The Ultimate USAEC secrets per the JFK hit.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

Johnson not only took immediate charge, he cleansed the limo, grabbed clothing from Henry Gonzales' possession and laundered it, had the SS (which he controlled) take possession of the body and mangle that evidence. Everything points to LBJ, not as plot instigator, but as the key coverup man, who BTW was the no. 1 beneficiary.

[Paul Brancato]

David - I agree completely.

Dale - certainly LBJ and those around him went into coverup mode immediately. Not sure whether LBJ ordered the limo and clothing evidence destroyed. This thread started off on a totally different path, but lately it's been about the CIA's possible guilt, and what relationship the ground crew might have had with CIA brass. What do you think?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - why are you so dead set on absolving high level CIA? You certainly know how the CIA works. You are well read on the subject, and are otherwise complementary of Garrison, Mellen, and others. No use countering this by suggesting that they, and many of us, certainly including myself, are fixated on laying blame at the top. They, we, myself, are just not able to ignore CIA SOP, plausible deniability. You have what you consider proof that Morales and possibly others, namely Phillips and Harvey, were involved, along with a cast of lower level operatives, informants, etc. You won't find proof that the ground crew was ordered, or 'encouraged', by top echelons. So what is the reason you choose to draw a hard line at Morales, who by the way was barely on your radar not too long ago? Lack of documented proof? You have no trouble believing Dean's story with so little FBI documentation, even claiming that lack of FBI documentation of his story means little. Do you view the FBI and CIA with different lenses?

Well, Paul B., there are many reasons I keep defending the CIA high-command:

(1) Most JFK Researchers have been blaming the CIA for the JFK murder since the days of Jim Garrison -- and this still hasn't solved the JFK murder.

(2) Blaming the CIA high-command for the JFK murder fails to satisfactorily identify the ground-crew.

(3) There is not enough hard evidence to blame the CIA high-command -- and researchers just feel free to express their political opinions about it. That's not good enough.

(4) It's easy -- all too easy -- to just blame the CIA and be done with it.

(5) The evidence being used to blame the CIA high-command is even shakier than the evidence used to blame Lee Harvey Oswald. It's hypocritical to demand solid evidence for Lee Harvey Oswald, but to accept shaky evidence for the CIA high-command.

(6) Suspicion is a far cry from hard evidence.

(7) Yes, Garrison was ahead of his time, and in fact in 1968 there was probably no other conclusion that a bright person could draw. Joan Mellen rode on the coat-tails of Jim Garrison, so that even in the 21st century she can make a considerable splash. But to blame the CIA with such shaky evidence was THE VERY REASON that Jim Garrison failed, and why Joan Mellen will also fail to solve the JFK murder.

(8) It's no use, Paul B., to simply say that the CIA SOP and plausible denial explains EVERYTHING and so that's that. I don't accept that. I demand something more solid.

(9) The good news is that there are more solid leads in the JFK murder -- just not surrounding the CIA high-command.

(10) No way do I ignore CIA SOP or plausible denial -- but I simply demand more.

(11) Yes, Morales and Hunt were clearly involved (by their own admission). But they were middle-level CIA officers.

(12) Maybe Phillips and Harvey were involved, but maybe not. Phillips was focused on killing Fidel Castro. So was Harvey before 1963, but in 1963 Harvey was drinking himself to death in Italy.

(13) I don't expect to find the magic memo showing that the ground crew was ordered by the CIA high-command -- but that's not the only criterion I would accept.

(14) There are material evidences that are available and that I use as logistics. For example, the timing of the shooting, the direction of the shots, the number of fake Secret Service Agents on the Grassy Knoll, the role of Jack Ruby, the role of the Dallas Police, the role of the Mayor, the role of the Police Chief, the political scandals of Dallas in the month before the shooting, the predominance of the ultra-right in Dallas, the lies of Edwin Walker, the connections of Edwin Walker with Guy Banister and with Gerry Patrick Hemming. There is just so much more to consider than the CIA high-command.

(15) The reason I draw such a hard-line at Morales and Hunt is because they CONFESSED, and I can't deny them.

(16) Also, Bill Simpich proved scientifically that CIA officers *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, trying to link his name to KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. Yet because Morales was also active in Mexico City (as in Latin America generally) by using OCCAM'S RAZOR I will posit that Morales was behind the impersonation, and that he used his own, lower-level "operatives" to help him there.

(17) I would deny all involvement of the CIA if I could -- but I can't. I must include Morales and Hunt and their immediate underlings and quislings. But they are far from the CIA high-command.

(18) The reason I'd absolve the CIA is simply to see how far the argument can go -- and to divert more energy and more focus on the non-CIA players, namely, the ultra-right wing activists in Dallas and New Orleans. Jim Garrison started this ball rolling, but he couldn't get any traction on Dallas, and so he had to give it up with a whimper.

(19) Bill Simpich proved that the CIA high-command started a mole-hunt looking for the *impersonators*. Now, since the impersonators were working hard to frame Oswald, and the CIA high-command had no idea who they were, then we should conclude (at least tentatively) that the CIA high-command was cut off from secret plans of David Morales. (Howard Hunt said he was on the sidelines, so possibly even Hunt didn't know everything that David Morales had planned.)

