Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Errnie,

You accuse me of outright lies, when all I said was "it is possible that, such and such."   It is over-reaching on your part to accuse me of lying when I have only raised the possibility, the plausibility, and the likelihood.

Certainly Harry Dean is not perfect.  He has made mistakes here and there.  Yet for the most part Harry Dean's account has the ring of truth, which is confirmed by FBI records, even when they attack him.

Here's why: when the FBI attacks Harry Dean for being an unreliable information source, they are also admitting that Harry Dean had acted as an information source for the FBI, and they can place dates to that activity, with actual FBI file numbers. 

So, the FBI turns out to be among Harry's strongest supports for his place in history.  

We continue to disagree, furthermore, on the question about whether the FBI and the CIA have really and truly released everything they have about Harry Dean and FBI SAC Wesley Grapp.  

I continue to argue as follows: since the material that I claim is still unreleased is related to the JFK assassination, and since the US Government has admitted that it still retains 3,000+ unreleased documents related to the JFK assassination, then I will maintain that Harry Dean's claim conversations with FBI SAC Grapp in 1963 are being withheld by the US Government.  

We have until October 26, 1963, when all US Government records on JFK will finally be released (per the JFK Records Act of 1992).  If Harry Dean's words are not confirmed by that date, then -- as I have already promised -- I will retract my claims about Harry Dean.

Not until then.  I fully expect to be vindicated by October, 1963 -- and if I am vindicated, then Harry Dean will also be vindicated.

And by the way, Dr. Jeff Caufield will also be vindicated in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

PAUL:

During our history here on this website, there have been instances where you have simply been mistaken (due to lack of relevant knowledge) and there have been instances when you have deliberately and consciously lied (such as when you stated upon numerous occasions that I am a defender of the Birch Society -- and one time you even suggested I was (or had been) a JBS member!

In other instances, you just seem to have totally lost your mind for varying periods of time -- such as your constant attempts to PRETEND that there are (and always have been) "top secret" FBI documents being withheld which will magically appear before the end of October 2017 and those documents will vindicate Harry Dean's narrative -- EVEN THOUGH the National Archives has released an exhaustive listing of ALL documents remaining to be released (showing the file numbers where they come from) and NONE of those file numbers have anything whatsoever to do with the JBS or Edwin Walker or Guy Galbadon or anything else connected to Harry's (and your) assertions.

AS I HAVE STATED AT LEAST 50 TIMES:   The ultimate problem with your pretense to logical argument (i.e.  "I have only raised the possibility, the plausibility, and the likelihood...") is that you DO NOT accept normal rules of evidence and logic which means that you can propose that we accept your FICTIONAL and entirely false predicates or hypotheses as if they were actually deserving of serious consideration.  

The BEST example of that intellectual deficiency on your part is your entirely fictional argument about the "long version" of Harry's letter to Hoover which you declared MUST be "a forgery" by the FBI because you believed Harry's lies.  

EVEN WORSE -- you attempted to de-legitimize and dismiss ALL contradictory evidence by claiming that "There is no other conclusion that ordinary common sense can make..."

Your exact words being:

"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."

AND IF THAT WAS NOT BAD ENOUGH -- you also felt compelled to accuse ME of "massive bias" and a "blind spot in your vision" and "lack of objectivity" which is "obvious to everybody on this thread except yourself".

SO.....what happened AFTER we all discovered that Harry ACTUALLY DID WRITE the "long version" (in ALL CAPS)?   Did you candidly acknowledge that you were wrong?  Did you apologize to me for making such unwarranted, false, defamatory, personal attacks upon my integrity, my common sense, and my character?   Of course not --- because you believe that  ALL your grave mistakes should be forgiven and entirely forgotten by EVERYBODY.

Your original comment:

"First, you continue to refer to the FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover as 'Harry's letter', which shows your massive bias. Then, you blind yourself to the digs and jabs at Harry's character there. There are major differences between the letters, and you haven't scratched the surface.Your bias against Harry Dean amounts to a blind spot in your vision, Ernie. Your lack of objectivity is probably obvious to everybody on this thread except yourself."

