Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul:

A very long time ago I pointed out that it is INEVITABLE that when October 2017 arrives and there STILL is nothing to support your "theory", you will INVENT another sinister explanation for the total ABSENCE of documentary evidence to support your "theory".

Can you give us ANY ALTERNATIVE method by which you think could substantiate Harry's narrative?

In other words, something OTHER than relying upon FBI files or relying upon any other government agency files?

1. Is there ANY living person who could corroborate Harry's narrative? I don't mean minor details -- I mean someone who could establish, for example, that Harry "met with" Wesley Grapp? OR that Harry presented his "JBS plot" information to ANY law enforcement agency or person? [For example: do ANY of Harry's children (or other relatives) have personal knowledge about any of this?]

2. If you inform us that there are NO living persons anywhere who have any first-hand knowledge about Harry's story -- AND -- if we can at least agree that there is no FBI documentary evidence to support Harry's story regarding a "JBS plot" --- THEN when 2017 arrives and no other documentary evidence is found --- would you THEN agree that NO OTHER productive research possibility exists with respect to verifying Harry's story?

Ernie,

As to (1) I agree that the only person still living today who can verify Harry Dean's claim is Harry Dean himself. All the other parties to that alleged John Birch Society meeting have died.

As to (2) I agree that when 2017 arrives and the US Government finally releases all FBI and CIA records associated with Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK murder (presuming they really and truly do this, as they promised) and if we still cannot find documentary evidence to substantiate Harry Dean's claim, then yes, I will give up that particular search.

I will continue to maintain that Loran Hall was somehow involved in the JFK murder. We have ample evidence that he was, from Gaeton Fonzi, Joan Mellen and Larry Hancock -- and even from Gerry Patrick Hemming (who said Loran Hall had his 30.06 rifle with him in Dallas on 11/22/1963; and we know the FBI seized that same rifle on that day, and soon after the JFK murder questioned its most recent pawn-broker because of the fingerprints found on it).

Even without a 2017 FBI corroboration of Harry Dean's story, we still have reason to suspect Loran Hall. Even New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison suspected Loran Hall back in 1968.

Also, I will still maintain that Ex-General Edwin Walker was somehow involved in the JFK murder. We have ample evidence from the record that Edwin Walker lied to the Warren Commission about Lee Harvey Oswald when he told them he never heard of Oswald until the JFK murder.

Walker in 1975 wrote to Senator Frank Church that he knew Oswald was his shooter only days after his April 1963 shooting. Walker boasted about this connection to a German newspaper within hours of the JFK assassination. He boasted about it for the rest of his life.

The connecting link between Loran Hall and Ex-General Edwin Walker was the John Birch Society.

Wherever Loran Hall went, so went Larry Howard (both were members of La Sambra and former members of Interpen). Larry Howard's name was also on the lease of the Louisiana paramilitary training camp at which Guy Banister, David Ferrie and the DRE were active in 1963. Even without FBI corroboration of Harry Dean's claims -- I still suspect Larry Howard was somehow involved in the murder of JFK.

My reasoning is, Ernie, that long before I ever cared about Harry Dean's story I was already researching the noise about Ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall and Larry Howard with regard to the JFK murder.

I believe Harry Dean when he said he went to the FBI about his claims, however we have seen from a few FBI documents that have already been released, that some FBI Agents had been known to rudely dismiss Harry Dean as a "mental case."

That's no shame, because actually Sylvia Odio, a highly educated, upper-class woman from pre-Castro Cuba was also called a "mental case" by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI -- mainly because she, too, said that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices.

(In her case the FBI promptly picked up Loran Hall as a prime suspect, and actually he confessed that he visited Sylvia Odio with Larry Howard that day, only he denied it was Lee Harvey Oswald with them. His story soon fell apart, and J. Edgar Hoover knew it, but still Hoover's final word to the Warren Commission about Sylvia Odio was that she was a "mental case.")

We know that anybody who disputed the claim of J. Edgar Hoover that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the murder of JFK was to be bureaucratically dismissed. That was simple; just call them a "mental case."

So -- after 2017, if released FBI documents fail to corroborate Harry's story, my conclusion would be that Harry Dean really did try to tell the FBI (because actually we have plenty of documentary evidence that Harry Dean liked calling the FBI) but the FBI refused to listen, and they patronized him, humored him and privately laughed behind his back -- even though Harry Dean's story would have cracked the JFK murder case wide open.

I will always believe that Harry Dean really saw what he saw, and he really heard what he heard in that John Birch Society meeting in September, 1963. The pieces fit snugly into a well-reasoned suspect list for the JFK murder.

All that said -- I have more faith in the US Government in general than in Hoover's FBI, so I will continue to expect to see FBI corroboration of Harry Dean's story by FBI documents in the year 2017.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Well, Paul, I know you will not accept this -- but --

1. Given human nature and normal/typical human behavior patterns -- it is virtually impossible that there could be one or more "meetings" during which the assassination of any public official was discussed but NOBODY who attended those meetings ever later discussed the content or purpose of those meetings with ANYBODY (wife, children, brother, sister, father, mother or any other person---perhaps even other trusted JBS members) nor did ANYBODY who attended (or knew about) those meetings EVER keep ANY kind of documentary evidence pertaining to what transpired at the meeting NOR did ANYBODY who attended (or who knew about) those meetings EVER create SOME kind of record which mentions those meetings (a diary, a notebook, a letter, a tape recording -- NOTHING).

2. Obviously, you (and Harry) are committed to one particular story BUT the reality is that such alleged plots or historical events ALWAYS have inner and outer circle "witnesses" or participants or persons connected to the inner or outer circle conspirators -- who KNOW about the events and discussions that took place.

3. In other words, your admission that Harry is the ONLY source is, in itself, highly significant evidence that his story is NOT credible.

4. As Larry Hancock and others have pointed out --- there is ALWAYS chatter or noise within political extremist groups -- because they always vent their anger and grievances and frustrations. And there can be no doubt whatsoever about the existence of rage within the radical right during the early 1960's about the actions of the Kennedy Administration -- particularly with respect to Cuba. So...it is entirely possible (and even likely) that there were discussions about what, in recent times, has been described as "second amendment remedies".