(20) As for Harry Dean's story -- perhaps you've been misled by Ernie Lazar -- the ample FBI documentation we have shows that the main contours of Harry's story stand firm -- he really was an FPCC Secretary, and he really did supply reports to the FBI about the FPCC. Harry really was a JBS/Minuteman pawn, and he really did supply reports to the FBP about the JBS/Minutemen. The FBI documents prove that all this is true.

(21) As for the crux of Harry Dean's story -- his eye-witness account of General Walker leading the plot against Lee Harvey Oswald -- I accept it because it fits in with my larger theory (which I developed before I met Harry Dean). As I said before, it's not Harry Dean that convinces me that General Walker was the leader of the JFK murder plot -- but the reverse -- Harry Dean only CONFIRMS what I already suspected based on evidence I found in General Walker's personal papers.

(22) As for how I view the FBI and CIA -- here's the explanation. I'm trying to develop a theory that focuses on the right-wing of 1963 in Dallas and New Orleans (and to a lesser extent in Southern California). That's my focus. The more time goes forward, the more confirmation I find. CIA Rogues were part of it, but even they were a MINOR part of it -- and not the leaders as Larry Hancock and Joan Mellen opine.

(23) The main push-back I get from JFK researchers is from: (i) those who want to blame the CIA and be done with it; (ii) those who want to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent; and (iii) those who want to blame LBJ. Sorry -- those theories just don't convince me. They are too facile. They don't dig deeply enough into the politics of 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

One of the best things that could happen in this very useful thread is for the chains of command between upper-echelon CIA and the "rogue" and "mercenary" operatives to be plotted, verbally and graphically.

Remember that both CIA officers and operatives had involvements and allegiances to personnel beyond the spheres of their direct superiors.

I agree with this, David. I would start by using official CIA titles and hierarchy as the apex. We would then see that the people named by Jim Garrison were never CIA officers at all. We would see that the people named by Joan Mellen were also below the level of CIA officer.

It would be very interesting to see this fully plotted out.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Johnson not only took immediate charge, he cleansed the limo, grabbed clothing from Henry Gonzales' possession and laundered it, had the SS (which he controlled) take possession of the body and mangle that evidence. Everything points to LBJ, not as plot instigator, but as the key coverup man, who BTW was the no. 1 beneficiary.

Dale, this is the proper objection to my theory -- namely -- the TIMING of the cover-up.

I am willing to retract my latest claims if you can show that any of these 11/22/1963 COVER-UP activities occurred before the HOOVER HOUR. How do I define the HOOVER HOUR?

J. Edgar Hoover decided approximately ONE HOUR after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, that there had to be one shooter and one shooter only, and that he could not have had any accomplices of any kind.

All accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald were to be officially DENIED, even forcefully so, decided Hoover. He immediately conveyed his reasoning to LBJ, and LBJ quickly accepted it. That was the start. That was the HOOVER HOUR.

Now - according to my theory, all of the COVER-UP activities that you mention occurred AFTER the HOOVER HOUR. This would have been by Presidential mandate, and would have been most thoroughly promoted by the FBI in the field, who would do literally anything for J. Edgar Hoover.

If somebody has hard evidence to show that any COVER-UP activities in the JFK murder occurred before that time, I will go back to the drawing board.

I don't think you can show it.

Because of Jim Garrison and also Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, there is a strong bias in the JFK Research community that the murderers of JFK and those who COVERED IT UP were exactly the same people -- all working together.

That is where Garrison went wrong, IMHO. The killers of JFK wanted to frame Oswald as a COMMUNIST. The Cover-up people wanted to demand that Oswald was a Lone Nut. They were AT ODDS.

LBJ and the FBI followed J. Edgar Hoover, it seems to me -- and this all began approximately ONE HOUR after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Why? In my theory, Hoover instantaneously realized WHO had killed JFK and WHY they did it -- to start a war with Cuba and the USSR. Hoover could not let them get away with it, because it would have led to World War Three. This is what he told LBJ, and LBJ sided with Hoover. I think history will bear me out on this.

THE US GOVERNMENT DID NOT LIE WHEN THEY SAID THAT SECRECY ABOUT THE JFK MURDER WAS A QUESTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul - why are you so dead set on absolving high level CIA? You certainly know how the CIA works. You are well read on the subject, and are otherwise complementary of Garrison, Mellen, and others. No use countering this by suggesting that they, and many of us, certainly including myself, are fixated on laying blame at the top. They, we, myself, are just not able to ignore CIA SOP, plausible deniability. You have what you consider proof that Morales and possibly others, namely Phillips and Harvey, were involved, along with a cast of lower level operatives, informants, etc. You won't find proof that the ground crew was ordered, or 'encouraged', by top echelons. So what is the reason you choose to draw a hard line at Morales, who by the way was barely on your radar not too long ago? Lack of documented proof? You have no trouble believing Dean's story with so little FBI documentation, even claiming that lack of FBI documentation of his story means little. Do you view the FBI and CIA with different lenses?

Well, Paul B., there are many reasons I keep defending the CIA high-command:

(1) Most JFK Researchers have been blaming the CIA for the JFK murder since the days of Jim Garrison -- and this still hasn't solved the JFK murder.

