William Kelly]

I don't know if these docs are at Mary Ferrell or not, and have not revisited this in years, but I did locate a few redacted documents that I pulled out of Harry's file a few years ago to ask him about it - and got sidetracked.

In any case, here's one document from Harry's file that I pulled and wanted to ask him about.

Harry, did you write this letter or is it someone else who wrote it and your name is written in at the bottom for some other reason? And who redacted it? Thanks - BK

18109 xitina Dr.

La Xuente Calif.

Nov. 19, 1963

Director J. E. Hoover

F.B.I.

Washington D.C.

Dear Sir,

[REDACTED] 1960 [REDACTED] the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [REDACTED] information [REDACTED] local Chicago office of the Bureau. My present assignments [REDACTED] Los Angeles office [REDACTED] has this information.

[REDACTED] undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago [REDACTED] done in June 1961 because Eastland’s Committee was issuing subpoenas to hold hearing on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the 26th of July Movement ([REDACTED] moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time [REDACTED] I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports [REDACTED] released [REDACTED] making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] groups limiting my effectiveness.

[REDACTED] name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee’s report no.96465 part 2 pages 84 and 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level [REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact.

[REDACTED] that you will see to this urgent matter, [REDACTED]

J.R.

[REDACTED]

Harry J. Dean

Edited November 5, 2013 by William Kelly

[Harry J.Dean]

Yes, I wrote this 19 November 1963 note to Director Hoover. It is apparently redacted by the Bureau.

Sadly I do not have that or other like items after 1995 theft from my Victorville

Cal. storage unit. The police turned up nothing.

Harry

[Paul Brancato]

Harry - could you fill in any details on what you wrote?