5. It is also entirely possible (and even likely) that people like Edwin Walker were involved in those discussions -- particularly because authoritarian personalities (such as exist within a military or police environment) never perceive nuances or ambiguities. Everything is presented in black and white, victory or defeat, either/or terminology.

6. The fundamental defect in your theory however continues to be the total absence of any significant documentary or oral history evidence. No historical event is ever dependent upon one single person's memory.

7. Lastly, as I have previously stated (although I have not spelled out the details of my own beliefs), I think Harry Dean WAS involved within radical left and radical right organizations. A person who moves quickly (i.e. within a very short period of time) between extreme and polar opposite political positions has underlying personality issues which need to be carefully examined before accepting anything they claim. You have never wanted to address that for obvious reasons.

8. MANY people (especially during the turbulent 1960's) became involved with political extremist organizations.

Some of those folks then contacted their local police departments to report what they heard and saw.

Some went further and contacted the FBI. Standard operating procedure at the FBI (and at most law enforcement organizations) was to encourage citizens to report any suspect activity. Just like the current emphasis upon reporting suspicions related to possible terrorist activities.

IN ADDITION: it was not uncommon for the FBI (or other law enforcement agencies) to submit follow-up questions to those citizens who made reports to law enforcement. AND if the person reporting to law enforcement had access to publications published by political extremist organizations -- then it was not uncommon for the agency to ask their source to obtain copies --- if only for general intelligence purposes (i.e. learning the names of key figures within an organization and what the organization wanted people to believe).

BOTTOM-LINE: I think that a perfectly reasonable argument can be made (WITHOUT calling Harry a xxxx or a "mental case") -- that he had very modest contacts with the FBI in Chicago but they rejected his offer to provide ongoing assistance to the FBI (just as Harry wrote to JFK and to Hoover.).

Then Harry moved to Los Angeles and he probably thought he could start fresh with a totally new FBI office. AND Harry might have thought that Los Angeles would not contact Chicago or FBI HQ. Instead, maybe Harry thought that L.A. would just accept whatever information he wanted to give them (just like what would happen with any other person) and then, eventually, the L.A. office would help him "clear" his name -- which 3 days before JFK's murder was STILL the only thing on his mind -- when he wrote to Hoover.

The FBI always politely accepted whatever information somebody wanted to share. Obviously, they could never know when somebody might present something useful -- even if coming from somebody who they considered weird in some way. So, Harry, would never have been told by Los Angeles to stop calling, or stop sending letters, etc. AND because of that -- Harry might have concluded that he had a FORMAL relationship with the FBI since they always accepted his phone calls and letters and even occasionally sent Agents out to his home to interview him.

BUT all of that is massively different from stating that the Los Angeles office believed what Harry gave them or that they even wanted him to continue contacting them.

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Paul, I know you will not accept this -- but --

1. Given human nature and normal/typical human behavior patterns -- it is virtually impossible that there could be one or more "meetings" during which the assassination of any public official was discussed but NOBODY who attended those meetings ever later discussed the content or purpose of those meetings with ANYBODY (wife, children, brother, sister, father, mother or any other person---perhaps even other trusted JBS members) nor did ANYBODY who attended (or knew about) those meetings EVER keep ANY kind of documentary evidence pertaining to what transpired at the meeting NOR did ANYBODY who attended (or who knew about) those meetings EVER create SOME kind of record which mentions those meetings (a diary, a notebook, a letter, a tape recording -- NOTHING).

2. Obviously, you (and Harry) are committed to one particular story BUT the reality is that such alleged plots or historical events ALWAYS have inner and outer circle "witnesses" or participants or persons connected to the inner or outer circle conspirators -- who KNOW about the events and discussions that took place.

3. In other words, your admission that Harry is the ONLY source is, in itself, highly significant evidence that his story is NOT credible.

4. As Larry Hancock and others have pointed out --- there is ALWAYS chatter or noise within political extremist groups -- because they always vent their anger and grievances and frustrations. And there can be no doubt whatsoever about the existence of rage within the radical right during the early 1960's about the actions of the Kennedy Administration -- particularly with respect to Cuba. So...it is entirely possible (and even likely) that there were discussions about what, in recent times, has been described as "second amendment remedies".

5. It is also entirely possible (and even likely) that people like Edwin Walker were involved in those discussions -- particularly because authoritarian personalities (such as exist within a military or police environment) never perceive nuances or ambiguities. Everything is presented in black and white, victory or defeat, either/or terminology.

6. The fundamental defect in your theory however continues to be the total absence of any significant documentary or oral history evidence. No historical event is ever dependent upon one single person's memory.

7. Lastly, as I have previously stated (although I have not spelled out the details of my own beliefs), I think Harry Dean WAS involved within radical left and radical right organizations. A person who moves quickly (i.e. within a very short period of time) between extreme and polar opposite political positions has underlying personality issues which need to be carefully examined before accepting anything they claim. You have never wanted to address that for obvious reasons.

8. MANY people (especially during the turbulent 1960's) became involved with political extremist organizations. Some of those folks then contacted their local police departments to report what they heard and saw. Some went further and contacted the FBI. Standard operating procedure at the FBI (and at most law enforcement organizations) was to encourage citizens to report any suspect activity. Just like the current emphasis upon reporting suspicions related to possible terrorist activities...

BOTTOM-LINE: I think that a perfectly reasonable argument can be made (WITHOUT calling Harry a xxxx or a "mental case") -- that he had very modest contacts with the FBI in Chicago but they rejected his offer to provide ongoing assistance to the FBI (just as Harry wrote to JFK and to Hoover.).