ANYBODY who STILL believes this absurdity has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to contribute to logical, rational, and intellectually honest discussion:

 "So, the FBI turns out to be among Harry's strongest supports for his place in history."     AND I doubt anybody on this website (other than you) believes your observation.

 

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie, for those people, including me, can you elucidate the importance of Harry writing the so called "long version" and the differences in the versions.  And if the alleged information about Walker etc, was in either one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ernie, for those people, including me, can you elucidate the importance of Harry writing the so called "long version" and the differences in the versions.  And if the alleged information about Walker etc, was in either one?

(1)  THE ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION FROM BILL KELLY

Jim:  This began on November 5, 2013 when Bill Kelly posted a message in the Harry Dean Memoirs thread.  Unfortunately, EF no longer identifies messages with a message number but you can see Bill's original message on page 17 of the "Memoirs" thread.  

This is what Bill Kelly wrote -- and he included an attachment of Harry's redacted letter addressed to J. Edgar Hoover on 11/19/63 (aka the short version):

"I don't know if these docs are at Mary Ferrell or not, and have not revisited this in years, but I did locate a few redacted documents that I pulled out of Harry's file a few years ago to ask him about it - and got sidetracked. In any case, here's one document from Harry's file that I pulled and wanted to ask him about. Harry, did you write this letter or is it someone else who wrote it and your name is written in at the bottom for some other reason? And who redacted it? Thanks - BK"

18109 xitina Dr.
La Xuente Calif.
Nov. 19, 1963
 
Director J. E. Hoover
F.B.I.
Washington D.C.
 
Dear Sir,
 
[REDACTED] 1960 [REDACTED] the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [REDACTED] information [REDACTED] local Chicago office of the Bureau. My present assignments [REDACTED] Los Angeles office [REDACTED] has this information.
 
[REDACTED] undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago [REDACTED] done in June 1961 because Eastland’s Committee was issuing subpoenas to hold hearing on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the 26th of July Movement ([REDACTED] moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time [REDACTED] I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports [REDACTED] released [REDACTED] making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] groups limiting my effectiveness.
 
[REDACTED] name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee’s report no.96465 part 2 pages 84 and 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level [REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact.
 
[REDACTED] that you will see to this urgent matter, [REDACTED]
 
J.R.
[REDACTED]
Harry J. Dean
 
(2)  WHAT HAPPENED AFTER KELLY POSTED THIS "SHORT VERSION" OF HARRY'S LETTER?
Very briefly:
 
(a)  I found a non-redacted excerpt of Harry's letter which Kelly mentioned -- on Mary Ferrell's website.  That excerpt was from an FBI memo which discussed it.  I posted that non-redacted excerpt on page 18 of the Memoirs thread on November 6, 2013.

(b)  Paul Trejo began his campaign to discredit the FBI's excerpt from Harry's letter -- starting on page 19 of the Memoirs thread. 

(c)  On November 10, 2013 (page 22 of Memoirs thread) I posted the ENTIRE letter written by Harry to Hoover on 11/19/63.   At this time, all of Paul's arguments became total falsehoods because it became apparent that Harry routinely typed ALL his outgoing correspondence in ALL CAPS and the FBI had NOT "doctored" his letter---as Paul had claimed.

(d)  On November 10, Harry posted a message (page 22 of Memoirs thread) stating that his letter to Hoover had been edited in some manner to make it a "composite" and it included items which he claims he "did not write".

(e)  Without ANY further investigation, Paul Trejo immediately accepted what Harry wrote and then Paul declared:

"Fair enough, Harry. Unless somebody beats me to the punch, after work today I'll make a detailed comparison of the FBI version of your letter to J. Edgar Hoover, with the letter to Hoover that you yourself published in 1990 on page 31 chapter 2 of your MS/Book, CROSSTRAILS. This promises to be interesting."

(f)  By November 11th (page 23 of Memoirs thread), Paul had concluded that:

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.

and, furthermore, Paul began his screed against the FBI's motives for creating a "forgery":

"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."

