New Book!

[Ernie Lazar]

As a point of personal privilege -- with respect to Paul's incessant attempts to besmirch my integrity:

The MAJOR reason I disagree with Paul is NOT because he disputes something I have written.  Intelligent and principled debate is always entirely welcome.

The REAL reason I believe Paul is NOT a serious person is because he never exhibits any real understanding of whatever he writes about.

FOR EXAMPLE:

The reason I know that Paul's statements are total falsehoods regarding conspiracy classes at our colleges and universities is because:

1.  I receive DOZENS of messages every year from college and university professors who are doing research into and writing about subjects that pertain to conspiracy theories AND, in many cases, these folks ALSO use their research material in the classes which they teach at their educational institutions.   Often, their conspiracy lectures are incorporated into larger subject areas such as the history of political radicalism or political extremism in our country or around the world.

2.  Recently, for example, I received the following email from a professor who is currently doing research for a new book about Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

"Mr. Lazar: Thank you so much for the note. I've actually been using your files for some time now -- on archive.org. I can't tell you how many times your records have helped me as I work my way through this project. You've performed a tremendous service not only to me but to scores of other scholars and the public.  I'm appreciative for the note and for much more. Yours, James"

This professor got his doctoral degree in political history from the University of Kentucky and his bachelors's and master's in history from the University of Louisiana.  He recently participated in a lecture series concerning Jim Garrison.  His doctoral dissertation was on the John Birch Society!

3.  Dr. Darren Mulloy has written the most well-researched book about the JBS.  His research specialty is political extremism.  One of his classes is:

"Arguing About Democracy: American Extremism, 1776-2000"

One of the articles he has written is published in:    Conspiracy Theories in American History (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003). Edited by Peter Knight.  Essays on the Oklahoma City bombing, Waco, the United Nations, the National Rifle Association and the Federal Emergency Management Agency."

4.  Kathryn Olmsted is another well-known scholar/historian who has written extensively about conspiracy theories such as:  'Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 by Kathryn S. Olmsted,' Journal of American History (December 2009): 886-87. 

One of her classes at University of California-Davis is:  History 174D: Politics and Paranoia: Conspiracy theories in 20th century America;

IF Paul Trejo ever exhibited ANY actual knowledge about what these historians and scholars have written and taught in their university classes -- THEN we might want to consider whatever he cared to write about conspiracy theories OR about what is taught in our colleges and universities.  

BUT the problem (as usual with Paul) is that he makes sweeping generalizations which are TOTAL FALSEHOODS!

Edited March 22, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie,

Please remind us -- what is your personal opinion about JFK assassination conspiracy theories?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

30 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

Please remind us -- what is your personal opinion about JFK assassination conspiracy theories?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

As I have stated many many times Paul --- political conspiracy theories are impossible to refute to the satisfaction of their authors or adherents.  At last count, there are at least 13 different CT's re: the JFK assassination.   Oddly, some of those theories posit the same malevolent actors as being involved in (or having foreknowledge of) the conspiracy BUT those theories totally disagree about the motives involved or the specific roles played by each person.  [I recently posted one such example from a UK conspiracy journal.]

I have written articles which demonstrate how conspiracy believers sometimes describe as "experts" persons who falsify their own preferred conspiracy theories!  

In other words, this would be like Paul Trejo saying to me:  

"Ernie -- the best source of information which you should believe about "x" is [enter name here]" and then, later, Paul would recommend to me another conspiracy author ("y") who states that "x" is a disinformation agent!!!  

So you then have a situation where readers are asked to believe TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE and contradictory sources of information!   This happens because conspiracy authors REVERSE ENGINEER their theories, i.e. they START with a conclusion and then select ONLY those data fragments which they think support their pre-existing beliefs.

I have previously written about "confirmation bias" -- as explained by science philosopher Karl Popper.

Paul exhibits "confirmation bias" whenever he opens his mouth regarding Harry Dean!  

Any data which serves to undermine what Harry says or writes is totally unacceptable to Paul -- which is why Paul always immediately dismisses it or tries to de-value it as insignificant instead of honestly evaluating the accumulation of falsehoods and misrepresentations which the factual evidence reveals.

The actual “problem” which political conspiracy theories seek to address is explaining one’s sense of impotence---i.e. providing plausible reasons for why one’s values, ideas, policy preferences, and admired political figures seem to be repeatedly ignored, disparaged, violated, defeated, OR murdered – particularly over long periods of time.   Consequently, the conspiracy theory expresses the rage felt when a person perceives himself or his group as persistent “losers” in all matters of importance.
 
