Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- your blind faith in Harry and your one-sided analysis is touching but irrelevant. When there is a disputed document, independent thought is required -- not robot acceptance of whatever you are told.

Would you please explain your thought process? How am I "digging for dirt about Harry Dean"? Is THAT how you approach EVERY dispute regarding authenticity of a document? In other words, if somebody asks questions, then they are "digging for dirt"? So, for example, when the "Hitler Diaries" were first released, everybody who questioned their authenticity was "digging for dirt" because they did not just immediately accept claims about their authenticity?

We now see how vapid your intellect is.

You still have not confronted the questions regarding how to explain that other documents written by Harry were also typed in CAPS (the Pyne letter and a major portion of Harry's 1966 flyer advertising his publication, I Confess).

You still have not confronted the main issue -- i.e. WHERE did Bill Kelly obtain his redacted copy? If that is NOT an original document which can be verified, then there is no factual evidence (other than Harry's self-serving statement) that the all CAPS version was not written by Harry.

Don't you think it is significant that everything we discuss about Harry (whether his letters or his recollections regarding what transpired during his time in Chicago and Los Angeles) are all subject to question because we have ONLY Harry's word when there are disputed items?

What are YOUR criteria for determining what is factual? You have a master's degree in history? How could that be possible if this is your standard for analysis or proof, i.e. you just mindlessly accept whatever you are told!

Ernie, your insults continue to be out of place, yet you seem to be oblivious to your lack of manners, and so you may deserve our pity.

In any case, here is additional detail regarding your faulty logic in your post above:

ERNIE WROTE: “There is absolutely NOTHING in the alleged "forged" version which reflects adversely upon Harry.”

Incorrect. The allegedly forged version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover portrays an ATTITUDE that does not belong to Harry, namely, an attitude of seeking Hoover's forgiveness for past actions.

ERNIE WROTE: “There is no information in the alleged "forged" version which adds to, or subtracts from, Harry's story as it is told in the new Dean/Trejo eBook.”

Incorrect. Harry’s memoirs suggest no ATTITUDE of seeking Hoover's forgiveness.

ERNIE WROTE: “There is no information in the alleged "forged" version which would cause anybody to suspect Harry's veracity -- when the text is compared to the other versions we are discussing.”

Incorrect. Insofar as criminality is subtly implied, then Harry’s veracity is also questioned.

ERNIE WROTE: “There is no advantage or benefit for the FBI, there is no disadvantage or adverse consequence to Harry.”

Incorrect. The FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover presumes an advantage and benefit for the FBI by painting Harry Dean as an unreliable witness. This puts Harry Dean at a disadvantage by the method of character assassination.

ERNIE WROTE: “The ENTIRE purpose of forgeries is to deceive...intended to harm the reputation and character of the person discussed in the forgery. But no such qualities exist in Harry's letter -- no matter which version you believe is genuine!”

Incorrect. 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.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- my replies are in order of your comments.

HARRY'S "ATTITUDE" IN HIS LETTER TO HOOVER:

The exact same "attitude" was presented by Harry in his June 1961 letter to JFK when Harry asked JFK "if it is possible to gain from you a pardon for my past mistakes?"

Are you now claiming that even that JFK letter is ALSO a forgery? How does either the 1961 or 1963 request by Harry (to JFK or to Hoover) reflect "adversely" upon Harry's integrity, character, or veracity? Please be specific.

ADDING/SUBTRACTING FROM HARRY'S STORY IN EBOOK:

My point was (and I am sure you understood this and you are now just being argumentative) that there is no information contained in either Harry's 1961 letter to JFK or his 1963 letter to Hoover which Harry disputes in terms of basic factual accuracy.

Harry does NOT assert that he never wrote to JFK. Harry does NOT assert that he never wrote to Hoover.

Even in Bill Kelly's redacted version you see Harry's comment that he is interested in "straightening out this problem". Since we do not have a complete non-redacted version of the Kelly version of Harry's letter to Hoover in order to see all of Harry's exact words, nevertheless we can reasonably surmise that Harry was again asking for some sort of "clearance" because his name appeared in the Judiciary Subcommittee report on FPCC. AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE STILL DO NOT KNOW WHERE BILL KELLY OBTAINED THIS REDACTED VERSION. I have not been able to find it on the Mary Ferrell website (which Bill thought might be the source). If it DID NOT originate on Mary Ferrell's website, then prey tell, what other possibility is there?

SUPPOSE, just for sake of our discussion (and Paul, TRY to be objective here ok?) -- SUPPOSE that we discover that the Kelly redacted version is NOT authentic OR (at a minimum), there is no way to determine whether or not it is authentic. THEN, how would THAT affect your argument?

CRIMINALITY

Harry is on record in his JFK letter acknowledging "my past difficulty with the law" and also acknowledging "my outstanding debts which are many" and Harry acknowledges in his letter to JFK that he is seeking a pardon from JFK "for my past mistakes".

Furthermore, we have references to multiple law enforcement records (civilian and military) based upon Harry's fingerprints concerning Harry's past law enforcement difficulties. The disputed version of Harry's letter to Hoover does not contradict what we already know is the factual truth. So what is your point?

ADVANTAGE OR BENEFIT FOR FBI

There is NOTHING of substance in the disputed version of Harry's letter to Hoover which you can cite as evidence for your contention because there is nothing whatsoever that speaks to Harry being an "unreliable witness".

The disputed version of Harry's letter is being disputed because it has additional paragraphs of text not contained in Bill Kelly's redacted version. Those additional paragraphs DO NOT contradict ANYTHING which Harry has already acknowledged either in his public interviews, or in his letter to JFK, or in your eBook.

For example:

* Harry has never disputed that he joined FPCC and was also an officer of the Chicago chapter.

* Harry has never disputed that most of his contacts with Chicago FBI agents were by phone.

* Harry has always described his contacts with FBI agents in Chicago and Los Angeles in positive terms.

* Harry has never denied that he had personal difficulties as a young unmarried man [in both Canada and in the United States].

* Harry has never disputed that Chicago FBI agents told him in June 1961 that "I could no longer continue" to provide information to the FBI because "they had found out about my past difficulty with the law" and about "my outstanding debts which are many" [as Harry acknowledged explicitly in his 1961 letter to JFK]

* Harry has never denied or disputed the fact that he was seeking some sort of "pardon" or "clearance"

* Harry has never denied or disputed the fact that was was concerned over the appearance of his name in the Judiciary Subcommittee report -- and -- he was disappointed at not being able to testify before that Subcommittee

I think I just covered every major point of substance which Harry presented in the DISPUTED version of Harry's letter to Hoover If I have missed anything, please correct me.

If you want to do so Paul --- we can parse the disputed Hoover letter literally LINE BY LINE -- in order that you can QUOTE each specific example which YOU believe gives the FBI some sort of advantage because it paints Harry "as an unreliable witness" OR is in any way, part of some sort of "character assassination" . Frankly, I do not understand your argument since the exact same general information is contained in Harry's 1961 JFK letter. I doubt that anybody reading our exchange agrees with your warped analysis.

DIGS AND JABS AT HARRY'S CHARACTER IN DISPUTED VERSION OF HARRY'S LETTER TO HOOVER:

As is your customary habit you ATTRIBUTE something WITHOUT QUOTING what you have in mind. So unless and until you provide SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, I cannot respond appropriately.

MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LETTERS

Oh really? What "major" substantive differences are there?

Obviously, the sentences regarding Harry's evaluation of FBI agents in Chicago are not contained in the redacted version but how does THAT adversely impact Harry? How does that "deceive" or "harm the reputation and character" of Harry?

LACK OF OBJECTIVITY

Again -- you attribute a quality to me without explaining your comment. How does your absolute trust in EVERYTHING which Harry tells you constitute "objectivity" on YOUR part?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

For those interested --- there is now a completely digitized copy of the Warren Commission Report.

See: http://www.gpo.gov/newsroom-media/presspage/13presspage43.htm

Also, the Dallas News has this nifty summary of the ten most popular JFK assassination theories --- although there are others:

1. The Mafia theory: Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy was conducting aggressive prosecutions and deportations of mobsters. Killing his brother put an end to that.

2. The LBJ theory: Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson had the most to gain from JFK’s murder. He and Robert Kennedy hated each other. Johnson feared the Kennedy brothers planned to dump him from the Democratic ticket in 1964. But he and his fellow conspirators struck first.

3. The anti-Castro Cubans theory: Many “freedom fighters” died in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961. Cuban exiles living in the United States exiles never forgave JFK for failing to provide close air support for the invasion. So they had him killed.

4. The CIA theory: JFK and the CIA had their differences throughout his thousand days in office. CIA leaders feared that the president might disband the agency, especially after the CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs fiasco. So they engineered his murder.

5. The Israelis theory: JFK did not support Israel’s drive to build nuclear weapons. The Israelis believed Joe Kennedy, the president’s father, was anti-Semitic and wielded influence over his son. LBJ reversed U.S. policy on Israeli nuclear arms once he became president.

6. The KGB theory: Russia was humiliated when its leaders backed down during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Oswald became a KGB operative after his defection to the Soviet Union in 1959. The Soviets “programmed” him to kill JFK.

7. The UFO cover-up theory: JFK wrote a letter to the CIA demanding to see secret UFO files. The insistent president might have leaked information about secret aerospace projects. He had to be silenced.

8. The Texas oil magnates theory: JFK planned to reduce or eliminate the oil depletion allowance, which brought millions in profits to oil producers. The oilmen made sure LBJ, a supporter of the depletion allowance, became president.

9. The J. Edgar Hoover theory: He hated his boss, Robert Kennedy, and didn’t think the Kennedys gave him the respect he deserved. Hoover and Johnson were old friends. So Hoover made sure LBJ became president.