(g)  Later -- when I obtained both of Harry's FBI files -- I found the ORIGINAL copy of his November 1963 letter to Hoover (and his mailing envelope) along with ALL the other letters which Harry wrote (also in ALL CAPS) so we finally discovered that Paul's entire argument was bogus and his jeremiad against the FBI was based upon absolute "forgery" falsehoods which Paul fabricated in his own mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

You forgot to mention that after you produced Harry's original typed letter to the FBI, I publicly retracted my earlier remarks.   I don't like to see Harry Dean attacked with blunt forces -- so my friendship reflexes tend to kick in.

However, when the facts are laid out in a scientific manner, I always recognize them, and if necessary, I publicly admit my error, as in this case of Harry Dean's typewritten letter to the FBI.

I cannot always say the same for you, however.  Many years ago, on another internet thread on Billy James Hargis, we argued for weeks as you forcefully insisted that Harry Dean's account was utterly bogus, because you were convinced that no official FBI number for Harry Dean ever existed.

I finally took the problem to Dr. Jeff Caufield, who at that time was still writing this new book on General Walker.  Jeff said that there was an official FBI number for Harry Dean, and he gave it to me, and I showed it to you.  

You did not publicly retract your error.  The next thing I knew, the entire internet thread simply disappeared.  You then changed course, found dozens of FBI files on Harry Dean, and began to criticize them.

Like myself, you have also been mistaken about Harry Dean before, Ernie -- it's just that you've never admitted it publicly.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

You forgot to mention that after the original letter was finally obtained, I publicly retracted my earlier attacks on the FBI.

I don't like to see Harry Dean attacked with such blunt forces -- so my friendship reflexes to kick in from time to time.

However, when the facts are laid out in a scientific manner, I always recognize them, and if necessary, I publicly admit my error, as in this case of Harry Dean's typewritten letter to the FBI.

I cannot always say the same for you, however.  Many years ago, on another internet thread on Billy James Hargis, we argued for weeks because you forcefully insisted that Harry Dean's account was utterly bogus, because no official FBI number for Harry Dean ever existed.

I finally took the problem to Dr. Jeff Caufield, who at that time was still writing his book on General Walker.  Jeff said that there was an official FBI number for Harry Dean, and he gave it to me, and I showed it to you.  

You did not publicly retract your error.  The next thing I knew, the entire internet thread simply disappeared.  You then changed course, found dozens of FBI files on Harry Dean, and began to criticize them.

Like myself, you have also been wrong about Harry Dean before, Ernie -- it's just that you never admitted it publicly.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Huh?  

(1)  When and where did you "publicly retract" your "earlier attacks on the FBI"?

(2)  Your claim re: my comments on the Billy James Hargis article is 100% false and I even contacted the owner of the website where that article appeared to request that he send me a printout of all the comments which were posted on that article and I then posted here on EF those full comments--so everyone could see for themselves that you were lying.

(3)  It should be noted that during our debate about Harry in that Hargis thread YOU wrote the following comment about me:

"Ernie, First I should clarify that I respect your research, and that I believe you are raising excellent questions."

(4)  I have previously stated upon numerous occasions that you FALSELY paraphrase or summarize what you CLAIM somebody writes -- but you almost never ACCURATELY QUOTE their exact comments.   You have just done that YET AGAIN with respect to your FALSE assertion that I "forcefully insisted that Harry Dean's account was utterly bogus because no official FBI file number for Harry ever existed."

There is a general rule which ALWAYS applies to ANYTHING where Paul inserts into a message what HE claims somebody else has said or written.  That general rule is simply this:  Paul deliberately LIES about the actual position stated by whomever he is describing.

WHAT DID I ACTUALLY WRITE IN THAT HARGIS THREAD REGARDING FBI FILES AND HARRY?   I QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE BELOW.