The conspiracy theory functions as a “Rolodex” of people and organizations who should not be permitted to have a place at the table, because “they” despoil our country, “they” defile its true values, and “they” plan to rob us of our heritage, “they” seek to make impotence a permanent feature of our lives and "they" murder our politicians. 
 
That’s the reason why a political conspiracy theory can never be refuted---because it does not rely upon the individual facts, assertions, or conclusions which make up the literal text of the theory.  Instead, it is a primal scream against perceived villains whom are thought to have ruined our society or whom are working toward destroying our individual sovereignty or have murdered our favored political figures.
 
The BEST conspiracy theories combine kernels of indisputable fact with less compelling data (and often outright falsehoods).  The kernels of fact make political conspiracy theories alluring. However, there are NO TESTS which authors and believers of a theory will allow IF such tests have the genuine capacity to disprove their theory.

CHALLENGE FOR PAUL:

I have proposed this previously.  

Select any JFK murder theory which you believe is self-evidently UTTERLY and TOTALLY FALSE.  

Then present your best case in rebuttal to that theory to the author of the theory and/or a group of its adherents.

THEN tell us if the author or adherents admit publicly that they have been wrong all these years -- and tell us if they cite your research and your arguments as the compelling evidence required to admit their grave errors in analysis and conclusions.

THEN---select another JFK murder theory which you believe is utterly and totally false.  Repeat the above process.

THEN let us know how many times you have been successful.  

If NOBODY ever acknowledges that your evidence and arguments represent compelling indisputable falsification of their theory -- then what does that tell you about the very internal nature of conspiracy theories?
 

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

17 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

 ...CHALLENGE FOR PAUL:

I have proposed this previously.  

Select any JFK murder theory which you believe is self-evidently UTTERLY and TOTALLY FALSE.  

Then present your best case in rebuttal to that theory to the author of the theory and/or a group of its adherents.

THEN tell us if the author or adherents admit publicly that they have been wrong all these years -- and tell us if they cite your research and your arguments as the compelling evidence required to admit their grave errors in analysis and conclusions.

THEN---select another JFK murder theory which you believe is utterly and totally false.  Repeat the above process.

THEN let us know how many times you have been successful.  

If NOBODY ever acknowledges that your evidence and arguments represent compelling indisputable falsification of their theory -- then what does that tell you about the very internal nature of conspiracy theories?

Ernie,

Thanks for your non-answer about JFK conspiracy theories.  It shows everybody how little you know about the central topic of this FORUM in which you have spent years and years. 

What have you done here for all these years?   Well, firstly, you attack Harry Dean and those like me who think that Harry Dean is a great guy.  That seems to be your life's calling.  Secondly, you boast about having the largest private collection of FBI documents in the USA (which so far prove NOTHING at all about the JFK assassination).

As for your challenge above, it obviously involves a tremendous amount of time and effort.  So I will turn the tables on you -- let's see you FIRST take up your own challenge.  Show us how you would do it.  Have you even READ a single book on JFK assassination conspiracy?   Even one?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

19 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

Thanks for your non-answer about JFK conspiracy theories.  It shows everybody how little you know about the central topic of this FORUM in which you have spent years and years. 

What have you done here for all these years?   Well, firstly, you attack Harry Dean and those like me who think that Harry Dean is a great guy.  That seems to be your life's calling.  Secondly, you boast about having the largest private collection of FBI documents in the USA (which so far prove NOTHING at all about the JFK assassination).

As for your challenge above, it obviously involves a tremendous amount of time and effort.  So I will turn the tables on you -- let's see you FIRST take up your own challenge.  Show us how you would do it.  Have you even READ a single book on JFK assassination conspiracy?   Even one?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul -- your original message was very clear:   "Please remind us -- what is your personal opinion about JFK assassination conspiracy theories?"

I then answered your question by giving you my personal opinion about JFK assassination conspiracy theories.   Duh??

1.  As is your custom, you make a very bold but TOTALLY FALSE accusation.  

I have never written or hinted that I have the "largest private collection of FBI documents in the USA".  