(2) Blaming the CIA high-command for the JFK murder fails to satisfactorily identify the ground-crew.

(3) There is not enough hard evidence to blame the CIA high-command -- and researchers just feel free to express their political opinions about it. That's not good enough.

(4) It's easy -- all too easy -- to just blame the CIA and be done with it.

(5) The evidence being used to blame the CIA high-command is even shakier than the evidence used to blame Lee Harvey Oswald. It's hypocritical to demand solid evidence for Lee Harvey Oswald, but to accept shaky evidence for the CIA high-command.

(6) Suspicion is a far cry from hard evidence.

(7) Yes, Garrison was ahead of his time, and in fact in 1968 there was probably no other conclusion that a bright person could draw. Joan Mellen rode on the coat-tails of Jim Garrison, so that even in the 21st century she can make a considerable splash. But to blame the CIA with such shaky evidence was THE VERY REASON that Jim Garrison failed, and why Joan Mellen will also fail to solve the JFK murder.

(8) It's no use, Paul B., to simply say that the CIA SOP and plausible denial explains EVERYTHING and so that's that. I don't accept that. I demand something more solid.

(9) The good news is that there are more solid leads in the JFK murder -- just not surrounding the CIA high-command.

(10) No way do I ignore CIA SOP or plausible denial -- but I simply demand more.

(11) Yes, Morales and Hunt were clearly involved (by their own admission). But they were middle-level CIA officers.

(12) Maybe Phillips and Harvey were involved, but maybe not. Phillips was focused on killing Fidel Castro. So was Harvey before 1963, but in 1963 Harvey was drinking himself to death in Italy.

(13) I don't expect to find the magic memo showing that the ground crew was ordered by the CIA high-command -- but that's not the only criterion I would accept.

(14) There are material evidences that are available and that I use as logistics. For example, the timing of the shooting, the direction of the shots, the number of fake Secret Service Agents on the Grassy Knoll, the role of Jack Ruby, the role of the Dallas Police, the role of the Mayor, the role of the Police Chief, the political scandals of Dallas in the month before the shooting, the predominance of the ultra-right in Dallas, the lies of Edwin Walker, the connections of Edwin Walker with Guy Banister and with Gerry Patrick Hemming. There is just so much more to consider than the CIA high-command.

(15) The reason I draw such a hard-line at Morales and Hunt is because they CONFESSED, and I can't deny them.

(16) Also, Bill Simpich proved scientifically that CIA officers *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, trying to link his name to KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. Yet because Morales was also active in Mexico City (as in Latin America generally) by using OCCAM'S RAZOR I will posit that Morales was behind the impersonation, and that he used his own, lower-level "operatives" to help him there.

(17) I would deny all involvement of the CIA if I could -- but I can't. I must include Morales and Hunt and their immediate underlings and quislings. But they are far from the CIA high-command.

(18) The reason I'd absolve the CIA is simply to see how far the argument can go -- and to divert more energy and more focus on the non-CIA players, namely, the ultra-right wing activists in Dallas and New Orleans. Jim Garrison started this ball rolling, but he couldn't get any traction on Dallas, and so he had to give it up with a whimper.

(19) Bill Simpich proved that the CIA high-command started a mole-hunt looking for the *impersonators*. Now, since the impersonators were working hard to frame Oswald, and the CIA high-command had no idea who they were, then we should conclude (at least tentatively) that the CIA high-command was cut off from secret plans of David Morales. (Howard Hunt said he was on the sidelines, so possibly even Hunt didn't know everything that David Morales had planned.)

(20) As for Harry Dean's story -- perhaps you've been misled by Ernie Lazar -- the ample FBI documentation we have shows that the main contours of Harry's story stand firm -- he really was an FPCC Secretary, and he really did supply reports to the FBI about the FPCC. Harry really was a JBS/Minuteman pawn, and he really did supply reports to the FBP about the JBS/Minutemen. The FBI documents prove that all this is true.

(21) As for the crux of Harry Dean's story -- his eye-witness account of General Walker leading the plot against Lee Harvey Oswald -- I accept it because it fits in with my larger theory (which I developed before I met Harry Dean). As I said before, it's not Harry Dean that convinces me that General Walker was the leader of the JFK murder plot -- but the reverse -- Harry Dean only CONFIRMS what I already suspected based on evidence I found in General Walker's personal papers.

(22) As for how I view the FBI and CIA -- here's the explanation. I'm trying to develop a theory that focuses on the right-wing of 1963 in Dallas and New Orleans (and to a lesser extent in Southern California). That's my focus. The more time goes forward, the more confirmation I find. CIA Rogues were part of it, but even they were a MINOR part of it -- and not the leaders as Larry Hancock and Joan Mellen opine.

(23) The main push-back I get from JFK researchers is from: (i) those who want to blame the CIA and be done with it; (ii) those who want to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent; and (iii) those who want to blame LBJ. Sorry -- those theories just don't convince me. They are too facile. They don't dig deeply enough into the politics of 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- with respect to point #20 in your message:

(20) As for Harry Dean's story -- perhaps you've been misled by Ernie Lazar -- the ample FBI documentation we have shows that the main contours of Harry's story stand firm -- he really was an FPCC Secretary, and he really did supply reports to the FBI about the FPCC. Harry really was a JBS/Minuteman pawn, and he really did supply reports to the FBP about the JBS/Minutemen. The FBI documents prove that all this is true.

1. There is no FBI document which establishes that Harry provided "reports to the FBI" regarding FPCC -- if by that comment you mean documents written by Harry or oral statements by Harry which the FBI then typed as official FBI reports.

Instead, in late 1963, Harry voluntarily provided some documents he had in his possession -- such as his FPCC and J26M dues payments receipts and copies of flyers prepared by FPCC in Chicago regarding FPCC meetings along with correspondence which Harry had with Juan Orta in Cuba, etc. Harry also made several phone calls to FBI-Chicago in 1960 but, at present, we do not have any specific FBI documents which indicate what, exactly, Harry said during his phone conversations --- other than him acknowledging that he was (for a period of time), "Secretary" of the Chicago chapter of FPCC.

If you are using the word "reports" in the most generic sense of that word, then one should acknowledge (for accuracy) that after Harry made his phone "reports" to the FBI in Chicago -- Agents of the Chicago field office told him that his assistance was NOT wanted. Which certainly indicates that his "reports" were not of any particular value. We also know from available documentary evidence that FBI-Chicago had many sources of information regarding the FPCC-Chicago chapter even before Harry began making phone calls to the FBI.

2. If you have ANY document which establishes that Harry "did supply reports to the FBI about the JBS/Minutemen" -- then please tell us specifically what they are.

Don't merely assert it. Please identify those documents by date and by FBI file and serial number.

Otherwise, you have NO documentary PROOF "that all this is true".

Edited September 3, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- with respect to point #20 in your message:

...If you are using the word "reports" in the most generic sense of that word, then one should acknowledge (for accuracy) that after Harry made his phone "reports" to the FBI in Chicago -- Agents of the Chicago field office told him that his assistance was NOT wanted. Which certainly indicates that his "reports" were not of any particular value. We also know from available documentary evidence that FBI-Chicago had many sources of information regarding the FPCC-Chicago chapter even before Harry began making phone calls to the FBI...

Yes, of course, Ernie, I'm using the word, "reports," in the most generic sense of that word.

I realize -- because you endlessly remind everyone here -- that the FBI themselves have very specific definitions for the terms "Report," and "Informant" and so on.

Yet I'm not speaking to the FBI. I'm speaking to ordinary English speakers, who are aware of the multiple meanings of English words, and don't need to be reminded to read in context.

The very EXISTENCE of dozens of documents from the FBI acknowledging that Harry Dean spoke to them about the FPCC and the John Birch Society is ample evidence for my statements -- and I don't need to catalog each document here (endlessly) to support every sentence I say. That has already been done (endlessly) in the context of this (very long) thread.

Harry Dean gave "information" (in the most generic sense of that word) to the FBI from 1961-1963 about the FPCC and the John Birch Society, and we have the FBI documents to prove it -- and no, I'm not going to catalog each and every one for this group of educated readers. They are already well-known.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

With respect Paul T, your response to my last post was unenlightening. Two main points:

1 - Morales and Hunt are not at all 'far from' CIA high command. They were top operational officers working directly for high command.

2 - Hancock has by no means absolved Angleton or Helms or Dulles.

[Paul Trejo]

With respect Paul T, your response to my last post was unenlightening. Two main points:

1 - Morales and Hunt are not at all 'far from' CIA high command. They were top operational officers working directly for high command.

2 - Hancock has by no means absolved Angleton or Helms or Dulles.

OK, Paul B., you don't agree with me -- but I'll respond to your two points.

(1) David Morales and Howard Hunt -- the only two CIA Officers who "confessed" to participation in the JFK murder -- were nevertheless not Directors or Assistant Directors. Nor were they even as high as Ted Shackley or William Harvey in authority. They were CIA Officers. They had a few subordinates -- and they had a budget with which to hire mercenaries, that is, "operatives" from among the Cuban Exile community and their hangers-on.

They were CIA Officers -- I grant you that. And they were certainly above the level of Non-CIA folks like Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, Loran Hall, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Larry Howard, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Edward Beckley.

But is that really saying very much? Frank Sturgis was a loose cannon. Loran Hall was arrested for drug trafficking more than once. Hemming was also arrested in questionable circumstances. David Ferrie and Jack S. Martin were competing to become Bishops in a mail order Church. Clay Shaw was more interested in the night-life of New Orleans than in anything else.

So, compared with this motley of rag-tag mercenaries, I must admit that David Morales and Howard Hunt seem elevated. However, compared with Allen Dulles, John McCone, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, George Joannides or Ted Shackley -- who were Directors, Assistant Directors and top-level Executives in the CIA -- can we really claim that David Morales, this expert in foreign political assassinations, was comparable to the CIA high-command? I don't think so.

Howard Hunt -- can we compare him to Allen Dulles? No way. Howard Hunt's peak had already passed by 1963, and his next major accomplishment in life was the Watergate burglary. Can this man be conflated with the CIA high-command? I don't think so.

They worked for the CIA high-command, but they were not themselves part of the CIA high-command. This was well demonstrated by Bill Simpich, who proved that the CIA high-command started a mole-hunt for whoever *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 -- knowing full well that only a CIA Officer had the inside knowledge to accomplish such an act. But the CIA high-command did not KNOW who that was.