10. The Secret Service theory: Agent George Hickey accidentally shot JFK in the back of the head from the car behind the presidential limousine. The Secret Service covered up the horrible accident.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

As an interesting counterpoint to Paul Trejo's arguments about the supposed JBS connection to the JFK assassination, I copy below the most recent commentary by the JBS which discusses those kinds of accusations. Other more detailed articles by the JBS were published by the JBS in 2011 and last week (links below):

http://thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4806-a-renewed-myth-that-the-john-birch-society-incited-kennedy-assassination

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/16873-50th-anniversary-of-jfk-assassination-spawns-attacks-on-dallas-right-wingers

— JBS Weekly Member Update —

November 18, 2013

Caught Rewriting History

As the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy approaches, the mainstream media are being caught boldly rewriting history. Article after articletakes some of the air of suspicion away from the actual shooter (violent leftist Lee Harvey Oswald) and places it on an "atmosphere of hate" generated by so-called right-wing extremists. Apparently, they haven't read the Warren Report.

The report is the culmination of the investigation of the assassination. Headed by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy concluded, “The Commission has found no evidence that the extreme views expressed toward President Kennedy by some right-wing groups centered in Dallas or any other general atmosphere of hate or right-wing extremism which may have existed in the city of Dallas had any connection with Oswald’s actions ....”

"Oh, but wait! There's more to it!" cry those rewriting history. "What about the Dallas Morning News ad run the morning of Nov. 22, 1963 and the handbill distributed two days prior to Kennedy's arrival?"

The report concludes regarding the advertisement, “The Commission has found no evidence that any of these persons was connected with Oswald, Ruby, or was linked to a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.” Of the handbill, “The Commission has found no evidence of any connection between those responsible for the handbill and Lee Harvey Oswald or the assassination.”

Here's an interesting part often overlooked: Neither the ad nor the handbill was a JBS project.

The ad focused entirely on the policies of the presidential administration, asking critical questions. Yet detractors will have you believe something more sinister by calling attention to the black border around the ad, which some of the more paranoid liken to a funeral announcement. There were JBS members involved in producing the ad and raising the money for the ad, which the paper had run by its lawyers before printing. However, these members did this independently and not as a JBS project.

Unfortunately, the handbill is quite tasteless and is designed as a wanted poster, with the headline: "Wanted for Treason" with a number of charges listed underneath. To our knowledge, no JBS members were connected with this in anyway.

Had Chief Justice Warren found anything to implicate JBS, he certainly would have. From 1961 to 1968, JBS ran the "Impeach Earl Warren" project due to his legislating from the bench. Yet, the investigation found no illegal wrongdoing.

It's nice to see some mainstream news outlets getting it right. The New American, our news outlet, wrote about this in 2011 and as recently as last week.

For our newer and younger members, this rewriting of history should come as no shock. Since the early days of the Society, opposing forces have singled out JBS due to its effectiveness and capabilities. Hasn't the mainstream media done the same with the Tea Party? Except that back in the 1960s, the main opposing force was The John Birch Society and Alinsky tactics were used to combat the messenger and the message. Today, there are many good organizations that come under fire, but the ire of the media is still trained on the JBS, simply because no other organization compares in scope, practice, or organization.

JBS advocates education as its delivery vehicle, never violence. Education will deliver long term positive results whereas violence is short-lived with the potential of creating more opposition and more controlling federal laws, programs, agencies, etc.

[Ernie Lazar]

NEW INFORMATION REGARDING BILL KELLY REDACTED VERSION OF HARRY DEAN 11/19/63 LETTER TO J. EDGAR HOOVER

This morning I completed an exhaustive search of the Mary Ferrell website for the redacted version of Harry's letter as presented by Bill Kelly in message #253 (page 17 of this thread).

I used several different search strategies:

1. First, of course, I searched under the names "Harry Dean" and "Harry J. Dean"

2. Then I used search terms (and phrases) which were unique to the redacted version which Bill Kelly presented in message #253. For example, I searched:

-a- "my present assignments"

-b- "because Eastland's Committee"

-c- "places my position here in urgent danger"

-d- "making the rounds of anti-Communist"

3. Then I used search terms which are unique to Harry but not unique to just the redacted version -- such as...

-a- "18109 Atina Dr." and "I8I09 Atina Dr."

-b- "Director J.E. Hoover"

-c- "report no. 96465" and then just the number "96465"

-d- "part 2 pages 84 and 85"

THE END RESULT:

There were NO "hits" which produced the redacted version which Bill Kelly presented in message #253.

The only "hits" were those which came from the non-redacted version of Harry's letter which Paul now claims is a forgery and hits from FBI and CIA memos which contain quotes from that non-redacted version OR memos which have the same search terms -- such as Harry's address or the Judiciary Subcommittee report number.

Consequently, I think we may now safely conclude that Bill Kelly's redacted version DID NOT come from Mary Ferrell's website. Which means that we have no way to know the source from which it came or to authenticate the document which Bill presented.

-----

ADDENDUM:

During the course of my search, I came across a document which I had never seen previously. It is a CIA document dated 12/18/64.

The subject is shown as: "Harry Dean" at his Atina Drive address in La Puente CA.

Here is the basic info:

#1 = On December 14, 1964, the CIA office in Los Angeles received a telephone call from Robert Hayward of KTTV-TV in Los Angeles. Hayward had previously contacted the CIA field office in 1959 when he was involved in a film production venture in the Philippines.

#2 = Hayward explained that he was the producer of the Joe Pyne Show.

#3 = Hayward stated that the purpose of his phone call was to advise the CIA about the scheduled appearance of Harry Dean on Pyne's 1/9/65 show.

"According to Hayward, subject by his own statement had been an active pro-Castroite in Illinois prior to 1959, and had helped solicit money and arms. He subsequently, again his statement, was an informant for the FBI, and claims either to have had considerable contact with or at least knowledge of CIA activities re: Cuba. Hayward added that he was advising both this office and FBI-Los Angeles in the event either office had any suggestions or recommendations for the handling of the subject during the live broadcast.

#4 = Hayward was thanked by CIA but he was advised that the CIA "could not presume to influence the communications media, to which Hayward replied that he was aware of this but by the same token he was in a position to steer, avoid, minimize, or challenge what might appear in need to such treatment. He added that he was already in possession of some 'documentation' of subject's, and that we were at liberty to examine it, if there was any interest."

#5 = "It was explained to Mr. Hayward that we would, as a matter of course, report subject's allegations of Agency contacts or association to our headquarters, but that his name was not known to this office, and that even if it were, we would have no comment. Nonetheless, we indicated appreciation of his thoughtfulness in alerting us to what might be uncomplimentary references."

SO... WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS?

1. First of all, the date of Robert Hayward's contact with the CIA was Thursday 12/17/64.

2. The very next day (12/18/64), FBI-Los Angeles sent an airtel to J. Edgar Hoover stating that they had received from Hayward a "xerox copy of a letter written by Dean to television station KTTV, Channel 11, Los Angeles, on 12/10/64" -- and a copy of HArry's letter was attached to the airtel for FBI HQ. The FBI airtel states that the letter was made available to their Special Agent Richard Douce by Executive Producer Bob Hayward.

3. Harry's letter to the Director of the Joe Pyne show was dated Thursday, 12/10/64 and it refers to "our phone conversation" of that same day. Harry sent his letter to the Pyne show to provide "details of my associations". The information which Harry put into his letter corresponds to the details mentioned in the CIA notes (copied above).

4. The 12/18/64 FBI-Los Angeles airtel to Hoover mentions that in November 1963, Dean "wrote a letter to the Bureau about his 'undercover agent' relationship with the Chicago office. At that time Dean was interviewed [by Los Angeles FBI], with Bureau authority, and instructed not to claim any past relationship with the FBI...Dean has clearly disregarded previous instructions and is now seeking an appearance on television to further distort his relationship with the FBI...Moreover, it is felt that Dean should be recontacted at La Puente, California and admonished about claiming an association with the FBI that did not in fact exist."

5. So, we can see the chain of events here. Significantly, notice the description made by FBI-Los Angeles regarding Dean's November 19, 1963 letter to Hoover, i.e. it was "about his 'undercover agent' relationship with the Chicago office."

The disputed (long) version of Harry's 11/19/63 letter actually DOES dwell upon Harry's "undercover" relationship with FBI-Chicago. In fact, about 85% of that (disputed) letter is spent discussing those details. However, the "redacted" Bill Kelly version DOES NOT. The redacted version is a mere 3 paragraphs which is focused upon Harry's name appearing in the Eastland Subcommittee Report!

The redacted version consists of three paragraphs, as follows:

(1) The context appears to be a statement by Harry of his 1960 membership in FPCC and then Harry mentions Los Angeles. It appears he may have referred to an FBI employee name in Los Angeles -- which was redacted.

(2) The second paragraph returns to discussing Harry's membership in FPCC and how he wanted to testify before the Eastland Subcommittee.

(3) The third paragraph again refers to Eastland's Subcommittee report and the fact that Harry's name appears on pages 84 and 85 and Harry states he is contacting Hoover in order that "this problem" could be "straight{ed] out" -- which appears to be another reference by Harry to some sort of "clearance" or "pardon" because (quoting Harry's final words), "or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact."

6. ALSO SIGNIFICANT: In December 1964, Harry was still describing himself as an "FBI informant" -- EVEN THOUGH the FBI had repeatedly told him to stop describing himself in that manner and even though Harry had previously acknowledged (1) that he joined pro-Castro groups on his own volition and (2) that the FBI told him in June 1961 that his services were not required because of his background.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Requests for Bill Kelly:

1. The single most helpful thing would be for Bill to scan and post a copy of the redacted 11-19-63 letter here in EF

2. If Bill does not have a scanner -- then perhaps he could give or mail a copy to someone who can do that?

3. If #1 or #2 is not possible -- then perhaps Bill could answer the following questions?

-a- When you wrote that you found "a few redacted documents that I pulled out of Harry's file a few years ago" --- am I correct in assuming that you only meant to indicate a manila folder where you keep documents pertaining to Harry?

-b- What are the OTHER "redacted documents" which you pulled out of that file?

-c- With respect to the 11-19-63 document..........

(1) Is there any file number or serial number or other identifying information on your copy?

(2) Are there any other markings on the document -- such as a rubber stamp or handwriting indicating the date when the document was received?

(3) Is there any rubber stamped comment -- something like "All information contained herein is unclassified" -- with a date entered and initials of a person who authorized the de-classification?

(4) In the right or left margins of your document -- are there any codes to designate the reason(s) for why portions were redacted?

(5) Do the redacted parts look like someone used a thick black felt marker to blank out text OR are the redactions empty rectacular boxes around the space where words would normally appear? Or are the redacted words just designated by the literal word "REDACTED" -- with no black marker or box around the missing text?

(6) In the version which you presented in message #253, there are obvious mistakes in Harry's address. For example, his address is shown by you as follows:

18109 xitina Dr.

La Xuente Calif.

Is that the literal text ----as it appears in your document or are those typos which YOU made when you typed it into this thread?

(7) In message #217 (page 15 of this thread) you stated that you have "a thick file on Harry Dean of documents that were released under the JFK Act". Am I correct in assuming that those documents were not obtained BY you? Instead, you are referring to other parties who requested and received them [under the JFK Act] and, somehow, you became aware of them? Do you recall the name(s) of the original requesters? Or where you saw the references to their documents?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- my replies are in order of your comments.

HARRY'S "ATTITUDE" IN HIS LETTER TO HOOVER:

The exact same "attitude" was presented by Harry in his June 1961 letter to JFK when Harry asked JFK "if it is possible to gain from you a pardon for my past mistakes?"

Are you now claiming that even that JFK letter is ALSO a forgery? How does either the 1961 or 1963 request by Harry (to JFK or to Hoover) reflect "adversely" upon Harry's integrity, character, or veracity? Please be specific.

ADDING/SUBTRACTING FROM HARRY'S STORY IN EBOOK:

My point was (and I am sure you understood this and you are now just being argumentative) that there is no information contained in either Harry's 1961 letter to JFK or his 1963 letter to Hoover which Harry disputes in terms of basic factual accuracy.

<snip>

Once again, Ernie, you are mistaken in every point of another long post. I have time only to address the most important points:

Your key mistake, Ernie, is your opening premise, that the same attitude of seeking forgiveness is present in both the disputed letter to Hoover from Harry, and in the letter to JFK from Harry.

That's wrong. First, Harry asked JFK for a pardon, because JFK was President of the USA. Hoover was in no such position, so Harry Dean never asked Hoover for a pardon. Thus your premise is faulty.

Secondly, you continue to presume – despite authoritative first-hand witness – that the disputed FBI letter is ‘true and correct.’ You refuse to set it aside, but continue to harp on it as though it contains clues. Yet logic demands that until you can prove that the disputed FBI letter is genuine, you cannot use it to obtain clues.

You claim to use logic in your arguments, Ernie, but you have blind spots that you continually overlook.

I will add here that in his letter to JFK, Harry Dean DID NOT WRITE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

Your long posts, Ernie, which contain so much repetition, merely harp on your biased premises. You don’t want to countenance any suggestion that the FBI might have forged a document to discredit a witness. Yet the hatchet job that the FBI made of the Silvia Odio case is ample proof that the FBI has always been capable of underhanded methods.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 22, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

SO... WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS?

1. First of all, the date of Robert Hayward's contact with the CIA was Thursday 12/17/64.

2. The very next day (12/18/64), FBI-Los Angeles sent an airtel to J. Edgar Hoover stating that they had received from Hayward a "xerox copy of a letter written by Dean to television station KTTV, Channel 11, Los Angeles, on 12/10/64" -- and a copy of HArry's letter was attached to the airtel for FBI HQ. The FBI airtel states that the letter was made available to their Special Agent Richard Douce by Executive Producer Bob Hayward.

3. Harry's letter to the Director of the Joe Pyne show was dated Thursday, 12/10/64 and it refers to "our phone conversation" of that same day. Harry sent his letter to the Pyne show to provide "details of my associations". The information which Harry put into his letter corresponds to the details mentioned in the CIA notes (copied above).

4. The 12/18/64 FBI-Los Angeles airtel to Hoover mentions that in November 1963, Dean "wrote a letter to the Bureau about his 'undercover agent' relationship with the Chicago office. At that time Dean was interviewed [by Los Angeles FBI], with Bureau authority, and instructed not to claim any past relationship with the FBI...Dean has clearly disregarded previous instructions and is now seeking an appearance on television to further distort his relationship with the FBI...Moreover, it is felt that Dean should be recontacted at La Puente, California and admonished about claiming an association with the FBI that did not in fact exist."

5. So, we can see the chain of events here. Significantly, notice the description made by FBI-Los Angeles regarding Dean's November 19, 1963 letter to Hoover, i.e. it was "about his 'undercover agent' relationship with the Chicago office."

The disputed (long) version of Harry's 11/19/63 letter actually DOES dwell upon Harry's "undercover" relationship with FBI-Chicago. In fact, about 85% of that (disputed) letter is spent discussing those details. However, the "redacted" Bill Kelly version DOES NOT. The redacted version is a mere 3 paragraphs which is focused upon Harry's name appearing in the Eastland Subcommittee Report!

The redacted version consists of three paragraphs, as follows:

(1) The context appears to be a statement by Harry of his 1960 membership in FPCC and then Harry mentions Los Angeles. It appears he may have referred to an FBI employee name in Los Angeles -- which was redacted.

(2) The second paragraph returns to discussing Harry's membership in FPCC and how he wanted to testify before the Eastland Subcommittee.

(3) The third paragraph again refers to Eastland's Subcommittee report and the fact that Harry's name appears on pages 84 and 85 and Harry states he is contacting Hoover in order that "this problem" could be "straight{ed] out" -- which appears to be another reference by Harry to some sort of "clearance" or "pardon" because (quoting Harry's final words), "or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact."

6. ALSO SIGNIFICANT: In December 1964, Harry was still describing himself as an "FBI informant" -- EVEN THOUGH the FBI had repeatedly told him to stop describing himself in that manner and even though Harry had previously acknowledged (1) that he joined pro-Castro groups on his own volition and (2) that the FBI told him in June 1961 that his services were not required because of his background.

Again, Ernie, you are merely repeating your own faulty premises. You seem to lack a faculty of questioning your own premises.

Your arguments and conclusions here are nothing new -- they merely repeat your old claims based on your prejudices: (1) that the disputed FBI letter is 'true and correct;' and (2) that you can decipher the heavily redacted letter that Harry Dean sent to J. Edgar Hoover -- lthough it appears to have 50% redaction. What stuff.

So, Ernie, please prove that the disputed FBI letter is true and correct, or stop harping on it. Also, please prove that you can decipher the meaning of Harry's redacted letter to Hoover, or stop harping on it. Those are your pivotal, logical recourses.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 22, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- my replies are in order of your comments.

HARRY'S "ATTITUDE" IN HIS LETTER TO HOOVER:

The exact same "attitude" was presented by Harry in his June 1961 letter to JFK when Harry asked JFK "if it is possible to gain from you a pardon for my past mistakes?"

Are you now claiming that even that JFK letter is ALSO a forgery? How does either the 1961 or 1963 request by Harry (to JFK or to Hoover) reflect "adversely" upon Harry's integrity, character, or veracity? Please be specific.

ADDING/SUBTRACTING FROM HARRY'S STORY IN EBOOK:

My point was (and I am sure you understood this and you are now just being argumentative) that there is no information contained in either Harry's 1961 letter to JFK or his 1963 letter to Hoover which Harry disputes in terms of basic factual accuracy.

<snip>

Once again, Ernie, you are mistaken in every point of another long post. I have time only to address the most important points:

Your key mistake, Ernie, is your opening premise, that the same attitude of seeking forgiveness is present in both the disputed letter to Hoover from Harry, and in the letter to JFK from Harry.

That's wrong. First, Harry asked JFK for a pardon, because JFK was President of the USA. Hoover was in no such position, so Harry Dean never asked Hoover for a pardon. Thus your premise is faulty.

Secondly, you continue to presume – despite authoritative first-hand witness – that the disputed FBI letter is ‘true and correct.’ You refuse to set it aside, but continue to harp on it as though it contains clues. Yet logic demands that until you can prove that the disputed FBI letter is genuine, you cannot use it to obtain clues.

You claim to use logic in your arguments, Ernie, but you have blind spots that you continually overlook.

I will add here that in his letter to JFK, Harry Dean DID NOT WRITE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

Your long posts, Ernie, which contain so much repetition, merely harp on your biased premises. You don’t want to countenance any suggestion that the FBI might have forged a document to discredit a witness. Yet the hatchet job that the FBI made of the Silvia Odio case is ample proof that the FBI has always been capable of underhanded methods.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you are splitting semantic hairs. Perhaps you could present a more detailed explanation of your argument? You are focused upon what you describe as Harry "seeking forgiveness" and you are suggesting that there is something in the disputed 11/63 letter which brings discredit upon Harry in a manner which is to the ADVANTAGE of the FBI and reflects poorly upon Harry.

You now dispute my contention that in both Harry's JFK letter and in his Hoover letter -- Harry is asking for something. You can describe that as being a "pardon" or you can use the word "clearance". Either way, Harry wanted something from the U.S. Government --- i.e. from JFK or from the Director of the FBI. Do you agree with me so far?

In neither case (JFK or Hoover letter) is there ANYTHING which reflects poorly upon Harry. He candidly states that he got involved with an organization which he subsequently realized was a Communist front. It is apparent from all other documents that Harry thought he could explain himself when he testified before the Judiciary Subcommittee -- BUT -- Harry was not given that opportunity to clear his name -- and demonstrate that he was NOT a Communist or Communist sympathizer or Communist agent. THAT is why he wrote to both Hoover and JFK.

This is not really a matter of "seeking forgiveness" Paul. It was Harry's attempt to clear his name so that somebody coming across his name in the FPCC hearings or in the 21-year Index to the Judiciary Subcommittee documents would not ASSUME that Harry's listing as Secretary of FPCC was the ONLY relevant fact to know about him. There was a much more important FACT, i.e. that Harry voluntarily went to the FBI and gave them information (including copies of documents). THAT is what we are discussing. Not your STRAW MAN argument about "seeking forgiveness".

PARDON: Let's be very clear here Paul.

What "crime" are you claiming that Harry was seeking a Presidential pardon for when Harry wrote to JFK on June 28, 1961?

Harry;s opening paragraph to JFK declares:

"Dear Sir: I shall explain briefly the case in which I am involved, and also ask of you something if possible, that is of importance to our Country."

WHAT "CASE" is Harry referring to? The next paragraph gives Harry's explanation:

"I have been the Secretary of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee here in Chicago since July of last year, in order to inform the FBI of its activities, upon finding communist books and material in the box containing fair play literature, given me the night I was elected, by other officers of the organization."

Then Harry declares that he called the FBI in Chicago. THEN, Harry reports his meeting with FBI agents on the same day he was writing to JFK (6/28/61) whereupon the FBI agents told Harry "I could no longer continue, as they had found out about my past difficulty with the law, but if I get my outstanding debts, which are many, straightened out, they would be able to consider using me again..."

Harry closes his letter to JFK by asking: "I wish to ask, if it is possible to gain from you a pardon, for my past mistakes? that I may continue in this urgent work."

So Harry wanted a pardon for his past criminal activities so he might be re-considered by the FBI -- to continue providing information to the Chicago FBI field office. However, Harry never received any such "pardon", right?

OK -- now fast forward to the disputed 11/63 letter to Hoover:

In this letter Harry does not ask for "a pardon" --- you are correct. Instead, after telling Hoover about his background (all the same info that appears in the JFK letter) Harry asks Hoover if there is some way he could get his name "cleared" because "my name appears in Senate Subcommittee report no. 95465, part no. 2, pages 84 & 85 as an officer the Red front, Fair Play For Cuba Committee." Harry then refers to the urgent nature of his request so "you can clear me by some method" -- since he was not able to testify before the Judiciary Subcommittee.

Your reply to my original message was in the context of MY statement that:

"There is no information in the alleged "forged' version [of Harry's letter to Hoover] which adds to, or subtracts from, Harry's story as it is told in the new Dean/Trejo eBook".

So, Paul -- WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

WHAT SPECIFIC COMMENT IN THE 11/63 HOOVER LETTER (the alleged "forged" version) contradicts what I just wrote? QUOTE from the Hoover letter. DO NOT just attribute something (which is your standard debate tactic). QUOTE IT so that everyone can understand what you are claiming is "adding to or subtracting from" Harry's story in a way which DISADVANTAGES Harry or ADVANTAGES the FBI.

How does Harry requesting a "clearance" from Hoover disadvantage Harry? How does his request advantage the FBI?

How does Harry requesting a "pardon" from JFK disadvantage Harry? How does his request advantage the FBI?

Remember my premise --- that NOTHING in the alleged "forgery" helps the FBI or hurts Harry --- so WHAT IS THE PURPOSE of the alleged "forgery"? EVERY forgery has a purpose -- so you need to spell out EXACTLY (with quotations) what you think illustrates that purpose.

THE SINGLE MOST DEFECTIVE PART OF YOUR MESSAGE

Now, let's review this section of your message:

"Secondly, you continue to presume – despite authoritative first-hand witness – that the disputed FBI letter is ‘true and correct.’ You refuse to set it aside, but continue to harp on it as though it contains clues. Yet logic demands that until you can prove that the disputed FBI letter is genuine, you cannot use it to obtain clues."

This ONE comment by you encapsulates EVERYTHING which is wrong with your thought process. Do you recall my previous messages where I have stated that our fundamental problem is that you and I have ENTIRELY different understandings about what constitutes proof or facts? I stated several times that your problem is epistemological.

I have also repeatedly referred to how YOU routinely use CIRCULAR arguments.

So, let's start dissecting your comment -- to reveal how fundamentally defective your reasoning skills are:

1. You say that I presume that the disputed version is "true and correct". FALSE. Instead, I have constantly been asking questions to ascertain whether or not the redacted version is authentic.

2. You refer to "authoritative first-hand witness". NO PAUL -- you cannot prove that a document is genuine or authentic simply by asking the person whose testimony is subject to critique whether or not it is accurate. For example: if you asked the person who presented the Hitler Diaries whether or not it was genuine, they would have told you "YES" -- but they were WRONG. If you ask the person who makes counterfeit money if their $20 and $50 and $100 bills are genuine -- their answer would be "YES". If you ask the person who presents a replica of a famous painting by, say, Picasso -- whether or not their painting is actually by Picasso -- their answer would be "YES".

3. What you have done (YET AGAIN), is use an UNPROVEN PREDICATE as the basis for ALL subsequent discussion and analysis. Then, if anybody doubts or criticizes your UNPROVEN PREDICATE (in this case---Harry's self-serving recollections) --- you conclude that THEY (not you) are BIASED.

4. I recently posted a message to the attention of Bill Kelly which would help us determine whether or not the redacted version is genuine. But isn't it interesting that YOU do not even care to ask ANY questions? You just ASSUME that Bill Kelly's redacted version is a GENUINE document -- even though (and this is incredible!)

-a- NOBODY knows where he got it

-b- NOBODY (except Bill) has seen a copy of it

-c- NOBODY can find a reference to it anywhere

-d- NOBODY knows anything about it -- other than what Bill typed into message #253

And then you have the unmitigated GALL to accuse ME of having "blind spots" that I "continually overlook". Paul---your methodology for ascertaining what is authentic or manufactured is breathtaking in terms of what it reveals about your profound gullibility and total inability to ask probing relevant questions!

Now, with respect to this comment by you:

"I will add here that in his letter to JFK, Harry Dean DID NOT WRITE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS."

SO WHAT? Who writes (in cursive) in ALL CAPS? Have you EVER SEEN an example of somebody writing in long-hand a document in ALL CAPS?

CAPS frequently are used by typists for a variety of reasons. For example:

1. Some type fonts are very small and can be more easily read in all CAPS. This is particularly true before the age of computer word processing programs because normal wear of a typewriter ribbon (and typewriter keys which were not regularly cleaned) would routinely produce text that was difficult to read. Some specific letters such as "a" and "o" could look identical when typewriter keys were dirty or ribbons were worn.

2. Some people can type more accurately and faster when they use the "CAPS LOCK" feature on their typewriter or computer because they do not have to use the shift key each time they want to capitalize a letter or to type a number.

Now with respect to this comment by you:

Your long posts, Ernie, which contain so much repetition, merely harp on your biased premises. You don’t want to countenance any suggestion that the FBI might have forged a document to discredit a witness. Yet the hatchet job that the FBI made of the Silvia Odio case is ample proof that the FBI has always been capable of underhanded methods.

Unfortunately, long posts are sometimes required because UNLIKE YOURSELF, I always attempt to include verbatim original comments so that everyone knows exactly what I am responding to. IN ADDITION: when you confront complex situations or complicated or disputed evidence, there is no way to refute it or even just analyze it with one or two sentences.

Your second sentence is another 100% falsehood fabricated on Planet Trejo. I am MORE than willing to entertain ANY factual evidence you have regarding forged documents by the FBI or by ANYBODY ELSE.

Unfortunately, you do not have ANY willingness to consider the opposite situation -- i.e. that the document presented by Bill Kelly is NOT authentic. Which is why you don't bother to ask even ONE pertinent question about it.

With respect to your last statement (re: Odio)....I am not familiar with all the details. However, I would again point out what Laird Wilcox wrote in his perceptive article about extremist traits. One example of something does not make a routine case.

One of the key things which you ignore is that the documents we are discussing are EXCLUSIVELY INTERNAL documents of the FBI (or CIA) or other sources. They were created long before the FOIA was enacted. So one has to ask the most obvious question: WHY WOULD THE FBI WANT TO LIE TO ITSELF (since NONE of these documents were EVER intended to become public). In other words, why would every level of the FBI (HQ and field offices) deliberately fabricate documents just for their own INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS?

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

SO... WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS?

1. First of all, the date of Robert Hayward's contact with the CIA was Thursday 12/17/64.

2. The very next day (12/18/64), FBI-Los Angeles sent an airtel to J. Edgar Hoover stating that they had received from Hayward a "xerox copy of a letter written by Dean to television station KTTV, Channel 11, Los Angeles, on 12/10/64" -- and a copy of HArry's letter was attached to the airtel for FBI HQ. The FBI airtel states that the letter was made available to their Special Agent Richard Douce by Executive Producer Bob Hayward.

3. Harry's letter to the Director of the Joe Pyne show was dated Thursday, 12/10/64 and it refers to "our phone conversation" of that same day. Harry sent his letter to the Pyne show to provide "details of my associations". The information which Harry put into his letter corresponds to the details mentioned in the CIA notes (copied above).

4. The 12/18/64 FBI-Los Angeles airtel to Hoover mentions that in November 1963, Dean "wrote a letter to the Bureau about his 'undercover agent' relationship with the Chicago office. At that time Dean was interviewed [by Los Angeles FBI], with Bureau authority, and instructed not to claim any past relationship with the FBI...Dean has clearly disregarded previous instructions and is now seeking an appearance on television to further distort his relationship with the FBI...Moreover, it is felt that Dean should be recontacted at La Puente, California and admonished about claiming an association with the FBI that did not in fact exist."

5. So, we can see the chain of events here. Significantly, notice the description made by FBI-Los Angeles regarding Dean's November 19, 1963 letter to Hoover, i.e. it was "about his 'undercover agent' relationship with the Chicago office."

The disputed (long) version of Harry's 11/19/63 letter actually DOES dwell upon Harry's "undercover" relationship with FBI-Chicago. In fact, about 85% of that (disputed) letter is spent discussing those details. However, the "redacted" Bill Kelly version DOES NOT. The redacted version is a mere 3 paragraphs which is focused upon Harry's name appearing in the Eastland Subcommittee Report!