That is another typical falsehood and delusion by you because you cannot EVER accurately paraphrase or summarize what a critic has actually written.  Many people have larger collections than I do and, for example, I have previously inserted links to their collections in messages here in EF.   Example:  Dr. Athan Theoharis's collection at Marquette University:

http://www.marquette.edu/library/archives/Mss/FBI/FBI-sc.shtml

2.  What still MIGHT be true however is that I have the largest private collection of FBI files pertaining to the extreme right in the U.S.   I say "might" because it has been several years since I requested that the FBI provide me with a computer printout of the people who have made FOIA requests about many of the subjects which I have requested.  I know (for example) that I was the ONLY person (as of 2014) to have requested and received the entire FBI HQ main file on the JBS.

Circa 2006, the FBI told me that I was their largest single requester -- i.e. 5% of all FOIA requests they received.  However, now, there are MANY organizations and requesters who are submitting HUNDREDS of FOIA requests per year -- such as https://www.muckrock.com/

3.   Yes-- I have read numerous JFK assassination books -- including, of course, Caufield's.  So what?  The point (which you ignore, as usual) is that NOBODY can successfully refute whatever theory is presented because the terms and conditions required by the author or adherents can NEVER be met -- just like YOUR messages never permit anybody to falsify what you present.  [NOTE:  In previous messages here, I have identified several factual errors by Caufield -- including (for example) an instance when he incorrectly identified someone by the name of Edward Hunter whom he thought was alive in the 1960's when the person he actually was referring to (by a similar name) died in the 1940's!   I also provided other examples.  By contrast, YOU just accept, verbatim, everything Caufield (or Dean) writes because you have NO CAPACITY to separate fact from fiction.]

4.  One final point:  WHAT has Paul Trejo ever independently researched and revealed in the way of unique previously unknown data?  Paul frequently mentions that he has seen Edwin Walker's private papers at the University of Texas but when I asked him SIX TIMES to answer some basic obvious questions about what info was in Walker's files (pertaining to Harry Dean, John Rousselot, Guy Galbadon, or the alleged JBS plot -- Paul refused to provide such information.  THAT is NOT the attitude or behavior of a genuinely honest person.  

BY CONTRAST:  Not only do I make a good-faith effort to answer every question posed to me, I also (unlike Paul or Harry Dean) paid to obtain the FBI and CIA files on Harry Dean AND I have shared EVERYTHING online -- and at no cost whatsoever to ALL researchers!  So nobody has to rely exclusively upon my written statements or messages -- they can check everything for themselves.  Paul never provides anything because he is a fake researcher who contributes NOTHING to rational or principled discussion!

Edited March 22, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Don't be so literal, Ernie.

Yet, if you really have read Jeff Caufield's superb tome on the JFK conspiracy -- the very theme of this thread, then I will engage you in a public discussion about this book, if you agree.

Caufield has a section on Harry Dean, which seems a likely starting point, if you prefer.

Or, we could begin with Caufield 's opening volley, on FBI informant Willie Somerset.  

As you please.

--Paul Trejo 

[Ernie Lazar]

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Don't be so literal, Ernie.

Yet, if you really have read Jeff Caufield's superb tome on the JFK conspiracy -- the very theme of this thread, then I will engage you in a public discussion about this book, if you agree.

Caufield has a section on Harry Dean, which seems a likely starting point, if you prefer.

Or, we could begin with Caufield 's opening volley, on FBI informant Willie Somerset.  

As you please.

--Paul Trejo 

I have already addressed Caufield's section about Harry Dean.  The problem, however, is that your mind is NOT open to anything which refutes what Harry has explicitly stated.  I supplied you with 27 verbatim quotations BY HARRY to prove (without any possibility of dispute) how he characterized himself over the past 50 years and you did not even have the decency to acknowledge the accuracy of what I presented.  So how can anybody EVER engage in any discussion about Harry with you?  You ALWAYS resort to misdirection and outright falsehoods -- such as bringing W.R. Morris into the discussion when I keep telling you to focus EXCLUSIVELY upon what Harry has written -- but then you just bring up Morris again!  [And, incidentally, there are messages where Harry PRAISED Morris!!]

[Ernie Lazar]

Just FYI -- here is Wikipedia's current list of JFK conspiracy theories:

8 Conspiracy theories

• 8.1 New Orleans conspiracy
• 8.2 CIA conspiracy
• 8.3 Shadow government conspiracy
• 8.4 Military-industrial complex
• 8.5 Secret Service conspiracy
• 8.6 Cuban exiles
• 8.7 Organized crime conspiracy
• 8.8 Lyndon B. Johnson conspiracy
• 8.9 Cuban government conspiracy
• 8.10 Soviet government conspiracy
• 8.11 Decoy hearse and wound alteration
• 8.12 Federal Reserve conspiracy
• 8.13 Israeli government conspiracy

Along With Other published theories 

• Reasonable Doubt (1985) by Henry Hurt, who writes about his Warren Commission doubts. Mr. Hurt pins the plot on professional crook Robert Easterling, along with Texas oilmen and the supposed Ferrie/Shaw alliance. ISBN 0-03-004059-0.
• Behold a Pale Horse (1991) by William Cooper alleges that Kennedy was shot by the presidential limousine's driver, Secret Service agent William Greer. In the Zapruder film, Greer can be seen turning to his right and looking backwards just before speeding away from Dealey Plaza. This theory has come under severe criticism from others in the research community.^[431] ISBN 0-929385-22-5.
• Mark North's Act of Treason: The Role of J. Edgar Hoover in the Assassination of President Kennedy, (1991) implicates the FBI Director. North documents that Hoover was aware of threats against Kennedy by organized crime before 1963, and suggests that he failed to take proper action to prevent the assassination. North also charges Hoover with failure to work adequately to uncover the truth behind Kennedy's murder. ISBN 0-88184-877-8.
• Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK (1992) by Bonar Menninger (ISBN 0-312-08074-3) alleges that while Oswald did attempt to assassinate JFK and did succeed in wounding him, the fatal shot was accidentally fired by Secret Service agent George Hickey, who was riding in the Secret Service follow-up car directly behind the presidential limousine. The theory alleges that after the first two shots were fired the motorcade sped up while Hickey was attempting to respond to Oswald's shots and he lost his balance and accidentally pulled the trigger of his AR-15 and shot JFK. Hickey's testimony says otherwise: "At the end of the last report (shot) I reached to the bottom of the car and picked up the AR 15 rifle, cocked and loaded it, and turned to the rear." (italics added).^[432] George Hickey sued Menninger in April 1995 for what he had written in Mortal Error. The case was dismissed as its statute of limitations had run out. The theory received public attention in 2013 when it was supported by Colin McLaren's book and documentary titled JFK: The Smoking Gun (ISBN 978-0-7336-3044-6).
• Who Shot JFK? : A Guide to the Major Conspiracy Theories (1993) by Bob Callahan and Mark Zingarelli explores some of the more obscure theories regarding JFK's murder, such as "The Coca-Cola Theory". According to this theory, suggested by the editor of an organic gardening magazine, Oswald killed JFK due to mental impairment stemming from an addiction to refined sugar, as evidenced by his need for his favorite beverage immediately after the assassination. ISBN 0-671-79494-9.
• Passport to Assassination (1993) by Oleg M. Nechiporenko, the Soviet consular official (and highly placed KGB officer) who met with Oswald in Mexico City in 1963. He was afforded the unique opportunity to interview Oswald about his goals including his genuine desire for a Cuban visa. His conclusions were: (1) that Oswald killed Kennedy due to extreme feelings of inadequacy versus his wife's professed admiration for JFK, and (2) that the KGB never sought intelligence information from Oswald during his time in the USSR as they did not trust his motivations. ISBN 1-55972-210-X.
• Norman Mailer's Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery (1995) concludes that Oswald was guilty, but holds that the evidence may point to a second gunman on the grassy knoll, who, purely by coincidence, was attempting to kill JFK at the same time as Oswald. "If there was indeed another shot, it was not necessarily fired by a conspirator of Oswald's. Such a gun could have belonged to another lone killer or to a conspirator working for some other group altogether."^[433] ISBN 0-679-42535-7.
• The Kennedy Mutiny (2002) by Will Fritz (not the same as police captain J. Will Fritz), claims that the assassination plot was orchestrated by General Edwin Walker, and that he framed Oswald for the crime. ISBN 0-9721635-0-6.
• JFK: The Second Plot (2002) by Matthew Smith explores the strange case of Roscoe White. In 1990, Roscoe's son Ricky made public a claim that his father, who had been a Dallas police officer in 1963, was involved in killing the president. Roscoe's widow Geneva also claimed that before her husband's death in 1971 he left a diary in which he claims he was one of the marksmen who shot the President, and that he also killed Officer J. D. Tippit. ISBN 1-84018-501-5.
• David Wrone's The Zapruder Film (2003) concludes that the shot that killed JFK came from in front of the limousine, and that JFK's throat and back wounds were caused by an in-and-through shot originating from the grassy knoll. Three shots were fired from three different angles, none of them from Lee Harvey Oswald's window at the Texas School Book Depository. Wrone is a professor of history (emeritus) at the University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point. ISBN 0-7006-1291-2.
• The Gemstone File: A Memoir (2006), by Stephanie Caruana, posits that Oswald was part of a 28-man assassination team that included three U.S. Mafia hitmen (Jimmy Fratianno, John Roselli, and Eugene Brading). Oswald's role was to shoot John Connally. Bruce Roberts, author of the Gemstone File papers, claimed that the JFK assassination scenario was modeled after a supposed attempted assassination of President F.D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt was riding in an open car with Mayor Anton Cermak of Chicago. Cermak was shot and killed by Giuseppe Zangara. In Dallas, JFK was the real target, and Connally was a secondary target. The JFK assassination is only a small part of the Gemstone File's account. ISBN 1-4120-6137-7.
• Joseph P. Farrell's LBJ and the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy (2011) attempts to show multiple interests had reasons to remove President Kennedy: The military, CIA, NASA, anti-Castro factions, Hoover's FBI and others. He concludes that the person that allowed all of these groups to form a "coalescence of interests" was Vice President Lyndon Johnson. ISBN 978-1-935487-18-0
• In "Allegations of PFC Eugene Dinkin",^[434] the Mary Farrell Foundation summarizes and archives documents related to Private First Class Eugene B. Dinkin, a cryptographic code operator stationed in Metz, France, who went AWOL in early November 1963, entered Switzerland using a false ID, and visited the United Nations' press office and declared that officials in the U.S. government were planning to assassinate President Kennedy, adding that "something" might happen to the Commander in Chief in Texas. Dinkin was arrested nine days before Kennedy was killed, placed in psychiatric care (deemed a mad man?), and released shortly thereafter. His allegations eventually made their way to the Warren Commission, but, according to the Ferrell Foundation account, the Commission "took no interest in the matter, and indeed omitted any mention of Dinkin from its purportedly encyclopedic 26 volumes of evidence."^[435]
• Described by the Associated Press as "one of the strangest theories",^[436] Hugh McDonald's Appointment in Dallas stated that the Soviet government contracted with a rogue CIA agent named "Saul" to have Kennedy killed.^[437] McDonald said he worked for the CIA "on assignment for $100 a day" and met "Saul" at the Agency's headquarters after the Bay of Pigs Invasion.^[438] According to McDonald, his CIA mentor told him that "Saul" was the world's best assassin.^[439] McDonald stated that after the assassination, he recognized the man's photo in the Warren Commission report and eventually tracked him to a London hotel in 1972.^[438][439]McDonald stated that "Saul" assumed he, too, was he a CIA agent and confided to him that he shot Kennedy from a building on the other side of the street from the Texas School Book Depository.^[436]

^{IF -- I were to to review my copy of the entire FBI HQ file about JFK's assassination (HQ 62-109060) -- I probably could add MORE theories to this listing.}

^{BTW--- does Paul Trejo have a copy of the entire FBI HQ main file cited above??}

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

On 3/22/2017 at 5:26 PM, Ernie Lazar said:

I have already addressed Caufield's section about Harry Dean.  The problem, however, is that your mind is NOT open to anything which refutes what Harry has explicitly stated.  I supplied you with 27 verbatim quotations BY HARRY to prove (without any possibility of dispute) how he characterized himself over the past 50 years and you did not even have the decency to acknowledge the accuracy of what I presented.  So how can anybody EVER engage in any discussion about Harry with you?  You ALWAYS resort to misdirection and outright falsehoods -- such as bringing W.R. Morris into the discussion when I keep telling you to focus EXCLUSIVELY upon what Harry has written -- but then you just bring up Morris again!  [And, incidentally, there are messages where Harry PRAISED Morris!!]

Ernie,

Your bias is incorrigible, and insulting to Harry Dean and people who like him.

Harry Dean told me PERSONALLY that he was never an official FBI Informant.   If he was a fibber, he had no reason to tell me the Truth.  

But person to person, he told me the truth.

Instead, it was W.R. Morris who spread those lies about Harry Dean -- year after year -- forcing words into Harry Dean's mouth -- and forging documents with Harry Dean's signature.

And you fell for W.R. Morris' big fibs.

I have no dog in this race, Ernie.  I'm not making any money off of Harry Dean or his name.   It's only that I like Harry Dean, personally, as a friend.

Harry Dean is a good and decent person -- a family man with children who love him.   (By the way, Ernie, are you married with children?)

Harry Dean is a WW2 veteran.  Harry Dean had a hard life -- he didn't have the advantages of those who went to Universities -- but Harry Dean had a very active and exciting life in politics -- in Chicago, in Cuba, in the 26th of July Movement, in the FPCC, and on the streets of Chicago and Los Angeles.

Harry Dean took to the FBI his information about the Communist menace whenever he saw fit -- he didn't ask for money.  He gave it freely.

We have FBI documented proof that this was the case.  

Your vicious and relentless attacks on Harry Dean -- for years -- have no motive, and at long last, no shame.

You claim you've read Jeff Caufield's new book -- but I offered to walk through it with you and you declined.  

I wonder -- I wonder.

And FINALLY -- the only thing that Harry Dean ever said that was positive about W.R. Morris is that he was "some character."   That wasn't praise -- that was exasperation.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 24, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

Your bias is incorrigible, and insulting to Harry Dean and people who like him.

Merely alleging bias is not a substantive reply to evidence.

Harry Dean told me PERSONALLY that he was never an official FBI Informant.   If he was a fibber, he had no reason to tell me the Truth.

For the 500th time, it does not matter what you claim Harry told you "personally".  All that matters is what Harry has said PUBLICLY (including recently) AND how people perceived Harry when they had direct personal contact with Harry over the past five decades.  

Furthermore, there is no such thing as an "official FBI informant".  That is a straw-man argument which YOU fabricated!  It is comparable to saying:  Charles Manson never said he was an "official murderer".

BTW---Harry claims that the FBI assigned him two code names.  If that is actually true -- then even by YOUR criteria Harry presumably would have been an "official FBI informant" -- right?

But person to person, he told me the truth.

Instead, it was W.R. Morris who spread those lies about Harry Dean -- year after year -- forcing words into Harry Dean's mouth -- and forging documents with Harry Dean's signature.

Again, you bring up Morris when all that matters is what HARRY has written and said.  Morris died in 1998.  

Did Morris write what was posted BY HARRY on this website since 2010?

And you fell for W.R. Morris' big fibs.

How could I fall for what Morris wrote when I have never read anything by Morris?

I have no dog in this race, Ernie.  I'm not making any money off of Harry Dean or his name.   It's only that I like Harry Dean, personally, as a friend.

Another deliberate fabrication.  You DO have a dog in this race.

(1)  You are NOT in a position to make fair judgments because, as you have admitted in writing several times, you perceive yourself as Harry's "#1 defender", his "friend" and his "ally".   Consequently, you perceive everything in terms of whether or not it might diminish Harry's story --- and if it does -- then you reflexively dismiss or de-value it.
 
(2)  An impartial analyst who is NOT emotionally invested in, or trying to "defend" Harry would obviously be more likely to perceive flaws and errors and inconsistencies and exaggerations which diminish Harry's story.

(3) You wrote an ebook which you sold.  You never performed ANY independent research about Harry.  You just accepted and then parroted every syllable that came out of his mouth.

Harry Dean is a good and decent person -- a family man with children who love him.   (By the way, Ernie, are you married with children?)

"Good" and "decent" people who are "loved" by their family still can be totally mistaken OR fabricate or grossly exaggerate.  BTW--Birchers present this same line of argument to me when they cannot refute EVIDENCE I present.  Should I now give Birchers a free pass for everything THEY claim?

Furthermore, this "good and decent person" committed crimes and could easily be charged as a co-conspirator in a plot to murder JFK -- especially when you consider that there is NO evidence anywhere that he actually did contact the FBI to report anything about the alleged "JBS plot" to murder JFK AND Harry joined extremist political organizations (JBS and Minutemen) which YOU have characterized as "treasonous".

Harry Dean is a WW2 veteran.  Harry Dean had a hard life -- he didn't have the advantages of those who went to Universities -- but Harry Dean had a very active and exciting life in politics -- in Chicago, in Cuba, in the 26th of July Movement, in the FPCC, and on the streets of Chicago and Los Angeles.

Irrelevant to whether or not Harry is telling the truth AND does not absolve Harry from his role in various crimes.

Harry Dean took to the FBI his information about the Communist menace whenever he saw fit -- he didn't ask for money.  He gave it freely.

Just like any other person might do BUT those hundreds of thousands of other people who did the same thing never described themselves for 50+ years as "undercover agent" or "undercover operative", or "undercover informant" or "political spy" or "street agent" or "infiltration operative"  or "asset" and comparable terminology!  Nor did such people then claim that they were "recruited by" and given "assignments" or "missions" by our intelligence agencies to do something for them for 5 years. 

We have FBI documented proof that this was the case.

What we have (no thanks to either you or Harry) is documentary evidence appearing in FBI files which establish that the FBI did not consider the information provided by Harry to be of any particular significance -- with one minor exception.  Almost everything Harry gave to the FBI was just filed away and not even channeled into whatever file subject Harry discussed in his letters and phone calls.

Your vicious and relentless attacks on Harry Dean -- for years -- have no motive, and at long last, no shame.

BOTTOM-LINE:  If Harry were to take a polygraph exam about all of his claims -- he would not pass the exam.

You claim you've read Jeff Caufield's new book -- but I offered to walk through it with you and you declined.  

There is no point in discussing anything with you because you do NOT use normal rules of evidence or of logical argument (as also mentioned here by numerous other EF readers.)

You are simply a credulous shill for Harry Dean's narrative and no accumulation of contradictory evidence will EVER make any impression upon you.  

Your November 2013 message (previously quoted verbatim) shows how your mind works.  You are prepared to fabricate a totally false argument if you think it advances your larger theory and even when your false argument is proven false, you do not even have the capacity to graciously acknowledge your mistakes.  

You rarely provide direct quotations. Instead, you usually mis-characterize or falsely paraphrase what your critics write.  Instead, you constantly create straw-man arguments and/or you attribute to other persons, your own personal worst qualities.  You constantly use mis-direction (such as your incessant W.R. Morris gambit) in order to avoid addressing primary source evidence.

I wonder -- I wonder.

And FINALLY -- the only thing that Harry Dean ever said that was positive about W.R. Morris is that he was "some character."   That wasn't praise -- that was exasperation.

Actually, Harry described Morris as "a good investigative reporter" whom he had a falling out with.  Harry also stated that he admired Morris for his "skill in JFK research".

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

My replies are underneath your comments in BLUE FONT

Edited March 24, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

11 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

My replies are underneath your comments in BLUE FONT

Ernie,

One of these days we'll learn the real reason for your years and years of attacking Harry Dean. 

And why you have HIJACKED this thread in order to continue your unkind attacks.

In the meantime, we should get back on the topic of this thread, namely, the New Book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

As a point of personal privilege, I would like to point out that the questions I have posed to Harry are not abusive nor unusual or hostile or "biased" as Paul Trejo claims.

The problem here is simply that Paul Trejo has always operated as a "defender" of Harry instead of an impartial investigator.  Consequently, Paul does not recognize normal customary probing questions.

As Larry Hancock wrote in a message here in EF:

"Paul, in all honesty Ernie is asking Harry the questions you should have asked him long ago if you are to accept him as a credible source.....if you don't appreciate that and if Harry does not and is unwilling to answer them then it simply raises credibility issues with him as a source.  Given the weight you put on his observations that should be an issue for you - but in truth they are the sort of questions that are pretty routine in certifying sources - it’s just that we rarely get the chance to ask them at this stage in the inquiry.  Not to mention that most of the people we would be interested in would/would have not necessarily been interested in volunteering information, unlike Harry."

 

 

[Ernie Lazar]

20 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

One of these days we'll learn the real reason for your years and years of attacking Harry Dean. 

And why you have HIJACKED this thread in order to continue your unkind attacks.

In the meantime, we should get back on the topic of this thread, namely, the New Book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

The "real reason" is the one I have given to you dozens of times.  I am not "attacking Harry Dean".  I have stated over and over again that his story is predominantly fictional.

It is interesting how Paul always converts standard questioning techniques into "attacks".   In other words, Paul does NOT accept the idea that alleged "eyewitness" testimony should be subjected to careful scrutiny.  Instead, Paul's methodology (as he has told us several times) is that all eyewitness testimony should be accepted at face value and never challenged IF that testimony conforms to what Paul prefers to believe.

[Paul Trejo]

Anyway, let's get back to the topic of this thread: Dr. Jeff Caufield's NEW BOOK, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

[Paul Trejo]

Anyway, let's get back to the topic of this thread: Dr. Jeff Caufield's NEW BOOK, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).