Jump to content
The Education Forum
Harry J.Dean

Harry Dean: Memoirs

Recommended Posts

Paul, please notice that Kathy is an adminstrator of the forum. For that reason, if for no other, I would suggest you pay particular attention to her "suggestion."

Not only you, but everyone else. Take a "chill" for a few days, as the thread is covering NO new ground. No one is "winning," no one is "losing," so let it rest for now. If there is any newly-discovered information, that might change things; but for now, rewarmed (re)hash is becoming unappetizing.

OK, Mark, I didn't notice that Kathy was an administrator here. Of course I'll take a 72 hour break.

Nor is there any question of anybody "winning" or "losing" here -- but simply of sharing relevant information. Still, if the administrators of the Forum request as 72 hour break, then by all means, I'll cooperate.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is getting anywhere.

Once again, I suggest a 72 hour break, and a summary formulated and posted, if you wish, and then be done.

Kathy,

I think you should let "Professor" Trejo have the last word (which he will insist upon having, anyway), and then close the thread.

But don't be surprised when he starts two or three new ones to replace it!

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

Thank you for reminding Paul of Kathy’s status. Kathy is not just an administrator, she is also voicing the opinion of the other administrators on this issue.

I would add that although I have no reason to believe it would happen, however all the administrators would be disappointed were a member, after the “chill period”, to either:

(a) Continue this debate.

OR

b Create replacement threads which effectively allows the continuation of this present discussion.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is getting anywhere.

Once again, I suggest a 72 hour break, and a summary formulated and posted, if you wish, and then be done.

Kathy, it's been 72 hours, so I presume it's OK to begin posting here again.

My first post is a question to you, as Administrator. Why do you propose to be done with this thread? It seems to me that the thread has its own energy, and points are still being debated, and new information is still being presented.

In my view, there is no way to make a summary at this time -- unless it's a one-sided and biased summary.

Why would anyone wish to suppress further discussion on the topic of Harry Dean's account of the JFK murder? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to do anything with it. It is a part of the Forum. Nor am I trying to suppress anything.

It's a same old, same old. You are at a stalemate. If you want to start a new thread about a specific topic , no one is stopping you, but it needs to be specific.If you need to draw from this thread for a point on the other thread, use a link to the specific post or posts you are referencing.

If you want to define your position, so folks will know what you think,so you don't have to type it over and over, I suggest that a blog would be ideal. You could put a link to it in your signature area, and anyone who wished could follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to do anything with it. It is a part of the Forum. Nor am I trying to suppress anything.

It's a same old, same old. You are at a stalemate. If you want to start a new thread about a specific topic , no one is stopping you, but it needs to be specific.If you need to draw from this thread for a point on the other thread, use a link to the specific post or posts you are referencing.

If you want to define your position, so folks will know what you think,so you don't have to type it over and over, I suggest that a blog would be ideal. You could put a link to it in your signature area, and anyone who wished could follow.

With respect, Kathy, you're not being very clear in your instructions here.

Are you asking me to leave this thread? Are you suggesting that I will never have anything new to contribute in the future?

Please be more explicit about your meaning.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, if you did have something really new to contribute it would be far better to put it in a new, specific headlined thread. People are much more likely to read a new thread under a new topic than to keep coming back to this huge one. That's true for virtually any subject. Your opinions and position are very clear in this one. New research or new information should really have a new thread. Kathy may have something else in mind but the logic for new threads seems pretty clear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, if you did have something really new to contribute it would be far better to put it in a new, specific headlined thread. People are much more likely to read a new thread under a new topic than to keep coming back to this huge one. That's true for virtually any subject. Your opinions and position are very clear in this one. New research or new information should really have a new thread. Kathy may have something else in mind but the logic for new threads seems pretty clear to me.

Larry, please help me sort this out. Speaking of Harry Dean and his well-known Memoirs that he's made public since January 1965, are you suggesting that no new information will ever come forward?

For example, Dr. Jeffrey Caufield has found new evidence that confirms Harry Dean's account, namely, a new link between the claims of former FBI Agent, Don Adams, who dealt directly with Willie Somerset and attempted to track the movements of Joseph Milteer, whose description of the JFK murder -- weeks before the actual murder -- described the modus operandi so closely that it could hardly have been a coincidence.

The title of Don Adams' book gives half of the modus operandi, namely, From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle: One FBI Agent's View of the JFK Assassination. Milteer's boast to Willie Somerset added the other half: "they’ll pick up somebody within hours...just to throw the public off."

As most of us know, the FBI refused to allow FBI Agent Don Adams to pursue this lead in the JFK murder, and it bothered Don Adams for the rest of his life.

Soon,7 however, Dr. Jeffrey Caufield will publish information that will directly link Joseph Milteer with Ex-General Edwin Walker and his publisher, Robert Allen Surrey in Dallas, multiple times in 1963. (Robert Allen Surrey, as most know, was the man behind the infamous black-bordered Ad in the DMN on 11/22/1963 in Dallas.)

This connection between Joseph Milteer and Edwin Walker in 1963 is absolutely NEW information that has never been brought forward in the many years that the Harry Dean thread has been in existence.

This new revelation has the accidental effect of confirming Harry Dean's report that Ex-General Edwin Walker was at the center of the Kill Team in the JFK murder.

So -- are we to fail to update this thread with new information? Why? Because the thread is too old? Is Harry Dean's story somehow boring because it's too old? What is the real problem here? I don't see it. Please help me understand.

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, its just this simple.....certainly new information may come out - you have been projecting that it will for some time now. If and when it does it will be more visible in a brand new and specific thread under a new title...not sure why that would not be obvious to you?

On another point, as I've made clear, we have ample documents that the FBI did report Milteers remarks to other agencies including the Secret Service as well as to several of its own field offices. Those offices did investigate the threat, contacting all the individuals Milteer had mentioned. The Secret Service referred the threat to Washington DC since Milteer had mentioned that city in conjunction with the shooting threat. Unfortunately both the FBI and SS totally dropped the ball in a meaningful investigation but in reality they way each group did it was pretty much SOP for them at the time. Adams may not know all this but just because he did not do the follow up does not mean that none was done - however ineffectual it was.

But more to the point, why don't you just wait and start a new thread on Caufields book and his revelations when they appear? This thread has turned into nothing but repetition and constant promotion of your theory with the same information over and over. In your own best interest you would be better served by starting new threads with real new information....otherwise it will very possibly remain obscured by this giant thread. Kathy is trying to help you understand that, and so am I.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, its just this simple.....certainly new information may come out - you have been projecting that it will for some time now. If and when it does it will be more visible in a brand new and specific thread under a new title...not sure why that would not be obvious to you?

On another point, as I've made clear, we have ample documents that the FBI did report Milteers remarks to other agencies including the Secret Service as well as to several of its own field offices. Those offices did investigate the threat, contacting all the individuals Milteer had mentioned. The Secret Service referred the threat to Washington DC since Milteer had mentioned that city in conjunction with the shooting threat. Unfortunately both the FBI and SS totally dropped the ball in a meaningful investigation but in reality they way each group did it was pretty much SOP for them at the time. Adams may not know all this but just because he did not do the follow up does not mean that none was done - however ineffectual it was.

But more to the point, why don't you just wait and start a new thread on Caufields book and his revelations when they appear? This thread has turned into nothing but repetition and constant promotion of your theory with the same information over and over. In your own best interest you would be better served by starting new threads with real new information....otherwise it will very possibly remain obscured by this giant thread. Kathy is trying to help you understand that, and so am I.

In support of what Larry has summarized above -- interested parties may go to the Mary Ferrell website to see numerous documents pertaining to Joseph Milteer and Willie Somersett etc. Much of the relevant documentation appears in the FBI administrative file which discusses what information could be shared with the House Select Committee on Assassinations [FBI HQ 62-117290]

The September and October 1976 issues of Miami Magazine contain lengthy articles which discuss Milteer and Somersett at length.

09/76 = "JFK, King: The Dade County Links" by Dan Christensen

10/76 = "FBI Ignored Its Miami Informer" by Dan Christensen

Miami Magazine based their articles upon their contacts within the Miami PD plus their interviews with Willie's brother, Rufus Somersett. There is also material in Jack Anderson's column published in the 1/19/77 Washington Post.

Incidentally, Milteer's FBI HQ file (157-1223) is now at NARA. Several Miami field files on him were destroyed in 1977 and 2005. I received his HQ and Atlanta field files in 2000 but, unfortunately, I never recorded which of my storage boxes I put his documents into -- and since I have 75 large boxes containing paper FBI files, there is no way I can easily find them anymore. If I ever stumble upon them, I will scan them and arrange for them to be posted online. I did copy down one 1963 FBI summary note from one file about him (below):

“Milteer is regarded by local authorities Quitman GA as being very eccentric. He has no close associations and very few people have anything to do with him. He is ‘against everything’ and is regarded as being an agitator. Milteer resides with a known prostitute in Valdosta GA in addition to his residence in Quitman.”

Somersett's FBI HQ file consists of five sections. I requested his HQ and Miami files in 2000 and again in 2007-2008. I know I received some documents (probably from the FBI's NSRP file) but, again, I never took notes about where I put his FBI file.

John McAdams presents a good summary about Milteer here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/milteer.htm

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, its just this simple...In your own best interest you would be better served by starting new threads with real new information...otherwise it will very possibly remain obscured by this giant thread. Kathy is trying to help you understand that, and so am I.

So, it's just that this thread is "too big" ... is that it?

How does that not reflect an abiding bias against Harry Dean's account of the JFK murder?

How does that not reflect a failure of JFK researchers to reach a final consensus about Harry Dean's account?

How does that not reflect a failure of the "CIA did it" theorists who are so prevalent here, and continue to dismiss Harry Dean's account?

How does that not reflect a one-sided approach -- not to answer Harry Dean, but to silence his account?

The JFK Forum has no eye-witnesses left except for Harry Dean -- and y'all have treated him badly, IMHO.

There are very few JFK murder witnesses left alive in any case -- we have Larry Schmidt, Bernard Weissman, Michael Paine, Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, Harry Dean and Ron Lewis left alive.

These few are the elephant in the room -- and only one of them is a member of this Forum -- but you're concerned that Harry's thread is "too big"?

Y'all say you want to solve the JFK murder, but y'all ignore the elephant in the room.

If you wanted to help me understand why stopping my discussion on Harry's thread is "in my own best interest" then you haven't explained it very well.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, nobody was saying you could not start as many threads as you wished and have as much content as you wished (at least I wasn't) -

what we were trying to do is give you advice on actually bringing more attention to anything new you have to say.

I think it has been explained very simply and very well, if you don't wish to see that its your issue.

Actually it would even be more effective if Harry had his own thread in order to make his comments stand out...but you probably won't see that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

I can't believe you are serious.

This "trying to end the thread" has nothing to do with Harry Dean. It has to do with the length, and the intended audience.

If you will notice, there are several threads on the front page. Some of them are resurrected, and some are new. None are 100+ pages (we have had very few of these) People don't care to read 100+ pages. Suppose someone new decides he/she wants to learn about Harry Dean. I am pretty sure that they don't want to read all of this. This thread has turned from informative into a ----ing contest. Someone referred to it as a bully pulpit. It's not really the purpose. This is a discussion forum.

I tried to explain to you why specific threads are started, and Larry also explained it. I believe you understand what we are saying. What I don't understand is why you are being contrary.

When I mentioned you creating a blog ( in a post I wrote upthread), I wasn't trying to be difficult. A lot of authors blog. It's pretty simple. Write about what the book entails, and add to it over days, as entries. That way, your new reader won't have to dig to find out what you are saying, and you won't have to repeat it. It may generate more interest in the book as well.

I think it's a great idea. I'd sure do it if I wrote a book.

Hopefully, this has explained what I was trying to tell you before. If it doesn't, feel free to PM.

Kathy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×