According to Bill Simpich, CIA Officer David Morales was flying beneath their radar -- PROVING THAT HE WAS NOT ONE OF THEM IN SPIRIT OR IN TRUTH. Morales had turned ROGUE.

(2) When I implied that Larry Hancock "absolved" James Jesus Angleton, Richard Helms and Allen Dulles of the murder of JFK, I meant only that Larry Hancock -- who is a worthy researcher -- does not himself believe that these three participated in the JFK murder. He said as much in this very FORUM, and that is now common knowledge.

In this same sense Larry Hancock even "absolved" Edward Lansdale, one of my key suspects named by Fletcher Prouty. This wasn't meant to say that PROOF has been found of their innocence -- only that one leader among the JFK research community finds insufficient evidence to include them in his own suspect list.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 3, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- with respect to point #20 in your message:

...If you are using the word "reports" in the most generic sense of that word, then one should acknowledge (for accuracy) that after Harry made his phone "reports" to the FBI in Chicago -- Agents of the Chicago field office told him that his assistance was NOT wanted. Which certainly indicates that his "reports" were not of any particular value. We also know from available documentary evidence that FBI-Chicago had many sources of information regarding the FPCC-Chicago chapter even before Harry began making phone calls to the FBI...

Yes, of course, Ernie, I'm using the word, "reports," in the most generic sense of that word.

I realize -- because you endlessly remind everyone here -- that the FBI themselves have very specific definitions for the terms "Report," and "Informant" and so on.

Yet I'm not speaking to the FBI. I'm speaking to ordinary English speakers, who are aware of the multiple meanings of English words, and don't need to be reminded to read in context.

The very EXISTENCE of dozens of documents from the FBI acknowledging that Harry Dean spoke to them about the FPCC and the John Birch Society is ample evidence for my statements -- and I don't need to catalog each document here (endlessly) to support every sentence I say. That has already been done (endlessly) in the context of this (very long) thread.

Harry Dean gave "information" (in the most generic sense of that word) to the FBI from 1961-1963 about the FPCC and the John Birch Society, and we have the FBI documents to prove it -- and no, I'm not going to catalog each and every one for this group of educated readers. They are already well-known.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

(1) No, Paul, I am NOT referring to any special or "specific FBI definitions" of the word "reports" -- which just shows (again) how your bias colors everything you read. I was only attempting to distinguish between unsolicited information which the FBI receives every day from thousands of people versus "reports" made by people whom the FBI has requested to provide the Bureau with information about some matter.

You used the phrase "supply reports" to the FBI in a context which was meant to support your larger argument about the accuracy of Harry's recollections -- as if Harry had some kind of specific relationship with the FBI -- when he DID NOT.

Which is why when you speak to "ordinary English speakers" you must be clear about what you intend to convey. For example, in April 2012, you FALSELY described Harry as follows:

"By 1962, Harry Dean had successfully completed a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on Fidel Castro in Cuba. Now, in 1963, Harry Dean was on a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on the John Birch Society in Southern California."

YOU conveyed a FALSE impression to "ordinary English speakers" because of your routine mis-use of the English language. Which is why everyone reading your messages must understand how you use language to inflate Harry's credentials.

(2) Once again you claim (falsely) that the FBI "acknowledged" that Harry spoke to FBI about the JBS.

But you have NEVER ONCE identified even ONE such document much less "dozens". If you actually have JUST ONE example of an FBI document which "acknowledges" what you claim (i.e. that Harry spoke to the FBI or "gave them information" about the JBS) -- then why can't you identify it after all this time?

WHERE did you find that document?

I have not found any such document.

Nor has any other researcher that I am aware of.

So WHERE did YOU find it?

I am NOT asking you to "catalog each and every one" of those documents. I have asked you to identify JUST ONE -- since you boldly claim that "we have the FBI documents to prove it" and you further claim that it has "already been done (endlessly) in the context of this (very long) thread."

So -- just give us ONE example -- i.e. cite the specific message number here in this thread which refers to a specific FBI document which proves your contention that the FBI acknowledged that Harry gave them information regarding the JBS. JUST ONE!

POSTSCRIPT:

If your contention is actually true, then how do you explain that nobody has ever referenced any such FBI document in their interviews, articles, books, or other publications? For example: why isn't such an FBI document on Mary Ferrell's website? Or the History Matters website? Why is no FBI document "acknowledging" what YOU claim they have acknowledged, mentioned in any of the books which mention Harry's assertions?

Joan Mellen does not mention it. Larry Hancock does not mention it. Vincent Bugilosi does not mention it. Dick Russell does not mention it.

Gerald Posner does not mention it. John McAdams does not mention it. Anthony Summers does not mention it. Edward Jay Epstein does not mention it.

Greg Burnham does not mention it.

I checked a half-dozen major JFK-conspiracy websites -- and nobody mentions such documents.

So WHERE did you find them?

Edited September 3, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

But you have NEVER ONCE identified even ONE such document much less "dozens". If you actually have JUST ONE example of an FBI document which "acknowledges" what you claim (i.e. that Harry spoke to the FBI or "gave them information" about the JBS) -- then why can't you identify it after all this time?

OK, Ernie, I refer you to the 12/05/1964 letter from Harry Dean to the FBI, which includes Harry's extended report about Loran Hall and Guy Gabaldon (both well-known speakers in the John Birch Society) outlining their possible connection with the murder of JFK.

Also with regard to Harry Dean, I can refer to the 04/17/1967 letter from Hoover himself to the Chicago SAC, enclosing a letter from a member of the John Birch Society and the Minutemen, who was "cooperative" with the LAX office -- who was trying to claim that the Russian dude labeled as Lee Harvey Oswald in the Warren Commission volumes was really Harry Dean.

Beyond that, I can also refer you to the 04/01/1977 memo from the LAX FBI to a newspaper reporter, James Horwitz, who interviewed Harry Dean about the John Birch Society's role in the murder of JFK, urging Horwitz to correct his error of naming Harry Dean as an FBI "undercover operative."

These few examples (among others that are still pending FOIA release) already suggest that the John Birch Society was part of the message that Harry Dean took to the FBI over the years -- although the FBI refused to accept it.

This is what Harry Dean has been claiming since 1965.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 3, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

But you have NEVER ONCE identified even ONE such document much less "dozens". If you actually have JUST ONE example of an FBI document which "acknowledges" what you claim (i.e. that Harry spoke to the FBI or "gave them information" about the JBS) -- then why can't you identify it after all this time?

OK, Ernie, I refer you to the 12/05/1964 letter from Harry Dean to the FBI, which includes Harry's extended report about Loran Hall and Guy Gabaldon (both well-known speakers in the John Birch Society) outlining their possible connection with the murder of JFK.

Also with regard to Harry Dean, I can refer to the 04/17/1967 letter from Hoover himself to the Chicago SAC, enclosing a letter from a member of the John Birch Society and the Minutemen, who was "cooperative" with the LAX office -- who was trying to claim that the Russian dude labeled as Lee Harvey Oswald in the Warren Commission volumes was really Harry Dean.

Beyond that, I can also refer you to the 04/01/1977 memo from the LAX FBI to a newspaper reporter, James Horwitz, who interviewed Harry Dean about the John Birch Society's role in the murder of JFK, urging Horwitz to correct his error of naming Harry Dean as an FBI "undercover operative."

These few examples (among others that are still pending FOIA release) already suggest that the John Birch Society was part of the message that Harry Dean took to the FBI over the years -- although the FBI refused to accept it.

This is what Harry Dean has been claiming since 1965.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

OK, Paul, here is the problem with your reply.

Let's start with the 12/5/64 letter which you reference. I copy the entire text below.

1. As you can see, Harry's letter to the FBI-Los Angeles does not even mention the Birch Society.

So, obviously, the FBI could never have "acknowledged" (as you originally claimed), that Harry gave the FBI information about the Birch Society.

Loran Hall's connection to, or activities with, the JBS was not the subject of Harry's letter to the FBI. Instead, Harry was reporting a PERSONAL DISPUTE among several individuals he named and Harry mentioned groups like JURE and individuals like Silvia Odio and he mentioned general anti-Castro activities plus the Warren Commission Report but AT NO TIME did Harry connect ANY of these persons or their behavior to the JBS or to the Minutemen!

2. Ditto with respect to Guy Galbadon. At no time does Harry mention anything connecting Galbadon with the JBS! Instead, the entire focus of Harry's letter is upon Galbadon's association with the specific people mentioned by Harry. Perhaps this explains why the FBI file on Galbadon does not mention his connection to the JBS!

Now, let's turn to your reference to the 4/17/67 letter from Hoover to SAC Chicago (also copied below)

1. Once again, this document does NOT reveal ANY connection to Harry providing ANY information to the FBI re: JBS or Minutemen!

In fact, Harry has stated here in EF that he did not even know who John Arvidson was! The reference to the JBS in that Hoover memo mentions that Arvidson was involved with the JBS and Minutemen -- but the FBI did not learn that information FROM HARRY!

Now let's turn to your final example -- i.e. the Los Angeles-FBI 4/1/77 letter to newspaper publisher James Horwitz (copied below)

Here again, the FBI did not receive ANY information from HARRY about the JBS -- so, obviously, the FBI was NOT "acknowledging" anything received from him (as your original statement declared). As you know, Harry stopped all communications with the FBI-Los Angeles in 1966!

12/5/64 LETTER FROM HARRY TO LOS ANGELES FBI

“I have spoken by phone with Lawrence Howard, this date Dec 5 1964. In this telephone conversation I approached Howard as one who had been brought under suspicion by the authorities, because I had associated with him in 1963 in connection with anti-Castro activities. As late as Sept 1964 your office according to the Warren Report of October 1964 was still investigating the possible connection of Loran Eugene Hall, Lawrence Howard, William Seymour ‘or Oswald’ according to the testimony of Mrs. Sylvia Odio an anti-Castro Cuban national, and member of J.U.R.E living in Dallas. I have been associated with J.U.R.E. in L.A. also. In the phone conversation Howard stated to me that Hall was always a chronic xxxx, in every case, a person who talked to (sic) much, ‘a big mouth’, and that Hall had harmed the operations of several anti-Castro groups and Howard as well, that Hall since leaving the Castro forces in Cuba in 1959 had returned to the U.S. and became an opportunist, who wished to cash in on his past adventure, to become a ledgend (sic), at the expence (sic) of anyone and everyone. Howard seemed to want me to see Hall in a bad light as Howard stated that Hall had said something unfavorable about me and had had me investigated by anti-Communist members. He ask that I set up a meeting with Hall and he, that Howard might straiten (sic) Hall out, etc. I have no idea of Hall’s whereabouts and care not, as I told Howard. I had spoken to Guy Galbadon about two weeks ago, he is a friend of Howard and knows Hall. Hall at my suggestion became the Director of Galbadon’s political campaign in June 1964. Galbadon said later he was extremly (sic) dissatisfied with Hall and had lost because of Hall’s lying during the campaign for Congress. Two weeks ago as I reported by phone to the L.A. office of FBI, Galbadon said Howard would kill Hall, they hate him for more than lying? Howard said he does know William Seymour and that he and Seymour were never at Mrs. Odio’s with or without Hall. He said he told the FBI this etc. recently. I have stated to Mr. Rapp FBI Pomona office upon finding this information in Warren Report among other things that I first met Hall in 1963 late in the year. My entire interest in justice in all it’s (sic) aspects where I have been concerned in this case, and I base any of my thinking on law and order, and all it includes. I could never support any philosophy wherein law does not exist. Here I draw the line in any cause, that you might understand my true thinking. I do not wish to interfere, or project any supposition into this case. It is hoped that none of these mentioned are in any way connected with the horrible death of Mr. Kennedy as is my thinking by this time, I wish to clarify only my coincidental association with Hall, and Howard, as I first reported to Agent Rapp two weeks past. These were not my choice of people in any case, but in my reports against Castro and communism, they were there and supposedly doing the same job? Sincerely H. Dean” [Postscript: “I have also spoken with a member of J.U.R.E. and as much as he will say about Mrs. Odio is that she was‘scared’.

4/17/67 JEH to SAC Chicago re: Assassination of President JFK (and copy to LAX)

“Enclosed for recipients is one copy of each of the following documents:

*CIA communication dated 4/4/67 classified ‘Secret’

*The attachments to the above-mentioned CIA letter, which consist of a letter from John S. Arvidson dated 3/21/67, a clipping from a magazine article and the face of the envelope in which Arvidson’s letter was mailed.”

“For the information of recipients, the photograph mentioned by Arvidson in his letter to CIA is the photograph identified as Commission Exhibit 237 which is printed on page 638 of Volume XVI of the ‘Hearings Before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.’ The photograph is mentioned in the last two paragraphs on page 364 of the Report of the President’s Commission. The individual depicted in the photograph has never been identified.”

“Bufiles contain numerous references to John S. Arvidson. He has been active for a number of years in anti-communist groups, including the John Birch Society, the Minutemen and his own organization, American Veterans Against Communism. Arvidson has been cooperative with our Los Angeles Office in furnishing information about Communist Front groups; however, he has declined to cooperate so far as furnishing information about so-called right-wing groups.”

“In view of the absence of specific identifying data concerning Harry Dean, Bufiles were reviewed only for references to him in Bufile 97-4196 (the FPCC).”

“New York report dated 10/5/60 prepared by SA James J. Conway in that case contains a reference to a Harry Dean on page 22. This individual was listed as the Secretary of the FPCC in Chicago in August 1960.”

“Chicago review its files for all information on the Harry Dean who was formerly in the Chicago Chapter of the FPCC. Submit identifying data to Bureau together with photographs, if available.”

“Los Angeles review its files for information on Dean and photographs of him and submit results to Bureau.”

“If a photograph of Harry Dean exists, Bureau will compare the man depicted in Commission Exhibit 237. This man was actually photographed while entering, as well as while departing, the Soviet Embassy, Mexico City, Mexico, and Bureau possesses several photographs made by CIA of him. If Arvidson’s information is correct and the man turns out to be Harry Dean, further investigation of him is obviously warranted to determine why he visited the Soviet Embassy, Mexico City, in October 1963.”

4/1/77 Letter from LAX FBI Assistant Director in Charge Robert E. Gebhardt to Mr. James Horwitz of Burbank CA.

“Dear Mr. Horwitz:

“I have read your column ‘Between The Lines” which appeared in the March 16, 1977 edition of the Las Virgenes Independent Valley News.”

“In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the FBI, has never been an informant of this Bureau and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the FBI. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society.”

“I am bringing the above information to your attention. You might consider furnishing this information to the readers of your column.”

“I would like to point out that had you contacted the FBI prior to publication of your column, the above information would have been available to you.”

“Very truly yours, Robert E. Gebhardt, Assistant Director in Charge”.

With cc: to James Kim Coffin, Publisher, Las Virgenes Independent Valley News.

Notation on Los Angeles file copy: “On 3/31/77, Bureau Supervisor V.R. Thornton telephonically confirmed that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society.”

Edited September 3, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, you asked for ONE EXAMPLE and I gave you three. Then you nit-pick each one and try to erase them from the board.

The FACT is that the John Birch Society was part of the narrative that Harry Dean took to the FBI -- and it is part of the narrative that the FBI mentions in their own memoranda about Harry Dean. It's there in black and white.

It isn't known today, a half-century later, that Loran Hall and Guy Gabaldon were two very popular speakers in the John Birch Society -- but it was well-known among people in 1963 who followed the John Birch Society.

I also included that memo from the FBI *defending* this member of both the JBS and the Minutemen in the context of criticizing Harry Dean. It seems to me that there is a subtext in that FBI memo which tends to give the John Birch Society a hall pass in the context of the Cold War. Hoover was a stalwart Anti-communist -- although he also criticized the Birchers for the disloyalty in their preaching that FDR, Truman and Ike were all COMMUNISTS. Yet, if he had to choose between a JBS member and an FPCC member, it is fairly clear that Hoover would side with the JBS.

This subtext is mild, but still apparent in that FBI memo of 04/17/1967.

There is a clear undercurrent of John Birch Society narrative in these three memos (and you asked for only one).

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 3, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, you asked for ONE EXAMPLE and I gave you three. Then you nit-pick each one and try to erase them from the board.

The FACT is that the John Birch Society was part of the narrative that Harry Dean took to the FBI -- and it is part of the narrative that the FBI mentions in their own memoranda about Harry Dean. It's there in black and white.

It isn't known today, a half-century later, that Loran Hall and Guy Gabaldon were two very popular speakers in the John Birch Society -- but it was well-known among people in 1963 who followed the John Birch Society.

I also included that memo from the FBI *defending* this member of both the JBS and the Minutemen in the context of criticizing Harry Dean. It seems to me that there is a subtext in that FBI memo which tends to give the John Birch Society a hall pass in the context of the Cold War. Hoover was a stalwart Anti-communist -- although he also criticized the Birchers for the disloyalty in their preaching that FDR, Truman and Ike were all COMMUNISTS. Yet, if he had to choose between a JBS member and an FPCC member, it is fairly clear that Hoover would side with the JBS.

This subtext is mild, but still apparent in that FBI memo of 04/17/1967.

There is a clear undercurrent of John Birch Society narrative in these three memos (and you asked for only one).

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, the value of your reply is that it reveals how your mind works in terms of presenting and interpreting evidence. On Planet Trejo, when a person makes no statement of any kind regarding the Birch Society or Minutemen -- discussing that fact becomes "nitpicking".

So, in your scheme of things, ANY comment made by, or ANY letter written by, Harry becomes "proof" that he supplied information to the FBI and, furthermore, by some unknown process, the FBI then "acknowledged" that Harry provided that information about JBS/Minutemen -- even if there is not one single reference by Harry to the JBS or Minutemen! This is known as circular argument and lowest-common-denominator reasoning.

I guess your position is that the FBI interpreted all of this "information" from Harry through some sort of Vulcan mind-meld which allowed them to link all of the names contained in Harry's written or verbal communications to the FBI with the JBS and Minutemen -- EVEN THOUGH no FBI file on the JBS or on the Minutemen or on Galbadon or on Rousselot or on Walker mentions information received from Harry -- nor do they reference any of Harry's file numbers as the originating source!

To be VERY clear:

There is currently NO known FBI memo nor any FBI report which states what YOU claim, i.e. that Harry's narrative is incorporated into any FBI documents regarding the JBS or Minutemen.

There are not even any references to Harry's HQ or field office file numbers in any JBS or Minutemen file. If your supposition was correct, then there would be multiple references in all sorts of files that refer to Harry as the source of the information (by referencing his file number) -- but there are NO such references.

You state that it was "well known" that Loran Hall and Galbadon were very popular JBS speakers. Well-known to whom? Certainly not the FBI -- which is why there is no reference in Galbadon's FBI file to his connection to the JBS. By contrast, FBI files about other persons who were JBS speakers do include such references.

I sincerely do not understand your comment here:

I also included that memo from the FBI *defending* this member of both the JBS and the Minutemen in the context of criticizing Harry Dean. It seems to me that there is a subtext in that FBI memo which tends to give the John Birch Society a hall pass in the context of the Cold War. Hoover was a stalwart Anti-communist -- although he also criticized the Birchers for the disloyalty in their preaching that FDR, Truman and Ike were all COMMUNISTS. Yet, if he had to choose between a JBS member and an FPCC member, it is fairly clear that Hoover would side with the JBS.

The FBI did not "defend" anybody who was a JBS member or a Minutemen member nor do I understand what you mean by "subtext".

Nor do I understand what you mean by "undercurrent" in the context of your remarks.

The FBI was not known for using "subtext" or "undercurrents" in its internal documents. Instead, as our nation's primary investigative and internal security agency, it expended enormous resources to develop FACTS which would withstand vigorous judicial scrutiny.

But, bottom-line is this:

You obviously treat evidence much differently than anybody else -- even other JFK researchers. You just INVENT stuff and then pretend it is factual.

The MOST you could have written with factual support is something like this:

"Harry sent letters to FBI-Los Angeles in which he mentioned individuals whom, coincidentally, were JBS members or Minutemen members. However, Harry never told the FBI that those persons were JBS members or connected to the JBS or Minutemen because the letters Harry wrote to the FBI were about entirely different subject matters."

Edited September 4, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

That's some peculiar stuff Steven, but very interesting.

Paul - stop misrepresenting what Hancock said. And please stop saying that Simpich 'proved' anything.