The redacted version consists of three paragraphs, as follows:

(1) The context appears to be a statement by Harry of his 1960 membership in FPCC and then Harry mentions Los Angeles. It appears he may have referred to an FBI employee name in Los Angeles -- which was redacted.

(2) The second paragraph returns to discussing Harry's membership in FPCC and how he wanted to testify before the Eastland Subcommittee.

(3) The third paragraph again refers to Eastland's Subcommittee report and the fact that Harry's name appears on pages 84 and 85 and Harry states he is contacting Hoover in order that "this problem" could be "straight{ed] out" -- which appears to be another reference by Harry to some sort of "clearance" or "pardon" because (quoting Harry's final words), "or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact."

6. ALSO SIGNIFICANT: In December 1964, Harry was still describing himself as an "FBI informant" -- EVEN THOUGH the FBI had repeatedly told him to stop describing himself in that manner and even though Harry had previously acknowledged (1) that he joined pro-Castro groups on his own volition and (2) that the FBI told him in June 1961 that his services were not required because of his background.

Again, Ernie, you are merely repeating your own faulty premises. You seem to lack a faculty of questioning your own premises.

Your arguments and conclusions here are nothing new -- they merely repeat your old claims based on your prejudices: (1) that the disputed FBI letter is 'true and correct;' and (2) that you can decipher the heavily redacted letter that Harry Dean sent to J. Edgar Hoover -- lthough it appears to have 50% redaction. What stuff.

So, Ernie, please prove that the disputed FBI letter is true and correct, or stop harping on it. Also, please prove that you can decipher the meaning of Harry's redacted letter to Hoover, or stop harping on it. Those are your pivotal, logical recourses.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- how do you propose that I go about "proving" that the disputed letter is "true and correct"?? ASTOUND ALL OF US with your brilliance. Give us SPECIFIC details regarding how YOU would go about this task?

THE REDACTED LETTER: As I said in my message, the CONTEXT gives clues to what Harry was saying. If you have ANOTHER interpretation --- then please present it. Do you DISAGREE with my summary of those 3 paragraphs? If so, what is your alternative explanation and please explain how you came to that explanation?

LASTLY: You still have not presented a plausible explanation for WHY the FBI would fabricate not one, but TWO, letters which they claim Harry authored (one of which they received from the CIA)......When you present your answer, please do so in the context of what I previously have pointed out, i.e. that these letters existed EXCLUSIVELY in FBI files and were the basis of internal FBI communications --- i.e. not sent outside the Bureau to influence anybody.

So WHY would the FBI want to LIE to itself about what Harry believed, or what Harry was writing OR doing in 1960-1963, or how the FBI (or CIA) was responding to Harry's public statements and appearances? How would FABRICATING evidence assist the FBI with its INTERNAL discussions?

Do you really believe that in 1960-1963, that the FBI (and CIA) had nothing better to do with their time than spending it manufacturing letters by someone who was not even on their radar except when he wrote to Hoover or when he was publicly claiming to be an FBI informant -- when he was not one?

BY THE WAY: You seem to entirely miss the significance of why I posted a summary of the CIA document. It is an alternate independent source which confirms details which appear in FBI documents. BY CONTRAST: You DO NOT have alternative independent sources to confirm anything which you believe regarding Harry Dean. INSTEAD, you just keep repeating your basic predicate that Harry is ALWAYS credible and everybody else who contradicts him is SUSPECT!

Edited November 22, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

FIRST INTERIM RELEASE OF FBI FILES ON GUY GALBADON

Today I received the first interim release of FBI documents on Guy Galbadon (attached)

More material is still being processed (including a search for documents in 7 different locations)

If you see a message about inserting a disk -- just click "cancel" twice and the pdf document should appear

Galbadon, Guy L.-HQ-1.pdf

Edited November 22, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

PARDON: Let's be very clear here Paul.

What "crime" are you claiming that Harry was seeking a Presidential pardon for when Harry wrote to JFK on June 28, 1961?

<snip>

Ernie, I think it's obvious from Harry's memoirs that he was asking JFK for a pardon because he was fooled into supporting the Communists on behalf of Fidel Castro. The axe had already come down during the Eisenhower administration, when Castro's sympathizers were obliged to "register as agents of a foreign government." This astounded Harry -- he had believed he was fighting on the correct side.

After he was drafted into the FPCC because of his honorary admission into Castro's 26th of July Movement, that was when Harry realized that he was in a political hotbed that involved Communists who were promoting literature from Moscow. His hair practically stood up. That was when he chose to go to the FBI -- Eisenhower was still in power.

Things did not resolve easily for Harry, according to his memoirs. Instead of a way out, the FBI asked Harry to dig himself deeper inside and feed them information. The more Harry did this, the more the FBI took it for granted, and demanded more.

Eventually Harry got himself tangled in a quasi-double-agent role of spying for the FPCC and telling the FBI everything that was happening. It was unbearable -- Harry then quit the entire hassle in one day. It was on that day that Harry wrote to JFK and asked for a pardon. Harry didn't want to be involved anymore -- he had done his part and more than his part -- but nothing was ever enough. (So Harry was played, not paid for his information.)

Harry left his FBI contacts in a hurry -- and they weren't happy. That explains to me why Harry reached over Hoover's head and asked the POTUS for a break. In his own experience, it made sense to Harry and was worth a try.

<snip>

4. I recently posted a message to the attention of Bill Kelly which would help us determine whether or not the redacted version is genuine. But isn't it interesting that YOU do not even care to ask ANY questions? You just ASSUME that Bill Kelly's redacted version is a GENUINE document -- even though (and this is incredible!)

<snip>

Wrong, Ernie. I asked Bill Kelly twice on this thread, to please name his source for his copy of Harry Dean's 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover.

I presume that Bill Kelly is kindly retracing his records and steps from years ago -- and that might take a lot of time -- so I'm patient and I don't push my way around in this thread like a bull in a china shop. I can patiently wait for Bill Kelly's reply.

<snip>

I am MORE than willing to entertain ANY factual evidence you have regarding forged documents by the FBI or by ANYBODY ELSE...

<snip>

Oh, really, Ernie? Are you sure? Because it doesn't seem like it.

<snip>

One of the key things which you ignore is that the documents we are discussing are EXCLUSIVELY INTERNAL documents of the FBI (or CIA) or other sources. They were created long before the FOIA was enacted. So one has to ask the most obvious question: WHY WOULD THE FBI WANT TO LIE TO ITSELF (since NONE of these documents were EVER intended to become public). In other words, why would every level of the FBI (HQ and field offices) deliberately fabricate documents just for their own INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS?

<snip>

Oh, I was getting around to that, Ernie. You continually overlook the nuance of Legacy. J. Edgar Hoover knew that he had an American legacy to live up to, and that all of his files would one day be opened up to historians of future generations. Every FBI agent knows this as well. Nothing, repeat nothing, is EXCLUSIVELY INTERNAL, except for a temporary period. Everything, repeat everything, will eventually be funneled into the great pool of History.

When it comes to lies, cover-ups, shameful decisions, gross errors, blatant excesses and other human foibles, I expect FBI agents to behave like most human beings -- and try to hide the evidence.

Nothing shows this more plainly than the JFK assassination cover-up, within which the FBI stands front-and-center. You should know this better than most, Ernie, since you reportedly have hundreds of thousands of FBI records in your possession as the result of a record number of FOIA requests.

Yet in all your requests -- with all your familiarity -- you still can't get your hands on the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald -- even after fifty years! Fifty years! Oswald is long gone -- and yet his FBI files are still locked up tight as a steel drum! The FBI is hiding something BIG -- and everybody knows it.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 23, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

PARDON: Let's be very clear here Paul.

What "crime" are you claiming that Harry was seeking a Presidential pardon for when Harry wrote to JFK on June 28, 1961?

<snip>

Ernie, I think it's obvious from Harry's memoirs that he was asking JFK for a pardon because he was fooled into supporting the Communists on behalf of Fidel Castro. The axe had already come down during the Eisenhower administration, when Castro's sympathizers were obliged to "register as agents of a foreign government." This astounded Harry -- he had believed he was fighting on the correct side.

After he was drafted into the FPCC because of his honorary admission into Castro's 26th of July Movement, that was when Harry realized that he was in a political hotbed that involved Communists who were promoting literature from Moscow. His hair practically stood up. That was when he chose to go to the FBI -- Eisenhower was still in power.

Things did not resolve easily for Harry, according to his memoirs. Instead of a way out, the FBI asked Harry to dig himself deeper inside and feed them information. The more Harry did this, the more the FBI took it for granted, and demanded more.

Eventually Harry got himself tangled in a quasi-double-agent role of spying for the FPCC and telling the FBI everything that was happening. It was unbearable -- Harry then quit the entire hassle in one day. It was on that day that Harry wrote to JFK and asked for a pardon. Harry didn't want to be involved anymore -- he had done his part and more than his part -- but nothing was ever enough. (So Harry was played, not paid for his information.)

Harry left his FBI contacts in a hurry -- and they weren't happy. That explains to me why Harry reached over Hoover's head and asked the POTUS for a break. In his own experience, it made sense to Harry and was worth a try.

<snip>

4. I recently posted a message to the attention of Bill Kelly which would help us determine whether or not the redacted version is genuine. But isn't it interesting that YOU do not even care to ask ANY questions? You just ASSUME that Bill Kelly's redacted version is a GENUINE document -- even though (and this is incredible!)

<snip>

Wrong, Ernie. I asked Bill Kelly twice on this thread, to please name his source for his copy of Harry Dean's 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover.

I presume that Bill Kelly is kindly retracing his records and steps from years ago -- and that might take a lot of time -- so I'm patient and I don't push my way around in this thread like a bull in a china shop. I can patiently wait for Bill Kelly's reply.

<snip>

I am MORE than willing to entertain ANY factual evidence you have regarding forged documents by the FBI or by ANYBODY ELSE...

<snip>

Oh, really, Ernie? Are you sure? Because it doesn't seem like it.

<snip>

One of the key things which you ignore is that the documents we are discussing are EXCLUSIVELY INTERNAL documents of the FBI (or CIA) or other sources. They were created long before the FOIA was enacted. So one has to ask the most obvious question: WHY WOULD THE FBI WANT TO LIE TO ITSELF (since NONE of these documents were EVER intended to become public). In other words, why would every level of the FBI (HQ and field offices) deliberately fabricate documents just for their own INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS?

<snip>

Oh, I was getting around to that, Ernie. You continually overlook the nuance of Legacy. J. Edgar Hoover knew that he had an American legacy to live up to, and that all of his files would one day be opened up to historians of future generations. Every FBI agent knows this as well. Nothing, repeat nothing, is EXCLUSIVELY INTERNAL, except for a temporary period. Everything, repeat everything, will eventually be funneled into the great pool of History.

When it comes to lies, cover-ups, shameful decisions, gross errors, blatant excesses and other human foibles, I expect FBI agents to behave like most human beings -- and try to hide the evidence.

Nothing shows this more plainly than the JFK assassination cover-up, within which the FBI stands front-and-center. You should know this better than most, Ernie, since you reportedly have hundreds of thousands of FBI records in your possession as the result of a record number of FOIA requests.

Yet in all your requests -- with all your familiarity -- you still can't get your hands on the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald -- even after fifty years! Fifty years! Oswald is long gone -- and yet his FBI files are still locked up tight as a steel drum! The FBI is hiding something BIG -- and everybody knows it.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul:

PARDON: Being "fooled" into joining an organization which one subsequently discovers is a Communist front is NOT a "crime" -- so no Presidential pardon would be applicable. Furthermore, there was no pending criminal charge against Harry in 1961....so what "crime" was JFK supposed to "pardon"? By definition, a Presidential pardon is issued AFTER somebody has been convicted. If memory serves me correctly anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction before requesting a pardon.

BILL KELLY'S DOCUMENT: In your messages to me, you have asserted that the Kelly redacted version of Harry's 11/63 letter is genuine and the FBI file copy is a forgery. My point was (and continues to be) that we have not even conclusively established the provenance of whatever Bill Kelly has in his possession which means, of course, we cannot authenticate it as a genuine document. Consequently, it is very strange that you did not bother to wait for details and, instead, have already formed your conclusion. AND you never bothered to ask Bill any probing questions -- other than your wimpish generic request for "the source" of Bill's information. Just knowing Bill's "source" is not going to give us the answer we need. It might help us ask more pertinent questions -- but the source may not move us any closer to deciding whether or not the document is genuine.

FORGED FBI DOCUMENTS: Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. On several occasions I have told you that I have been the source for anti-FBI material which authors have included in their books, articles, doctoral dissertations, academic conference papers, etc. In fact, a friend of mine who wrote his doctoral dissertation on the FBI's COINTELPRO operations against White Hate Groups reproduced a copy of a phony FBI-created document in his academic journal article about the KKK in Alabama. He got that document from me. The difference between you and I, Paul, is that I require verifiable factual evidence --- not speculation or theories or rumors.

HOOVER LEGACY: With respect to this comment by you: "You continually overlook the nuance of Legacy. J. Edgar Hoover knew that he had an American legacy to live up to, and that all of his files would one day be opened up to historians of future generations." This is an ASTONISHING "revelation" which is pure INVENTION on your part. No historian or political scientist has ever made such an assertion.

I suggest that you immediately write an article with all appropriate documentation to support your assertion. At the time the documents we are discussing were created, there was no such thing as an FOIA law and anybody who released confidential data from FBI files was subject to criminal prosecution. So, I have not the remotest clue how you came to your conclusion. Perhaps you interviewed J. Edgar Hoover before his death in 1972??

NOTHING, REPEAT NOTHING, IS EXCLUSIVELY INTERNAL?

I was the first person in our country to discover the number of live FBI informants inside the Communist Party. Prior to my discovery, NO American scholar, historian, political scientist ever knew the exact number. In 1962, a former FBI Special Agent (who only worked 11 months for the FBI) made an estimate of the number -- but he was totally mistaken.

Last year, I astonished many of our nation's most prominent historians who specialize in FBI history when I revealed the existence of two FBI files which NOBODY had ever known about. In combination, those two files total about one million pages. The first file (a HQ main file) was created in year 1922 -- and I was the first person to discover its existence (by accident) in 2012. So much for your theory.

When I first started making FOIA requests in the 1980's, and then continuing through the 1990's, I included in all of my FOIA request letters the stipulation that I wanted the Bureau to provide me with the names(s) of other people who had made requests on the same subjects which I was requesting, plus the date(s) when documents were released to those persons, and the number of pages released (if any).

About 75% of the time, I discovered that I was the FIRST and ONLY person to request that the FBI search for documents on the subjects that interested me. For example; I was the first and only person to receive the FBI HQ main file on the JBS (12,000 pages).

However, even in those instances when other people had made requests on the same subjects, about 50% of the time, those documents were never processed because the requester did not agree to pay reproduction costs and another 40% of the time the requesters either received only a portion of a file (such as specific years rather than the entire file) OR they only requested HQ documents (not field office documents), OR they received what I had received BUT there is no public record that they ever used the documents they received to write anything

It is self-evident, from comments you have made here, that you have no genuine knowledge about FBI files or the research being done into them.

There are literally MILLIONS of pages which nobody has ever seen -- and probably never will see because (1) many files have now been destroyed and (2) many more have been transferred to NARA and, unfortunately, (unlike the FBI), NARA charges 75 cents per page for paper copies and it does not offer requesters the option of receiving documents on CDROM. So, only the most wealthy individuals could afford to pursue significant FOIA research at NARA. [For example, the FBI's HQ file on the JBS is now at NARA, so anybody who wants it would have to pony up $9000 for just that ONE file!]

The new previously unknown file which I mentioned above (about one million pages) would cost $750,000 for paper copies (if it is transferred to NARA) or about $30,000 for release on 2000 CDROM's if it is still available from the FBI. How many people do YOU know that have that kind of money to invest in serious research?

The last I heard, there are currently FIVE MILLION pages available for researchers that pertain to the JFK assassination. By 2017 that will grow considerably. IF a serious researcher wanted to review all FIVE MILLION pages -- and that person only spent TWO MINUTES per page (to read it and take notes), it would take 166,666 HOURS of effort to review everything -- so, assuming that the researcher could devote full-time to that research (7 days a week, 10 hours a day, for a total of 70 hours per week) it would take 2380 days to review those documents -- i.e. 6 1/2 years doing nothing else, 10 hours a day, 7 days a week).

"SECRET" LHO FILES:

No, Paul, once again you have deliberately mis-represented what I have repeatedly stated. Obviously, you have some sort of brain freeze about this matter. Since I have discussed this ad nauseum in this thread and you REFUSE to accurately characterize my position, I see no further point in going over it again.

What is now clear is that you are INTELLECTUALLY INCAPABLE of understanding the meaning of a government file which is classified "top secret" . You use this term as a shaman uses ritualistic acts to control future events.

You think that spitting out the term "secret files" is an all-purpose escape hatch which suggests that you are privvy to some kind of "secret knowledge" which 99% of humanity does not comprehend AND it allows you to make absolutely absurd and false statements without EVER having your thoughts subject to normal rules of evidence and logic. Thus, like ALL fiction writers, you are free to INVENT ANYTHING you want and then use the umbrella term "secret files" to present your warped ideas and theories and conclusions.

Oddly, your method of "reasoning" is IDENTICAL to that employed by the Birch Society. They also jump from A to Z and skip B thru Y. They also use circular and self-sealing arguments. They also fabricate theories to "explain" whatever they want to fit into their conspiratorial narratives.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul:

PARDON: Being "fooled" into joining an organization which one subsequently discovers is a Communist front is NOT a "crime" -- so no Presidential pardon would be applicable. Furthermore, there was no pending criminal charge against Harry in 1961....so what "crime" was JFK supposed to "pardon"? By definition, a Presidential pardon is issued AFTER somebody has been convicted. If memory serves me correctly anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction before requesting a pardon.

BILL KELLY'S DOCUMENT: In your messages to me, you have asserted that the Kelly redacted version of Harry's 11/63 letter is genuine and the FBI file copy is a forgery. My point was (and continues to be) that we have not even conclusively established the provenance of whatever Bill Kelly has in his possession which means, of course, we cannot authenticate it as a genuine document. Consequently, it is very strange that you did not bother to wait for details and, instead, have already formed your conclusion. AND you never bothered to ask Bill any probing questions -- other than your wimpish generic request for "the source" of Bill's information. Just knowing Bill's "source" is not going to give us the answer we need. It might help us ask more pertinent questions -- but the source may not move us any closer to deciding whether or not the document is genuine.

<snip>

"SECRET" LHO FILES:

No, Paul, once again you have deliberately mis-represented what I have repeatedly stated. Obviously, you have some sort of brain freeze about this matter. Since I have discussed this ad nauseum in this thread and you REFUSE to accurately characterize my position, I see no further point in going over it again.

Ernie,

THE PARDON: Fifty years later we can look back and say that being fooled by the Communists is no crime -- but in the heat of the moment, near the peak of the Cold War, especially after Eisenhower's pronouncements charging Fidel Castro's helpers with being "unregistered agents of a foreign government," the average layman -- including myself -- would have thought that it was an act next to treason. Thus, Harry Dean's request for a pardon from JFK was rational under the circumstances.

So, Ernie, you split hairs and use semantics to try to discredit Harry Dean as a reliable witness -- and the FBI obviously tried this as well. Harry Dean was not wanted for any crime, as you admit, so therefore the 'Pardon' that Harry asked from JFK had to be related to the heated politics of the Cold War. It was not a formal request for a formal pardon, obviously.

We need to remember that Harry Dean has always been Conservative; a nationalist at heart. He blocked out accusations in 1958-1960 when Fidel Castro and his movement were accused of Communism. Therefore, when Harry caught the FPCC (which drafted him) in the act of selling Communist literature, Harry was speechless. That's when he decided, on his own, to go to the FBI and offer information.

Harry's information about the FPCC was accepted -- this is his claim, and we have seen FBI documents that confirm that Harry gave them information about Fidel Castro and the FPCC. Still, you continue your old campaign of attempting to discredit Harry Dean's eye-witness account.

What motive would the FBI have for discrediting Harry Dean's eye-witness account? The answer is clear -- it is the exact same motive that the FBI had for discrediting the eye-witness account of Silvia Odio. Both Harry Dean and Silvia Odio provided eye-witness information about Lee Harvey Oswald during September 1963.

Now, it is widely known that the FBI has sealed its records on Lee Harvey Oswald, and even after fifty years refuses to allow the public to see them. There is the motive for the character assassination against Harry Dean that we've seen for 48 years (since Harry decided to go public with his information).

BILL KELLY'S DOCUMENT: In the absence of further information we cannot conclude which document is genuine and which is a forgery -- although we can say with certainty that Harry Dean wrote one and only one letter to J. Edgar Hoover. One must be a forgery. The redacted version that Bill Kelly (and Harry Dean) have shown contains words that do not appear in the allegedly FULL version of the document that the FBI re-typed ALL IN CAPS. Unless there is more information presented, it remains plausible that the FULL version that you supplied from the FBI is a forgery.

What would be the purpose of such a forgery? It was intended to harmonize with that RAP SHEET on Harry Dean which the FBI also mocked-up. Together, as a pair, these documents intend to claim that Harry Dean took information to the FBI -- and that the FBI did not want that information -- indeed, the FBI turned away that information and told Harry Dean to go away.

The portrait given by the combination RAP SHEET and the disputed FBI version of Harry's letter to Hoover is that Harry Dean is an insane criminal who merely bothers the FBI and brings them rubbish that they never asked for and never wanted. It is a character assassination similar to the one the FBI performed on Silvia Odio, in which they claimed that her report of Lee Harvey Oswald at her home in September, 1963, was the result of a "mental condition."

FORGED FBI DOCUMENTS: You claim, Ernie, that you require factual evidence, not speculation or rumors, and yet you are quick to seize upon the disputed FBI memo in order to draw conclusions about Harry Dean. So, once again, you've contradicted yourself.

HOOVER LEGACY: Well, Ernie, congratulations on being the 1st person to discover the number of live FBI informants inside the Communist Party. Also, congratulations for revealing the existence of two FBI files unknown by historians, which total about 1,000,000 pages. Nevertheless, your actions proved my case -- that historians will eventually find everything, repeat everything that has been written down.

Still, those findings are basically irrelevant to the JFK assassination, which is the main topic under discussion here. My question to you, an expert in FOIA requests, is this: how well have you done in requests about Lee Harvey Oswald?

"SECRET" LHO FILES: Ernie, are you now claiming that the FBI has no secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald? The reason you never want to hear about this argument again is because you have no logical answer for it. All your work has yielded you zero results in obtaining the main prize in the eyes of this Forum -- the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul:

PARDON: Being "fooled" into joining an organization which one subsequently discovers is a Communist front is NOT a "crime" -- so no Presidential pardon would be applicable. Furthermore, there was no pending criminal charge against Harry in 1961....so what "crime" was JFK supposed to "pardon"? By definition, a Presidential pardon is issued AFTER somebody has been convicted. If memory serves me correctly anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction before requesting a pardon.

BILL KELLY'S DOCUMENT: In your messages to me, you have asserted that the Kelly redacted version of Harry's 11/63 letter is genuine and the FBI file copy is a forgery. My point was (and continues to be) that we have not even conclusively established the provenance of whatever Bill Kelly has in his possession which means, of course, we cannot authenticate it as a genuine document. Consequently, it is very strange that you did not bother to wait for details and, instead, have already formed your conclusion. AND you never bothered to ask Bill any probing questions -- other than your wimpish generic request for "the source" of Bill's information. Just knowing Bill's "source" is not going to give us the answer we need. It might help us ask more pertinent questions -- but the source may not move us any closer to deciding whether or not the document is genuine.

<snip>

"SECRET" LHO FILES:

No, Paul, once again you have deliberately mis-represented what I have repeatedly stated. Obviously, you have some sort of brain freeze about this matter. Since I have discussed this ad nauseum in this thread and you REFUSE to accurately characterize my position, I see no further point in going over it again.

Ernie,

THE PARDON: Fifty years later we can look back and say that being fooled by the Communists is no crime -- but in the heat of the moment, near the peak of the Cold War, especially after Eisenhower's pronouncements charging Fidel Castro's helpers with being "unregistered agents of a foreign government," the average layman -- including myself -- would have thought that it was an act next to treason. Thus, Harry Dean's request for a pardon from JFK was rational under the circumstances.

WRONG PAUL! A President cannot "pardon" anybody for what "an average layman" might think.

A Presidential pardon requires that a SPECIFIC CRIME be adjudicated and the defendant found guilty after trial or guilty by plea.

Harry wrote to President JFK in June 1961. At that time, the FPCC was NOT listed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities in its"Guide To Subversive Organizations and Publications" nor was FPCC listed by the U.S. Justice Department on the "Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations". Nor is an "unregistered agent" guilty of anything remotely comparable to "treason". All that is involved is that somebody did not file an appropriate form to indicate that he/she was working in some manner to represent the legitimate interests of a foreign government (such as creating favorable publicity for that government OR working to expand trade relations between the U.S. and that country OR lobbying Congress to approve legislation pertaining to that country.

No, Ernie, you split hairs and use semantics to try to discredit Harry Dean as a reliable witness -- and the FBI obviously tried this as well. Harry Dean was not wanted for any crime, as you admit, so therefore the 'Pardon' that Harry asked from JFK had to be related to the heated politics of the Cold War. It was not a formal request for a formal pardon, obviously.

Paul, you are contradicting yourself. In your first paragraph you suggest that Harry's association with FPCC might be considered something akin to "treason" by the standards in existence in 1961 (which is absurd) but now you say Harry was not guilty of any crime and he was not seeking a "formal pardon". Huh??

In your original message you advanced your idea that Harry asking JFK for a pardon was somehow an advantage for the FBI or disadvantageous to Harry which is why the JFK letter and subsequent letter to Hoover cannot be compared. I wish you would make up your mind! At no point have I used "semantics", Unlike yourself, I am not using tortured logic and inapplicable and phony excuses to explain away whatever Harry says or writes. Instead, I am following the evidence to where it leads. Your real objection is now obvious. ANYTHING which is FACTUAL but inconvenient to Harry is what you consider an attempt to "discredit" Harry.

We need to remember that Harry Dean has always been Conservative; a nationalist at heart. He blocked out accusations in 1958-1960 when Fidel Castro and his movement were accused of Communism. Therefore, when Harry caught the FPCC (which drafted him) in the act of selling Communist literature, Harry was speechless. That's when he decided, on his own, to go to the FBI and offer information.

So what? Thousands upon thousands of Americans did exactly the same thing. We are not disputing that part of Harry's story.

Harry's information about the FPCC was accepted -- this is his claim, and we have seen FBI documents that confirm that Harry gave them information about Fidel Castro and the FPCC. Still, you continue your old campaign of attempting to discredit Harry Dean's eye-witness account.

So what? The FBI "accepted" information from everybody --- even people whom the FBI subsequently described in its internal memos as mentally unbalanced. I am not attempting to "discredit" Harry's story about volunteering information to the FBI in Chicago. I am disputing OTHER aspects of Harry's story -- so stop your DELIBERATE mis-representations.

What motive would the FBI have for discrediting Harry Dean's eye-witness account? The answer is clear -- it is the exact same motive that the FBI had for discrediting the eye-witness account of Silvia Odio. Both Harry Dean and Silvia Odio provided eye-witness information about Lee Harvey Oswald during September 1963.

There is no "eyewitness account" which is absolutely flawless or not subject to analysis or logic or verifiability. Informants provide RAW information -- not unchallengeable cosmic truth.

Very often, FBI memos characterize information provided by their informants as "unreliable" OR they describe it as coming from someone of "unknown reliability" OR they identify a specific percentage which described the informant's reliability -- such as 70% reliable.

The salient points which you continue to ignore (deliberately) are that the FBI in Chicago told Harry that they did not need his further information or his further assistance. How do we know that? Because Harry explicitly wrote it in his letter to JFK! YOU want everybody to totally ignore that inconvenient FACT and then pretend that Harry continued his relationship with the FBI as an "undercover" agent or informant -- which the FBI explicitly denies.

One wonders why you attach so much importance to ONE "eye-witness" report but you have no interest whatsoever in the fact that no OTHER "eyewitness" has come forward to support Harry's story?

Now, it is widely known that the FBI has sealed its records on Lee Harvey Oswald, and even after fifty years refuses to allow the public to see them. There is the motive for the character assassination against Harry Dean that we've seen for 48 years (since Harry decided to go public with his information).

Yes, many FBI records are sealed. But that does NOT mean what YOU claim it means. That is what your brain refuses to understand. As I have repeatedly pointed out, EVEN WHEN the remaining JFK records become public (by 2017), you will create ANOTHER conspiracy theory to explain why you do not find corroboration in them for your current mantra.

BILL KELLY'S DOCUMENT: In the absence of further information we cannot conclude which document is genuine and which is a forgery -- although we can say with certainty that Harry Dean wrote one and only one letter to J. Edgar Hoover. One must be a forgery. The redacted version that Bill Kelly (and Harry Dean) have shown contains words that do not appear in the allegedly FULL version of the document that the FBI re-typed ALL IN CAPS. Unless there is more information presented, it remains plausible that the FULL version that you supplied from the FBI is a forgery.

Now you are contradicting yourself again. Previously, you have declared that the Bill Kelly version IS genuine.

We CANNOT "say with certainty" what Harry wrote to Hoover. That is our current problem Paul. But your comment reveals that (unlike myself) you have a closed mind about this matter.

Nor is it true that "one must be a forgery". There is NO "plausible" reason which addresses why the FBI would bother to create a new forged version of Harry's 1963 letter (or a forged version of his letter to Joe Pyne -- both being typed in CAPS). What FBI or CIA PURPOSE would be accomplished by re-typing those letters in CAPS? Particularly when both FBI and CIA could not know how many legitimate copies of those communications existed and were sent by Harry to other people.

Both of these letters along with the FBI and CIA memos which discuss them were exclusively INTERNAL documents. Nobody outside the agencies ever saw them or learned about them -- so WHY would the FBI or CIA "forge" documents merely to talk within their agencies?

For example: why would a FBI Supervisor or an Assistant Director need to use an invented copy of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover? What, specifically, is contained in that 11/63 letter which the FBI Supervisor or Assistant Director needed to have in order to "discredit" Harry in some manner?? As I previously pointed out, EVERY forgery has a specific intended PURPOSE. You have never identified that PURPOSE.

What would be the purpose of such a forgery? It was intended to harmonize with that RAP SHEET on Harry Dean which the FBI also mocked-up. Together, as a pair, these documents intend to claim that Harry Dean took information to the FBI -- and that the FBI did not want that information -- indeed, the FBI turned away that information and told Harry Dean to go away.

What do you mean by "mocked up"? Normally "mock" means "not authentic or real". Are you now creating YET ANOTHER conspiracy theory? That the FBI fabricated, from whole cloth, the arrest records which other law enforcement agencies (civilian and military) SENT to the FBI? How did you make that conclusion? Have you contacted each individual law enforcement agency identified on the rap sheet to ask them if the FBI summary is accurate?

How did the Pyne or Hoover letters "harmonize" with Harry's rap sheet? Harry acknowledged IN WRITING to JFK (in June 1961) that he previously had "past difficulty with the law" and "many" outstanding debts. Those difficulties and debts were so significant that Harry asked JFK for some sort of "pardon". Once again, you are FABRICATING from whole cloth very serious allegations which you have not ONE IOTA of factual evidence to support.

Your comment about FBI turning away Harry - is EXACTLY what Harry ADMITTED in writing to JFK -- so what the hell are you talking about?

The portrait given by the combination RAP SHEET and the disputed FBI version of Harry's letter to Hoover is that Harry Dean is an insane criminal who merely bothers the FBI and brings them rubbish that they never asked for and never wanted. It is a character assassination similar to the one the FBI performed on Silvia Odio, in which they claimed that her report of Lee Harvey Oswald at her home in September, 1963, was the result of a "mental condition."

No Paul, once again you are INVENTING FROM WHOLE CLOTH something which does not exist in Harry's rap sheet. The FBI never claimed that Harry was some sort of "insane criminal". The FBI listed arrest data it received from OTHER law enforcement agencies over a period of many years. Nor did the FBI ever write a memo or report which described Harry as "insane". All they did is indicate that Canadian law enforcement authorities advised the Detroit PD that Harry had once been committed to a mental institution. There is not even any indication in FBI documents regarding what time period Harry was in that institution. It might have been a 48 hour hold for evaluation. That hardly amounts to "insane criminal" -- excepted in YOUR tortured logic and fevered imagination.

The FBI did not (as you claim) state or hint that Harry brought them "rubbish that they never asked for". That, again, is YOUR FABRICATION. This is your constant pattern Paul. You are congenitally INCAPABLE of accurately summarizing what documentary evidence reveals. Instead, you insist upon vastly exaggerating, overstating, and mis-representing evidence because you want to discredit every shred of data which is not convenient for your argument and your child-like faith in Harry.

As I typed this reply, I got to wondering what sort of lawyer you would make. Your defense of your clients would be so over-the-top and grossly exaggerate testimony and evidence in the trial that no jury would EVER vote "not guilty" because YOU would have absolutely NO credibility.

FORGED FBI DOCUMENTS: You claim, Ernie, that you require factual evidence, not speculation or rumors, and yet you are quick to seize upon the disputed FBI memo in order to draw conclusions about Harry Dean. So, once again, you've contradicted yourself.

No Paul, there is no contradiction. The problem here is your understanding of what constitutes "factual evidence".

NORMALLY, documentary evidence is considered high quality PRIMARY SOURCE evidence. You want us to TOTALLY IGNORE the documentary evidence from FBI and CIA files and, instead, accept Harry's story and YOUR speculation or theories and conclusions.

I cannot do that Paul because I respect NORMAL RULES of evidence and logic. IF and WHEN you can provide PROOF that Bill Kelly's redacted version is genuine and that the Joe Pyne letter in FBI and CIA files are forgeries -- then I will reconsider my current acceptance of existing documentary primary source evidence.

Keep in mind that even you and Harry admit that Harry has NO copies (xerox or carbon) of these letters. In addition, neither of you can present corroborating evidence from other people whom you claim saw the original letters in 1963 (Hoover) and 1964 (Pyne). Therefore, YOUR conclusions are ENTIRELY based upon a leap of faith -- NOT in primary source documentary evidence.

HOOVER LEGACY: Well, Ernie, congratulations on being the 1st person to discover the number of live FBI informants inside the Communist Party. Also, congratulations for revealing the existence of two FBI files unknown by historians, which total about 1,000,000 pages. Nevertheless, your actions proved my case -- that historians will eventually find everything, repeat everything that has been written down.

No--Paul. you are using gravely flawed logic. As I pointed out, many FBI files have been destroyed under regulations established many years ago concerning retention schedules for all US Government agency records.

For example: it is not possible to make FOIA requests to obtain most Army and Navy Intelligence files now because most of those files were destroyed many years ago. If memory serves me correctly, the Army destroyed its intelligence files around 1971 or 1973. However, copies of Army and Navy Intelligence reports are sometimes still available in FBI files (or CIA files) which have not been destroyed.

In any event, some FBI files are so enormous (such as the ones I previously mentioned) that NO researcher could EVER afford to acquire them. And many other files could only be obtained if a requester is intimately familiar with FBI file numbers. On the webpage I created for sharing information about CPUSA-related documents, I have started to list specific FBI file numbers that pertain to CPUSA-related subjects. However, I have only scratched the surface. The FBI created so many sub-files that nobody will EVER know all of them. For example: the New York City field files on CPUSA are broken down by county (and other geographic locations), by specific CPUSA club or cell, by occupations, by labor unions, and by numerous secondary categories. When a field office sent its reports to FBI HQ in Washington DC, FBI HQ created sub-files for each field office. So, for example, suppose you wanted to see the HQ file captioned "Cominfil NAACP" [Communist infiltration of the NAACP].

Let's say the HQ file number on "Cominfil NAACP" is 61-7156. Then, when a specific field office sent their reports to HQ, those copies were put into a sub-file which was devoted exclusively to that field office so the file number would become something like this: HQ 61-7156-23 The-23 suffix would refer to the field office which provided the report. Let's say -23 referred to San Francisco field.

THEN, there could even be sub-categories by city or county, so (for example) the San Francisco field office might send reports to HQ about Cominfil NAACP in Alameda County and then create yet another sub-file for Berkeley CA. So the new file (at HQ) could be HQ 61-7156-23-19-2 which would be HQ file 61-7156 (Cominfil NAACP), -23 (San Francisco field reports), -19 (Alameda County) and -2 (Berkeley CA).

Nobody could possibly learn about every conceivable FBI file. It just is NOT possible.

Many years ago, I attempted to get professional organizations (historians, political scientists, and media organizations) to make FOIA requests so that files requested would not be destroyed. Unfortunately, those professional organizations did not have the resources or the authority to use their resources to do so.

Still, those findings are basically irrelevant to the JFK assassination, which is the main topic under discussion here. My question to you, an expert in FOIA requests, is this: how well have you done in requests about Lee Harvey Oswald?

No, Paul, what I am describing refers to policies and procedures which apply to FBI record-keeping and filing practices. I know you want to entirely discard ALL accumulated human knowledge about FBI filing practices and procedures --- but that merely reveals that you have no genuine interest in fact-based research. instead, as a fiction writer, you want to create (from whole cloth) a narrative which conforms to what you presently prefer to believe. By doing that, you can immediately dismiss, de-value, or ignore all contradictory evidence. This is STANDARD procedure in most conspiracy arguments.

I have never made FOIA requests on LHO nor do I intend to do so.

"SECRET" LHO FILES: Ernie, are you now claiming that the FBI has no secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald? The reason you never want to hear about this argument again is because you have no logical answer for it. All your work has yielded you zero results in obtaining the main prize in the eyes of this Forum -- the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald.

No--I have not made that statement. Instead, once again, you choose to DELIBERATELY LIE about what I have repeatedly written in this forum. There is no point in explaining for the 100th time what I believe because you will just once again block out any information which contradicts what you prefer to believe. As I have previously stated, you have an impenetrable MENTAL BLOCK when it comes to rationally discussing this subject matter. Because of that impenetrable block, you refuse to acknowledge that there may be something you do not understand --- so it is easier for you to just pretend that no such evidence exists.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

PAUL: I am placing my replies INSIDE your message.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

I have never made FOIA requests on LHO nor do I intend to do so.

<snip>

WHAT?? You may have submitted more FOIA requests to the FBI than anybody else in America, and yet you never once inquired about Lee Harvey Oswald??

Also, you never intend to make an FOIA request to the FBI about Lee Harvey Oswald??

Do you have no sense of curiosity at all, Ernie? Is all your flailing about the FOIA and FBI procedure merely idle, academic interest?

The most important possession that the FBI holds today -- in the eyes of most readers of this Forum, and perhaps most historians of the US Cold War period -- is their secret cache of files on Lee Harvey Oswald.

How could any objective person remain disinterested in those files?

Not only is the FBI hiding something BIG here, I must now suspect that Ernie Lazar is withholding something.

Get with the program, Ernie. Submit an FOIA request to the FBI about Lee Harvey Oswald, and let us know what they tell you. That would redeem your grandstanding around here in the eyes of many.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo