Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ernie Lazar

Members
  • Content count

    1,637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ernie Lazar

  1. Ernie Lazar

    Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    JFK files: 15-year lawsuit over mysterious CIA agent drags as final files await release Ed Brackett, USA TODAYPublished 4:34 p.m. ET March 19, 2018 | Updated 8:41 p.m. ET March 19, 2018 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/19/jfk-files-15-year-lawsuit-over-mysterious-cia-agent-drags-final-files-await-release/435989002/ WASHINGTON — For 15 years, journalist, author and assassination expert Jefferson Morley has fought to compel the CIA to produce records about longtime spy George Joannides, who worked with a group associated with President John F. Kennedy's acknowledged assassin and then aided the committee that tried to investigate that killing. Morley returned to federal court again Monday, this time before a three-judge appeals court panel to get the government to pay legal fees that have climbed to more than $500,000, said Morley's attorney, James Lesar. Circumstances around Kennedy's murder and the various theories over the decades that reject the idea that the lone assassin was Oswald — who himself was murdered during a jail transfer two days after Kennedy was killed — can get pretty complicated. Morley, however, says his case is simple: The government needs to inform the public of its activities. Morley wants the appeals court in Washington to force the government to pay his legal fees and to get the CIA to reveal some of Joannides' records. "We're talking about very specific things. We are not talking about a Chinese box," he said in response to a question mentioning the term. Bill Miller, public information officer of the Washington U.S. Attorney's office, said the office had no comment on the case beyond its court motions and filings. As more and more government files have been released under the JFK Records Act since October, various long-held CIA secrets have been revealed, many of them not related to the assassination, at least directly. But even with the court case and the Records Act — with its final production due in April — files on Joannides remain scarce. In 1963, the year Kennedy was murdered, Joannides was the CIA case officer over students from Cuba eager to oust dictator Fidel Castro, who had seized power in 1959. In 1978, Joannides was named by the CIA as its contact with the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The committee wanted to know more about the student group, which was called the DRE and code-named AMSPELL. It was part of the CIA efforts to undermine Castro. Another CIA operation on a separate track even aimed to assassinate Castro, using the Mafia and assets within Cuba. Oswald had a bizarre interaction with a DRE member in New Orleans the summer leading up to Kennedy's Nov. 22 murder, in Dallas — to which Oswald moved from New Orleans. And just after the assassination, the DRE publicized that encounter with Oswald, and Oswald's avowed support of Castro. Committee staffers wanted to know more about Oswald and the DRE, but they were stymied by Joannides and the CIA, who did not tell the committee that the agent handled the DRE in 1963 was ... Joannides himself. CIA trying to chill inquiry, lawyer says Lesar, president of the Assassination Archives and Research Center, said the CIA is trying to chill further efforts to open more records by making the plaintiffs pay for the litigation even when there's a public benefit. So far, however, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon has disagreed, ruling there is no public benefit in records relating to Joannides, who died in 1990. Other appeals court proceedings have sent the issue back to Leon to address finer legal points. Monday's appeals court appearance is the fifth time Morley's case has been presented, Lesar said. A ruling from the panel of three circuit judges — Karen Henderson, Brett Kavanaugh and Gergory Kalsas — could come anywhere from a month to one and a half years, Lesar said. Most of the fees come from the years-long fight over who should pay, Lesar said. Morley's lawsuit began nearly 15 years ago, after the CIA refused to produce any records it had on Joannides that the National Archives didn't already have. Five years after that 2003 filing, Morley prevailed. The CIA produced records showing among other things that Joannides had a residence available to him in New Orleans possibly around the time Oswald had a very public altercation there with a member of the student group. The records also revealed that a then-retired Joannides got a "Career Intelligence Medal" in 1981. Morley said Monday that its reference to his work at headquarters is a pat on the back for stonewalling the House committee. Oswald's 1963 interaction with the DRE in New Orleans is one in a series of bizarre episodes in the life of the Marine who had earlier defected to the Soviet Union only to return two and half years later. On Aug. 5, 1963, Oswald approached a DRE member and offered his services to the militant anti-Castroites. Yet four days later the member, Carlos Bringuier, saw Oswald on a street handing out leaflets for a pro-Castro group. Called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, the group's New Orleans chapter in reality wasn't a bona fide group at all, having only one member — Oswald. A fight ensued, and both were arrested. The two subsequently appeared on a radio debate over Cuba on a New Orleans radio station.
  2. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8118362-181/michael-paine-debated-politics-with Michael Paine, debated politics with JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, dies at 89 CHRIS SMITH THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | March 15, 2018, 7:43PM | Updated 1 hour ago. Michael Paine of Sebastopol was a civil libertarian and retired aeronautical engineer who, while living outside Dallas in 1963, engaged in occasional political discussions with a self-identified Marxist named Lee Harvey Oswald. Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, he immediately thought of Oswald when he heard of the shooting “but dismissed him because I didn’t think he was that irrational,” Paine later told an interviewer. In testimony before the Warren Commission, created to investigate the assassination of JFK, Paine said he did not regard Oswald as someone likely to kill a president. “I saw he was a bitter person … very little charity in his view toward anybody, but I thought he was harmless,” he told the commission. Through much of the 55 years since JFK’s murder, some conspiracy narratives have alleged that both Paine and his former wife, Santa Rosa resident Ruth Paine, were CIA operatives and framed Oswald. Both rejected the scenario as ridiculous, declaring that their observations and knowledge of Oswald persuaded them that the killing of Kennedy was the work of him alone. Michael Paine told an interviewer not long after the shooting, “I think it’s a lone wolf thing. The opportunity presented itself to him and he probably wanted to make a mark on society.” Paine died March 1 in Sebastopol, where he had lived with or near his son the past 14 years. He was 89. He was born in New York City on June 25, 1928, to architect and left-wing activist G. Lyman Paine and Ruth Forbes Young, founder of the International Peace Academy. Michael Paine studied at Harvard and Swarthmore and was living in Pennsylvania when, in 1957, he married Ruth Avery Hyde. Two years later, Michael Hyde took a job with Bell Helicopter that required a relocation to Texas. The couple settled in Irving, a suburb of Dallas. They had two children, Tamarin and Chris, when they separated amicably in the fall of 1962, then continued to spend time together as a family. The children lived with Ruth Paine, a Quaker who has said she studied the Russian language in order to counter Cold War tensions by seeking out dialogue with Russian people. In February 1963, she heard of a Russian woman who spoke no English, having recently moved to the U.S. with her young daughter and her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald. Ruth, now a retired teacher and school counselor living in Rincon Valley, has said she liked the idea of having someone with whom to practice her Russian. So she reached out to the Oswalds. She invited her ex-husband, too, when she had 21-year-old Marina and Lee Oswald, 23, and baby June over for dinner. Ruth and Marina became friends. That friendship on occasion brought Michael Paine and Lee Oswald together, and three or four times they engaged in political discussions. Paine, a liberal and longtime member of the American Civil Liberties Union, would later describe Oswald as a “pipsqueak,” but one whose politics he tried to understand. “He told me he became a Marxist in this country by reading books and without having ever having met a communist,” Paine said in an interview following the assassination. “With me he spoke very freely and he complained that with other people he couldn’t … they wouldn’t talk about political subjects. He would talk about nothing else.” In interviews and in testimony before the Warren Commission, Paine described Oswald as a lonely man who seemed to like very few people. But in their conversations he never revealed hostility toward Kennedy. “I expressed my appreciation of President Kennedy and he didn’t ever argue with me on that point,” Paine said in an interview. In a 2013 essay he titled, “My Experience with Lee Harvey Oswald,” Paine recalled that Oswald once declared emphatically that “change only comes through violence.” “I’d also heard him say that President Kennedy was the best president he had in his lifetime. Looking back on what happened, these two statements seem impossibly contradictory … how could a man want to kill a president whom he thought was the best president he’d had in his lifetime?” Though Michael Paine remained no more than an acquaintance to the Oswalds, Ruth took Marina Oswald under her wing and tried to be helpful to her struggling family. Ruth, who became a key witness to the Warren Commission, has said she was hoping to bring a degree of stability to the Oswalds when, in the fall of 1963, she told Lee Oswald about a job opening she’d heard of — at the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. Oswald was hired. He rented a room near the job. In late September, Marina accepted an invitation by Ruth live with her and her children in Irving, about a 20-minute drive from Dallas Ruth Paine allowed the Oswalds to store most of their belongings in her garage. For weeks, Lee Oswald, who had no car or drivers license, hitched a ride to Ruth’s house after work on Fridays, then spent the weekend there with his family. It surprised Ruth Paine when Oswald appeared at her home unannounced on a Thursday — Nov. 21, 1963. Later that night, she walked into the garage and found the light was on, causing her to wonder who’d been in there. When she arose the next morning, Lee Oswald was already up and gone. He’d left a coffee cup in the kitchen sink. At 12:30 that afternoon, gunshots killed JFK as he sat beside his wife, Jacqueline, in the back of a convertible Cadillac just after the presidential motorcade passed by the book depository. It would soon dawn on the Paines that Lee Harvey Oswald had hidden his scoped, bolt-action rifle in Ruth’s garage. In the 9,400-word “My Experience with Lee Harvey Oswald,” Michael Paine wrote that he believed the assassin acted alone and decided only shortly before Nov. 22, 1963, to do something that would make himself infamous. “The nation would remember him as the one who had shot the president of the strongest capitalist nation of the world,” Paine wrote. “He wanted to be important — not inconsequential. He would be in the history books now, and that is what he wanted.” Both of the Paines testified before the Warren Commission in 1964, Ruth more extensively because of her nearly yearlong friendship with Marina Oswald and her many encounters with Marina’s controlling husband. In time, the Paines left Texas. Michael Paine lived and worked in Concord, Massachusetts, and was active in coastal conservation and supported Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. He moved to Sonoma County in 2004. He and his son, Chris Panym, founded near Sebastopol a “multi-household, multi-age, multi-enterprise community” they called Green Valley Village. They were unable to bring it to fruition. Chris Panym said that as his father approached aged 90 he lost his memory but all his life was committed to championing the environment and civil liberty. In addition to his son in Sebastopol and his former wife in Santa Rosa, Paine is survived by his daughter, Tamarin Laurel-Paine of Middlefield, Massachusetts. There will be a memorial service at 1 p.m. on April 14 in the library at Friends House in Rincon Valley. Panym asks people interested in attending to RSVP to him at 707-861-1169.
  3. Ernie Lazar

    Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8118362-181/michael-paine-debated-politics-with Michael Paine, debated politics with JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, dies at 89 CHRIS SMITH THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | March 15, 2018, 7:43PM | Updated 1 hour ago. Michael Paine of Sebastopol was a civil libertarian and retired aeronautical engineer who, while living outside Dallas in 1963, engaged in occasional political discussions with a self-identified Marxist named Lee Harvey Oswald. Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, he immediately thought of Oswald when he heard of the shooting “but dismissed him because I didn’t think he was that irrational,” Paine later told an interviewer. In testimony before the Warren Commission, created to investigate the assassination of JFK, Paine said he did not regard Oswald as someone likely to kill a president. “I saw he was a bitter person … very little charity in his view toward anybody, but I thought he was harmless,” he told the commission. Through much of the 55 years since JFK’s murder, some conspiracy narratives have alleged that both Paine and his former wife, Santa Rosa resident Ruth Paine, were CIA operatives and framed Oswald. Both rejected the scenario as ridiculous, declaring that their observations and knowledge of Oswald persuaded them that the killing of Kennedy was the work of him alone. Michael Paine told an interviewer not long after the shooting, “I think it’s a lone wolf thing. The opportunity presented itself to him and he probably wanted to make a mark on society.” Paine died March 1 in Sebastopol, where he had lived with or near his son the past 14 years. He was 89. He was born in New York City on June 25, 1928, to architect and left-wing activist G. Lyman Paine and Ruth Forbes Young, founder of the International Peace Academy. Michael Paine studied at Harvard and Swarthmore and was living in Pennsylvania when, in 1957, he married Ruth Avery Hyde. Two years later, Michael Hyde took a job with Bell Helicopter that required a relocation to Texas. The couple settled in Irving, a suburb of Dallas. They had two children, Tamarin and Chris, when they separated amicably in the fall of 1962, then continued to spend time together as a family. The children lived with Ruth Paine, a Quaker who has said she studied the Russian language in order to counter Cold War tensions by seeking out dialogue with Russian people. In February 1963, she heard of a Russian woman who spoke no English, having recently moved to the U.S. with her young daughter and her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald. Ruth, now a retired teacher and school counselor living in Rincon Valley, has said she liked the idea of having someone with whom to practice her Russian. So she reached out to the Oswalds. She invited her ex-husband, too, when she had 21-year-old Marina and Lee Oswald, 23, and baby June over for dinner. Ruth and Marina became friends. That friendship on occasion brought Michael Paine and Lee Oswald together, and three or four times they engaged in political discussions. Paine, a liberal and longtime member of the American Civil Liberties Union, would later describe Oswald as a “pipsqueak,” but one whose politics he tried to understand. “He told me he became a Marxist in this country by reading books and without having ever having met a communist,” Paine said in an interview following the assassination. “With me he spoke very freely and he complained that with other people he couldn’t … they wouldn’t talk about political subjects. He would talk about nothing else.” In interviews and in testimony before the Warren Commission, Paine described Oswald as a lonely man who seemed to like very few people. But in their conversations he never revealed hostility toward Kennedy. “I expressed my appreciation of President Kennedy and he didn’t ever argue with me on that point,” Paine said in an interview. In a 2013 essay he titled, “My Experience with Lee Harvey Oswald,” Paine recalled that Oswald once declared emphatically that “change only comes through violence.” “I’d also heard him say that President Kennedy was the best president he had in his lifetime. Looking back on what happened, these two statements seem impossibly contradictory … how could a man want to kill a president whom he thought was the best president he’d had in his lifetime?” Though Michael Paine remained no more than an acquaintance to the Oswalds, Ruth took Marina Oswald under her wing and tried to be helpful to her struggling family. Ruth, who became a key witness to the Warren Commission, has said she was hoping to bring a degree of stability to the Oswalds when, in the fall of 1963, she told Lee Oswald about a job opening she’d heard of — at the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. Oswald was hired. He rented a room near the job. In late September, Marina accepted an invitation by Ruth live with her and her children in Irving, about a 20-minute drive from Dallas Ruth Paine allowed the Oswalds to store most of their belongings in her garage. For weeks, Lee Oswald, who had no car or drivers license, hitched a ride to Ruth’s house after work on Fridays, then spent the weekend there with his family. It surprised Ruth Paine when Oswald appeared at her home unannounced on a Thursday — Nov. 21, 1963. Later that night, she walked into the garage and found the light was on, causing her to wonder who’d been in there. When she arose the next morning, Lee Oswald was already up and gone. He’d left a coffee cup in the kitchen sink. At 12:30 that afternoon, gunshots killed JFK as he sat beside his wife, Jacqueline, in the back of a convertible Cadillac just after the presidential motorcade passed by the book depository. It would soon dawn on the Paines that Lee Harvey Oswald had hidden his scoped, bolt-action rifle in Ruth’s garage. In the 9,400-word “My Experience with Lee Harvey Oswald,” Michael Paine wrote that he believed the assassin acted alone and decided only shortly before Nov. 22, 1963, to do something that would make himself infamous. “The nation would remember him as the one who had shot the president of the strongest capitalist nation of the world,” Paine wrote. “He wanted to be important — not inconsequential. He would be in the history books now, and that is what he wanted.” Both of the Paines testified before the Warren Commission in 1964, Ruth more extensively because of her nearly yearlong friendship with Marina Oswald and her many encounters with Marina’s controlling husband. In time, the Paines left Texas. Michael Paine lived and worked in Concord, Massachusetts, and was active in coastal conservation and supported Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. He moved to Sonoma County in 2004. He and his son, Chris Panym, founded near Sebastopol a “multi-household, multi-age, multi-enterprise community” they called Green Valley Village. They were unable to bring it to fruition. Chris Panym said that as his father approached aged 90 he lost his memory but all his life was committed to championing the environment and civil liberty. In addition to his son in Sebastopol and his former wife in Santa Rosa, Paine is survived by his daughter, Tamarin Laurel-Paine of Middlefield, Massachusetts. There will be a memorial service at 1 p.m. on April 14 in the library at Friends House in Rincon Valley. Panym asks people interested in attending to RSVP to him at 707-861-1169.
  4. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    As I have written numerous times, Dr. Caufield should be commended and praised for putting together so much information concerning the post-World War II history of the extreme right in the U.S. There are very few comparable efforts and despite errors made by Caufield, he made a noteworthy contribution to our historical knowledge. HOWEVER -- Caufield's contribution to JFK-assassination scholarship is an entirely separate matter. (1) Just FYI: I just did a search for Caufield's name in the "Google Books" database. I found a grand total of TWO references: (A) Page 616 of a 1998 book entitled "Live By the Sword" by Gus Russo -- where Caufield's name is listed among about 30 other names. Apparently Caufield sent the book's author something. (B) A 1995 issue of "The Fourth Decade" newsletter (published by Jerry Rose). Caufield is acknowledged as having sent some photos to Mr. Rose. This tends to support my previous contention regarding the lack of interest by scholars and researchers in Caufield's Walker book. (2) My first awareness about Dr. Caufield (although at this time I did NOT associate him with JFK-research) was when I asked the FBI to send me a list of previous FOIA requesters on numerous subject matters. So, for example, I discovered that on October 28, 2005, Caufield was sent 602 pages of FBI documents pertaining to Edwin Walker. I also noticed that he made requests in 1999 on William Potter Gale and in 2006 he made an FOIA request on Pedro A. Del Valle and in 2004 he made an FOIA request on Kenneth Goff. Insofar as Dr. Caufield received FBI files or documents in response to those requests, he probably received files and documents which the FBI had previously processed FOR ME -- because my requests preceded his requests by many years. For example: Caufield received his 602 pages of Walker documents in 2005 whereas I received 2629 pages on Edwin Walker in March 1995. Apparently, to reduce its workload, the FBI decided to NOT process a substantial portion of responsive records on Walker when they replied to the more recent FOIA requests. In particular, the FBI decided to NOT process Walker-related documents arising from the 1962 University of Mississippi-Oxford controversy and there were also a couple other HQ files which are now no longer available. One of them has always been of interest to me (HQ 97-3813) which contains serials regarding Walker's involvement (circa November 1965) with an attempt to overthrow the government of Costa Rica --- and there was also some discussion about Walker and the Dominican Republic. Caufield's request on William Potter Gale was made in July 1999 whereas my request was made in June 1988 and his request on Del Valle was made in May 2006 whereas mine was made in October 1998 and his request on Kenneth Goff was made in August 2004 whereas mine was made in March 1988. (3) There ARE very brief references to Harry Dean in some JFK assassination books. However, most of them are either one or two sentences OR sometimes only a paragraph. Most of those references clearly express skepticism or outright hostility re: Harry's story and many append the word "claim" to Harry's assertions -- i.e. they don't take his comments seriously. As one prominent British conspiracy theorist pointed out in his JFK book: "A man using the name Harry Dean, a self-styled former CIA and FBI agent, has claimed that he had infiltrated such a plot by members of the far right John Birch Society. Dean has never been taken seriously by the Kennedy researchers..." The newer the JFK-assassination book, the LESS likely that Dean's narrative is even mentioned. And a review of JBS-assassination websites clearly reveals that Dean's narrative is just ignored. (3) So, bottom-line is this: Regardless of Paul Trejo's personal opinions -- it is simply INDISPUTABLE that my original comments regarding Caufield (and Harry Dean) were accurate and truthful.
  5. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    As a postscript to my previous message, I need to point out (for the record) that Paul never addresses whatever actual EVIDENCE is presented. Normally, when there is some dispute over something, the parties involved address the specific evidence presented by their opponents. However, Paul NEVER does that. Instead, he routinely uses mis-direction in an attempt to SHIFT discussion off the most relevant points. What are those "relevant points"? Let's quickly summarize them -- because it is stunning to notice that Paul never addresses ANY of them: (1) PROPER CONTEXT must ALWAYS be acknowledged when any criticisms are being made. In other words, one cannot ACCURATELY summarize or paraphrase or dispute whatever argument is being made UNLESS, FIRST, the correct CONTEXT is taken into account. (2) WHAT WAS THE CONTEXT FOR ALL MY PREVIOUS REMARKS? I quote the relevant points again: "NOBODY heard of Dr. Caufield before his book was published and NOBODY has heard of him since. NOBODY refers to his book or debates its content. He is NOT part of any informed discussion -- as proven by review of JFK websites or by a review of scores of books and articles which have been published since 2015 when Caufield's book was published. The current Amazon ranking of Caufield's book is #1,129,944 in total sales. Nor is his book discussed in academic journals or conferences. What OTHER metric is applicable? (3) Notice that Paul does not even attempt to address ANY of those points. (A) Does Paul claim that Dr. Caufield was known within the JFK research community BEFORE 2015? (B) Does Paul claim that Dr. Caufield's book has been repeatedly reviewed or discussed in academic journals or in JFK conferences after 2015? (C) Does Paul claim that any of the major JFK-assassination websites have discussed Caufield's book? EXAMPLE: How many references to Caufield are on Mary Ferrell's website? (4) What other points did I make? (i.e. THE CONTEXT for this dispute -- which Paul REFUSES to address because he cannot refute what I presented) (A). It is NOT relevant if historians AGREE upon one conclusion. All that matters is the point you don't understand, namely, that historians and political scientists and journalists DON'T EVEN DISCUSS Harry Dean (or Caufield) as a relevant or credible narrative (B) With respect to: "THAT HAPPENS TO BE A LIE" (1) Caufield is NOT a "serious JFK scholar". (2) Caufield is a medical doctor who wrote something which NO serious person or publication has even bothered to review and it contains numerous factual errors. Plus MANY of Caufield's footnotes are not even checkable because Caufield does NOT use standard bibliographic methods. That is another reason why NO serious scholar or researcher bothers to consider it relevant. [NOTE: Does Paul dispute any of this? Has Caufield's book been reviewed by any serious publication or website (other than Jim DiEugenio's detailed critique--which Paul has never refuted?) Does Paul dispute that Caufield's book contains numerous factual errors? Does Paul dispute that many of Caufield's footnotes are NOT checkable because he does not provide the relevant bibliographic information?] (C) Similarly, NOBODY even bothered to review your Ebook because it also was NOT a serious or even a well-documented publication [NOTE: Does Paul dispute this? If I recall correctly, Paul has written that he only sold about 20 copies of his Ebook!] (D) Serious historical narratives are always discussed in academic publications or at academic conferences or in other pertinent venues. Their conclusions do NOT have to be "proven" BUT they must present something new which is widely recognized as a worthwhile contribution to the ongoing conversation about whatever matter is under scrutiny. Caufield's book cannot even meet that lowest-standard of what constitutes something relevant. [NOTE: Does Paul dispute any of this? Isn't it accurate and truthful to point out that serious historical narratives are ALWAYS discussed in academic and other venues AND serious narratives are routinely referenced in ongoing conversations about any historical controversy BUT Caufield's book is NOT discussed in these venues?] (E) Consequently, your statement that I lied is, in itself, a deliberate lie because you saw the context, you understood the context, and you deliberately chose to ignore the context. (F) IF you wanted to "prove" that I was not correct then you would have produced EVIDENCE to show that serious scholars and JFK websites routinely discuss or refer to Harry Dean's narrative OR that Dr. Caufield's book IS actually CURRENTLY discussed and referenced in online debates, in academic journals, in recent conferences devoted to discussing JFK assassination -- BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, CAN YOU? [NOTE: Has Paul even attempted to address these points? If not -- then why should we even consider him a serious, honest, or principled participant in this debate?]
  6. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    1. Caufield and O'Neill are hardly neutral or independent sources Paul. Obviously, authors or co-authors of publications will thank anybody who praises or publicizes or recommends their writings! 2. Nothing which I previously wrote has anything whatsoever to do with asking O'Neill or Caufield to post anything here. AGAIN -- this is another example of how you deliberately create straw-man arguments to divert attention from the REAL issues being raised. My actual point, which was very clearly stated, was that no serious JFK scholars or academic journals, publications, or conferences, or websites discuss what Caufield has written nor do they discuss Harry Dean. For example I have previously quoted what Joan Mellon wrote to me when I asked for her evaluation of Harry's narrative. There are also very acerbic comments from other JFK researchers over the years. 3. HOWEVER, since your mind functions like a small child, in the future I will respond to your messages in the manner which is required for a small child -- because I now recognize your need for literalism. This is quite funny because I just finished writing an article about the John Birch Society where I made the exact same point about their typical debate tactics. When debating a JBS member or sympathizer, a critic must NEVER assume that the plain ordinary meaning of words or thoughts are understood (or used) by Birchers AND one must NEVER leave out even the most picayune or irrelevant detail because if a critic DOES that, Birchers seize upon every such "omission" as a means to discredit EVERYTHING which the critic writes -- even though the specific detail might be totally irrelevant to the larger point being made. 4. Consequently, from now on, I will change my method of responding to your messages. I will start from the correct premise that you are mentally deficient and, therefore, you require that every single detail or nuance must be spelled out in child-like terms. 5. BOTTOM-LINE (using the new debate formula required when addressing your deficient intellect) (a) Human beings have many different opinions. An opinion is not the same thing as something which is factually true. Example: "I prefer strawberry ice cream, because it is the BEST flavor of ice cream" is a personal opinion. It reflects your personal preference and, consequently, it is NOT an argument which can be refuted or falsified. (b) There are some human beings on Planet Earth who have read Dr. Caufield's book and they have a positive OPINION about its content. However, that unknown number of human beings has not (up to now) included any currently known academic journals, or prominent historians or political scientists, or any prominent investigative journalists, OR anybody known and widely respected within the JFK (or American history) research community. The proof for those statements may be ascertained by simply reviewing the various library databases which capture articles, books, book reviews, newspaper articles, doctoral dissertations, master's theses, conference papers, audio/visual recordings, and other types of research materials. When searching those sources for Caufield's name OR for the title of Caufield's book OR for general discussions of JFK assassination theories -- one cannot find references to Caufield or his book -- nor can you find references to Harry Dean's "recollections" -- other than (perhaps) a couple sentences or a paragraph which just summarizes his unverifiable assertions. However, I should point out that any such references are almost always many years old and have not produced any sustained interest -- other than when they were first made many years ago. (c) The same evaluation (i.e. "b" above) can be made about Harry Dean's publication "Crosstrails" and about Paul Trejo's Ebook pertaining to Harry's narrative. However, as is the case in ALL matters of human OPINION, it is entirely possible that on a planet with 7,632,000,000 living human beings, one might find 10 or 20, or perhaps even 100 or 200 people who believe Harry's narrative or Dr. Caufield's narrative OR even (as hard as this is to believe), Paul Trejo's narrative. (d) What does the word "NOBODY" mean when used figuratively in conversation? (1) First, "figuratively" means "use of words or expressions with a meaning that is different from the literal interpretation" Since Paul Trejo has a child-like mentality, we must now define/describe "figurative language" (2) Why do human beings use "figurative" language? Answer: To emphasize certain concepts or ideas AND to convey something which is symbolic of a larger point. Often, for example, figurative language uses metaphors or hyperbole to emphasize a specific point. (3) LET'S NOW DISCUSS THE WORD "NOBODY": One of the standard definitions of the word "nobody" when it is used figuratively is: "a person of no importance, influence or power" Most NORMAL human beings understand that the word "nobody" is rarely (and probably never) used literally for a self-evident reason (i.e. self-evident to people who have normal brain function). That reason is because no single human being can ever know every thought or idea or opinion which exists in every human mind on Planet Earth. Consequently, if an author writes something like this: "Nobody believes the conspiracy theory which claims that Bill and Hillary Clinton arranged for the murder of Vincent Foster." THAT use of the word "nobody" is not meant to be taken LITERALLY, i.e. that no human being on Planet Earth believes that conspiracy theory. Instead, the word "nobody" in this context is used to emphasize that no rational person of importance, influence, or power believes that conspiracy theory. 6. CONCLUSION Because Paul Trejo... has such enormous difficulty understanding the normal usage of the English language AND he seizes upon everything he can use to divert attention from the ACTUAL meaning of what is being written AND he ROUTINELY uses mis-direction, straw-man arguments, circular reasoning, and deliberate FALSEHOODS to advance his personal opinions AND he can never acknowledge his personal mistakes AND he routinely attributes his own worst personal qualities to other people THEREFORE ALL future replies to Paul Trejo's messages will be handled in the same manner as above. Which means every word will be defined. Every concept or thought will be explained at the 3rd or 4th grade level of discussion so that there can be no future misunderstandings or mis-representations OR false accusations of "lying".
  7. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    Paul, you don't even know the definition of a lie. A lie is when you say or write something which is not true and you know it. I clearly told you the CONTEXT for my statement which you don't want to acknowledge. Consequently, your statement that I lied is, in itself, a deliberate lie because you saw the context, you understood the context, and you deliberately chose to ignore the context. IF you wanted to "prove" that I was not correct then you would have produced EVIDENCE to show that serious scholars and JFK websites routinely discuss or refer to Harry Dean's narrative OR that Dr. Caufield's book IS actually CURRENTLY discussed and referenced in online debates, in academic journals, in recent conferences devoted to discussing JFK assassination -- BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, CAN YOU? Now you know why NOBODY believes anything you write and why NOBODY thinks you are a serious person.
  8. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    OK, Paul --- you know the actual CONTEXT in which I made that statement but like a child you think you are making some relevant point by your literalism. By "NOBODY" (as I have repeatedly said before), I refer to all the usual suspects whom are typically part of all serious JFK debate. NOBODY heard of Dr. Caufield before his book was published and NOBODY has heard of him since. NOBODY refers to his book or debates its content. He is NOT part of any informed discussion -- as proven by review of JFK websites or by a review of scores of books and articles which have been published since 2015 when Caufield's book was published. The current Amazon ranking of Caufield's book is #1,129,944 in total sales. Nor is his book discussed in academic journals or conferences. What OTHER metric is applicable? I REPEAT MY ORIGINAL COMMENT --- which you cannot refute: 1. It is NOT relevant if historians AGREE upon one conclusion. All that matters is the point you don't understand, namely, that historians and political scientists and journalists DON'T EVEN DISCUSS Harry Dean (or Caufield) as a relevant or credible narrative 2. ALL works of FICTION are"innovative" 3. With respect to: "THAT HAPPENS TO BE A LIE" Nothing you have presented contradicts what I originally wrote. (A) Caufield is NOT a "serious JFK scholar". (B) Caufield is a medical doctor who wrote something which NO serious person or publication has even bothered to review and it contains numerous factual errors. Plus MANY of Caufield's footnotes are not even checkable because Caufield does NOT use standard bibliographic methods. That is another reason why NO serious scholar or researcher bothers to consider it relevant. (C) Similarly, NOBODY even bothered to review your Ebook because it also was NOT a serious or even a well-documented publication (D) Serious historical narratives are always discussed in academic publications or at academic conferences or in other pertinent venues. Their conclusions do NOT have to be "proven" BUT they must present something new which is widely recognized as a worthwhile contribution to the ongoing conversation about whatever matter is under scrutiny. Caufield's book cannot even meet that lowest-standard of what constitutes something relevant.
  9. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    1. It is NOT relevant if historians AGREE upon one conclusion. All that matters is the point you don't understand, namely, that historians and political scientists and journalists DON'T EVEN DISCUSS Harry Dean (or Caufield) as a relevant or credible narrative 2. ALL works of FICTION are"innovative" 3. With respect to: "THAT HAPPENS TO BE A LIE" Nothing you have presented contradicts what I originally wrote. (A) Caufield is NOT a "serious JFK scholar". (B) Caufield is a medical doctor who wrote something which NO serious person or publication has even bothered to review and it contains numerous factual errors. Plus MANY of Caufield's footnotes are not even checkable because Caufield does NOT use standard bibliographic methods. That is another reason why NO serious scholar or researcher bothers to consider it relevant. (C) Similarly, NOBODY even bothered to review your Ebook because it also was NOT a serious or even a well-documented publication (D) Serious historical narratives are always discussed in academic publications or at academic conferences or in other pertinent venues. Their conclusions do NOT have to be "proven" BUT they must present something new which is widely recognized as a worthwhile contribution to the ongoing conversation about whatever matter is under scrutiny. Caufield's book cannot even meet that lowest-standard of what constitutes something relevant.
  10. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    Of course he "mentions" Harry -- so what? 1. Caufield is NOT an historian 2. Caufield's book is NOT cited by any historian, political scientist or journalist 3. Is this really the standard which you use to discern truth and reality -- i.e. a "mention" is equivalent to PROOF?
  11. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    Paul, I am not "hostile" toward Harry. I just don't understand why he has never EVER written a definitive (short) statement which corresponds to what YOU claim he has told you AND why he refuses to answer basic and obvious questions --- as Larry Hancock and others have told you are standard questions which are ALWAYS asked when somebody claims to be an "eyewitness". The fundamental problem is this: You are NOT a genuine researcher. You are merely a shill for Harry and you accept virtually everything that comes out of his mouth without obtaining verifiable evidence or corroboration. With respect to FPCC: All we know for absolutely certain is that Harry was a member of the Chicago chapter for some period of time. We know absolutely NOTHING regarding what he did during his time as a member when he supposedly functioned as "Secretary". It is very clear from his FBI files that the FBI in Chicago had NO interest in Harry -- other than accepting his unsolicited information. And FBI Agents in Los Angeles told Harry that he was not even on their radar -- when Harry repeatedly asked for some sort of "FBI clearance". With respect to SoCal JBS and Minutemen: We DO NOT have even ONE single corroborating document to confirm ANYTHING which Harry claims about himself. There are no FBI documents which discuss Harry and the JBS or Harry and Minutemen. EVERYTHING which is publicly available is based EXCLUSIVELY upon Harry's own words. I don't even know what name Harry used when he claims he joined the JBS and MM -- nor has Harry ever identified what JBS chapter number or name he belonged to -- nor did he ever identify his chapter leader's name, his section leader's name, or his JBS Coordinator name. Nor has Harry ever provided any significant details concerning how many chapter meetings he attended (if any). Only your extreme bias and gullibility make you believe Harry's narrative. BOTTOM-LINE: 1. You can leave me out of this equation altogether -- i.e. just pretend I do not even exist. 2. The INDISPUTABLE FACT remains that no serious JFK scholar or JFK website believes Harry's story which is why NOBODY even mentions Harry. When you and I started this debate I contacted numerous JFK websites and asked for their evaluation of Harry. Most of them did not even know who he was. The rest dismissed his story as NON-credible --- just like Larry Hancock has done -- along with many other serious researchers and interested parties on this website. 3. So -- you can pretend (aka delude yourself) that only my "jealousy" is involved here -- but the plain fact of the matter is that Harry is NOT credible because he cannot prove one damn thing about his story -- and much of it can easily be DISPROVEN by cursory research.
  12. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    Although it may be accurate to write that Harry was not very successful at "making money" off his story, it is certainly not because he didn't try to do so. See his FBI-Los Angeles file for all the times he tried to interest parties in publishing something -- not to mention the period when he was selling subscriptions to his own n newsletter. ALL of his publicity-seeking efforts were designed to inflate his credentials so that he would be interviewed on radio, TV, or by the media. Furthermore, he sold his self-published memoir "Crosstrails" AND there is other evidence concerning his attempts to generate money from his story. I'm sorry Paul but you are BLINDED by your obsequious and reflexive defense of Harry because you see him as your "ally" -- instead of approaching his story in a neutral manner and trying to ascertain its actual purpose.
  13. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    Why do you mention Easterling being committed to a mental institution AND being considered "a mental case by the FBI" --- as some sort of disqualifying aspect regarding what he has "confessed"? Harry Dean had the exact same problem!!! AND YOUR previously stated position has been that the FBI deliberately falsifies evidence to make people look mentally-incompetent and the FBI "persecutes" them. Harry Dean's ENTIRE ADULT LIFE since the 1960's has been an attempt to generate publicity for his narrative. He repeatedly tried to get publicity in order to "make money" off his story and achieve fame. Geez!
  14. Ernie Lazar

    Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    As usual, you miss the point Paul. Easterling is another person who claims to be an "eyewitness" who presented a "confession" (just like Harry Dean). You think Easterling's story is "a hoax" but I bet you cannot disprove it with actual factual evidence. It is not a question of me "only now learning about Henry Hurt". Instead, I posted the Chicago Sun-Times article because I doubted that many people on this website had ever seen it. Your message only reveals how incredibly juvenile you are
  15. Ernie Lazar

    Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    While doing research for another matter, I came across this February 1986 Chicago Sun-Times article which might be of interest -- about a "confession" by Robert Easterling. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A startling confession and how it casts doubt on the accepted version of JFK's assassination Chicago Sun-Times - February 9, 1986, page 25, by Jim Quinlan In a 26-volume report, the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, chaired by U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren, reached the following conclusions 10 months after the death of JFK in 1963: Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed the president. Jack Ruby, acting alone, killed Oswald. There was no credible evidence of any conspiracy. Three shots were fired at the president's car. One went through his neck, then through the chest and wrist of Texas Gov. John Connally. Another shot hit the President's head. Another shot missed. All the shooting was from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository building. Investigative reporter Henry Hurt has spent more than four years searching for a solution to one of history's greatest mysteries: Who murdered President John F. Kennedy? In the introduction to his book, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (Henry Holt & Co.; $19.95), Hurt identifies himself among the 80 percent of Americans who polls say seriously doubt the Warren Commission's official explanation for Kennedy's tragic death in 1963. "In my quest to understand the case, I was not burdened by any preconceived notion, beyond a general feeling that the official version seemed illogically simplistic, that it seemed virtually impossible that Lee Harvey Oswald had done what the government had said that he had done," Hurt said. Reasonable Doubt is a thorough reconstruction of most of the evidence that has accumulated over the decades. It is a meticulous examination of virtually every detail of the assassination story, including a right-wing Cuban plot engineered by Fidel Castro to kill the president, the bungled JFK autopsy, the rushed Warren Commission report, the public expressions of doubt at every level, Oswald's intelligence connection, the "other" Oswald, the "magic" bullet, suppressed evidence, and dozens of other mysteries and bizarre characters connected with the case. In the end, after countless hours re-examinIng the mountain of material, Hurt concludes, just as many governmental investigations and countless private ones before him, "a powerful case can be made that Oswald did not kill Kennedy." Although Reasonable Doubt agrees with the conclusion of the 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations that John Kennedy's death was the result of a conspiracy, it stands apart from other works on the subject by offering what could be the missing pieces of the JFK murder puzzle. In Reasonable Doubt, Hurt offers answers to the questions: "who were the conspirators?" and "how did they manage to kill the president before our eyes and escape justice?" According to Hurt, the center of this historical storm was Robert Easterling, "a multiple felon, an ex-convict, a raging alcoholic, a diagnosed psychotic and schizophrenic" who came forward with a confession because he believed he was dying and wanted to clear his conscience. In so doing, Easterling gained the unique distinction of being the only person to offer a "full, detailed" confession to the crime of the century, according to Hurt. Unlike the FBI and others who chose to ignore Robert Easterling's confession, Hurt spent more than 100 hours interviewing the brutal ex convict. Where others chose to pass up any investigation of Easterling because they claimed he couldn't identify or locate the people he named as co-conspirators, Hurt listened. If Easterling's story is true, then Hurt has succeeded in explaining many of the questions that have plagued this numbing tragedy for more than two decades. Hurt said Easterling repeatedly attempted to contact the FBI with his story. Following the 1975 attempt on the life of President Gerald Ford, Easterling tried again, this time with the Secret Service. Although the Secret Service was interested in Easterling as late as 1982, there is no evidence any governmental agency took him seriously, Hurt said. That's probably because it wasn't possible to verify Easterling's story in "traditional fashion," Hurt said. In the early '60s, Easterling lived at the Windmill Trailer Court in Marrero, La., near New Orleans. An oil company worker, he frequented the Habana Bar in New Orleans. The Habana Bar was a haven for Cuban exiles at the time. Hurt identified Orest Pena, the bar's owner, as a leading member of the Cuban Revolutionary Council. He was also called an FBI and CIA source. It was in the Habana Bar in February, 1963, that Easterling claims he was enlisted in the conspiracy to kill the president, Hurt said. Nicknamed "Hardhat" because of the white construction hat he wore, Easterling spent the fateful night in the bar becoming reacquainted with a man named Manuel Rivera, a man he first met in 1960 when Rivera was running numbers for organized crime in New Orleans. Nicknamed "Hardhat" because of the white construction hat he wore, Easterling spent the fateful night in the bar becoming reacquainted with a man named Manuel Rivera, a man he first met in 1960 when Rivera was running numbers for organized crime in New Orleans. Easterling said Rivera told tales of having worked both for and against Castro, and of having been trained in Russia in sabotage and assassination techniques. Easterling said that standing at the bar with Rivera was David W. Ferrie, a pilot who had just flown him to New Orleans from Cuba, and a man identified as Clay Shaw. Ferrie, a violent anti-communist, religious zealot and "New Orleans styled mad genius," was thought to be a CIA contact in the Cuban community. In February, 1967, when New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison announced he had solved the Kennedy assassination, the name of Ferrie surfaced as one of the suspects. During the course of Garrison's investigation, six witnesses claimed Ferrie, Oswald and Shaw, a prominent New Orleans businessman, met together in Clinton, La., a small town 150 m iles from New Orleans. Five days after Garrison's announcement, Ferrie was found dead. Despite a suicide note, the coroner said he died of a brain hemorrhage. Easterling told Hurt that during the bar meeting they examined a rifle that was there when he arrived. The rifle was later identified by Rivera as a Czech-made 7-mm. automatic rifle with a special design. It had a box on the side to catch used cartridges. After the others left, Rivera and Easterling continued their talk. It was during this conversation that Rivera told Easterling of the plan to kill the president. Easterling said Rivera asked him to help, with the promise of good pay. Hurt said he talked with Pena, who confirmed that Ferrie and Shaw were customers. Although Shaw had an office near the bar, Pena said he may have confused Shaw with a man named Guy Bannister. Bannister, a former FBI agent, was once head of the Chicago office. An avid anti-communist and John Birch Society member, he supervised a small group of right- wing radicals who carried out various missions for U.S. intelligence from an office in New Orleans. Bannister died of a heart attack in June, 1964. Easterling said Rivera stored the Czech rifle in his car along with another rifle he described as a Mannlicher-Carcano, the same model that Oswald allegedly used to kill Kennedy. Rivera then asked Easterling to help him find a barrel of water and a place to fire the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Easterling said Rivera wanted both the spent slugs and their shell casings intact. Easterling accommodated Rivera the following day, taking him to the field behind his trailer where the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was fired and the slugs and casings were retrieved. Easterling said Rivera held up one of the slugs afterward and told him it would someday be famous. Weeks later, Easterling said, he was in the bar again with Rivera discussing the assassination plan when he was told a photo was going to be taken of him and the others involved. Easterling said he was blindfolded and driven with two other men to a place where the picture was taken. He said Rivera told them it was necessary to keep such a record for historical purposes. It was at this time that Easterling was shown a rectangular, wooden box with a false bottom. The secret compartment was to be the hiding place for the Czech rifle, Easterling said. When they returned to the bar, Easterling said, he was told details of the assassination plan. The box with the Czech rifle hidden inside would be placed where the assassination would take place. Someone else would have the other rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano. The president would be killed with the Czech rifle, using cartridges that would disintegrate upon contact. The gun would then be smuggled out. Three shell casings from the Mannlicher-Carcano (presumably the ones fired into the water barrel) would be left at the scene (the book depository) and a slug from it (one of those fired into the water barrel) would be left (at Parkland Hospital) where the police could find it. The man with the Mannlicher-Carcano was to be set up to take the blame. Since only three spent cartridges were found by the window in the Texas School Book Depository where the commission claims Oswald fired at the president, it was their official conclusion that only three shots were fired. In its report, the commission said one shot shattered the president's head, a second shot missed and the third, referred to as the "magic" bullet, hit the president's back and exited through his neck. The bullet then struck Texas Gov. John Connally, who was seated in front of the president, at the rear of his right armpit. Before it exited Connally's chest it "pulverized" his fifth rib. Finally, the bullet, according to the Warren Commission, struck the governor's right wrist and entered his left thigh. A bullet that would be ballistic ally connected to the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was later discovered in "nearly perfect condition" in a Parkland Hospital corridor after the assassination. There was no visible blood or tissue on it. It was following this amazing account of its destructive path that critics dubbed it "magic." Easterling described for Hurt the first time he saw Lee Harvey Oswald. It was in the Habana Bar in 1963, he said. Oswald came in with a young Cuban. It was memorable because Oswald ordered lemonade. After getting his drink, Oswald complained about the price and then threw up all over the table where the two men were sitting. Hurt said the incident was remembered by those present that night and the description given of the man with Oswald fits the description Easterling gave of Rivera. Later, Rivera told Easterling that Oswald was to be the dupe in the assassination and would later himself be killed. Since Easterling was supposed to pick up Oswald following the assassination and drive him to Mexico, he began to fear for his own life. Easterling believed he, too, was marked for death. Later in that summer of 1963, Easterling recalled doing a favor for a wealthy businessman. Although the favor was a small one, he came in contact once again with two men, one of whom he identified as Clay Shaw, whom Hurt believed was Guy Bannister. The other was Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby. Both men were doing favors for organized crime in the area. Easterling said the businessman told him Shaw and Ruby were involved in a plot to kill the Kennedys. Hurt said he confirmed the association but would not name the businessman. Jack Ruby gunned down Oswald before a live television audience two days following JFK's death. With the killing by Ruby, the chance to discover firsthand whether Oswald was guilty or not, a conspirator or not, was lost forever. The Warren Commission concluded Ruby acted alone and out of grief over the death of Kennedy. Ruby died of cancer in prison. In September, 1963, two months before the assassination, Easterling was notified he was to assist in removing Oswald, who Rivera believed was being watched by the FBI, from New Orleans. Oswald had been involved in at least two street brawls that had been reported to New Orleans police. He was also active in a Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a pro-Castro group federal officials were watching. To cover Oswald's departure from New Orleans, Easterling said, a diversionary fire was set the day Oswald was to be driven to Houston. Hurt said he followed up Easterling's account by checking times and places with official New Orleans Fire Department records. Hurt said the records all but confirmed Easterling's memory of the fire and its location, a building the FBI said Oswald had frequented in the past. The last time Oswald was seen in New Orleans was Sept. 23, just as Easterling said. After Rivera, Oswald and Easterling reached Houston they made contact with another man, one who looked "strikingly" like Oswald, Easterling said. The man, who Easterling believed spoke little English, was identified only as "Carlo." Carlo would later figure prominently in the assassination plot. In an effort to evaluate Easterling's confession, Hurt said he tracked down as many of the principals as possible. Orest Pena, owner of the Habana Bar, told Hurt he heard people in his bar talking about killing the president but said he heard no one plot a conspiracy. He confirmed that David Ferrie and Clay Shaw were patrons of the bar. Hurt said Ruby visited New Orleans in June, 1963. Although he denied any connection to a conspiracy, the wealthy businessman named by Easterling as doing business with Ruby admitted to knowing Easterling, Hurt said. As the days grew closer to Kennedy's arrival in Dallas, Easterling said he became more frightened. He was certain he would die like Rivera said Oswald would. Rivera told him his job was to come to Dallas after the assassination, pick up Oswald, then drive to Mexico. Hurt said Easterling made a desperate attempt to warn the FBI of the assassination plan. Hurt said the FBI denied it had any relationship with Easter ling. According to an official bureau statement, there is "nothing in FBI files to substantiate Mr. Easter ling's claim that he called the FBI on the night of Nov. 21, 1963," one day before the assassination. Hurt said that in spite of the FBI's denial, most of what happened next to Easterling can be verified. Easterling said that as a means of covering for himself and avoiding any possible connection to the assassination, he planned to commit a burglary on Nov. 22. Early in the morning of the assassination day, he broke into store in Baton Rouge and after encountering the watchman escaped in his car. He had no intention of going to Dallas and picking up the doomed Oswald. After a narrow escape from the police, Easterling went to Jackson, Miss., where he heard the first news accounts of the assassination. He watched the television coverage and the murder of Oswald by Ruby the following morning. Easterling assumed a new identity and financed the next few months with a series of burglaries. By early 1964, Easterling was picked up by the FBI on a fugitive warrant and returned to Baton Rouge, where he was charged with the break-in on Nov. 22, 1963. He was sentenced to five years in the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. He served three years. It was not until 1974 and a chance encounter with Francisco Rivera, the younger brother of Manuel, that Easterling learned what the alleged conspirators say really happened in Dallas the day Kennedy was killed. Francisco told him in detail. Hurt writes: "Shortly before the motorcade was due to arrive in Dealey Plaza, Rivera took advantage of the gathering crowd to slip into the Book Depository. Presumably it was not his first visit. He made his way to the sixth floor, overlooking the spacious plaza area below. He located his special box, even though there were dozens of other boxes of varying descriptions in the cavernous, warehouselike room. "Carlo, the Oswald look-alike, was already in the building. Numerous people saw him and later remembered him. Like the real Oswald, he kept to himself and said little. Since mid-morning, the real Lee Harvey Oswald had been at the bus station a few blocks away, waiting to be picked up by Robert Easterling. "During the minutes before the arrival of the motorcade, Rivera and Carlo made their preparations. They made sure the Mannlicher-Carcano - the Oswald rifle - was stashed between some boxes at the other end of the {book depository} room. Francisco claimed that they then took three empty cartridge shells that had been fired earlier from the Oswald rifle and placed them on the floor beside the assassin's window. Rivera removed the Czech rifle from the special box and checked it over. All was ready. "Rivera stood back from the window as he watched the presidential motorcade approaching his position. He could see the tanned and smiling face of John F. Kennedy, the president of the United States, as he waved to the cheering crowds. As the president's limousine made the turn from Houston onto Elm Street, just below him, Rivera stepped to the window and crouched. "The head of President Kennedy filled the rifle scope. Rivera took a deep breath, expelled it slowly, then squeezed the trigger. With stunning speed and accuracy, he fired three times in 5.6 seconds to strike his moving target. His firing time had been been better on the coconuts, but this got the job done. Rivera waited a fraction of a second after the last shot to see if another was needed. But he could see that it was not necessary. He had blown apart the president's head. "Moving quickly, Rivera returned the Czech rifle {that fired the exploding bullets} to its hiding place beneath the false bottom of the special box. At that moment, Carlo was dawdling about at the soda machine four floors below. {It appeared Carlo's role was to be seen in the building and mistaken for Oswald so there would be no doubt that the real Oswald had been in the building at the time of the shooting.} Carlo was challenged by a police officer who was rushing past him to reach the uppe r floors of the building. But Carlo remained calm and said nothing. A man who worked in the building told the policeman that Carlo - whom he believed to be Oswald - also worked there. Carlo then slowly made his way out of the building and melted into the hysterical crowds. "Within minutes, Manuel Rivera had left the building. At the parking lot, he and Carlo got into a car and were on their way home. At some point, a little later, the nearly perfect bullet that had been fired from the Oswald rifle into a water barrel was placed on an unattended stretcher in a public corridor at Parkland Hospital, where the dying president had been taken." Hurt points out some of the "enduring oddities" of evidence other investigators have pondered for years. The three cartridge shells linked to Oswald's rifle. Shells which were not scattered about in a normal fashion. "Another curious point is the failure by investigators to find a single Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge other than those, including a live round still in the rifle, discovered at the scene," Hurt said. "No extra cartridge was ever found on Oswald or in his possessions. No evidence was found that he ever purchased ammunition at all. If he was the assassin, his only ammunition was at the scene - the cartridge shells lined up as evidence in the assassin's lair. There is no official explanation as to where Oswald supposedly got his four cartridges." Hurt called the alleged assassination weapon, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, one of the "worst possible" selections for such shooting. Oswald was a marginal marksman in the Marines. "Yet he is credited with a combination of shooting skills on Nov. 22 that has never been matched in repeated government tests by the most proficient riflemen in the United States," Hurt said. "Moreover, there is no evidence that the Mannlicher-Carcano was even fired on the day of the assassination." Hurt takes aim at the investigation conducted immediately following the assassination. Although the alleged murder weapon was discovered less than an hour after the shooting, he said, there is no evidence of any further search of the building or its contents. According to the Warren Report, Oswald's clipboard was found 10 days later on the sixth floor. "His jacket was not found until late November." The litany of clues, claims and coincidences will perhaps haunt the Kennedy assassination story forever. In his conclusion to Easterling's "confession," Hurt returns to much of what has puzzled others before him. "The case against Lee Harvey Oswald has always been circumstantial at best. No reliable witness ever placed him in the assassin's lair," he said. There were no fingerprints on the rifle and "only the most tenuous evidence" to indicate Oswald took the Mannlicher-Carcano into the building. There is also no known motive, Hurt said. "During his interrogation, Oswald stoutly denied his guilt. `I didn't shoot anyone,' he stated in a corridor encounter with the press. "What, then, was Oswald's role? "He was silenced, of course, before he could give his version of events. However, in one of his last statements on record, Oswald shouted to reporters: " `I'm just a patsy! I'm just a patsy!' "
  16. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    While doing research for another matter, I came across this February 1986 Chicago Sun-Times article which might be of interest -- about a "confession" by Robert Easterling. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A startling confession and how it casts doubt on the accepted version of JFK's assassination Chicago Sun-Times - February 9, 1986, page 25, by Jim Quinlan In a 26-volume report, the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, chaired by U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren, reached the following conclusions 10 months after the death of JFK in 1963: Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed the president. Jack Ruby, acting alone, killed Oswald. There was no credible evidence of any conspiracy. Three shots were fired at the president's car. One went through his neck, then through the chest and wrist of Texas Gov. John Connally. Another shot hit the President's head. Another shot missed. All the shooting was from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository building. Investigative reporter Henry Hurt has spent more than four years searching for a solution to one of history's greatest mysteries: Who murdered President John F. Kennedy? In the introduction to his book, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (Henry Holt & Co.; $19.95), Hurt identifies himself among the 80 percent of Americans who polls say seriously doubt the Warren Commission's official explanation for Kennedy's tragic death in 1963. "In my quest to understand the case, I was not burdened by any preconceived notion, beyond a general feeling that the official version seemed illogically simplistic, that it seemed virtually impossible that Lee Harvey Oswald had done what the government had said that he had done," Hurt said. Reasonable Doubt is a thorough reconstruction of most of the evidence that has accumulated over the decades. It is a meticulous examination of virtually every detail of the assassination story, including a right-wing Cuban plot engineered by Fidel Castro to kill the president, the bungled JFK autopsy, the rushed Warren Commission report, the public expressions of doubt at every level, Oswald's intelligence connection, the "other" Oswald, the "magic" bullet, suppressed evidence, and dozens of other mysteries and bizarre characters connected with the case. In the end, after countless hours re-examinIng the mountain of material, Hurt concludes, just as many governmental investigations and countless private ones before him, "a powerful case can be made that Oswald did not kill Kennedy." Although Reasonable Doubt agrees with the conclusion of the 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations that John Kennedy's death was the result of a conspiracy, it stands apart from other works on the subject by offering what could be the missing pieces of the JFK murder puzzle. In Reasonable Doubt, Hurt offers answers to the questions: "who were the conspirators?" and "how did they manage to kill the president before our eyes and escape justice?" According to Hurt, the center of this historical storm was Robert Easterling, "a multiple felon, an ex-convict, a raging alcoholic, a diagnosed psychotic and schizophrenic" who came forward with a confession because he believed he was dying and wanted to clear his conscience. In so doing, Easterling gained the unique distinction of being the only person to offer a "full, detailed" confession to the crime of the century, according to Hurt. Unlike the FBI and others who chose to ignore Robert Easterling's confession, Hurt spent more than 100 hours interviewing the brutal ex convict. Where others chose to pass up any investigation of Easterling because they claimed he couldn't identify or locate the people he named as co-conspirators, Hurt listened. If Easterling's story is true, then Hurt has succeeded in explaining many of the questions that have plagued this numbing tragedy for more than two decades. Hurt said Easterling repeatedly attempted to contact the FBI with his story. Following the 1975 attempt on the life of President Gerald Ford, Easterling tried again, this time with the Secret Service. Although the Secret Service was interested in Easterling as late as 1982, there is no evidence any governmental agency took him seriously, Hurt said. That's probably because it wasn't possible to verify Easterling's story in "traditional fashion," Hurt said. In the early '60s, Easterling lived at the Windmill Trailer Court in Marrero, La., near New Orleans. An oil company worker, he frequented the Habana Bar in New Orleans. The Habana Bar was a haven for Cuban exiles at the time. Hurt identified Orest Pena, the bar's owner, as a leading member of the Cuban Revolutionary Council. He was also called an FBI and CIA source. It was in the Habana Bar in February, 1963, that Easterling claims he was enlisted in the conspiracy to kill the president, Hurt said. Nicknamed "Hardhat" because of the white construction hat he wore, Easterling spent the fateful night in the bar becoming reacquainted with a man named Manuel Rivera, a man he first met in 1960 when Rivera was running numbers for organized crime in New Orleans. Nicknamed "Hardhat" because of the white construction hat he wore, Easterling spent the fateful night in the bar becoming reacquainted with a man named Manuel Rivera, a man he first met in 1960 when Rivera was running numbers for organized crime in New Orleans. Easterling said Rivera told tales of having worked both for and against Castro, and of having been trained in Russia in sabotage and assassination techniques. Easterling said that standing at the bar with Rivera was David W. Ferrie, a pilot who had just flown him to New Orleans from Cuba, and a man identified as Clay Shaw. Ferrie, a violent anti-communist, religious zealot and "New Orleans styled mad genius," was thought to be a CIA contact in the Cuban community. In February, 1967, when New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison announced he had solved the Kennedy assassination, the name of Ferrie surfaced as one of the suspects. During the course of Garrison's investigation, six witnesses claimed Ferrie, Oswald and Shaw, a prominent New Orleans businessman, met together in Clinton, La., a small town 150 m iles from New Orleans. Five days after Garrison's announcement, Ferrie was found dead. Despite a suicide note, the coroner said he died of a brain hemorrhage. Easterling told Hurt that during the bar meeting they examined a rifle that was there when he arrived. The rifle was later identified by Rivera as a Czech-made 7-mm. automatic rifle with a special design. It had a box on the side to catch used cartridges. After the others left, Rivera and Easterling continued their talk. It was during this conversation that Rivera told Easterling of the plan to kill the president. Easterling said Rivera asked him to help, with the promise of good pay. Hurt said he talked with Pena, who confirmed that Ferrie and Shaw were customers. Although Shaw had an office near the bar, Pena said he may have confused Shaw with a man named Guy Bannister. Bannister, a former FBI agent, was once head of the Chicago office. An avid anti-communist and John Birch Society member, he supervised a small group of right- wing radicals who carried out various missions for U.S. intelligence from an office in New Orleans. Bannister died of a heart attack in June, 1964. Easterling said Rivera stored the Czech rifle in his car along with another rifle he described as a Mannlicher-Carcano, the same model that Oswald allegedly used to kill Kennedy. Rivera then asked Easterling to help him find a barrel of water and a place to fire the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Easterling said Rivera wanted both the spent slugs and their shell casings intact. Easterling accommodated Rivera the following day, taking him to the field behind his trailer where the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was fired and the slugs and casings were retrieved. Easterling said Rivera held up one of the slugs afterward and told him it would someday be famous. Weeks later, Easterling said, he was in the bar again with Rivera discussing the assassination plan when he was told a photo was going to be taken of him and the others involved. Easterling said he was blindfolded and driven with two other men to a place where the picture was taken. He said Rivera told them it was necessary to keep such a record for historical purposes. It was at this time that Easterling was shown a rectangular, wooden box with a false bottom. The secret compartment was to be the hiding place for the Czech rifle, Easterling said. When they returned to the bar, Easterling said, he was told details of the assassination plan. The box with the Czech rifle hidden inside would be placed where the assassination would take place. Someone else would have the other rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano. The president would be killed with the Czech rifle, using cartridges that would disintegrate upon contact. The gun would then be smuggled out. Three shell casings from the Mannlicher-Carcano (presumably the ones fired into the water barrel) would be left at the scene (the book depository) and a slug from it (one of those fired into the water barrel) would be left (at Parkland Hospital) where the police could find it. The man with the Mannlicher-Carcano was to be set up to take the blame. Since only three spent cartridges were found by the window in the Texas School Book Depository where the commission claims Oswald fired at the president, it was their official conclusion that only three shots were fired. In its report, the commission said one shot shattered the president's head, a second shot missed and the third, referred to as the "magic" bullet, hit the president's back and exited through his neck. The bullet then struck Texas Gov. John Connally, who was seated in front of the president, at the rear of his right armpit. Before it exited Connally's chest it "pulverized" his fifth rib. Finally, the bullet, according to the Warren Commission, struck the governor's right wrist and entered his left thigh. A bullet that would be ballistic ally connected to the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was later discovered in "nearly perfect condition" in a Parkland Hospital corridor after the assassination. There was no visible blood or tissue on it. It was following this amazing account of its destructive path that critics dubbed it "magic." Easterling described for Hurt the first time he saw Lee Harvey Oswald. It was in the Habana Bar in 1963, he said. Oswald came in with a young Cuban. It was memorable because Oswald ordered lemonade. After getting his drink, Oswald complained about the price and then threw up all over the table where the two men were sitting. Hurt said the incident was remembered by those present that night and the description given of the man with Oswald fits the description Easterling gave of Rivera. Later, Rivera told Easterling that Oswald was to be the dupe in the assassination and would later himself be killed. Since Easterling was supposed to pick up Oswald following the assassination and drive him to Mexico, he began to fear for his own life. Easterling believed he, too, was marked for death. Later in that summer of 1963, Easterling recalled doing a favor for a wealthy businessman. Although the favor was a small one, he came in contact once again with two men, one of whom he identified as Clay Shaw, whom Hurt believed was Guy Bannister. The other was Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby. Both men were doing favors for organized crime in the area. Easterling said the businessman told him Shaw and Ruby were involved in a plot to kill the Kennedys. Hurt said he confirmed the association but would not name the businessman. Jack Ruby gunned down Oswald before a live television audience two days following JFK's death. With the killing by Ruby, the chance to discover firsthand whether Oswald was guilty or not, a conspirator or not, was lost forever. The Warren Commission concluded Ruby acted alone and out of grief over the death of Kennedy. Ruby died of cancer in prison. In September, 1963, two months before the assassination, Easterling was notified he was to assist in removing Oswald, who Rivera believed was being watched by the FBI, from New Orleans. Oswald had been involved in at least two street brawls that had been reported to New Orleans police. He was also active in a Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a pro-Castro group federal officials were watching. To cover Oswald's departure from New Orleans, Easterling said, a diversionary fire was set the day Oswald was to be driven to Houston. Hurt said he followed up Easterling's account by checking times and places with official New Orleans Fire Department records. Hurt said the records all but confirmed Easterling's memory of the fire and its location, a building the FBI said Oswald had frequented in the past. The last time Oswald was seen in New Orleans was Sept. 23, just as Easterling said. After Rivera, Oswald and Easterling reached Houston they made contact with another man, one who looked "strikingly" like Oswald, Easterling said. The man, who Easterling believed spoke little English, was identified only as "Carlo." Carlo would later figure prominently in the assassination plot. In an effort to evaluate Easterling's confession, Hurt said he tracked down as many of the principals as possible. Orest Pena, owner of the Habana Bar, told Hurt he heard people in his bar talking about killing the president but said he heard no one plot a conspiracy. He confirmed that David Ferrie and Clay Shaw were patrons of the bar. Hurt said Ruby visited New Orleans in June, 1963. Although he denied any connection to a conspiracy, the wealthy businessman named by Easterling as doing business with Ruby admitted to knowing Easterling, Hurt said. As the days grew closer to Kennedy's arrival in Dallas, Easterling said he became more frightened. He was certain he would die like Rivera said Oswald would. Rivera told him his job was to come to Dallas after the assassination, pick up Oswald, then drive to Mexico. Hurt said Easterling made a desperate attempt to warn the FBI of the assassination plan. Hurt said the FBI denied it had any relationship with Easter ling. According to an official bureau statement, there is "nothing in FBI files to substantiate Mr. Easter ling's claim that he called the FBI on the night of Nov. 21, 1963," one day before the assassination. Hurt said that in spite of the FBI's denial, most of what happened next to Easterling can be verified. Easterling said that as a means of covering for himself and avoiding any possible connection to the assassination, he planned to commit a burglary on Nov. 22. Early in the morning of the assassination day, he broke into store in Baton Rouge and after encountering the watchman escaped in his car. He had no intention of going to Dallas and picking up the doomed Oswald. After a narrow escape from the police, Easterling went to Jackson, Miss., where he heard the first news accounts of the assassination. He watched the television coverage and the murder of Oswald by Ruby the following morning. Easterling assumed a new identity and financed the next few months with a series of burglaries. By early 1964, Easterling was picked up by the FBI on a fugitive warrant and returned to Baton Rouge, where he was charged with the break-in on Nov. 22, 1963. He was sentenced to five years in the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. He served three years. It was not until 1974 and a chance encounter with Francisco Rivera, the younger brother of Manuel, that Easterling learned what the alleged conspirators say really happened in Dallas the day Kennedy was killed. Francisco told him in detail. Hurt writes: "Shortly before the motorcade was due to arrive in Dealey Plaza, Rivera took advantage of the gathering crowd to slip into the Book Depository. Presumably it was not his first visit. He made his way to the sixth floor, overlooking the spacious plaza area below. He located his special box, even though there were dozens of other boxes of varying descriptions in the cavernous, warehouselike room. "Carlo, the Oswald look-alike, was already in the building. Numerous people saw him and later remembered him. Like the real Oswald, he kept to himself and said little. Since mid-morning, the real Lee Harvey Oswald had been at the bus station a few blocks away, waiting to be picked up by Robert Easterling. "During the minutes before the arrival of the motorcade, Rivera and Carlo made their preparations. They made sure the Mannlicher-Carcano - the Oswald rifle - was stashed between some boxes at the other end of the {book depository} room. Francisco claimed that they then took three empty cartridge shells that had been fired earlier from the Oswald rifle and placed them on the floor beside the assassin's window. Rivera removed the Czech rifle from the special box and checked it over. All was ready. "Rivera stood back from the window as he watched the presidential motorcade approaching his position. He could see the tanned and smiling face of John F. Kennedy, the president of the United States, as he waved to the cheering crowds. As the president's limousine made the turn from Houston onto Elm Street, just below him, Rivera stepped to the window and crouched. "The head of President Kennedy filled the rifle scope. Rivera took a deep breath, expelled it slowly, then squeezed the trigger. With stunning speed and accuracy, he fired three times in 5.6 seconds to strike his moving target. His firing time had been been better on the coconuts, but this got the job done. Rivera waited a fraction of a second after the last shot to see if another was needed. But he could see that it was not necessary. He had blown apart the president's head. "Moving quickly, Rivera returned the Czech rifle {that fired the exploding bullets} to its hiding place beneath the false bottom of the special box. At that moment, Carlo was dawdling about at the soda machine four floors below. {It appeared Carlo's role was to be seen in the building and mistaken for Oswald so there would be no doubt that the real Oswald had been in the building at the time of the shooting.} Carlo was challenged by a police officer who was rushing past him to reach the uppe r floors of the building. But Carlo remained calm and said nothing. A man who worked in the building told the policeman that Carlo - whom he believed to be Oswald - also worked there. Carlo then slowly made his way out of the building and melted into the hysterical crowds. "Within minutes, Manuel Rivera had left the building. At the parking lot, he and Carlo got into a car and were on their way home. At some point, a little later, the nearly perfect bullet that had been fired from the Oswald rifle into a water barrel was placed on an unattended stretcher in a public corridor at Parkland Hospital, where the dying president had been taken." Hurt points out some of the "enduring oddities" of evidence other investigators have pondered for years. The three cartridge shells linked to Oswald's rifle. Shells which were not scattered about in a normal fashion. "Another curious point is the failure by investigators to find a single Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge other than those, including a live round still in the rifle, discovered at the scene," Hurt said. "No extra cartridge was ever found on Oswald or in his possessions. No evidence was found that he ever purchased ammunition at all. If he was the assassin, his only ammunition was at the scene - the cartridge shells lined up as evidence in the assassin's lair. There is no official explanation as to where Oswald supposedly got his four cartridges." Hurt called the alleged assassination weapon, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, one of the "worst possible" selections for such shooting. Oswald was a marginal marksman in the Marines. "Yet he is credited with a combination of shooting skills on Nov. 22 that has never been matched in repeated government tests by the most proficient riflemen in the United States," Hurt said. "Moreover, there is no evidence that the Mannlicher-Carcano was even fired on the day of the assassination." Hurt takes aim at the investigation conducted immediately following the assassination. Although the alleged murder weapon was discovered less than an hour after the shooting, he said, there is no evidence of any further search of the building or its contents. According to the Warren Report, Oswald's clipboard was found 10 days later on the sixth floor. "His jacket was not found until late November." The litany of clues, claims and coincidences will perhaps haunt the Kennedy assassination story forever. In his conclusion to Easterling's "confession," Hurt returns to much of what has puzzled others before him. "The case against Lee Harvey Oswald has always been circumstantial at best. No reliable witness ever placed him in the assassin's lair," he said. There were no fingerprints on the rifle and "only the most tenuous evidence" to indicate Oswald took the Mannlicher-Carcano into the building. There is also no known motive, Hurt said. "During his interrogation, Oswald stoutly denied his guilt. `I didn't shoot anyone,' he stated in a corridor encounter with the press. "What, then, was Oswald's role? "He was silenced, of course, before he could give his version of events. However, in one of his last statements on record, Oswald shouted to reporters: " `I'm just a patsy! I'm just a patsy!' "
  17. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    Incidentally, I will not be able to respond to Paul Trejo's messages for several days (or perhaps even a week or longer) because I am presently engaged in research for a major critique of an article recently published on the JBS magazine website. That JBS article discusses assertions made in a recent article posted on the website of "The Federalist" -- which the Birch Society interpreted as a defamatory narrative which unfairly and dishonestly linked the JBS to racism and hate. Many years ago, I decided to postpone what I thought would become the final chapter of my JBS Report. My anticipated final chapter was going to be devoted to discussing the hypersensitive subject of racism/anti-semitism within the JBS. However, I've never been able (up to now) to formulate in my mind the best or most effective method for making such a discussion credible and useful. Fortunately, I now have organized my thoughts because of numerous recent attacks upon me by JBS members because of my replies to absurdities which they have posted online. In addition, the recent JBS website article in rebuttal to what was published by The Federalist, offers me another way to structure a comprehensive review of JBS arguments and assertions. PART ONE of my discussion is here: https://sites.google.com/site/aboutxr/ PART TWO -- should be finished in 7-10 days. What is striking about the fallacious arguments used by Birchers -- is how similar their defective mental processes are when compared to debate tactics used by Paul Trejo.
  18. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    I'm sorry Paul but you do NOT understand the actual meaning of the word "facts". And please stop blaming W.R. Morris. As I have told you 100 times, I only am interested in what Harry has written himself which has been posted online on various websites. You constantly attempt to use mis-direction by bringing up W.R. Morris. The FBI perception of Harry was based exclusively upon their DIRECT PERSONAL CONTACTS with him (by phone, by mail, and by interviews) and those perceptions were shared by MANY other people -- including neighbors of Harry. Harry has NEVER been "persecuted". Yes--his story has been challenged because it contains so many falsehoods or non-provable assertions but he has NEVER been "persecuted".
  19. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    Paul, perhaps you are not aware of this but you have posted more messages about Harry Dean than I have (in many different EF threads) but, of course, you never describe your own postings as "obsessive". My messages have mostly been in reply to yours. [Incidentally, in your typical sloppy fashion, you refer to my "attacks on Harry Dean over more than a decade" -- when, in reality, I have only been engaged in this debate for less than 8 years!]. You can't even perform basic math correctly. Why do I bother responding? Because truth and facts are important. Very often conspiracy theories become plausible to intelligent, decent, honorable people because they are not taken seriously and nobody bothers to refute them AND CT's can produce great damage --especially to a free society. Just look at how Donald Trump has normalized behavior and ideas which were unthinkable just a couple years ago. Maybe that has something to do with his father (Fred Trump) since Fred was a financial contributor to the John Birch Society and a friend of Robert Welch. And guess who is among Trump's most loyal supporters and admirers? Birchers!! There is one more reason why I have spent time, money, and effort responding to claims made by Harry Dean -- namely that before I entered this discussion in 2010 nobody had even seen any primary source documents about Harry. Everybody just accepted every syllable that came out of his mouth -- and, then, you wrote an Ebook to update and expand upon his narrative -- which he originally self-published in "Crosstrails" (which, incidentally, I have never read). I believe that serious discussion must separate fact from fiction. Jim DiEugenio has done a much better job than I could do with respect to refuting the specific conspiracy-related allegations made by Dr. Caufield (whom, BTW, nobody ever heard of, before or since this debate started). As I pointed out a long time ago, all the standard library databases which summarize newspaper and magazine articles, academic journals and scholarly conference papers, doctoral dissertations and books --- don't even mention Caufield's book. Zero. Zilch. Not even a book review AND when I checked many of the most frequently cited JFK CT websites, they also don't mention Caufield or Harry Dean. Consequently, you can take me out of this equation altogether because your credulousness about "scholarship" is self-evidently nothing more than an echo chamber where (like Birchers) you indoctrinate yourself with whatever "information" you think re-inforces what you already believe. Lastly, just FYI, -- I started out in life to become an American history teacher -- but I was never able to complete college. Nevertheless, I have always felt an obligation to refute falsehoods presented by people like Harry and yourself. It makes no difference how old Harry is. He still posts messages here in EF and on other websites where he spreads his poison about the LDS church and about the "conspiracy" he has hallucinated and, especially, about his alleged role as a "witness" to, or participant in, that conspiracy AND he still attempts on various occasions to pretend that he was "recruited by" American intelligence agencies to assist them in some manner. Fortunately, there are only a small number of people who served as genuine informants for the FBI (or for other agencies) who have chosen to capitalize upon their relationship with our intel agencies to present absurd CT's. I close with these apt thoughts: "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." ---- Voltaire "The best lack all conviction, While the worst are full of passionate intensity" —W.B. Yeats
  20. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    And, yet, Paul it was MY research that revealed your (and Harry Dean's) totally bogus argument about how the FBI supposedly "forged" Harry Dean's letter to J. Edgar Hoover AND it was MY research which clearly falsified other aspects of Harry's story such as his claim to be giving information about the "JBS plot" to Wesley Grapp in September 1963 even though Grapp was still SAC of the FBI office in Miami at that time AND he was attending training sessions in Washington DC during some of that time period. AND I have repeatedly refuted many of your other claims regarding the JBS or other subjects which came up during the debate over Harry Dean's "recollections". Incidentally, I suspect that Dr. Caufield may NOW have a much different evaluation of Harry Dean's narrative than when he published his book. JFK RESEARCH: I have never in my lifetime claimed to have significant expertise regarding JFK's assassination. However, perhaps unlike yourself, I have SCORES of relevant FBI documents pertaining to the assassination -- and, in fact, I have the ENTIRE FBI HQ main file on the assassination (62-109060). Do you? In addition, I have accumulated a huge amount of information concerning Edwin Walker -- including documents which you never saw prior to me sharing them with you. LASTLY: Despite YOUR pretense to expertise about JFK's assassination, it is significant that NOBODY quotes you as an authority about ANYTHING. Furthermore, even though you CLAIM to have reviewed Walker's papers archived at the University of Texas -- you have NEVER found ANYTHING which links Walker to Harry Dean or to any JBS plot. In fact, you cannot even establish where Walker was in September 1963 (the key month in Harry Dean's narrative). Consequently, I don't think anybody really regards you as any sort of "expert" on JFK's assassination despite whatever number of books or articles you have read. Plus---so much of what you post online is based upon outright falsehoods or misrepresentations that it is no wonder that even Harry Dean apparently no longer trusts you.
  21. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    HUH? (1) I never heard of you before April 2012. We had no contacts of any kind whatsoever before you replied to my first message here in EF in June 2010. BTW--your FIRST message to me was dated April 2, 2012 (see page 10 of Harry Dean Memoirs thread). (2) I never posted ANY message online about Harry until AFTER I was contacted by several individuals who had seen Harry's comments here on EF and they asked me for my evaluation of his "recollections". My first message re: Harry was posted here June 8, 2010. (3) So what are you referring to as "BEFORE YOU JOINED THE FORUM" ?? (4) In the Hargis article comments section, YOU made these comments about me on October 13, 2013 Ernie, First I should clarify that I respect your research, and that I believe you are raising excellent questions. As I’ve already admitted, you make some excellent points (5) You constantly speak out of both sides of your mouth AND, more often than not, your comments are 100% falsehoods.
  22. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    PERHAPS PAUL TREJO CAN EXPLAIN THIS? 1. How can you possibly accuse me of EVER writing that there were "NO FBI records at all" about Harry Dean when, in the VERY FIRST message which I ever posted on the Education Forum website (June 8, 2010) I began my message by referring to a specific FBI document that discussed Harry Dean AND 2. In that very first message, I provided a specific Los Angeles FBI file number and serial number which contained the discussion of Harry Dean? See page 9 of the Harry Dean "Memoirs" thread for my very first message ever posted on this website.
  23. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    The link which Michael Mason sent to me (in my previous message) is a Word document. However, I converted it into a PDF file and I have now created a webpage which contains the entire comments section. https://sites.google.com/site/aboutxr/home/hargis (1) CHECK THE COMMENTS SECTION FOR YOURSELF TO SEE HOW TOTALLY DISHONEST PAUL TREJO IS (2) IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DOUBT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE WEBPAGE I CREATED -- THEN CONTACT THE OWNER OF THE WEBSITE WHICH PAUL MENTIONS (notice that Paul NEVER contacted him). His email is mmason@thisislandpress.com
  24. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    (1) Totally FALSE and LIBELOUS Paul. I previously addressed your malicious FALSEHOODS on page 105 of this thread – and I INCLUDED a link to the entire comments section which the owner of that website sent to me. (2) See page 105 of this thread for the same information below Here (AGAIN) is the 08-06-14 email which the owner of the “ThisIslandPress” website (Michael Mason) sent to me when I asked him to explain why they deleted their comments section AND whether or not he could send me a pdf copy of that comments section: From: Michael Mason <mmason@thislandpress.com> To: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com> Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2014 5:45 am Attachment HargisComments.docx Hi Ernie, nice to hear from you--and sorry to learn that you are being pestered. As to your questions: 1) Yes, I do, and they are in the attached document. I retracted email addresses to avoid privacy complaints, but all the comments should be there. 2) No, there is no truth that we removed any of your comments because of your tone, or anything having to do with you, or any individual. We made the decision several months ago to disable all comments on our entire website, as moderation of the comment board was becoming too time consuming for our small operation. Please let me know if you have any new information to share regarding your research. Best, Michael
  25. Ernie Lazar

    New Book!

    Well, Paul Trejo never bothered to respond to my challenge so I will now demonstrate why Paul can never be believed. Let's break down Paul's message point-by-point PREFACE: As you read what follows, keep in mind that this discussion occurred PRIOR TO my acquisition of Harry Dean's FBI and CIA files. It also occurred PRIOR TO my research into Mary Ferrell's website where I discovered Dean-related FBI documents that appeared on that website. 1. Paul claims that I have previously written that HARRY DEAN HAD "NO FBI NUMBER" AND THAT IS WHY I ALLEGEDLY KNEW FOR A "FACT" THAT THERE WERE "NO FBI RECORDS AT ALL" PERTAINING TO HARRY DEAN In just this one sentence by Paul, we see how profoundly confused Paul is mentally. (A) What Paul is referring to is an email which he sent to me on October 24, 2013. In that email, Paul attached some documents which he obtained from Dr. Caufield. One of those documents contained Harry Dean's FBI identification number which is a reference to Harry's rap sheet (i.e. his record of contacts with law enforcement agencies both in the United States and in Canada). I then told Paul that: "I am intrigued by the reference in the first memo to Harry's FBI number (i.e. 4657880). I usually only see that when somebody has been fingerprinted and/or they have an arrest record." HOWEVER, AT NO TIME DID I WRITE WHAT PAUL CLAIMS I WROTE. I never wrote a single word about Harry NOT having FBI files. In fact, I knew Harry DID have FBI files because YEARS EARLIER (in 2007) I had received the section of the Los Angeles field office file on the John Birch Society which contains a document which includes a reference to Harry's Los Angeles file number. (B) Knowing a person's FBI identification number is not even relevant to this discussion because since Harry was a living person there is no way for anybody to submit an FOIA request to the FBI (or CIA) to obtain whatever records they created on Harry UNLESS Harry agreed to provide that person with a signed, notarized affidavit authorizing release of his records. (C) I thanked Paul for the Caufield documents which he sent to me and I specifically mentioned that I had not seen the 94-series file on John Rousselot which was discussed in one serial which Paul sent to me. I did have other FBI files on Rousselot [I subsequently obtained that 94-series file]. (D) What is particularly galling about Paul's entirely false narrative is that the ONLY reason he, or Harry Dean, or anybody else even knows exactly what was contained in Harry's FBI and CIA files is because I paid over $300 to acquire them and share them with everybody. (E) The most important information which Dr. Caufield's documents revealed was an FOIA number on the FBI documents, i.e. (#211,326). Once I saw that FOIA number, I knew that Harry's records had already been released to somebody -- and I specifically told Paul in my email reply to his message that FOIA number meant Harry's records must have been released circa 1985. Why? Because I submitted FOIA requests in June 1981 which were assigned numbers in the 211,000-series and those requests produced documents that were released in May 1985. (F) LATER---I discovered the name of the person who actually had made FOIA request #211326. That FOIA request was made by Mark A. Allen. Mark confirmed that he made his request circa 1981. Mark asked the FBI for all FBI records pertaining to the murders of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr. which the FBI submitted to the House Select Committee on Assassinations and those records ultimately were released in 1985 -- and those records INCLUDED Harry's FBI files. (G) In January 2014, I posted messages in EF summarizing what Mark Allen obtained. I also pointed out that SOME of those FBI (and CIA) records about Harry were available on the Mary Ferrell website AND I periodically included links to pdf copies of FBI documents on Harry in my subsequent EF messages. 2. SO--Let's summarize briefly: (A) TOTALLY CONTRARY to what Paul Trejo claims, I NEVER ONCE declared that there were no FBI records pertaining to Harry Dean. NOBODY could make any such claim UNLESS they had submitted an FOIA request to the FBI which I had NEVER done about Harry up to that time. Nor did I ever cite Harry's FBI i.d. number as proof of anything other than he had a FBI rap sheet. 3. So WHAT did I ACTUALLY write about Harry Dean and his FBI records? Fortunately, we do NOT have to rely upon Paul Trejo's dishonest accusations. The VERY first message I ever posted on this website (in June 2010) clearly addressed this subject. I copy that message below. THEN, three years later, Paul Brancato asked me to clarify what I was saying about Harry Dean --- probably because of Paul Trejo's incessant dishonest accusations about what I have clearly stated repeatedly on this website. I also copy my reply to Paul Brancato below. AFTER YOU READ both messages -- compare their substantive content to Paul Trejo's dishonesty. Notice that in MY VERY FIRST MESSAGE on EF I referred to an FBI file document ABOUT HARRY DEAN!!!!! [I underline the key portion of my message] (1) MY VERY FIRST MESSAGE ON EF – ON JUNE 8, 2010 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/4269-harry-dean-memoirs/?page=9 A while back I was asked for information concerning Harry Dean who claims that he infiltrated the John Birch Society from 1962-1964 and that he was an informant for the FBI. During my research into FBI HQ and field office files pertaining to the John Birch Society I received an FBI document which pertains to an inquiry about a column by James Horwitz on page 2 of the 3/16/77 issue of the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley News. The Horwitz column reported upon an "exclusive interview" with Harry Dean during which Dean repeated his claims about his alleged association with the FBI as an undercover operative or informant from 1960-1965 (notice that in this interview, Dean changed the years to include 1965). The Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office (Robert E. Gebhardt) saw a copy of the Horwitz column because of an inquiry which he received about it. Gebhardt responded to the inquiry about Dean’s assertions and he forwarded a copy of his 4/1/77 reply to James K. Coffin, the Publisher of the Las Virgenes Independent Valley News. You may obtain a copy of the column, the inquiry, and the reply by requesting Los Angeles FBI field office file #100-59001, serial #1258. Here is the pertinent excerpt: “In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has never been an informant of this Bureau, and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society. I am bringing the above information your attention. You might consider furnishing this information to the readers of your column.” Since I have obtained the entire FBI HQ file on the John Birch Society (12,000 pages), as well as almost all of the FBI field office files on the JBS -- it seems very odd that there is no mention whatsoever of anybody who "infiltrated" the JBS at the request of the FBI. More significantly, there is the matter of standard Bureau procedure regarding ALL prospective informants: 1. Standard Bureau procedure regarding field office interest in using informants of any kind was that the field office had to submit a detailed investigative report about the proposed informant. 2. In addition, the informant was placed in probationary status until it could be determined whether or not the informant was providing useful and reliable information. Field offices prepared periodic summaries of the information which every informant provided. 3. Furthermore, any expenses incurred by informants (such as travel, purchasing literature, attending conferences etc) were itemized and requests for reimbursement were routinely submitted to HQ for approval (or rejection). 4. Any other monies paid to an informant also had to be explicitly approved by HQ. 5. Any verbal reports by informants were converted into typewritten memoranda summarizing what information they provided. Those written reports were placed into the files of the subjects they discussed (along with cross-referenced copies in other pertinent files). 6. I might also add that standard Bureau procedure regarding its informants was to provide a factual summary of their status. For example, here is the summary which the Bureau routinely sent out when people inquired about Julia Brown, an FBI informant within the Communist Party who subsequently became a Birch Society member and paid speaker under the auspices of its American Opinion Speakers Bureau: "Concerning Mrs. Julia Brown, she furnished information on subversive activities to the FBI on a confidential basis from 1951 to 1960. Although she was not an employee of this Bureau, she was compensated for her services. Her current views are strictly her own and do not represent the FBI in any way." [HQ 62-104401-2499, 4/24/65]. THERE IS NO COMPARABLE BUREAU STATEMENT REGARDING HARRY J DEAN! Given everything I have mentioned above, I would bring everyone's attention to the following facts: 1. There is no record of any kind whatsoever in any FBI HQ or field office file that Harry Dean ever was even considered as an informant much less accepted as one. 2. No official investigation of the JBS was ever opened by the FBI. There was a preliminary inquiry during 1959 and 1960 -- but once it was established that the JBS was an anti-communist organization which did not advocate or participate in criminal or subversive activities, there was no reason to "infiltrate" it. 3. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever concerning payments made to any "informant" within the JBS for expenses of any kind. 4. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever reflecting continuing periodic reports (verbal or written) by a specific "informant" whom the FBI authorized to "infiltrate" the JBS Since I have acquired numerous FBI files on actual informants it authorized to infiltrate both legitimate and subversive organizations -- and I am, therefore, intimately familiar with the type of data contained in such files -- it is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his "FBI" association in order to inflate his credentials. Furthermore, Harry Dean is on record stating that former FBI Special Agents Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen were "members" of the Birch Society. But that is a total falsehood. Neither Smoot or Skousen joined the JBS. They did, however, support the JBS and both spoke at JBS functions or wrote for JBS publications. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ernie1241@aol.com (2) MY REPLY TO PAUL BRANCATO'S INQUIRY -- IN NOVEMBER 2013 Paul -- let me clarify this so there is no misunderstanding. There ARE FBI documents which discuss Harry Dean -- but only in the context of denying that he had any relationship with the FBI. In fact, I posted one of those documents online https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dean --- it appears in the FBI-Los Angeles field file on the Birch Society. (Los Angeles 100-59001). The document is a copy of the 4/1/77 letter which FBI Assistant Director Robert Gebhardt sent to the publisher (James Kim Coffin) of a Los Angeles area newspaper regarding an article published in that newspaper which reported their interview of Harry Dean. When I write that there are no FBI documents on Dean -- I am referring to FBI memos and reports during the period when Harry claims he was an FBI informant in Los Angeles and he was supposedly regularly providing the FBI in Los Angeles with information about individual JBS members such as John Rousselot and Guy Galbadon. For example, see the new eBook where Harry claims that: (1) In September 1963, FBI Special Agent Wesley G. Grapp dropped by Harry's house in Rowland Heights CA and (quoting Harry), "I told him all about the Rousselot-Walker plan. I outlined the role of the Birchers, Robert Welch, and Guy Galbadon and everyone." (2) In January 1964 "...the FBI finally called me to recount what I'd seen in Southern California in 1963. FBI Agent Wesley Grapp drove out to my place and invited me into his car. He had reviewed his notes from last September and he recounted my story as well as he could....So Grapp and I drove around to cover the locations that I'd spoken about...We visited the JBS meeting places in El Monte, Pasadena, Monterey Park, and so on, and Minutemen gathering places in Temecula and so on...We drove for hours and we stopped only a few times for coffee and so that Grapp could jot down a few notes." HOWEVER...... _A_ There are NO documents of any kind in the JBS-Los Angeles field file to support Harry's recollections -- nor documents that refer to anybody who matches Harry's description. _B_ There are also no documents in John Rousselot's file that mention any reports by Harry. _C_ There are no documents in Robert Welch's file that mention any reports by Harry. _D_ There are no documents in the FBI HQ main file on the Birch Society which mention any reports by Harry. _E_ There are no documents in the FBI files I have obtained on Edwin Walker which mention any reports by Harry. _F_ In the near future, I should receive Wesley Grapp's FBI file -- and I will be able to see if there are any references in his file to his alleged meetings with Harry. Normally, something as important as a plot to murder our President would be mentioned in the personnel files of the people who worked on such a matter. I also submitted a request on Guy Galbadon.
×