New Book!

[Ernie Lazar]

This morning I received an inquiry about a Polish intelligence defector (Michal Goleniewski) which led me to review an article which I had totally forgotten I saved -- which was published in a 1984 issue of the UK conspiracy journal, Lobster.  

An article by Jonathan Marshall entitled "Brief Notes on the Political Importance of Secret Societies" discusses some details pertaining to the JFK assassination which conform to the idea that LHO was a patsy -- BUT -- this analysis differs from the evaluation made by Dr. Caufield (and by others in this forum).

This article mentions that Philip Corso identified LHO as a CIA asset and it goes on to discuss the role played by former CIA official Herman Kinsey (right hand man to Allen Dulles) who supposedly had first-hand information implicating the KGB in JFK's assassination.  In this scenario, LHO thought he was working for U.S. intelligence when the KGB duped him into joining the plot.

Hugh McDonald, former Chief of Detectives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept, claims that he served as an Army Intelligence officer and CIA contract agent.  Supposedly, in the fall of 1964, Herman Kimsey (who had retired from the CIA) was working with McDonald.  At that time McDonald was Chief of Security for GOP Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.  Kimsey reportedly told McDonald at that time, the details of the plot to kill JFK.  The actual assassin, according to Kimsey, was a contract killer sometimes employed by Kimsey on behalf of the CIA.  In McDonald's 1975 book, Appointment in Dallas, McDonald stated that he tracked this killer down in London and learned from him that the paymaster for the hit was codenamed "Troit" and that person set up LHO as the patsy.

In a later book entitled "LBJ and the JFK Conspiracy" - by McDonald and Robin Moore, they "revealed" that the KGB planned the assassination between 1961 and 1963.  

The Birch Society agreed with the McDonald thesis and the JBS believed that George De Morenschildt was "Troit".  Apparently, the JBS got this info originally from its "intelligence analyst", Frank Capell.  However, Capell was not the first person to present DeM as "Troit".  Instead, in 1967, McDonald and his friend Leonard Davidov (a fellow CIA contract agent and friend of retired CIA official Herman Kinsey) obtained info re: DeM's involvement in the assassination from I. Irving Davidson, a CIA-connected Washington lobbyist for Haiti (where DeM was pursuing business deals and involved in intelligence missions).

This story gets more complicated but, interestingly, it involves many of the same characters mentioned in the Caufield book because of their links to the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, along with the Philadelphia-based Catholic Order of the Carmelites and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (religious arm of the White Russian community).  As a result of these links -- names mentioned by Caufield also come up in this conspiracy theory -- including Frank Capell, Maj.General Charles O. Willoughby, Gen. Pedro A. del Valle.

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Ernie Lazar said:

In March 2014, I posted a message on EF which copied and pasted comments made BY Harry Dean on the Mary Ferrell website.

The Ferrell website used to include a "comments" page for each pdf document which they uploaded onto their website.  However, it appears that they have now eliminated those comments pages.

Consequently, I am copying Harry's comments again below -- because they serve as PRIMARY SOURCE documentation which completely falsifies much of what Paul (falsely) claims regarding how HARRY has described HIMSELF over the years.  Notice how Harry describes his relationship to the FBI and CIA and how he accepted "cash expenses" from the FBI.

Hopefully, these messages will make Paul stop blaming W.R. Morris for everything and also make Paul stop presenting obvious falsehoods about Harry's assertions concerning his "informant" relationship to U.S. "intelligence agencies".

<snip>

Ernie,

I find nothing unusual about local FBI agencies supplying Harry Dean with pin money for this or that bit of local information about Communists in the area during the Cold War.

Although the official FBI procedure required all informants to be duly registered, we know from former FBI agent M. Wesley Swearingen in his book, To Kill a President (2010), that the official FBI procedure was often fractured at the local level.

According to Wesley Swearingen, local FBI agents would use local "petty cash," rules or no rules, to follow up warm leads on local Communists.  Swearingen even gave a precise dollar figure for these exchanges -- namely $200 cap during the 1960's.   This money was commonly used as local  funds to pay off low-level, informal information-providers.

We are well aware that you are an expert in FBI rules and procedures -- but Wesley Swearingen was an actual FBI agent, and his witness about the actual behavior of the FBI in daily activity tells the rest of the story.

According to Wesley Swearingen, the claims by Harry Dean that local FBI agents offered him "pin money" for his hobby of spying on Communists is not out of the question.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

I find nothing unusual about local FBI agencies supplying Harry Dean with pin money for this or that bit of local information about Communists in the area during the Cold War.

Although the official FBI procedure required all informants to be duly registered, we know from former FBI agent M. Wesley Swearingen in his book, To Kill a President (2010), that the official FBI procedure was often fractured at the local level.