You will notice that what I wrote in October 2013 is EXACTLY VERBATIM what I have ALWAYS written here in EF

“Paul: I think we are splitting semantic hairs here to no purpose. Whether Harry supplied 'information' to the FBI about individual JBS members or about the JBS as an organization or both — either way, he claims to have provided such information starting in September 1963 (although he says he joined the JBS prior to that time). My only point continues to be that IF Harry actually supplied such 'information', there should be some record of it SOMEWHERE — but there is none (not in the JBS HQ  file, not in the JBS Los Angeles field file).  As previously noted, it was standard practice for the FBI to file copies of memos or reports into multiple files. In some cases, I have seen the exact same FBI memo or report in 6 or more different files because of how the FBI cross-referenced everything.  Consequently, EVEN IF (by some incredible omission) something Harry reported to his Los Angeles FBI contacts about, say, John Rousselot — does NOT appear in the Los Angeles JBS file, then it should be in Rousselot’s Los Angeles or HQ file. And if not in either of those files, then it could have been placed in yet more files if, for example, Rousselot and Harry mentioned any other subject (individual or organization or publication etc.) AND if STILL not in those files, there could be references to that information in yet other files."

FURTHERMORE -- consider the TOTALLY BOGUS LOGIC of what Paul claims was my position.

At the time I made my statement (above) in October 2013 -- I already was familiar with the fact that the Los Angeles field file on the JBS contained a letter written by the Assistant Director in Charge of the Los Angeles field office which reported that Harry had no connection to the FBI.  THAT letter contains a notation at the bottom which is Harry's Los Angeles file number!   And here is the real whopper.  I quoted from that letter in my FIRST message ever posted here on EF -- i.e. on June 8, 2009 -- on page 9 of the Harry Dean Memoirs thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/4269-harry-dean-memoirs/?page=9

So, obviously, I knew about a specific FBI file number pertaining to Harry in June 2009.  But there is something even more compelling.

There is no conceivable way I could make the type of definitive statement about FBI files pertaining to Harry (which Paul falsely claims I made in October 2013) UNLESS I had submitted an FOIA request to the FBI about Harry.  But I did not submit my first FOIA request on Harry to the FBI until February 2014.   I then discovered that his files were transferred to NARA. Furthermore, I had seen documents on the Mary Ferrell website which contained Harry's Chicago, HQ, and Los Angeles field file numbers -- so there is no possibility that I would ever have made the type of statement which Paul falsely attributes to me (which is why he does not QUOTE what I wrote).

BOTTOM-LINE:   There was no "error" on my part to "retract" because this entire episode WAS INVENTED by you.

(5)  Not being content to deliberately LIE just once -- you then deliberately LIE again when you state:

"You then changed course, found dozens of FBI files on Harry Dean, and began to criticize them."

I have never found "dozens of FBI files on Harry Dean".  There are only 3 files which the FBI created on Harry.  They are:

Chicago 100-38257 (destroyed in May 1990)

HQ 62-109068 (now at NARA -- but originally released on May 6, 1981 without redaction to Mark A. Allen as part of his larger FOIA request for documents obtained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations)

Los Angeles 105-12933 (now at NARA -- but originally released May 6, 1981 without redaction to Mark A. Allen as part of his larger FOIA request for documents obtained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations)

WHAT PAUL PROBABLY IS CONFUSED ABOUT (AS USUAL):

The "dozens" comment by Paul MIGHT refer to "cross-references" which contain the name "Harry Dean" -- which were shown on HQ and Los Angeles field "search slips".  However, many of those "dozens" of references are NOT about our Harry Dean -- they are about someone else by that name.   The ones which actually pertain to our Harry Dean merely repeat the exact same information which appears in his HQ or Los Angeles files.  For example: HQ 97-4362 is an 8-page FBI memo which mentions Harry in one sentence that states when Harry gave 16 items to the Los Angeles field office, one of them mentioned Joaquin Freire (Freire was the subject of HQ file 97-4362.]

BOTTOM-LINE:   Yet again, Paul lies about me because of his own ignorance.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW---if anyone wants to see the Hargis article comments section which contains my comments in reply to Paul's messages -- I can send you a pdf file which contains ALL the comments made about that article so you can see for yourself that Paul has deliberately misrepresented what transpired during that debate.    Just contact me at:  ernie1241@aol.com

The point which Paul cannot seem to grasp is that I have never changed my comments about Harry Dean since the very first message I posted here on EF (June 2009) -- with one temporary exception.  

At one point during our debate, I explicitly accepted a potential alternative explanation regarding Harry because Paul objected to my use of the word "l-i-a-r" when describing Harry.  For a short period of time, I suggested that it might be possible that Harry was very confused about his status and he also embellished what he claimed was his relationship with the FBI but he did not actually intend to mislead anyone.  In other words, I accepted Paul's suggestion that Harry did not understand how his use of language could be misinterpreted.

HOWEVER -- that possibility went out the window when I discovered that Harry continued to mis-represent his relationship with our "intelligence agencies" -- even including as recently as last month.  Also, Harry's (1) refusal to answer obvious probing questions and (2) Harry's refusal to publicly post a clear and unambiguous correction regarding his previous status is a strong indication that he is a fake "eyewitness" who STILL just wants attention.  In this respect, he has NEVER changed his behavior since the 1960's.  

EVERYBODY who came into contact with Harry since the 1960's, came away with the exact same impression (which Harry cultivated), i.e. that he was "recruited by" our intelligence agencies and he complied with instructions given to him by our "intelligence agencies" because THEY wanted Harry to infiltrate or "spy" upon certain individuals or organizations and report back to them about what he discovered AND furthermore, they even paid Harry's "expenses"  -- which Harry claims were paid to him in cash.  Not true.  Never true.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

It's impossible to quote exactly what you wrote in 2012-2013 Q&A of this well-known online article about  Billy James Hargis:

http://thislandpress.com/2012/11/02/the-strange-love-of-dr-billy-james-hargis/ 

The reason is that the Q&A thread following that article was removed and replaced by the author.

I maintain that you stated -- fervently and multiple times -- that Harry Dean had no official FBI number at all.  Without hard evidence, I sided with Harry Dean on that point, and then Jeff Caufield supplied the official FBI number fore Harry Dean, and I supplied it to you.  Instead of retracting your statements, you vanished.

Then, a few weeks later, the entire Q&A vanished.  Next thing I knew, you resurfaced on this FORUM, citing official FBI files on Harry Dean, and slamming Harry Dean in all your posts.

The name of that author is Lee Roy Chapman, and "This Land, Vol. 3, Issue 21," is the source.  The author, when located, might explain why he burned  that tell-tale Q&A.  Only that author, it seems to me, can recover the missing Q&A in order to confirm or dispute my claims here.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

It's impossible to quote exactly what you wrote in 2012-2013 Q&A of this well-known online article about  Billy James Hargis:

http://thislandpress.com/2012/11/02/the-strange-love-of-dr-billy-james-hargis/ 

The reason is that the Q&A thread following that article was removed and replaced by the author.

I maintain that you stated -- fervently and multiple times -- that Harry Dean had no official FBI number at all.  Without hard evidence, I sided with Harry Dean on that point, and then Jeff Caufield supplied the official FBI number fore Harry Dean, and I supplied it to you.  Instead of retracting your statements, you vanished.

Then, a few weeks later, the entire Q&A vanished.  Next thing I knew, you resurfaced on this FORUM, citing official FBI files on Harry Dean, and slamming Harry Dean in all your posts.

The name of that author is Lee Roy Chapman, and "This Land, Vol. 3, Issue 21," is the source.  The author, when located, might explain why he burned  that tell-tale Q&A.  Only that author, it seems to me, can recover the missing Q&A in order to confirm or dispute my claims here.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul -- it is NOT "impossible to quote exactly" what both you and I wrote in that BJH article because I uploaded the ENTIRE comments section here in EF when you first made your false accusations against me.

In addition:  I gave everybody the email address of the website's owner so that anybody could confirm you were lying:  leroychapman@yahoo.com

See page 85 of the Memoirs thread for my message AND for the PDF file attachment of the ENTIRE comments thread in that article about Hargis.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/4269-harry-dean-memoirs/?page=85

There were other falsehoods contained in your comments at that time -- which I addressed in two of my replies to you in August 2014.   I copy/paste below your message and my replies (in blue font) below:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PAUL's MESSAGE AND MY REPLIES IN BLUE FONT

As I factually wrote, Ernie, your claims on the web page, "The Strange Loves of Billy James Hargis" from 2013, made in a long and insulting thread, much like the tone of this thread, were removed by the editors of that web page, and the conclusions were absorbed into the next version of his article.

Paul -- the editors did not single out or "remove" my comments because of their tone. They removed ALL comments made by everyone who posted any comments. Incidentally, the author the article (Leroy Chapman) made this observation in his footnote #20 -- I underline one critical point:

"20. In 1962, a former Castro sympathizer turned CIA informant named Harry Dean infiltrated the John Birch Society. He claimed that society members Walker and John Rousselot hired two gunmen to kill John F. Kennedy, and that they planned to frame Lee Harvey Oswald. Dean, however, could not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim."

The complete article is here:

http://thislandpress.com/11/02/2012/the-strange-love-of-dr-billy-james-hargis/?read=complete

For anyone who believes Paul's false insinuation and accusations, contact Leroy directly at his email here: leroychapman@yahoo.com

So, you're simply lucky there -- your crimes have been covered over, and you can continue your lies and pretences with impunity -- at least on that count.

Contact LeRoy Chapman and ask him who is presenting "lies". Incidentally, I sent Leroy and his editor (Michael Mason) material concerning Edwin Walker for their article

Make no mistake, Ernie. Many readers here see right through your bias, your hostility, your insulting arrogance -- and know that you're a weak writer with poor logical skills.

You mean like when you fabricated a hoax to explain why Harry's 11/19/63 short-version letter to Hoover was genuine but the long version was a fake?

Another thing I know with certainty, former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen has lost all respect for your truly ignorant methods of so-called fact-finding, and of claiming that if the FBI wrote something, it must be true -- and that the FBI never broke their own rules or procedures.

Like any large bureaucracy, the FBI had people who used short-cuts and broke rules and procedures and even violated laws. But knowing that is different from being able to prove, with verifiable evidence, what, exactly, was done and when and by whom and for what reasons. All of those factors require careful research -- which is foreign to you.

The harsh words that FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen wrote about you I have deliberately withheld from this Forum until today. Yet if you persist in your incessant insults, I'll have no other moral choice but to air them publicly.

You are free to quote anything you like from his messages to me. He and I have a disagreement about his beliefs concerning the number of Security Index subjects in the Chicago office. All FBI documentary evidence refutes what he claims. But he also is the first person to acknowledge that he DID NOT work at FBI HQ, nor did he ever work inside Division 5 (the Domestic Intelligence Division) which was responsible for compiling statistics. He also would be the first person to acknowledge that one must clearly understand the operative rules and procedures and how they change over time. Nothing you can quote regarding my principled disagreement with Swearingen about statistical data remotely approaches his CATEGORICAL REJECTION of your ENTIRE narrative regarding Harry Dean.

Calm down, Ernie. Seek professional help.

You are merely projecting your own personal deficiencies onto me again.

(2)  MY MESSAGE WHICH CONTAINED THE PDF FILE ATTACHMENT WITH ALL COMMENTS IN THE HARGIS ARTICLE:

Notice my summary at the end of the following message regarding the difference between Paul Trejo and myself --- WHICH STILL IS AN ACCURATE SUMMARY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH PAUL

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because Paul Trejo made such an issue about this -- and he even insinuated that "the editors" of This Land website singled out my comments and had them "removed" because of their tone or substance, I contacted the editor of This Land (Michael Mason) to ask him if there was any truth to what Paul wrote.

Below I copy Michael's entire email to me. Michael was also kind enough to send me a copy of the entire comment thread -- so everybody can now read exactly what I wrote and Paul's replies and then compare what I wrote to the grossly distorted description which Paul Trejo has presented here in EF.  [Note: the comments appear in reverse chronological order so you have to go to the end of the attached PDF document to see the first comments.]

Notice how many times during our exchange that Paul said that he "respected" my research -- and notice also the message where Paul stated "As I've already admitted, you make some excellent points".

In particular --- read my two messages which begin with:

"Paul, what I find most troubling..." and

"I think we are splitting semantic hairs..."

As will become immediately obvious -- there is NOTHING substantively different in my This Land comments from what I have stated here in EF since the beginning in June 2010. The ONLY difference is that during my exchange with Paul in "This Land", he acknowledged that I had raised significant discrepancies or omissions in Harry's narrative -- whereas, now, Paul wants to pretend that there are no such discrepancies or omissions worthy of consideration!

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
 
----SO....once again we see how Paul Trejo cannot be trusted to accurately report upon what has transpired or the reasons for why certain actions are taken. We also can now see, beyond any rational dispute, that Paul subscribes to what is generally known as "situational ethics". Anything which Paul thinks advances HIS personal opinions is "good" and "true" and "ethical" and "moral". However, ANY person who challenges Paul's perceptions or beliefs or assertions is, by definition:, "biased", "dishonest", morally depraved and totally without decency or honor.
 
AND AGAIN -- Notice the difference between myself and Paul.
 
* I quote primary source evidence
* I upload important documentary evidence
* I provide clear bibiliographic references
* I make it easy for anybody to discover the original sources where disputed information appears
 
BY CONTRAST:
 
* Paul almost never quotes from primary sources
* Paul never uploads documentary evidence
* Paul never provides specific bibliographic references
* Paul never makes it easy to discover the original sources where disputed information appears
AND
* Worst of all --- Paul merely ATTRIBUTES beliefs and ideas and values to people and organizations without EVER providing substantiation for his personal opinions. Instead, he uses phrases like "it is common knowledge" -- to cover everything he cannot prove or to mask his profound ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Comments Thread on BJH Article.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

I maintain that you stated -- fervently and multiple times -- that Harry Dean had no official FBI number at all.  Without hard evidence, I sided with Harry Dean on that point, and then Jeff Caufield supplied the official FBI number fore Harry Dean, and I supplied it to you.  Instead of retracting your statements, you vanished.

Paul -- regardless of the entirely false accusations which you want people to believe -- I never made any statement whatsoever that corresponds to your lie that I claimed Harry had no official FBI number at all.  

Furthermore, I uploaded copies of FBI documents into my EF messages which I found on the Mary Ferrell website and those documents contained Harry's FBI file numbers!!  This is what I mean by you sometimes losing your mind --- when you make statements which are indisputably false and easily shown to be deliberate falsehoods by you.

Nor did I "vanish" from any discussion -- as pages 84-86 of the Memoirs thread clearly demonstrates.  I continued to respond to all of your falsehoods at that time and subsequently.

Just once Paul -- admit you are wrong and then move on.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(E-mail to Ernie) "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."

We have seen that before, in the "Harrry Dean: Memoirs" thread...

"When I intruded into the thread at 1504 it was because of what Thomas Graves had posted at 1503. He had warned that this conduct may continue after the chill urged the the administration. I suggested we would be disappointed if it did so. Effectively pointing out we expect both parties to comply with Kathy’s instructions. It is clear to me Ernie Lazar has indeed complied, however it is less clear that Paul Trejo has changed after the 72 hour chill.

This thread is now closed.

James Gordon"

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below I copy the very first message which I posted after becoming a member on EF.   It is dated June 8, 2009.  

As I have previously explained, I had received emails from several people who had seen EF messages pertaining to Harry Dean and who also had seen my online report about the JBS. They asked me for my opinion regarding Harry's narrative.  Up to that time, I never heard of Harry Dean --- so I reviewed his EF messages and then wrote and posted the following message.

NOTHING which I wrote in June 2009 has changed EXCEPT that in subsequent years I discovered even more compelling documentation (on Mary Ferrell's website AND from obtaining Harry's FBI and CIA files at NARA) that everything which I concluded in June 2009 was ACCURATE and TRUTHFUL.

Notice that I supplied the FBI file number and serial number and date of the letter about Harry which was written by the Assistant Director in Charge of the Los Angeles FBI field office.  

As previously mentioned, THAT serial contains a notation on bottom of the file copy which reveals Harry's Los Angeles file number.  You may see his letter below along with a copy of the newspaper interview of Harry (pages 340-343 in link below).  

I should point out that the Los Angeles-FBI file on the JBS was received by me on several different occasions.  The first time I obtained it was in April 2006 when I received the file as paper documents.  

However, when the FBI began allowing requesters to obtain FBI documents as pdf files scanned onto a CD -- I requested the JBS-Los Angeles file again so that I would be able to upload it onto internet websites as well as donate it to colleges/universities or other institutions and individuals.   So--the second time I received the Los Angeles JBS file was on a CD in 2008.  Interestingly, the original paper copy in 2006 did not redact anything from serial #1258

https://archive.org/stream/foia_JBS-Los_Angeles-9/JBS-Los_Angeles-9#page/n339/mode/2up

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MY FIRST MESSAGE ON EF (June 8, 2009 -- page 9 of Harry Dean Memoirs Thread

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

FBI FILES ON JBS: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing of the kind, Ernie.  Let's just say that your memory is faulty, and you don't remember.

The fact remains that the original debate we had back in 2012 about Harry Dean and General Walker in the "Billy James Hargis" thread is now DELETED forever, as in some sort of primitive book-burning ritual -- and is lost to perdition.

My comments in that thread were always calm and respectful.  Yours were not.  In fact, your comments there were just as agitated and rude as they are here.

Let the reader decide.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Nothing of the kind, Ernie.  Let's just say that your memory is faulty, and you don't remember.

The fact remains that the original debate we had back in 2012 about Harry Dean and General Walker in the "Billy James Hargis" thread is now DELETED forever, as in some sort of primitive book-burning ritual -- and is lost to perdition.

My comments in that thread were always calm and respectful.  Yours were not.  In fact, your comments there were just as agitated and rude as they are here.

Let the reader decide.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul -- what are you talking about?  

The comments which originally appeared in the Hargis article were deleted because the moderators of that website did not want to spend time reviewing each new comment.  

However, the ENTIRE comment section was sent to me as a PDF file and I posted a link to that pdf file (28 pages in total) here on EF when you first made your false accusations.  I also copied that link again yesterday into my reply to you.  

IF you are claiming that the comments from that Hargis article which I posted here on EF again yesterday IS NOT the entire original comments thread, then please contact Leroy Chapman (whose email address I gave to you) and ASK HIM.  

That "original debate" is STILL in the PDF file whose link I gave you in my message yesterday and which is the same link I previously provided on page 85 of the Harry Dean Memoirs thread on August 6, 2014.

My comments in reply to your assertions in that thread were "calm and respectful" -- but the problem is that (as always is the case with you), you don't want ANYBODY to correct your numerous errors.

ADDENDUM FOR PAUL:

FYI -- The FIRST comment regarding that Hargis article was posted on November 3, 2012 at 9:27pm.  The LAST comment was posted a year later on November 23, 2013 at 5:09am AND all comments between those two dates appear in the PDF file whose link I gave to you.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The fact remains that the original debate we had back in 2012 about Harry Dean and General Walker in the "Billy James Hargis" thread is now DELETED forever, as in some sort of primitive book-burning ritual -- and is lost to perdition.

Ernie wrote, again:

FYI -- The FIRST comment regarding that Hargis article was posted on November 3, 2012 at 9:27pm.  The LAST comment was posted a year later on November 23, 2013 at 5:09am AND all comments between those two dates appear in the PDF file whose link I gave to you.

-------------------------

Paul Trejo is just making stuff-up, ad ininitum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

If you can find the actual Q&A exchange from 2012 that we exchanged for the "Billy James Hargis" thread, then please share it with everybody.   Otherwise, this is all just a tempest in a teacup, as the bard said.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...