<snip>

Ernie, as usual, your theory is so full of HOLES and you make so many amateur GUESSES that it amazes me how you can fail to see them. Here are my responses, "by the numbers":

1. Just because all the people who were at the JBS meeting that Harry Dean alleges have died except Harry, this certainly doesn't mean that those avenues are blocked forever. Nobody has PROVED the absence of other documentary evidence of this meeting. Because of J. Edgar Hoover (foremostly) authorities have never followed up on Harry's story. I'm not a researcher -- I'm a computer operator. I co-wrote Harry Dean's CONFESSIONS as a personal favor to him and for the record, and I never offered it as independent research. I clarified Harry Dean's story for history, and set the record straight from the LIES told about Harry Dean by W.R. Morris. Anybody who's read those CONFESSIONS now know that W.R. Morris was a rank xxxx (and perhaps paid by the FBI to guarantee disinformation about Harry Dean). Yet if I was a researcher, I'd have tracked down all the kinfolk of those connected with that meeting. Your error (once again) is jumping to conclusions, that just because nothing has shown up SO FAR, then NOTHING will ever be available. Actually, researchers have neglected the story of Harry Dean for half a century -- and IMHO that is WHY the JFK murder has never been solved.

2. Harry Dean does talk about "outer circle" people, for example, Loran Hall and Larry Howard (who were NOT in that meeting) and he has done this since 1963, and went public with this since 1965 -- completely independent of all other research into Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- which is substantial in the JFK research literature. Again -- the sticking point has always been Ex-General Edwin Walker, who has so far enjoyed a "ticket to ride" on the JFK murder. I think that after a half-century, that ticket has finally expired.

3. So, Ernie, you're again mistaken in jumping to the conclusion that Harry is the ONLY source of that meeting. Harry is the only KNOWN source today, but that is subject to change as research continues into this field. A new book coming out on about the JFK murder and Ex-General Edwin Walker (perhaps this year) will open a floodlight of evidence never before seen.

4. Larry Hancock's observation that there is always "noise level" about a plot like this is precisely what enabled him to move to the forefront of JFK research in 2014. My only point is that JFK researchers have failed to research ALL the noise, and have incorrectly overlooked the noise that points to Ex-General Edwin Walker. To get a start on that "noise," I advise the reader to return to the Warren Commission volumes, and just read the INDEX to those 26 volumes, and recognize the HUNDREDS of times that Walker is named in those volumes. The relation of Walker to the JFK murder was far more apparent in 1963-1964 than at any other time in US History. My point is that JFK researchers have so far failed to fully research Edwin Walker, and to track down the "noise level" about him that existed from 1962 through 1964.

5. Edwin Walker was a complex American. Your portrait of him as an "authoritarian personality" is merely your own amateur psychology -- and you're not really very good at it, Ernie. Edwin Walker was a GREAT American General of World War Two, who was RUINED as an officer when he was INFECTED by the disloyalty of the John Birch Society. Any objective research in the Edwin Walker will show the sudden BREAK in his loyalty, when he joined the JBS and became the ONLY General of the USA to resign in the 20th century. The John Birch Society is the PRIMARY KEY to the crimes of Edwin Walker.

6. While it's true, Ernie, that no historical event can ever depend on one person's memory, the weakness of your case has always been your obsession to shut down the Harry Dean Story in any way you can, and PREVENT discussion about researching the trails that are implied by Harry Dean's Story. You seem to have some sort of Obsession to shut it down -- and your mind is slammed shut.

7. The weakness in your theory so far, Ernie, pales in comparison to your latest arrogance, namely, to pretend to be an expert in psychology and to pontificate about the "underlying personality issues" of Harry Dean because he quickly moved from being a supporter of Fidel Castro (ultra-left-wing) to being a supporter of the John Birch Society and Minutemen (ultra-right-wing). You have a lot of nerve to raise the psychology issue, Ernie, because you're simply unqualified to talk about "personality issues" -- you have no degree in Psychology. You're a rank amateur. You fail to recognize, first and foremost, that there were HUNDREDS of people in 1960-1963 who moved from supporting Fidel Castro to suppporting the Ultra-right-wing, e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming; Frank Sturgis; Jack Ruby; David Ferrie; Loran Hall; Larry Howard; and dozens of people in the CIA, named by Larry Hancock. The fact is that Fidel Castro hid his Communism at first, and then came out as a Communist subsequently. This fooled HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS or even MILLIONS of people. But you want to play psychiatrist in public! You should be ashamed.

8. You continue, Ernie, to naively defend the "standard operating procedure" of the FBI, even when it comes to the JFK murder. Even after former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen firmly told you to stop doing that! You're evidently stubborn on an obsessive scale, Ernie.

9. BOTTOM LINE: You evade reasonable arguments, Ernie, and your case is anything but reasonable. You claim that you didn't call Harry Dean a "mental case" in your words today, but actually you descended into the topic of "underlying personality issues" which amounts to the same thing. Again, you're trying to jump to a conclusion based on partial data. You call yourself a reearcher, but really you only want to collect FBI documents, and rely on those obsessively. I personally don't put you in the same class of researchers as Gaeton Fonzi, Joan Mellen, Larry Hancock or Bill Simplich. Or anywhere near them.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Well, Paul, I know you will not accept this -- but --

1. Given human nature and normal/typical human behavior patterns -- it is virtually impossible that there could be one or more "meetings" during which the assassination of any public official was discussed but NOBODY who attended those meetings ever later discussed the content or purpose of those meetings with ANYBODY (wife, children, brother, sister, father, mother or any other person---perhaps even other trusted JBS members) nor did ANYBODY who attended (or knew about) those meetings EVER keep ANY kind of documentary evidence pertaining to what transpired at the meeting NOR did ANYBODY who attended (or who knew about) those meetings EVER create SOME kind of record which mentions those meetings (a diary, a notebook, a letter, a tape recording -- NOTHING).

2. Obviously, you (and Harry) are committed to one particular story BUT the reality is that such alleged plots or historical events ALWAYS have inner and outer circle "witnesses" or participants or persons connected to the inner or outer circle conspirators -- who KNOW about the events and discussions that took place.

3. In other words, your admission that Harry is the ONLY source is, in itself, highly significant evidence that his story is NOT credible.

4. As Larry Hancock and others have pointed out --- there is ALWAYS chatter or noise within political extremist groups -- because they always vent their anger and grievances and frustrations. And there can be no doubt whatsoever about the existence of rage within the radical right during the early 1960's about the actions of the Kennedy Administration -- particularly with respect to Cuba. So...it is entirely possible (and even likely) that there were discussions about what, in recent times, has been described as "second amendment remedies".

5. It is also entirely possible (and even likely) that people like Edwin Walker were involved in those discussions -- particularly because authoritarian personalities (such as exist within a military or police environment) never perceive nuances or ambiguities. Everything is presented in black and white, victory or defeat, either/or terminology.

6. The fundamental defect in your theory however continues to be the total absence of any significant documentary or oral history evidence. No historical event is ever dependent upon one single person's memory.

7. Lastly, as I have previously stated (although I have not spelled out the details of my own beliefs), I think Harry Dean WAS involved within radical left and radical right organizations. A person who moves quickly (i.e. within a very short period of time) between extreme and polar opposite political positions has underlying personality issues which need to be carefully examined before accepting anything they claim. You have never wanted to address that for obvious reasons.

8. MANY people (especially during the turbulent 1960's) became involved with political extremist organizations. Some of those folks then contacted their local police departments to report what they heard and saw. Some went further and contacted the FBI. Standard operating procedure at the FBI (and at most law enforcement organizations) was to encourage citizens to report any suspect activity. Just like the current emphasis upon reporting suspicions related to possible terrorist activities...

BOTTOM-LINE: I think that a perfectly reasonable argument can be made (WITHOUT calling Harry a xxxx or a "mental case") -- that he had very modest contacts with the FBI in Chicago but they rejected his offer to provide ongoing assistance to the FBI (just as Harry wrote to JFK and to Hoover.).

<snip>

Ernie, as usual, your theory is so full of HOLES and you make so many amateur GUESSES that it amazes me how you can fail to see them. Here are my responses, "by the numbers":

I do not have any "theory". I presented a summary of currently available evidence --- and also from Harry's own words (in contemporaneous letters and in his subsequent interviews and public comments -- including here in EF.

1. Just because all the people who were at the JBS meeting that Harry Dean alleges have died except Harry, this certainly doesn't mean that those avenues are blocked forever. Nobody has PROVED the absence of other documentary evidence of this meeting.

Nor did I write that they were "blocked forever". My point was that the absence of ANY confirming evidence after all this time (oral history or documentary) is very significant.

Because of J. Edgar Hoover (foremostly) authorities have never followed up on Harry's story.

I don't understand your comment since there is currently no evidence that the FBI ever received anything from Harry regarding any "JBS plot" nor is there currently any evidence that Harry supplied any information to the FBI about any JBS members (in terms of their JBS activities) nor is there currently any evidence that Harry actually met with Wesley Grapp.

We DO have evidence that Harry made some phone calls and sent some letters to the L.A. FBI office and, upon a few occasions, he was interviewed by Los Angeles Special Agents regarding OTHER subjects (not the JBS or Minutemen) -- but there is nothing currently extant to support your (or Harry's) assertions regarding JBS or Minutemen or other subjects.

Most significantly, the Los Angeles Agent who had the most direct contact with Harry (and he also reviewed almost ALL the contacts which Harry had with other Agents assigned to FBI-Los Angeles) was the FBI's primary southern California expert about Cuban-related matters.

I'm not a researcher -- I'm a computer operator. I co-wrote Harry Dean's CONFESSIONS as a personal favor to him and for the record, and I never offered it as independent research. I clarified Harry Dean's story for history, and set the record straight from the LIES told about Harry Dean by W.R. Morris. Anybody who's read those CONFESSIONS now know that W.R. Morris was a rank xxxx (and perhaps paid by the FBI to guarantee disinformation about Harry Dean).

Significantly, Harry is on record stating that he thought Morris was a competent researcher -- but he took liberties and embellished Harry's story to make it more sensational -- and potentially more commercially attractive for publicity purposes.

Yet if I was a researcher, I'd have tracked down all the kinfolk of those connected with that meeting. Your error (once again) is jumping to conclusions, that just because nothing has shown up SO FAR, then NOTHING will ever be available.

But I never wrote what you claim. WHY do you always do that? I never said that "NOTHING will ever be available". That is YOUR INVENTION -- because of YOUR malicious bias against me.

I said it was signficiant that no such evidence has ever surfaced thus far -- despite the extraordinary passage of time which normally produces such evidence -- particularly when people die and leave their personal papers to educational institutions OR when they make end-of-life confessions (like John Martino), etc.

Actually, researchers have neglected the story of Harry Dean for half a century -- and IMHO that is WHY the JFK murder has never been solved.

That is NOT accurate. It is likely that they just dismiss his story because (as Leroy Chapman correctly pointed out in his article) Harry cannot provide any substantiation for his assertions.

ALL researchers (by definition) need sources of data which pertain to the subjects they research, i.e. some sort of archives to pursue or living people to interview.

But if none exist (or there is no way to confirm assertions made) -- THEN there is nothing to research!

FOR EXAMPLE: Did YOU find anything in Edwin Walker's personal papers regarding the "JBS plot" OR anything about Harry Dean?

IF NOT -- then there is nothing for any researcher to research UNLESS some other person involved in (or aware of) the matter has some kind of documentary or oral history evidence to "research".

2. Harry Dean does talk about "outer circle" people, for example, Loran Hall and Larry Howard (who were NOT in that meeting) and he has done this since 1963, and went public with this since 1965, and completely independent on all other research done into Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- which is substantial in the JFK research literature. Again -- the sticking point has always been Ex-General Edwin Walker, who has so far enjoyed a "ticket to ride" on the JFK murder. I think that after a half-century, that ticket has finally expired.

But, again, other than Harry -- what OTHER source confirms or even just mentions Hall or Howard being involved in a "JBS plot"? Where is the documentary or oral history evidence to research? We return to YOUR earlier rules regarding "independent confirmation".

3. So, Ernie, you're again mistaken in jumping to the conclusion that Harry is the ONLY source of that meeting. Harry is the only KNOWN source today, but that is subject to change as research continues into this field. A new book coming out on about the JFK murder and Ex-General Edwin Walker (perhaps this year) will open a floodlight of evidence never before seen.

First of all, WHICH meeting are you referring to? Are you referring to the August and September 1963 meetings with Rousselot? If you ARE referring to those two alleged meetings, then why am I mistaken? Who else has confirmed Harry's story? And where is that documentary or oral history evidence located?

4. Larry Hancock's observation that there is always "noise level" about a plot like this is precisely what enabled him to move to the forefront of JFK research in 2014. My only point is that JFK researchers have failed to research ALL the noise, and have incorrectly overlooked the noise that points to Ex-General Edwin Walker. To get a start on that "noise," I advise the reader to return to the Warren Commission volumes, and just read the INDEX to those 26 volumes, and recognize the HUNDREDS of times that Walker is named in those volumes. The relation of Walker to the JFK murder was far more apparent in 1963-1964 than at any other time in US History. My point is that JFK researchers have so far failed to fully research Edwin Walker, and to track down the "noise level" about him that existed from 1962 through 1964.

Well, again, I'm not sure your assertion is accurate. In order to make an informed judgment about your comment, I would need to know how many people have reviewed Walker's papers (or paid for photocopies of relevant documents) archived at University of Texas-Austin AND how many people have researched the personal papers of individuals whom were associated with Walker which are archived at various educational institutions --- such as (for example) his attorney Clyde Watts and his military aide (Arch Roberts).

Many scholars and researchers during the past 10-15 years have spent considerable time and effort researching the personal papers of individuals connected to the Birch Society. Jonathan Schoenwald for example spent considerable time looking into the papers of Clarence Manion, Tom Anderson, and T. Coleman Andrews.

Other authors have used the extensive archives of Group Research Inc (at Columbia University) and the Laird Wilcox Collection (at University of Kansas) and Gordon Hall's collection (at Brown University) as well as the papers of key figures within the right-wing movement such as Herbert Philbrick's papers at Library of Congress, and the extensive right-wing collection at University of Oregon (which consists of hundreds of boxes of material). You may see a listing of some of those archives on my webpage here: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/archives

The point is that nobody has been able to find anything to support your (or Harry's narrative.

5. Edwin Walker was a complex American. Your portrait of him as an "authoritarian personality" is merely your own amateur psychology -- and you're not really very good at it, Ernie. Edwin Walker was a GREAT American General of World War Two, who was RUINED as an officer when he was INFECTED by the disloyalty of the John Birch Society. Any objective research in the Edwin Walker will show that sudden BREAK in his loyalty, when he joined the JBS and became the ONLY General of the USA to resign in the 20th century. The John Birch Society is the PRIMARY KEY to the crimes of Edwin Walker.

There was nothing particularly "complex" about Walker nor is it "amateur psychology" to refer to him as evidencing the characteristics of an authoritarian personality. Just read his testimony and speeches and articles. AND then consider that he decided to join an organization which explicitly was organized as a top-down monolithic body in which members had NO input on leadership and NO input upon policy decisions (the JBS) AND he also helped form the paramilitary American Royal Rangers which was set up along military lines.

Nor am I reporting anything new. His personality has been revealed in numerous books and articles and theses/dissertations written by well-informed academics.

I really do not understand why you think Walker was so unique in terms of his association with the Birch Society. There are literally DOZENS of senior military officers (including Rear Admirals and Generals) who associated themselves with the JBS as members and endorsers -- and many of those individuals had extraordinary and very distinguished military service records. As a very brief introduction:

Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers

Brig. Gen. William L. Lee

Lt. Gen. Sumter L. Lowry

Lt. Gen. Charles B. Stone

Lt. Gen. Edward M. Almond

Maj. Gen. Robert Blake

Rear Adm. Paulus P. Powell

Vice Admiral C.S. Freeman

Vice Admiral T.G.W. Settle

6. While it's true, Ernie, that no historical event can ever depend on one person's memory, the weakness of your case has always been your obsession to shut down the Harry Dean Story in any way you can, and PREVENT discussion about researching the trails that are implied by Harry Dean's Story. You seem to have some sort of Obsession to shut it down -- and your mind is slammed shut.

Actually, Paul, I have NEVER attempted to "shut down" Harry. Instead, FROM DAY ONE (in June 2010) I asked probing questions which (of course) Harry refused to answer. It is VERY significant after all this time that you cannot even accurately portray my behavior. UNLIKE yourself, I have posted numerous documents pertaining to Harry online (including copies of his correspondence) -- which YOU have NEVER done. The REAL problem Paul, is that you do not want anybody to challenge either you or Harry. You want MEEK passive acceptance of whatever he (or you) write.

7. The weakness in your theory so far, Ernie, pales in comparison to your latest arrogance, namely, to pretend to be an expert in psychology and to pontificate about the "underlying personality issues" of Harry Dean because he quickly moved from being a supporter of Fidel Castro (ultra-left-wing) to being a supporter of the John Birch Society and Minutemen (ultra-right-wing). You have a lot of nerve to raise the psychology issue, Ernie, because you're simply unqualified to talk about "personality issues" -- you have no degree in Psychology.

Nobody needs any degree in anything. There is extensive literature available about the motivations and journeys of political extremists -- including MANY left-wing types who jumped across the ideological street to embrace extreme right-wing beliefs. This is your typical ploy when you have no personal knowledge about something but you want to immediately discredit someone who knows something more about a subject than you do. Of course, you NEVER apply this objection to YOUR OWN writings -- such as when you fabricated your elaborate psychological hoax about the FBI "forgery" of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover. You had crazy "explanations" for everything from why ALL CAPS were used (instead of normal font) to why the letter was supposedly redacted (by the FBI) --- when, as it ultimately turned out, YOUR psychobabble was totally false. Obviously, this is a VERY sensitive issue for you and you are totally unwilling to address it.

You're a rank amateur. You fail to recognize, first and foremost, that there were HUNDREDS of people in 1960-1963 who moved from supporting Fidel Castro to suppporting the Ultra-right-wing, e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming; Frank Sturgis; Jack Ruby; David Ferrie; Loran Hall; Larry Howard; and dozens of people in the CIA, named by Larry Hancock.

Are you totally bereft of your senses Paul? I "fail to recognize" that people moved from extreme left to extreme right? I have often engaged in online discussions about it -- but you are mistaken about it being HUNDREDS of people.

There actually are very few known cases of someone moving from extreme left (CPUSA or SWP for example) to extreme right (JBS/Minutemen etc).

More typically, individuals moved from extreme left to moderate right-wing anti-communist conservatives OR to democratic socialists.

In fact, many FBI informants who started out inside the Communist Party (or their front groups) often became moderate conservatives or social democrats afterward. [Commentary magazine and The New Leader magazine (for example) was a haven for intellectuals, many of whom started out as Communist Party members in the 1930's or 1940's but then they became democratic socialists or moderate conservatives -- particularly after World War II.]

The fact is that Fidel Castro hid his Communism at first, and then came out as a Communist subsequently. This fooled HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS or even MILLIONS of people. But you want to play psychiatrist in public! You should be ashamed.

Actually, if you carefully study Fidel's history -- you would know that his Marxist sympathies were apparent long before his revolution against Batista was successful. There were contemporary newspaper reports about Castro's real sympathies in Central American newspapers -- but they generally were ignored by people in our government because we convinced ourselves that Batista was so corrupt and dictatorial that no "Communist" actors were required to explain the turmoil inside Cuba.

8. You continue, Ernie, to naively refer to the "standard operating procedure" of the FBI when it comes to the JFK murder. Even after former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen firmly told you to stop doing that! You're evidently stubborn on an obsessive scale, Ernie, and you might consider seeking professional help about that.

Swearingen and myself have never discussed JFK's murder so you are, once again delusional. My ONLY contact with him regarding JFK was in reference to YOUR comments and Harry's narrative. Obviously, there was no message from him to me where he "firmly told" me anything like what you now claim. Another invention by you. As I have told you repeatedly in writing in this thread -- I have no particular interest in the JFK theories. Obviously, therefore, I have never publicly commented upon any of them EXCEPT in one message where I stated that I did not think LHO was the lone assassin. I also stated that I have no idea which of the 13 (or more) theories about his murder was the best or most accurate. In any event, since when do YOU accept what Swearingen believes? He DISMISSES your theory AND Harry's narrative.

Lastly, I have not discussed FBI "standard operating procedure" with respect to JFK's murder. Instead, I have discussed the FBI's standard operating procedures concerning (1) their filing systems -- based upon numerous lawsuits as well as the exhaustive 2-year study by the Archivist of the United States, and (2) standard operating procedures with respect to how the FBI handled its informants and confidential sources -- i.e. what sort of records they kept and what protocols they followed as shown in numerous informant files plus mind-numbing detailed instructions to field offices which appear in FBI Manuals as well as in FBI SAC Letters. So, Paul -- STOP INVENTING stuff.

9. BOTTOM LINE: You evade reasonable arguments, Ernie, and your case is anything but reasonable. You claim that you didn't call Harry Dean a "mental case" in your words today, but actually you descended into the topic of "underlying personality issues" which amounts to the same thing. Again, you're trying to jump to a conclusion based on partial data. You call yourself a reearcher, but really you only want to collect FBI documents, and rely on those obsessively. I personally don't put you in the same class of researchers as Gaeton Fonzi, Joan Mellen, Larry Hancock or Bill Simplich. You're a one-trick pony.

Again, I never made the comment which you attribute to me. I stated that one can review all of the existing evidence and reasonably come up with an explanation which DID NOT (repeat DID NOT) require ANY reference to him as being either a xxxx or a mental case). So, once again, you just DELIBERATELY LIED about my position.

I understand that your limited comprehension makes you susceptible to lowest-common-denominator reasoning. By referring to "underlying personality issues", I am referring to REASONS why somebody becomes alienated from one political extremist ideology but then IMMEDIATELY joins yet another political extremist group. That does NOT require a degree in psychiatry or psychology to explain.

Lastly, you cite several authors whom you regard as exceptional researchers. Significantly, however, NONE of them believes Harry's story --do they? Why do you think that they reject his story OR do not even mention it OR just present a brief one or two sentences about his assertions and then immediately move on?

You have a lot of nerve referring to me as a "one trick pony" when you also have stated several times that I have produced more documentary evidence concerning Harry than you have ever previously seen ANYWHERE ELSE. So much for YOUR research skills!

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, as usual, you misrepresent and do not even understand what I have written. My replies appear underneath your comments.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Another problem with you, Ernie, is that you don't LISTEN. Your mind is made up. You're spinning in your own circles. I've posted plenty of documents from Edwin Walker's own personal papers here -- but you want FBI documents.

I've given you all the time I'm going to give you, because you're simply not worth the bother. I've answered the same questions for MONTHS because your posts represent a position that's stubborn as a mule and just as dull.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 8, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Another problem with you, Ernie, is that you don't LISTEN. Your mind is made up. You spinning in your own circles. I've posted plenty of documents from Edwin Walker's own personal papers here -- but you want FBI documents.

I've given you all the time I'm going to give you, because you're simply not worth the bother. I've answer the same questions for MONTHS because your posts are stubborn as a mule.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I have been listening to you for many months. The problem is not my listening skills. The problem is that you incessantly misrepresent what I state in writing in very clear English OR you attribute beliefs to me which are NOT true.

My mind is not "made up" in the sense which YOU mean. FOR EXAMPLE: WHY do you think I have made so many FOIA requests since last October for documents and files pertaining to Harry AND about the subject matters he claims he discussed with the FBI?

Do you know ANYBODY ELSE (besides me) who has spent HUNDREDS of dollars acquiring documentary evidence (which even you have never previously seen -- until I shared it)?

Is THAT the behavior of somebody whose mind is "made up"? Isn't that what all independent researchers do, i.e. THEY PURSUE whatever evidence trail exists??

BY CONTRAST: What evidence trail are YOU pursuing? The ONLY information that interests you is whatever you think will fit into your pre-determined conclusions about Harry. IF ANYTHING jeopardizes your belief in Harry's story -- then you IMMEDIATELY ignore it, discredit it, or de-value it.

P.S. I do NOT want only "FBI documents".... Another lie by you.

I want verifiable factual evidence -- no matter what the source.

When did you post anything by Walker that discusses the "JBS plot" OR which mentions Harry Dean? Isn't that what we are discussing?

Edited August 8, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Greg Burnham]

What a waste of time and bandwidth.

[Ernie Lazar]

What a waste of time and bandwidth.

Unfortunately, Greg, there is no way to resolve disputed information unless somebody takes the time to study what is being presented and then present verifiable factual evidence.

Paul prefers to present his personal opinions.

I prefer to upload or share documentary evidence which addresses the issues discussed in this thread. Obviously, I do not control what documentary evidence exists nor what that evidence reveals. I have, however, asked numerous questions which Harry Dean refuses to answer AND more often than not, Paul does not want to answer either -- IF he thinks the answer would tend to discredit his theory or his personal research skills.

[Paul Trejo]

Say, Greg, you interviewed Gerry Patrick Hemming personally. What did he have to say about General Edwin Walker?

I mean, was it only one or two quick quips, or did he have any detail or stories to relate?

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 8, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

UPDATE:

NARA told me today that they finally have located the entire FBI Rousselot file (HQ 94-54427) which contains Rousselot's inquiry regarding Harry Dean and the FBI reply (serial #30 and perhaps #31). Altogether that file consists of 33 serials and 97 pages. NARA told me that they will send me a formal cost estimate for this file plus Harry's FBI HQ file by August 29 -- and then I will submit payment to obtain both.

In addition, I am purchasing Harry's CIA file which is archived in the Russell Holmes papers. Haven't heard anything yet regarding size of this file but I should have it within next 3-4 weeks and when it is received I will arrange to post all three files online on Internet Archive and Building Democracy websites -- along with my other FBI files.

Also was told today by FBI that my request for Wesley Grapp's file has not been assigned yet to an analyst. Unfortunately, the FBI is extremely behind in processing FOIA requests so many of my requests from 10-12 months ago are not currently being processed.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

What a difference a month makes. This month I read the new book by Bill Simpich, "State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald" (2014) which is available for FREE on the Mary Ferrell web site.

Suddenly, my opinion about James Jesus Angleton and J. Edgar Hoover with regard to the murder of JFK was changed like a whirlwind. I used to suspect the Hoover and Angleton of at least *some* complicity in the murder of JFK.

The fact that J. Edgar Hoover declared Lee Harvey Oswald to be guilty of killing JFK on the very day it happened, without even hearing all the evidence, made me extremely suspicious of Hoover.

Also, the fact that James Jesus Angleton manipulated the documents about Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City during the last week of September 1963, made me very suspicious of Angleton.

Bill Simplich changed my mind by cogently demonstrating that the CIA started a mole-hunt in September 1963 to search for the persons who *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in a telephone call from the Cuban consulate to the USSR consulate in Mexico City.

That phone was the hottest, most wire-tapped phone in Mexico City, and the CIA was hot on the trail of that phone call, because the *impersonators* claimed to be Silvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald seeking to contact the KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

After confirming that the phone call was BOGUS, the CIA started a mole-hunt that involved altering the CIA 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald (to provide disinformation, so that whoever spread that disinformation, would be revealed as the mole).

The CIA also sent out two memos on 10/10/1963 with rigid, contradictory instructions, so that whoever disobeyed those instructions would quickly be revealed as the mole. This was done at the highest levels of the CIA, and known only to its highest officers. Bill Simpich deserves a medal for figuring it all out with logical precision.

What this proves, however, is that the CIA rogues who *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in September 1963 in order to link his name with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov were acting below the radar of the official CIA high-command. In other words -- just as the HSCA said -- if any CIA Agents were involved, they were rogues, wandering off the reservation.

This new fact has drawn a line in the sand. The killers of JFK wanted to blame the Communists. That's why Lee Harvey Oswald was framed as a Communist in New Orleans, in newspaper, radio and on TV. That's why some *rogue* CIA Agent and his staff *impersonated* Oswald in Mexico City to link his name with the KGB.

Here are the plotters. We finally have them after half a century.

But wait -- J. Edgar Hoover didn't say that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist. ON THE CONTRARY. J. Edgar Hoover insisted, like a bulldog, that Lee Harvey Oswald was a LONE NUT. Therefore, J. Edgar Hoover could not have been one of the plotters! Instead, J. Edgar Hoover (who was the first to come up with the LONE NUT theory on the evening of 11/22/1963) was out to FOIL the killers of JFK. The killers of JFK wanted to blame the Communists. Hoover did NOT.

Also, I no longer suspect James Jesus Angleton or the high-command of the CIA of plotting the murder of JFK, because Bill Simpich, whether he intended this result or not, has proven that CIA *rogues* acted below the radar of the CIA high-command to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist.

All this is hard evidence, IMHO.

What does this mean for Harry Dean's claims? It's good news, actually. By taking the floodlight away from the CIA and the FBI, we can place that floodlight back where it belongs -- back toward Ex-General Edwin Walker and his John Birch Society contacts in 1963.

A new day is dawning in JFK research.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 20, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Burnham]

Paul Trejo wrote:

But wait -- J. Edgar Hoover didn't say that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist. ON THE CONTRARY. J. Edgar Hoover insisted, like a bulldog, that Lee Harvey Oswald was a LONE NUT. Therefore, J. Edgar Hoover could not have been one of the plotters!Instead, J. Edgar Hoover (who was the first to come up with the LONE NUT theory on the evening of 11/22/1963) was out to FOIL the killers of JFK. The killers of JFK wanted to blame the Communists. Hoover did NOT.

Hoover was not the first person to "come up with the Lone Nut Theory" on the evening of 11/22/1963.