According to Wesley Swearingen, local FBI agents would use local "petty cash," rules or no rules, to follow up warm leads on local Communists.  Swearingen even gave a precise dollar figure for these exchanges -- namely $200 cap during the 1960's.   This money was commonly used as local  funds to pay off low-level, informal information-providers.

We are well aware that you are an expert in FBI rules and procedures -- but Wesley Swearingen was an actual FBI agent, and his witness about the actual behavior of the FBI in daily activity tells the rest of the story.

According to Wesley Swearingen, the claims by Harry Dean that local FBI agents offered him "pin money" for his hobby of spying on Communists is not out of the question.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Your message has absolutely no relevance to the subject which I discussed.

However, just FYI -- Wesley Swearingen is no expert about FBI procedures.  At most, he might be able to speak about what he personally experienced where he worked (i.e. field offices) but (1) even those comments are subject to normal rules of evidence and logic and (2) he never worked at FBI HQ so he cannot speak authoritatively about HQ procedures and (3) his book contains numerous factual errors.  

In addition:  As I told you in a private email more than a year ago, Swearingen actually asked ME to send him some documents concerning Chicago field office because he had no personal knowledge about the reports which Chicago field made to FBI HQ with respect to various matters such as the Chicago field office Security Index statistics.

The problem here, Paul, continues to be that you reverse engineer EVERYTHING.

In other words, you START with a conclusion which appeals to you because it fits into what you already believe and then you then ascribe expert status to whomever agrees with your personal opinions--particularly if your source happens to be a former FBI employee.

As is true within ANY large organization -- employee knowledge is always compartmentalized.  For example -- with respect to the FBI (as I have previously demonstrated), some former FBI employees CLAIMED to have specific knowledge about internal security matters when, in reality, they never had significant exposure to internal security cases nor did they ever work in the FBI HQ Division where the Bureau placed its actual internal security experts.

The FBI received literally thousands of inquiries concerning both former employees and former informants who made public statements which were not factually accurate.  One example (which I previously cited) concerned former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen.  When the Bureau received numerous letters asking whether or not Skousen's statements were accurate, J. Edgar Hoover replied to one inquiry from Sister Mary Shaun of Notre Dame Convent as follows:

“I welcome the opportunity to make it perfectly clear that former Special Agents of the FBI are not necessarily experts on communism.  Some of them have sought to capitalize on their former employment with this Bureau for the purpose of establishing themselves as such authorities.  I am firmly convinced there are too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified, factual data, who are engaging in rumor mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against people whose views differ from their own. This makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator.”

Lastly, with respect to your SPECIFIC assertions concerning Harry Dean:

1.   Your paragraph beginning with "According to Wesley Swearingen..."  totally misses the point (as usual).  

EVERY FBI field office had to account for ALL monies spent -- particularly payments made to informants or confidential sources -- and especially if more than ONE payment was involved.  In addition, EVERYBODY who received any payment from the FBI (1) had to SIGN a specific document acknowledging receipt and (2) had to report that income on their state and federal income tax returns.

2.  Beyond that -- EVERY Special Agent in Charge was required to prepare a monthly or quarterly summary of monies spent AND indicate what percentage of reliability they attributed to the sources of their information whom were paid for information or services.

3.  Beyond that -- EVERY FBI field office was subject to an annual inspection by HQ personnel and one requirement during those inspections was to account for all monies paid out to information sources -- if only as a standard auditing procedure i.e. making sure that nobody was misappropriating funds.

4.  In conclusion (for the 500th time) --

(a)  There are NO references in ANY HQ or field office file on the Birch Society regarding ANYBODY who was ever paid ANYTHING for information on the JBS.

(b)  Furthermore, there are no documents of any kind indicating that ANY field office even requested authorization to pay an informant for services or information pertaining to the JBS.

(c)  In addition, as Hoover explicitly declared in his airtels to both Chicago and Los Angeles field offices in November 1963 --- there was NO RECORD at HQ of Harry Dean EVER being an informant or confidential source.  If Harry had EVER been paid anything (even from what you think of as "petty cash") -- there would have been SOME record of those payments -- but there aren't.

(d)  Harry Dean has always had the ability to request a copy of his state and federal income tax returns for whatever year(s) he claims that he received payments from the FBI (or anybody else).  If he did so, then presumably those payments would be recorded on his tax returns -- unless you are going to tell us that aside from all his other crimes, he also committed tax evasion.

(e)  Lastly, the FBI was NOT in the habit of PAYING ANYBODY for information which they already had received (at no cost) from other sources nor were they in the habit of paying for DUPLICATE information such as when they had multiple informants within the CPUSA or other groups.  "Other sources" might include wiretaps, physical surveillance, mail covers, trash covers, black bag jobs, panel sources, and electronic eavesdropping.

Nothing which you or Harry have ever written has given us any plausible reason for why the FBI might pay Harry anything.  He was a low-level insignificant person in FPCC (who had no policy-making authority) AND the FBI already had extensive informant coverage within the FPCC.  In fact, THAT is how they originally discovered that Harry was a member of the FPCC -- because an informant told them that!  The FBI had no informants inside the JBS and neither you or Harry have ever provided one scintilla of verifiable factual evidence to establish that Harry had any unique or special knowledge regarding the Minutemen or Alpha 66 or any other subject matter.

So, Paul --- you credulity regarding Harry's fabrications and exaggerations continues but nobody BUT YOU actually believes your crap.

ADDENDUM:  Keep in mind that Paul very recently made the following declaration:

"The real Harry Dean never claimed more than being a voluntary informer for the FBI -- unpaid. Harry Dean confirmed that with me personally."

It should be noted that the FBI did NOT pay people who provided UNSOLICITED information to the FBI, i.e. "voluntary informers".  That is another reason why Paul's constant attempts to defend Harry are so manifestly and absurdly false.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie,

You have misunderstood me yet again.

I maintain that Harry Dean had a completely unpaid relationship with the FBI -- on paper.  

That is, there was absolutely no Informant Contract between Harry Dean and the FBI.

Yet, as former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen plainly stated, that did not stop individual FBI men from paying -- under the table -- various sources of information from the petty cash fund -- completely unregistered with Headquarters -- for what they believed was hot information.

I'm not the source of this claim -- Wesley Swearingen is the source.

When Harry Dean says that he received such petty cash from this or that FBI agent, I find no reason to disbelieve him, and every reason to link Wesley Swearingen's confession of local FBI habits to Harry Dean's claim.

It just makes common sense.

Your obsessive attacks on Harry Dean -- year after year -- are truly amazing to behold.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

You have misunderstood me yet again.

I maintain that Harry Dean had a completely unpaid relationship with the FBI -- on paper.  

That is, there was absolutely no Informant Contract between Harry Dean and the FBI.

Yet, as former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen plainly stated, that did not stop individual FBI men from paying -- under the table -- various sources of information from the petty cash fund -- completely unregistered with Headquarters -- for what they believed was hot information.

I'm not the source of this claim -- Wesley Swearingen is the source.

When Harry Dean says that he received such petty cash from this or that FBI agent, I find no reason to disbelieve him, and every reason to link Wesley Swearingen's confession of local FBI habits to Harry Dean's claim.

It just makes common sense.

Your obsessive attacks on Harry Dean -- year after year -- are truly amazing to behold.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I did not misunderstand you Paul which is why I addressed your falsehoods.  Individual FBI men did NOT pay anybody "under the table" through a "petty cash fund" that produced NO records.  

It is true that for exceptional circumstances, a SAC (not an individual Agent) could authorize a SMALL payment for some purpose but neither you or Harry has ever identified what those alleged payments were for and, in any event, there STILL would be records of such payments because like every other bureaucratic entity (public or private), the FBI was subject to audits and inspections which required accounting for all monies spent.

Lastly, neither you or Harry has ever addressed the obvious questions:

1.  What information did the FBI want (which Harry supposedly had) that the FBI would want to pay for?

2.  Was that information not available from some other source(s) at no cost?

This has nothing to do with my "obsessive attacks on Harry Dean".  This has to do with Harry's incessant fabrications and your total credulity about every syllable coming out of his mouth.  AS IS YOUR RELENTLESS CUSTOM -- the total absence of proof becomes "fact" in your mind.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

23 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

I did not misunderstand you Paul which is why I addressed your falsehoods.  Individual FBI men did NOT pay anybody "under the table" through a "petty cash fund" that produced NO records.  

It is true that for exceptional circumstances, a SAC (not an individual Agent) could authorize a SMALL payment for some purpose but neither you or Harry has ever identified what those alleged payments were for and, in any event, there STILL would be records of such payments because like every other bureaucratic entity (public or private), the FBI was subject to audits and inspections which required accounting for all monies spent.

Lastly, neither you or Harry has ever addressed the obvious questions:

1.  What information did the FBI want (which Harry supposedly had) that the FBI would want to pay for?

2.  Was that information not available from some other source(s) at no cost?

This has nothing to do with my "obsessive attacks on Harry Dean".  This has to do with Harry's incessant fabrications and your total credulity about every syllable coming out of his mouth.  AS IS YOUR RELENTLESS CUSTOM -- the total absence of proof becomes "fact" in your mind.

Ernie,

Well, you are finally admitting to exceptional circumstances, which is all that Harry and I need to make his claim.  

Harry never claimed that he received a BIG payment for his unsolicited information.  Nor is Harry the one who is obliged to show FBI records.

FBI agent Wesley Swearingen declared that local FBI agents would pay out of petty cash, small sums to informers.  That's now certain.

FBI agent Wesley Swearingen gave the top dollar amount, namely $200.  It was amounts of $200 and less that were so often paid without reporting to FBI Headquarters.

Now -- who kept these records?  Certainly not the recipient.  It would have been the FBI office.

Or would it?   Because if these amounts were not intended to be reported to FBI Headquarters, then what guarantee do we have that they were recorded at all?

One of the dispositions of petty cash is that it was spent without records -- with just a wink and a nod from the office managers.   Things like birthday cake, flowers, petty travel expenses and meals for informal informants -- we get the picture.

Harry Dean never claimed more than this.  Gas money.  A few bucks here and there.  Perhaps $10.   Perhaps $20.   Petty cash.  This is my impression from his words.

Harry never claimed he received a BIG payment for his unsolicited information about the Communist menace in Southern California, 1961-1963.

Now -- if the Los Angeles FBI did keep records of petty cash from 1961-1963, I would be among the first to earnestly seek it out.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

19 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

Well, you are finally admitting to exceptional circumstances, which is all that Harry and I need to make his claim.  

Harry never claimed that he received a BIG payment for his unsolicited information.  Nor is Harry the one who is obliged to show FBI records.

FBI agent Wesley Swearingen declared that local FBI agents would pay out of petty cash, small sums to informers.  That's now certain.

FBI agent Wesley Swearingen gave the top dollar amount, namely $200.  It was amounts of $200 and less that were so often paid without reporting to FBI Headquarters.

Now -- who kept these records?  Certainly not the recipient.  It would have been the FBI office.

Or would it?   Because if these amounts were not intended to be reported to FBI Headquarters, then what guarantee do we have that they were recorded at all?

One of the dispositions of petty cash is that it was spent without records -- with just a wink and a nod from the office managers.   Things like birthday cake, flowers, petty travel expenses and meals for informal informants -- we get the picture.

Harry Dean never claimed more than this.  Gas money.  A few bucks here and there.  Perhaps $10.   Perhaps $20.   Petty cash.  This is my impression from his words.

Harry never claimed he received a BIG payment for his unsolicited information about the Communist menace in Southern California, 1961-1963.

Now -- if the Los Angeles FBI did keep records of petty cash from 1961-1963, I would be among the first to earnestly seek it out.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, I did not "finally admit" anything.  I pointed out a very long time ago that very small (and usually one-time) payments could be made for something very unusual.

But the rest of your message is typical of your defective mental process.  Harry never has to provide substantiation for anything he says.  Instead, you just believe everything coming out of his mouth.

You are TOTALLY WRONG about the "disposition of petty cash".   As is your custom, you do not provide any kind of corroboration nor do you have ANY actual knowledge based upon review of historical records.  Petty cash was not used for flowers, travel expenses and meals for "informal informants" (another fabrication by you).

Your "impression from [Harry's] words" is also mistaken nor has anybody at any time stated or hinted that "BIG payment" is what we have been discussing.  Again, as is YOUR custom, you create a TOTAL STRAW MAN ARGUMENT to divert attention from your total ignorance.

I will say this however (although I repeat myself):  

Harry Dean could clear up a lot of things if he would just post a message here (or on some other website) OR give you or someone else a written statement which addresses all of the many un-answered questions and ambiguous comments he has made which have populated his narrative for 5 decades.  

But Harry refuses to take that obvious step --- because his life-long behavior has been to seek attention and publicity for his personal opinions and then suggest that his incidental connections to certain people and some organizations made his "insights" and "recollections" more significant and/or more credible than they actually are.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie,

I don't need to prove that the FBI made petty cash transactions for informally obtained information, because former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen has already confirmed that.

Since this confirms Harry Dean's claims that he received petty cash for his informally offered information, you can't stand the fact, obviously.

You then demand that I produce the FBI receipts myself.   This is your game.  It's a silly game.  FBI petty cash receipts from 1961-1963 were almost certainly trashed, and you know it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

20 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

I don't need to prove that the FBI made petty cash transactions for informally obtained information, because former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen has already confirmed that.

Since this confirms Harry Dean's claims that he received petty cash for his informally offered information, you can't stand the fact, obviously.

You then demand that I produce the FBI receipts myself.   This is your game.  It's a silly game.  FBI petty cash receipts from 1961-1963 were almost certainly trashed, and you know it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Again, you deliberately use mis-direction.  This dispute is NOT about whether or not the FBI had a petty cash fund.

This dispute is about the following matters:

1.  What were the FBI's operational rules for use of petty cash?  What types of expenses were allowed to be paid?  [All that is covered in mind-numbing detail in various SAC Letters]

2.  What is the maximum amount which a SAC (not an Agent) could authorize as a payment from petty cash funds?  [Also covered in SAC Letters]

3.  Was Harry Dean ever paid anything whatsoever by the FBI?  If so -- how much and for what?  AND  Are there ANY records to substantiate what Harry (and you) claim? [Despite what YOU think -- EVERYBODY signed receipts for all monies received and those receipts were kept in their files along with being channeled into other FBI files.]

4.  If Harry was paid something -- what was the payment for?  And why did the Chicago field office explicitly deny to HQ that Harry was ever asked to do anything for the FBI?  And why did Chicago also explicitly state that Harry was told his assistance was NOT wanted?   WHY would any government agency "pay" someone for information when they think that person is mentally unstable and dishonest?

5.  Lastly, with respect to your comment that:  "FBI petty cash receipts from 1961-1963 were almost certainly trashed, and you know it."

It is VERY significant that you make ASSUMPTIONS but can never support your assumptions with evidence -- such as by quoting internal FBI documents pertaining to how long fiscal information is kept.  It also is significant that you do not even know that I have given Internet Archive numerous files which preserved the exact type of records which YOU falsely claim would be "almost certainly trashed" --- and YET AGAIN -- this proves how intellectually dishonest you are because you don't even have the interest or ability to perform rudimentary research into the huge amount of scholarship done over the years by numerous historians who have addressed FBI procedures and practices.

LASTLY:  Stop claiming that you think Wesley Swearingen is the ultimate, final arbiter of fact.  He was merely a Special Agent.  He had no unique special knowledge about FBI internal procedures.  AND

Keep in mind that AFTER Swearingen read Harry's memoir (and your comments) -- Swearingen stated that he thought Harry needed psychiatric help because Harry made statements which Swearingen knew to be entirely FALSE!

Edited March 15, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie,

I also had private conversations with Wesley Swearingen, and he told me things that he didn't tell you.   Some things were about you.

You claim that I am making assumptions, but you're mistaken.  I'm listening to Harry Dean with a sympathetic ear.  This is something you refuse to do.

Harry Dean says that he received small amounts of cash from the FBI for miscellaneous and informal information that he volunteered about local Communists in Southern California.

That sounds completely reasonable to me -- and to any impartial listener -- based on the FACT that Wesley Swearingen declared that local FBI offices would pay petty cash for such information, at the discretion of the local office and agents.

What is the big deal about this?   It's common sense.   It's so defensible.

If you want Harry Dean himself (who is in his late 80's) to remember every transaction, and every dollar amount of every transaction paid to him by FBI agents 50 years ago -- you are clearly demanding too much.

Why you keep hammering irrationally on Harry Dean for these innocent and believable claims that he makes -- some of which are confirmed by FBI records -- is utterly beyond me, and beyond many readers, probably.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

15 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

I also had private conversations with Wesley Swearingen, and he told me things that he didn't tell you.   Some things were about you.

You claim that I am making assumptions, but you're mistaken.  I'm listening to Harry Dean with a sympathetic ear.  This is something you refuse to do.

Harry Dean says that he received small amounts of cash from the FBI for miscellaneous and informal information that he volunteered about local Communists in Southern California.

That sounds completely reasonable to me -- and to any impartial listener -- based on the FACT that Wesley Swearingen declared that local FBI offices would pay petty cash for such information, at the discretion of the local office and agents.

What is the big deal about this?   It's common sense.   It's so defensible.

If you want Harry Dean himself (who is in his late 80's) to remember every transaction, and every dollar amount of every transaction -- you are clearly demanding too much.

Why you keep hammering irrationally on Harry Dean for these innocent and believable claims that he makes -- some of which are confirmed by FBI records -- is utterly beyond me, and beyond many readers, probably.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

You may tell everybody what you claim Swearingen said about me -- and I will be happy to re-post what Swearingen wrote to you.

Paul --- you create a self-sealing circular argument whenever you discuss Harry Dean.  What seems "reasonable" to you is whatever conforms to what you already believe.  In other words, you have NEVER done any independent research.  You just accept whatever Harry or Swearingen tells you and you then describe that information as "fact".

AGAIN -- ANOTHER STRAW MAN ARGUMENT BY YOU -- when you claim I am asking Harry to remember "every transaction and ever dollar amount of every transaction". But, again, the absence of proof -- becomes "proof" in your scheme of things.

The fact that you cannot even correctly and accurately summarize what an opponent or critic has written reveals how impossible it is to engage in a rational discussion with somebody like you.

With respect to your final paragraph:   The ONLY reason anybody questions or expresses interest in what Harry believes is because for 50+ years he has aggressively sought publicity for his "recollections" which he claims (and you claim) are fact-based.  

ANYBODY (regardless of age or status in life) who relentlessly seeks attention for their narrative or beliefs and then demands that their assertions and conclusions be considered credible -- is subject to careful questioning along with an expectation that they produce some kind of verifiable corroboration.

(1) We know, with absolute certainty, that your previous defenses of Harry have been gravely undermined by actual primary source documentary records (which, incidentally, neither you or Harry ever bothered to obtain).

(2)  We also know, with absolute certainty, that you have previously made assertions about the FBI which turned out to be categorical falsehoods AND worse, you attributed malign motives to the FBI which were based SOLELY upon YOUR BIAS and YOUR IGNORANCE.

(3)  We also know, with absolute certainty, that Harry has deliberately mis-represented himself for over 50 years.

(4)  NOBODY believes Harry's story except you -- which is why no prominent scholar and no significant JFK-researchers have bothered to incorporate Harry's story into their own books and articles -- other than perhaps briefly mentioning Harry and then moving on.  The reason why nobody cites Harry (or your ebook) is precisely because NOTHING he says can be verified.  Instead, year-after-year, you and Harry merely make unsubstantiated assertions but you cannot produce ONE IOTA of factual evidence to support your arguments.

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

This message will be devoted entirely to recalling the quality of Paul Trejo's analytical skills.  

1.  As I have stated upon numerous occasions, Paul starts with a conclusion (aka predicate) which he prefers to believe (and that predicate always conforms to whatever Harry Dean tells Paul -- and then Paul decides it is 100% accurate.

2.  THEN -- Paul uses his original unproven predicate as the basis for ALL subsequent discussions.  Consequently, anybody who wants to engage in a rational conversation with Paul must first falsify the original predicate before moving on to the subsequent tainted arguments concocted by Paul which are based upon the original false predicate.

3.  In November 2013 (which is BEFORE anybody had seen the original FBI file documents that I obtained through FOIA requests) -- Paul concocted a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal to my arguments which attempted to address Paul's claims about how the FBI had allegedly "forged" documentary evidence regarding Harry in an attempt to "discredit" Harry.

4.  I am copying and pasting Paul's entire November 2013 screed below -- because it reveals so clearly how Paul's mind works and it also shows how susceptible Paul is to believing total utter crap.  

I highlight some portions in RED FONT to illustrate just how delusional Paul can become when he wants to pretend he has special insights and knowledge that escapes all the rest of us!

5.  AS YOU READ EACH OF PAUL'S ABSURDITIES BELOW --- keep in mind that, subsequently, we all discovered that the letter written by Harry in ALL CAPS which is the subject of Paul's hallucinations and delusions -- was proven to be ENTIRELY legitimate, i.e. it actually WAS written by Harry and the FBI never modified or changed or forged a single syllable!

6.  Highly ideological fanatics often use hyperbole and very idiosyncratic methodology to analyze evidence and arrive at their conclusions.  Of course, they never recognize that the defects in their own mental processes are responsible for their defective analyses and false conclusions.  Instead, they always ascribe their own worst personal qualities to their critics and opponents -- such as malice and bias.

7.  BOTTOM-LINE:   The defective mental processes used by Paul in this November 2013 message did not magically disappear.  They continue to inform everything Paul writes -- particularly with respect to Harry Dean's story.  

8.  Paul ALWAYS uses bold certitudes and pejorative declarations in his messages such as "cannot be real" or "MAJOR difference", or "forged" and "smear campaign" or "gullible readers" or "somebody is lying" --- but the REALITY (after evidence is carefully examined) is that the actual problem stems from Paul's defective mental processes.

--------------------------------------------------------- PAUL'S NOVEMBER 2013 MESSAGE--------------------------------------

Ernie, the case is far from closed.  I found a ton of discrepancies comparing the FBI memo that you shared with the letter of the same date that Harry Dean published publicly in 1990 (which is the same as the FBI memo that Bill Kelly shared with us last week in post #253).  There is only one letter that Harry Dean sent to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963, and there are so many differences that they cannot both be the real letter.  Let's take a good look. 

Point 1:  The original memo by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover was written in sentence case, that is, it was not all UPPER CASE or CAPITAL LETTERS.  This is a MAJOR difference.  Therefore, the first item to notice is that this memo that Ernie Lazar kindly provided to us from the Mary Ferrell website was typed by the FBI and not by Harry Dean.  

Point 2:  Harry Dean's memo as published in his CROSSTRAILS manuscript/book on page 31 of chapter 2, is heavily redacted using a heavy black marker.  So I will only be able to (i) compare the words we can read; and (ii) estimate a word count for the words that we cannot read.

Point 3: I compared the word count of words we can read in both.  In the FBI memo we can read ~750 words.  In Harry Dean's published memo, we can read ~175 words.  That's a very wide margin, but we should now count, by approximation, the blacked-out words. 

Point 4:  To count words that are entirely blacked out, I estimated ten words per line (the average number of words in a line that we can fully read in Harry's letter) and approximately 5.5 inches per line.  I measured approximately 40 inches of blanked out words, giving an approximate count of ~75 blacked out words.  That is not precise, but given the circumstances, one is unlikely to find a hugely different count by some other measurement. 

Point 5:  Adding 175 readable words to 75 blanked-out words will total 250 words in Harry Dean's original memo to J. Edgar Hoover.  Here is a MAJOR difference: the FBI proposes that Harry Dean wrote a memo of about 750 words, and Harry Dean claims that he wrote a memo of about 250 words.  This immediately suggests that somebody is lying.  It is now possible that the FBI added 500 words to Harry's original memo, MINIMUM.  I say MINIMUM, because I don't yet know how much of Harry's original memo the FBI actually left intact. 

Point 6: In the text that follows I will trace the 25 lines of Harry Dean's version of his memo. 

FIRST LINE: The FBI version has three words and a number before the number, 1960.  Harry Dean's version has one word before the number, 1960. 

SECOND LINE: The FBI version follows the words, "FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE" with "AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME."  Harry Dean's version omits that second clause. 

THIRD LINE:  Harry's version has the phrase, "local Chicago office of the Bureau."  The FBI version lacks that phrase. 

FOURTH LINE:  Harry's version has the phrase, "present assignments."  The FBI version lacks that phrase. 

FIFTH LINE:  Harry's version of the 5th line is entirely blacked out. 

SIXTH LINE:  Harry's version of the 6th line uses the phrase, "has this information."   The FBI version lacks that phrase. 

SEVENTH LINE:  Harry's version of the 7th line uses the phrase, "undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago".  The FBI version lacks anything like that phrase. 

EIGHTH LINE:  Harry's version of the 8th line reads, "done in June 1961 because Eastland's Committee was issuing", while the FBI version lacks anything like that text. 

NINTH LINE: Harry's version of the 9th line reads, "subpoenas to hold hearings on the Fair Play for", while the FBI version lacks anything like that text. 

TENTH LINE: Harry's version of the 10th line reads, "Cuba Communists and the 26th of July Movement [REDACTED]."  The FBI version lacks anything like that text. 

ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH LINES:  Harry's 11th and 12th lines are almost entirely blacked out - except for the phrase "moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time", while the FBI version lacks any strings matching that text. 

THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH LINES: Harry's 13th and 14th lines begin with three inches of blanked-out text, and then reads, "I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports".  However, the FBI version lacks any four sequential words from that phrase. 

FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH LINES: Harry's 15th and 16th lines contain the phrase, "making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] limiting my effectiveness".  However, the FBI version lacks any three sequential words from that phrase. 

SEVENTEENTH THROUGH NINETEENTH LINES: Harry's 17th, 18th and 19th lines read almost in full, "name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee's report no. 96465 part 2 pages 84 & 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level".  Finally we have a partial match with the FBI document.  In this case the FBI semi-matching lines read as follows:  "THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT NO. 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE)."  We can see that 18 words match in the same sequence, yet another 18 words clearly fail to match.  Insofar as this is an alteration of Harry's original memo, it should cause alarms to go off. 

TWENTIETH THROUGH TWENTY-SECOND LINES: Harry's 20th, 21st and 22nd lines are partly redacted, but read, "[REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure, live to regret this fact."  Again we have a partial match with the FBI document.  In this case the FBI semi-matching lines read as follows:  "BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD."  Again, we can see that 11 words match in sequence, but another 16 words fail to match.  Again, one may argue that the FBI has altered Harry's text.  

TWENTY-THIRD THROUGH TWENTY-FIFTH LINES:  Harry's 23rd, 24th and 25th lines are almost entirely blanked-out, except for this phrase, "that you will see to this urgent matter."  For the first time we have a very close match as the FBI document reads, "IT IS MY PRAYER THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS. 

Point 7: Of course, we cannot comment on the blanked-out lines of Harry's memo, except to say that there are only about 75 words blanked out, and the FBI has at least 500 additional words to account for. 

In conclusion, given that Harry Dean is telling the truth, then the FBI has clearly forged this document that Ernie Lazar presents as a "case closed."  This is what I meant when I said last week (when Bill Kelley shared Harry Dean's original memo with the Forum) that there is a "divergence" early in the memo that does not seem to return.  In my results tonight, I find that fewer than 50 words match in sequence between the two memos.  That is, the FBI must account for about 700 words that they present as Harry Dean's writing, which Harry Dean today denies is his writing. 

It therefore appears to me that the FBI has conducted a well-orchestrated smear campaign against Harry Dean regarding Harry Dean's claims about the JFK assassination. 

The FBI has not only accused Harry Dean of being "certified insane" and "committed" with a criminal record (i.e. all together that means 'criminally insane,' which is folly to anybody who knows Harry Dean), but they have evidently, by Harry Dean's claim this week -- put up to 700 words into Harry Dean's mouth, in order to influence gullible readers to regard Harry's witness as a "case closed."

ADDENDUM

(1)  Despite instances when Harry might "deny" something (even something as personal as the content of his own letters) -- as this example illustrates, Harry's denials mean absolutely NOTHING.

(2)  WHAT CONSTITUTES "COMMON SENSE" TO PAUL?

"As for myself, I realize that I am relying entirely on the honesty of Harry Dean -- he tells me that the letter he published in 1990 is the original letter (except for the REDACTIONS) and I believe him. Taking that as my premise, I must conclude -- obviously -- that the FBI version which is typed in all CAPS with 500 extra words is a forgery. There is no other conclusion that ordinary common sense can make, given my premise."

Edited March 15, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

With respect to whatever Wesley Swearingen believes regarding the assassination of JFK -- there is the entirely separate subject of what he believes about Harry Dean's story.

Fortunately, we have a clear and definitive statement by Swearingen concerning what he believes and that statement was sent to Paul Trejo by Swearingen (copied below).

Therefore, Paul should stop using Swearingen as an authority about FBI practices and procedures because one of the reasons he does NOT believe Harry's story is precisely because Harry's story does not conform to what Swearingen knows about FBI practices and procedures!

In other words -- Paul cannot have it both ways.  Paul cannot claim Swearingen's comments MUST be accepted as indisputable "proof" regarding something like small payments made by FBI Agents for information but, simultaneously, dismiss Swearingen's comments about Harry's narrative with respect to "meeting" SAC Wesley Grapp or being any kind of FBI informant or source of information OR dismissing Swearingen's definitive characterization of Harry's story as "preposterous" AND "absolute fiction".

SWEARINGEN'S MESSAGE TO PAUL TREJO

From: WESSWEAR <WESSWEAR@aol.com> To: Paul.Trejo <Paul.Trejo@mccombs.utexas.edu> Cc: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2014 12:16 pm

Mr. Trejo, 

Please let me explain one more time what I think of Dean's information. If you read my book TO KILL A PRESIDENT, you should know what my position is on who killed JFL. (sic). I have reliable witnesses. Dean has only his opinion, which he cannot support with reliable witnesses or physical evidence. 

Dean claims to have been a FBI informant and to have ridden in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp. Dean could have talked to FBI agents in Chicago. That does not make him a FBI informant. As to Dean's informant status, FBI agent William McCauley of Los Angeles characterized Dean as a "mental case." There is no way McCauley would have had Dean as an informant. Dean may have talked to an agent in Los Angeles. This does not make him an informant. 

As to Dean riding around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp, that is absolutely preposterous. SACs do not do agent field work. JFK was killed in 1963. Grapp did not become SAC of Los Angeles until 1964. 

Dean may, or may not have talked to various individuals and groups. These people may have been joking with Dean, especially if they thought Dean was a "mental case," just as FBI agent McCauley thought. 

Dean's idea that some people he talked to were involved in the JFK assassination is as weak as his idea that he was a FBI informant and that he rode around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp. 

It is my opinion, after reading Dean's manuscript and hearing what you claim is true about Dean, that Dean is drastically in need of professional help. It is also my opinion that what Dean has claimed as fact is absolute fiction. 

Sincerely,  M. Wesley Swearingen

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie,

I could also post online what I think of your analytical skills.  But it is actually a waste of time in a FORUM which is dedicated to the study of the JFK assassination.

Suffice to say that people can read your irrational attacks on Harry Dean and draw their own conclusions.

In conclusion, Harry Dean's interaction with Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement and the FPCC are well-documented by the FBI. 

Also, Harry Dean's years of volunteering information to the FBI about Communists in Chicago and Southern California are also well-documented by the FBI.

Also, it makes logical and common sense to the casual observer that since the FBI did give petty cash to informal informers, that Harry Dean would possibly have received some of that petty cash over those years.

Your relentless denial of these several facts only shows the emotional nature of your arguments.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

I could also post online what I think of your analytical skills.  But it is actually a waste of time in a FORUM which is dedicated to the study of the JFK assassination.

Suffice to say that people can read your irrational attacks on Harry Dean and draw their own conclusions.

In conclusion, Harry Dean's interaction with Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement and the FPCC are well-documented by the FBI. 

Also, Harry Dean's years of volunteering information to the FBI about Communists in Chicago and Southern California are also well-documented by the FBI.

Also, it makes logical and common sense to the casual observer that since the FBI did give petty cash to informal informers, that Harry Dean would possibly have received some of that petty cash over those years.

Your relentless denial of these several facts only shows the emotional nature of your arguments.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

The problem with your observation Paul is two-fold

(1)  There are NUMEROUS members here who have come to the exact same conclusion about you that I did

(2)   You have NOT refuted ANY quotation of yours which I copied and pasted into my messages.   In other words, you KNOW that I have provided accurate, truthful, and in context quotations which clearly and indisputably reveals your massive errors in analysis, judgment, and conclusions.

With respect to your "cash informers" comment -- you STILL ignore the salient issues because you know that neither you or Harry has EVER provided ANY corroboration or documentation to support your contentions -- which is why you always use weasel-words like "possibly" .   FICTION WRITERS can INVENT ANYTHING they want and you and Harry are FICTION WRITERS.

You obviously do not even know the meaning of the word "fact".