Indeed, during the afternoon of 11/22/1963, McGeorge Bundy, while in the White House Situation Room (Code name: CROWN), can be heard on the Air Force One tapes informing LBJ that there was no conspiracy in the assassination of JFK (aka: it was the work of a lone nut) while LBJ was still en route back to Washington. According to Bill Kelly, this was quoted by Pierre Salinger and William Manchester, as well as, T.H. White from unedited transcripts of the AF1 tapes.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Greg Burnham

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo wrote:

...J. Edgar Hoover (who was the first to come up with the LONE NUT theory on the evening of 11/22/1963) was out to FOIL the killers of JFK. The killers of JFK wanted to blame the Communists. Hoover did NOT...

Hoover was not the first person to "come up with the Lone Nut Theory" on the evening of 11/22/1963.

Indeed, during the afternoon of 11/22/1963, McGeorge Bundy, while in the White House Situation Room (Code name: CROWN), can be heard on the Air Force One tapes informing LBJ that there was no conspiracy in the assassination of JFK (aka: it was the work of a lone nut) while LBJ was still en route back to Washington. According to Bill Kelly, this was quoted by Pierre Salinger and William Manchester, as well as, T.H. White from unedited transcripts of the AF1 tapes.

Well, Greg, it turns out that you're half-right about this one.

Hoover actually was the first person to "come up with the Lone Nut Theory," but it wasn't on the "evening" of 11/22/1963, rather, it was only one hour after Oswald was arrested.

After I saw your post I had to review my source on that, which was Professor David R. Wrone (University of Wisconsin), author of The Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1980). I got the hour wrong -- it wasn't in the evening, but the early afternoon. Here's what Wrone says about J. Edgar Hoover.

"Within an hour of the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, he had confirmed that it was a Lone Assassin, for purely personal reasons, that shot him. That was Hoover's instantaneous vision. He got that sitting at his desk on the banks of the Potomac -- instantaneous. Many FBI Agents -- even at the local level -- wanted to go with this Lone Assassin theory, which they called the 'Lone Nut' theory. They immediately would move that way." (Dr. David R. Wrone, 2006, interview in the DVD, The Murder of JFK: A Revisionist History)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

Paul, if Morales and crew acted under the radar of the CIA high echelon, why were they not discovered after the assassination and killed, if only to dead-end any possible circumstantial connections upward? These people had bosses, right? And so their bosses had bosses. So why did do many live into the era of HSCA, and why did some survive it?

Edited August 25, 2014 by David Andrews

[Ernie Lazar]

UPDATE RE: HARRY DEAN CIA FILE

Today I received NARA's cost form and I ordered Harry's CIA file which is archived in the Russell Holmes papers. NARA informed me that it is 55 pages.

I anticipate receiving NARA's cost form for Harry's FBI-HQ file (HQ 62-109068) and the FBI-Rousselot file (HQ 94-54427) sometime this week.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, if Morales and crew acted under the radar of the CIA high echelon, why were they not discovered after the assassination and killed, if only to dead-end any possible circumstantial connections upward? These people had bosses, right? And so their bosses had bosses. So why did do many live into the era of HSCA, and why did some survive it?

It's a great question, David. But it seems to be a two-part question.

First: why were they not discovered?

The evidence shown by Bill Simpich in his latest book (STATE SECRET, 2014) demonstrates that the CIA started a mole hunt to find out who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963. They knew it wasn't Lee Oswald, as I recall, because the spoken Russian was too broken, the spoken English was too broken, and the spoken Spanish was too good.

But after months of the mole-hunt, the CIA came up with NOTHING. They never discovered who had done this. As per their Standard Operating Procedure, the CIA modified Lee Harvey Oswald's 201 file, changing the photograph to show some big Russian dude, and changed Oswald's middle name to "Henry", and changed his parent's names, too.

But after all that time, they never discovered who it was inside the CIA who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald to try to link Oswald's name with the name of the wanted KGB Agent, Valery Kostikov. It was a botched job, so it started a mole-hunt.

But it wasn't an amateur job. Whoever impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald (and Sylvia Duran) knew very well that those Mexico City phone lines were tapped by the CIA. They knew very well that KGB Agent Valery Kostikov was watched closely by the CIA, and that his name would start alarms off inside the CIA. So, it was a mole -- a right-wing mole inside the CIA who was trying to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist. But who was it?

Going by the CIA paperwork explored by Bill Simpich, the CIA never discovered who it was. Therefore, how could they prosecute anybody?

So that's the second part of your question -- why were the plotters not killed? The reason is that the CIA never found out who impersonated Oswald -- though it was clear that whoever did that was part of the plot to frame Oswald as a Communist. So, the CIA failed yet again (after the Bay of Pigs). They had lost control of their own people.

OK, as to your next point: these people had bosses, right? Yes, I say that David Morales reported to somebody higher than himself -- BUT NOT INSIDE THE CIA. There was somebody higher up in the plot to kill JFK. David Morales took orders from whoever that was. The question nobody has been able to answer in a half-century is: WHO WAS IT?

That's why I think my guess is as good as (or better than) any other answers out there.

In my opinion, there was an organization in Dallas that truly and firmly believed that FDR, Harry Truman, Ike and JFK had all been deliberate, conscious Communist Agents. As such they were traitors and worthy of a firing squad.

The name of that group was the John Birch Society. One of their top leaders in Dallas was Ex-General Edwin Walker. Jack Ruby told this to Chief Justice Earl Warren on 7 June 1964, but Earl Warren didn't understand it (or at least he claimed that he didn't understand it).

I say Jack Ruby was part of the plot, so he knew exactly what he was talking about.

I believe we can even name some of the guilty parties. Jim Garrison did a great job in naming Guy Banister as one of the key plotters -- and Banister was also a member of the JBS.

Edwin Walker and Guy Banister were the two topmost leaders of the plot to kill JFK (according to my theory) and they met with David Morales (and his flunky, Frank Sturgis) in New Orleans during the summer of 1963.

As I recall, Joan Mellen spoke about this very meeting. It was at this meeting that David Morales received his orders -- \according to my theory.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo