Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

For those interested in pursuing further fact-based research into Harry Dean, Sylvia Odio, Gerald P. Hemming, LHO, and other figures whom are prominent figures in the various JFK conspiracy theories, the CIA files under the control of Russell Holmes (you know----the ones Paul T. thinks are "secret") may be obtained via FOIA requests to NARA. See following link:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/holmes-papers.html

Well, now, let's just see what we have here.

Is Ernie Lazar now pretending that there are no more "top secret" files being held by the CIA? Evidently so.

Yet anybody who has been following the Mary Ferrell Foundation in past years probably knows about their AARC project to digitize CIA records that have been released under the JFK Records Act in response to various FOIA requests and lawsuits.

The Mary Ferrell Foundation has taken a large step forward to digitize more than four hundred thousand pages of formerly secret records. Yes, that's a lot -- but is it everything? The hopeful optimism of Ernie Lazar seems to believe so.

While Mary Ferrell's site now shares with the world the thousands of pages of CIA files on Castro, Cuban Exile groups, Oswald's trip to Mexico City -- and even some files on Harry Dean -- are we now to conclude that our work here is done?

There are many documents here of interest, of course. We cannot regard these new acquisitions lightly. We have, for example, the files of eminent CIA historian Russell B. Holmes -- although perhaps not all of his files.

We also have CIA files from the HSCA, of which we are assured, the general public was not permitted to see until now. This includes Latin American Division work files that the HSCA used to investigate Cuban plots against JFK. This also includes CIA Office of Security files that the HSCA used to investigate the Mafia plots against JFK.

Of course, the most stellar of all these new CIA releases is Lee Harvey Oswald's famed 201 File. Yes, this large file is now available, after decades of clamoring. Can we hear Harold Epstein and Jim Garrison cheering from the other world?

But we should remain calm -- some of these documents still contain many redactions (blackouts). Records about Operation Mongoose still remain classified.

The Mary Ferrell Foundation also promises to release FBI Files as a part of this project -- very soon.

Now, let's take a closer look at the specific link that Ernie Lazar provided which displays a link of the Russell B. Holmes papers. This is not the ful cache of four hundred thousand pages, but it is large -- more than fifty-thousand pages can be found within the Russell B. Holmes archive.

But wait -- who is Rusell B. Holmes?

Well, Holmes was a CIA archivist who personally kept a huge collection of CIA documents on the JFK assassination. He was prolific, so he kept files from the early 1960's into the 1990's. His main focus seems to be on Lee Oswald's Mexico City trip and Oswald's 201 File, as well as on Jim Garrison proceedings. This archive, called the "Russell Holmes Work File," was declassified about 15 years ago. Holmes was an important liaison for public/CIA inquiries into the JFK assassination after 1979.

Now, for purposes of this thread, one of the items of interest in this cache is Box 4RH02. It is interesting here because of its first tile, F:034, which is labeled, Harry Dean.

It will be very interesting for the future of this thread to see the unraveling of the Russell B. Holmes collection of declassified CIA records about Harry Dean. Will we find anything of great value in them?

One thing we can say with certainty -- is that the CIA did indeed keep a file about Harry Dean. Now, in the coming weeks, we can finally see for ourselves at least a part of what the CIA had been keeping secret all these decades. Then we can decide whether Ernie's optimism was well-rewarded or not.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

1. No, Paul, I did not say that there are "no more 'top secret' files being held by the CIA". By definition, something "top secret" is unknown. Therefore they cannot be identified until they are discovered. I am referring to something which your mind is apparently not capable of dealing with, i.e. available empirical evidence.

2. Mary Ferrell has digitized more than 400,000 pages. The homepage of her website indicates that her archive is more than a million pages. Not all of the documents (including CIA) were classified "top secret" nor even lesser categories such as "secret". Unlike yourself, I deal in facts -- not speculations rumors, gossip, or false information.

3. Russell B. Holmes is not (as you wrote) an "eminent CIA historian". He was the CIA archivist. An archivist is "an information professional who assesses, collects, organizes, preserves, maintains control over, and provides access to records and archives determined to have long-term value."

If you search the Library of Congress website, you will discover that there are no books authored by Mr. Holmes. The only references to "Russell B. Holmes" I could find on the WorldCat database which lists the holdings of libraries all over the world (millions of books and other publications), are these two which might be him: both refer to Holmes as the "compiler" of something. The first being articles from "Nhan-Dan on Vietnamese Communist Party history, with translations" and the second reference to Holmes is as the "compiler" of a "reference aid" -- namely, a glossary of French intelligence terms.

4. For purposes of our debate, it is significant that even though the Holmes' file on Harry Dean has been available at NARA for quite some time, apparently neither you, Harry, or anybody else has bothered to make an FOIA request for it.

Paul, this is what bothers me about you and Harry most. I do not have any personal animus toward either you or Harry although you may think differently. But both of you seem to have an incredible hostility toward performing rudimentary research. When I began making FOIA requests to the FBI n 1980 I was absolutely astonished to discover that nobody else had (up to that time) made any request on the JBS. I was ecstatic (is there a word a notch or two above that??) to discover that I would be the FIRST person to obtain that very large file -- and related material. By contrast, you and Harry constantly moan, groan, and whine about alleged "top secret" records which you claim exist but are not being released -- but neither of you have even bothered to obtain the documents which are available. Instead, you leave all the real hard work (and expense) to other people -- and then you bitch at them if they discover something which does not conform to the narrative you want everybody to believe.

5. I did not express any "optimism". I merely referred factually to a location where you could find CIA documents about Harry. Why do you ALWAYS have to embellish what I write to convert it into some sort of dispute?

[Ernie Lazar]

Hay Lazar-beam, dude would you from that sand blown, sweaty, unfit for normal people Palm Springs, California local be dedicated enough

to display the complete, detailed reports. We all need to read the DETAILS not just the notations as shown.

It may even show that the Bureau who hated my guts, and exposed all of these details as a result AFTER I began blabbing in 1965 of my laboring for them for so long, likely suggested in their documents that I was a Castro agent, a communist etc & etc.. No, they would not need to sink to such a low-level?

In any case put up and let us have the expensive, in depth details. You owe it to the readers you are trying to persuade, Lazer-beam.

Harry -- the full text of most of those documents may be reviewed on the Mary Ferrell website. Eventually, I may be able to post here your entire FBI files. The FBI is still evaluating my Public Interest Disclosure justification letter which I submitted along with my FOIA request on you.

For the record Harry -- you could have seen ALL of these documents DECADES ago simply by submitting an FOIA request with a notarized affidavit from you authorizing release. Somebody received a great many of your FBI file documents as early as 1985 via an FOIA request!.

The CIA documents about you are available from NARA -- I previously posted the link to the NARA webpage which shows the location of your file.

With respect to the second paragraph of your message:

From all the available evidence, the FBI totally ignored you for many years. The ONLY reason they became involved is because of repeated inquiries which they received from (for example) Los Angeles-area newspaper reporters and television executives who asked the FBI if your story was genuine, i.e. they asked if you were what you claimed to be --- i.e. an "informant" or "undercover" agent or operative for the FBI, or if you were associated with the FBI (at their request) in any way.

When J. Edgar Hoover saw the inquiries about your status, he contacted the FBI's Chicago and Los Angeles field offices to find out who you were because FBI HQ had no record of you being any sort of confidential source or informant for the FBI. Obviously, you were NOT listed in the HQ Index which captured data about all of their active and inactive informants and confidential sources. If you had been listed, then Hoover's memos to various field offices would have referenced that fact and probably would have included your symbol number and/or code name or other identifying data. Instead, the only reference is to your FBI number --- i.e. the control number which is assigned by the FBI to people whose fingerprints exist at FBI HQ because of reports from law enforcement agencies who have arrested that person.

There is absolutely no documentary evidence at this time to establish that the FBI "hated" your guts. As just stated, they did not even know who you were because as YOU accurately wrote to JFK in June 1961 in your own handwriting the FBI field office in Chicago told you after they completed their background check on you that they were not interested in your further assistance..

With respect to your claims about your "reports" to the Los Angeles field office --- there is currently no documentary evidence to support your story. It is certainly possible that you provided unsolicited information to Los Angeles (just as you did to Chicago) but as the Assistant Director of Los Angeles told a southern California newspaper publisher, you were never an FBI informant nor were you ever asked to do anything for the FBI.

When the FBI actually "hated the guts" of someone, their FBI files usually reveal very specific instructions from HQ to field offices to continuously monitor the activities and public statements of such persons. What is particularly striking about the FBI file documents which are available on the Mary Ferrell website is that the FBI had no interest whatsoever in you after they rejected you in Chicago in the summer of 1961 (because of what they discovered about you as a result of their background investigation).

When you review the chronological sequence of serials in your HQ, Chicago and Los Angeles files, what becomes very clear is that there were entire years during which no new serials concerning you were produced. In fact, if it were not for the fact that Congressman John Rousselot contacted the Bureau in May 1977 concerning you, there is virtually nothing in FBI files about you from 1967 until 1977.

When, in May 1977, the FBI's Legal Counsel wrote a summary memo about you for the Director, the FBI position regarding your status was very clear and very definitive. I now quote from the "synopsis" of that memo.

"Review of Bufiles has determined that Harry J. Dean, FBI number 4657880...has previously come to the attention of the FBI in connection with the investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; however, Dean was later cleared of any involvement. Dean was never an informant for the FBI, although he did furnish some information on a voluntary basis at one time during the early 1960's. Dean was later determined to be unreliable and a former mental patient and was advised that his assistance was no longer desired by the FBI in June 1961." ...

In the "details" section of that same 1977 memo, the FBI's Legal Counsel observed:

"Bufiles further indicate that Dean has, on previous occasions, claimed he was a former undercover man with the FBI. Dean did, at one time, in the early 1960's, furnish some information to the Chicago office concerning the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. However, he was never an informant and was not encouraged in his activities. Information was also developed in June 1961, that he was a former mental patient. At that time he was specifically told by Special Agents that his assistance was no longer desired by the FBI."

Interestingly, there is no mention whatsoever in that May 1977 memo of any connection between you and Wesley Grapp nor any reference to your supposed reports to the Los Angeles office about any matters.

There are still many tantalizing questions about your story which, someday, I hope I can answer. If I am able to obtain your entire FBI files from my FOIA request I will be happy to post them online here.

Ernie, you're simply harrassing Harry Dean with your claims here. You haven't processed all the FBI files to be able to evaluate their relative merits -- yet you give yourself a license to repeat FBI rumors in your efforts toward character assassination. What are trying to do here?

The FBI is not perfect -- they have been known for excesses, especially in the early 1960's. For you to resurrect those old FBI excesses and repeat them here in 2013, is inexcusable. You should be ashamed.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Once again, Paul, you do not even understand or use the normal definition of English words.

1. A "rumor" is defined as gossip, speculation, hearsay or any unverified account of something. I did not use or summarize "rumors" about what is contained in Harry's FBI files. Instead, I quoted directly from primary source FBI documents.

2. There is no "character assassination" involved in accurately summarizing information appearing in FBI internal documents. You could have written that you think the information appearing in those documents is materially flawed (i.e. not factually accurate) -- and you could then present alternative evidence. That is the normal procedure when there is a dispute about historical records.

3. Nobody is claiming that the "FBI is perfect". You are creating a straw-man argument yet again. Once before I used the word "audit" to describe how scholars or researchers approach documentary evidence. An intellectually honest researcher (or author) does not care if data discovered is approved or disapproved by any audience. Instead, the purpose of historical research is to DISCOVER relevant historical records so that interested parties may then analyze and interpret all available data. If something is flawed, inaccurate, ambiguous, open to multiple interpretations, or whatever -- that is also open to discussion -- and that is an entirely normal part of debate or discussion. BUT YOU go beyond that. You are an advocate for ONE particular conclusion and you resent and are hostile toward anybody who presents ANYTHING which does not conform to the narrative you have in your head.

4. I have written this many times before: the documents we are debating were exclusively FBI internal documents, i.e. they are reports and memos which senior FBI employees used to communicate among themselves. When they discussed Harry Dean, they could only use the information which existed in their files (HQ and field office). In addition, I have identified a minimum of at least 5 different FBI Special Agents (Chicago and Los Angeles) who interviewed or spoke with Harry at one time or another. Their reports regarding their discussions with Harry are memorialized in FBI memos.

This is not very different from me relying upon the text in YOUR eBook. You claim that you have interviewed Harry on numerous occasions and you claim that you have accurately summarized the information you obtained from Harry in your eBook. I accept you at your word. I do not say that you or Harry are perfect. But I accept that you have, in good faith, recorded the substance of your conversations or written communications with Harry. I see no reason to challenge you anymore than I see any reason to challenge the good faith of the numerous FBI employees who summarized their contacts with Harry.

FBI EXCESSES: You do not identify which "excesses" you are referring to. Once again you are conflating two entirely different matters.

5. To my knowledge, nobody (repeat: NOBODY---not even the most hostile critics of the FBI) has ever claimed that FBI employees deliberately LIED TO THEMSELVES in their internal memo discussions.

In other words, when an FBI Supervisor, Section Chief, or somebody like the FBI's Legal Counsel was asked to prepare a summary memorandum concerning Harry Dean, they followed normal customary procedures. They reviewed each field office report that was sent to HQ. They reviewed any correspondence which they received from Harry. They reviewed documentary evidence which other agencies (such as the CIA or police department) sent to the FBI (HQ or field office). Then, when they wrote their memos or reports, they summarized everything they had regarding whatever subject was being discussed---in this case Harry Dean.

CHARACTER ASSASSINATION: Harry has admitted in his own handwriting that the general statements appearing in FBI memos are essentially accurate. Although neither you or Harry has chosen to fill in any specific details. It is easy for you to whine and moan and complain about "character assassination" but isn't it convenient that you and Harry refuse to provide any substantive details about Harry's past problems so that readers could make up their own minds about what significance should be attached to whatever problems (legal or psychological) Harry has had?

EXCESSES: The "excesses" you are referring to pertain primarily to developments OUTSIDE the FBI, i.e. illegal behavior or immoral activities (such as wiretaps or black bag jobs) directed against some person or organization of investigatory interest OR ethical violations in terms of inaccurate testimony before Congressional oversight committees OR not entirely correct replies to questions from superiors within the Justice Department or White House -- all of which was undertaken to defend the image and prerogatives of the FBI as an institution.

But nobody (to my knowledge) has ever suggested that numerous FBI employees went about the task of totally fabricating documents which were then put into FBI investigative files OR that they edited FBI (or other agency) memos and reports years or decades after they were first created or received OR that FBI employees purged the FBI's own Central Records System or its Fingerprint Identification Records System or its ELSUR Indices (electronic surveillance), years or decades after records were originally recorded.or indexed etc.

Right now, we have references in FBI documents to reports about Harry from several different law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and Canada BUT we do not have any specific details about those matters. All we have, in effect, are the subject headings. Sort of like a newspaper headline without the story. You then come along and scream "CHARACTER ASSASSINATION" -- but NOBODY knows if that is true or not because you and Harry refuse to discuss the details.

There is no "harassment" involved here Paul. Harry CHOSE to make himself a PUBLIC figure by publishing yet another book about his life in October. Harry (and you) have presented a story. That story is subject to rigorous examination in order to determine whether or not (and to what degree) Harry is telling the truth.

Unfortunately, you have become a shill for Harry Dean. As a result, you are NO LONGER an impartial observer or researcher. Instead, EVERYTHING you write is designed to support and defend Harry. and to sell your eBook.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

I'm not sure that either of you need mediation, but I keep trying. Paul, Ernie is right on several counts. It would he a good idea for you and Harry to have everything you can get from available FBI and CIA sources regarding Dean, whether or not they represent a complete picture. And he may be right about your objectivity. If he is dismissing Harry's story as a result of his reading of files and of your lack of due diligence, I hope not, because you may be onto something important despite his objections.

On the other hand, Ernie has not done his homework either if he thinks that the FBI and CIA are incapable of filling their files, even internal records, with lies and misdirections, or of editing them to protect secrets. Maybe I misunderstand you a bit Ernie in regards to what is secret and what can be discovered. I know you know there are secrets that document releases won't uncover. Where I wish you would broaden your horizons is by reading some books by authors who have indeed dug out everything they could from intelligence files and are able to prove that lying is evident in those files. Where is your intellectual curiosity in regards to the main subject of this forum, the assassination of JFK? It wouldn't take you long to read a few of the better books on the subject of Oswald for instance, and you would I'm sure find them quite revealing as to the actions of FBI and CIA, and to their file manipulations.

[Ernie Lazar]

I'm not sure that either of you need mediation, but I keep trying. Paul, Ernie is right on several counts. It would he a good idea for you and Harry to have everything you can get from available FBI and CIA sources regarding Dean, whether or not they represent a complete picture. And he may be right about your objectivity. If he is dismissing Harry's story as a result of his reading of files and of your lack of due diligence, I hope not, because you may be onto something important despite his objections.

On the other hand, Ernie has not done his homework either if he thinks that the FBI and CIA are incapable of filling their files, even internal records, with lies and misdirections, or of editing them to protect secrets. Maybe I misunderstand you a bit Ernie in regards to what is secret and what can be discovered. I know you know there are secrets that document releases won't uncover. Where I wish you would broaden your horizons is by reading some books by authors who have indeed dug out everything they could from intelligence files and are able to prove that lying is evident in those files. Where is your intellectual curiosity in regards to the main subject of this forum, the assassination of JFK? It wouldn't take you long to read a few of the better books on the subject of Oswald for instance, and you would I'm sure find them quite revealing as to the actions of FBI and CIA, and to their file manipulations.

Paul B: I have no problem if you want to present a case for what you have suggested but what I am saying is that I rely upon verifiable empirical evidence -- not speculation or "might have" scenarios.

And for the record, I have never said that the FBI or CIA were "incapable" of doing anything. I just think that when you make very serious allegations about someone's integrity or character you should always insist upon the highest quality verifiable evidence. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to believing ANYTHING -- no matter how disgustingly false.

Let me make this VERY personal. There is a neo-nazi who created a webpage about me. Should I (or you or anybody else) accept his vicious libelous disgusting Jew-hatred as a valuable and sensible contribution to "normal" debate and discussion? His complaint about me is that I discovered indisputable but very derogatory information about somebody he admired (i.e. a life-long racist and anti-semite = Eustace Mullins). But instead of focusing upon that specific data (which I obtained from Mullins' military service records, for example), the neo-nazi devoted his entire webpage to slime me.

And what makes you think that I have not read any books by authors who specialize in intelligence matters? or about the JFK assassination for that matter?

The problem here, Paul, is that you think that unless I agree with you, then that must mean I am an ignorant fool. If I had $1 for every time somebody chastised me for not reading their personal favorite book (so that I could "properly" educate myself), I would be a millionaire.

As previously stated, there are at least 13 different JFK assassination theories. Every adherent of each of those theories believes that if I would only read ONE MORE BOOK, I would discover "the truth".

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - I saw the smear job on you. Pretty disgusting.

I have mentioned a few books to you before, which I recommended for reasons other than any personal theories I have. Newman's Oswald and the CIA, any of Peter Dale Scott books, Talbot's 'Brothers'. These are not books pushing some theory. They are intelligent, scholarly, penetrating. If you have any real interest in JFK try one of these books. In the minefield of disinfo and personal agenda they stand out. I never said you haven't read any books on JFK or intelligence matters.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - I saw the smear job on you. Pretty disgusting.

I have mentioned a few books to you before, which I recommended for reasons other than any personal theories I have. Newman's Oswald and the CIA, any of Peter Dale Scott books, Talbot's 'Brothers'. These are not books pushing some theory. They are intelligent, scholarly, penetrating. If you have any real interest in JFK try one of these books. In the minefield of disinfo and personal agenda they stand out. I never said you haven't read any books on JFK or intelligence matters.

Fine -- but I have several JFK books which summarize a lot of the info you may think I am not familiar with. And in fact, there are authors who have cited information they got from me in their books. So it is hardly the case that I am not familiar with "intelligent, scholarly, penetrating" material about the assassination of JFK. What I have said before (and I repeat) is that this subject does not particularly interest me because there is no way to resolve the disputes. Every school of thought believes it has the ultimate, final truth about the assassination and the persons responsible for the murder. Also, as I have previously mentioned (unlike most JFK-assassination students) I have a lot of FBI files on the key figures who supposedly were involved in the "plot" -- so it is not like I have never seen all this material before.

This coming June (the one year anniversary of my first donation of FBI files to Internet Archive) I will probably send several hundred more FBI files to Internet Archive for them to post online -- and among those files will probably be some that will interest assassination researchers -- such as Guy Banister's FBI files. If my scanner can handle the workload, I might even try to scan a large number of pages of files I have on William P. Gale, Loran Hall, Joseph Milteer, etc. And with any luck, the FBI might even have finished processing a major portion of Edwin Walker's HQ and field office files on CDROM so I can post them online. And if the FBI accepts my Public Interest Disclosure justification, I might be able to get Harry Dean's field office and HQ files. I noticed recently that his Chicago field file has NOT been transferred to NARA so the FBI should still have that one.

[Paul Trejo]

I'm not sure that either of you need mediation, but I keep trying. Paul, Ernie is right on several counts. It would he a good idea for you and Harry to have everything you can get from available FBI and CIA sources regarding Dean, whether or not they represent a complete picture. And he may be right about your objectivity. If he is dismissing Harry's story as a result of his reading of files and of your lack of due diligence, I hope not, because you may be onto something important despite his objections.

On the other hand, Ernie has not done his homework either if he thinks that the FBI and CIA are incapable of filling their files, even internal records, with lies and misdirections, or of editing them to protect secrets. Maybe I misunderstand you a bit Ernie in regards to what is secret and what can be discovered. I know you know there are secrets that document releases won't uncover. Where I wish you would broaden your horizons is by reading some books by authors who have indeed dug out everything they could from intelligence files and are able to prove that lying is evident in those files. Where is your intellectual curiosity in regards to the main subject of this forum, the assassination of JFK? It wouldn't take you long to read a few of the better books on the subject of Oswald for instance, and you would I'm sure find them quite revealing as to the actions of FBI and CIA, and to their file manipulations.

Well, Paul B., I appreciate that you attempt to interject some calm and reason into the incessant attacks that Harry Dean and I continue to endure patiently here on Harry's thread.

You say that you agree with Ernie on "several counts," and as an illustration you seem to suggest that Harry and I should collect everything we can get from the FBI and CIA sources about Harry Dean, and determine "whether or not they represent a complete picture."

Yes, I realize that Ernie keeps repeating that theme -- yet somehow my rational response doesn't seem to be heard above the clamor. I've said that all the FBI information that Harry and I know about has already been presented on this very thread. Already this year Harry and I have seen more FBI and CIA records on Harry than we have ever seen in all our combined time working on this issue.

I thought it would be polite to thank Ernie for sharing these, but instead of a simple, "you're welcome," Ernie chooses to insult Harry and demand why Harry himself didn't submit all those FOIA requests over the past several years the way that Ernie did.

That's a shameful response, IMHO.

Harry does appreciate seeing these FBI and CIA records come out into the open. They are now part and parcel of this thread, and we can now unravel them one by one here in public. This unraveling has already begun.

But instead of a calm assessment of the FBI files, we continue to hear harrasment, badgering and insults about Harry Dean from Ernie Lazar -- and I really want to complain about it.

Ernie mistakenly doubts my objectivity -- I'm simply willing to give Harry Dean the benefit of the doubt until I see hard evidence of lying -- and Ernie is unwilling to do that. Then Ernie insults me for my reasonable efforts.

We can all read the same FBI files, so it's not really a matter of missing information -- it's a matter of interpretation based on orientation. The FBI in the 1960's has been willing to harrass Harry Dean, so Ernie Lazar in 2013 pretends to be super-patriotic and parrots the FBI's attitude of the 1960's.

So I think I should I work with an intermediary -- say, yourself, Paul B. I find you to be a reasonable person to speak with. You're respectful and objective. So, please, tell me one material fact that you find in the FBI files already shared on this thread that you believe I haven't carefully and fully addressed.

That's the way to proceed, I believe. I'll be grateful to you -- and I think our readers will also be grateful to you, Paul B., if you'll work with me on this touchy problem. Will you do that, Paul B.? Will you work with me, one material fact at a time, about these FBI files regarding Harry Dean?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 30, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I'm not sure that either of you need mediation, but I keep trying. Paul, Ernie is right on several counts. It would he a good idea for you and Harry to have everything you can get from available FBI and CIA sources regarding Dean, whether or not they represent a complete picture. And he may be right about your objectivity. If he is dismissing Harry's story as a result of his reading of files and of your lack of due diligence, I hope not, because you may be onto something important despite his objections.

On the other hand, Ernie has not done his homework either if he thinks that the FBI and CIA are incapable of filling their files, even internal records, with lies and misdirections, or of editing them to protect secrets. Maybe I misunderstand you a bit Ernie in regards to what is secret and what can be discovered. I know you know there are secrets that document releases won't uncover. Where I wish you would broaden your horizons is by reading some books by authors who have indeed dug out everything they could from intelligence files and are able to prove that lying is evident in those files. Where is your intellectual curiosity in regards to the main subject of this forum, the assassination of JFK? It wouldn't take you long to read a few of the better books on the subject of Oswald for instance, and you would I'm sure find them quite revealing as to the actions of FBI and CIA, and to their file manipulations.

Well, Paul B., I appreciate that you attempt to interject some calm and reason into the incessant attacks that Harry Dean and I continue to endure patiently here on Harry's thread.

You say that you agree with Ernie on "several counts," and as an illustration you seem to suggest that Harry and I should collect everything we can get from the FBI and CIA sources about Harry Dean, and determine "whether or not they represent a complete picture."

Yes, I realize that Ernie keeps repeating that theme -- yet somehow my rational response doesn't seem to be heard above the clamor. I've said that all the FBI information that Harry and I know about has already been presented on this very thread. Already this year Harry and I have seen more FBI and CIA records on Harry than we have ever seen in all our combined time working on this issue.

I thought it would be polite to thank Ernie for sharing these, but instead of a simple, "you're welcome," Ernie chooses to insult Harry and demand why Harry himself didn't submit all those FOIA requests over the past several years the way that Ernie did.

That's a shameful response, IMHO.

Harry does appreciate seeing these FBI and CIA records come out into the open. They are now part and parcel of this thread, and we can now unravel them one by one here in public. This unraveling has already begun.

But instead of a calm assessment of the FBI files, we continue to hear harrasment, badgering and insults about Harry Dean from Ernie Lazar -- and I really want to complain about it.

Ernie mistakenly doubts my objectivity -- I'm simply willing to give Harry Dean the benefit of the doubt until I see hard evidence of lying -- and Ernie is unwilling to do that. Then Ernie insults me for my reasonable efforts.

We can all read the same FBI files, so it's not really a matter of missing information -- it's a matter of interpretation based on orientation. The FBI in the 1960's has been willing to harrass Harry Dean, so Ernie Lazar in 2013 pretends to be super-patriotic and parrots the FBI's attitude of the 1960's.

So I think I should I work with an intermediary -- say, yourself, Paul B. I find you to be a reasonable person to speak with. You're respectful and objective. So, please, tell me one material fact that you find in the FBI files already shared on this thread that you believe I haven't carefully and fully addressed.

That's the way to proceed, I believe. I'll be grateful to you -- and I think our readers will also be grateful to you, Paul B., if you'll work with me on this touchy problem. Will you do that, Paul B.? Will you work with me, one material fact at a time, about these FBI files regarding Harry Dean?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

No, Paul, you are again mistaken. You keep making a priori conclusions.

1. You have NEVER presented a "rational response" to my repeated arguments about the importance of acquiring all available information. Now you refer to "the information which Harry and I know about". What about all the information both of you DO NOT know about? If you perform a detailed analysis of the documents available on Mary Ferrell's website, you will quickly realize that there are numerous serials in Harry's FBI HQ, Chicago, and Los Angeles files which are currently NOT posted online (there are gaps in the chronological sequence). Obviously, somebody GENUINELY interested in research would want to know about what is contained in those serials.

FOR EXAMPLE:

-a- Although several serials refer to the FBI's background check on Harry, I have not yet seen the actual Chicago field office summary report about Harry.

-b- Although one serial itemizes some of the documents which Harry provided to the Chicago field office on FPCC or related subjects -- I have not yet seen the contemporaneous serials (from 1960) that memorialize each and every contact which Harry made with the Chicago field office

-c- There are currently NO documents whatsoever concerning Harry's alleged contacts with Wesley Grapp or pertaining to ANY reports Harry supposedly made to Los Angeles about JBS or Minutemen or any other topic. We do, however, have at least one Los Angeles field file number -- which may contain those documents. If not, then the Los Angeles file we know about may have references to another file which does contain those reports (such as a 157-series file).

In addition, there is a HUGE amount of data concerning the people whom you and Harry think are key figures within the "JBS plot" which could be requested. For example: I posted one interim release here on EF on Guy Galbadon a while back but there are other FBI files pertaining to him. In addition, there are Minutemen files (Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Miami) which contain considerable information that would be of interest. In addition, the entire file on Guy Banister has (to my knowledge) not been released. I received several hundred pages several years ago but I never got his FBI personnel file (which I did recently request.)

In addition, there are files pertaining to Edwin Walker that have never been released in their entirety (probably because at the time they were first discovered, nobody wanted to pay the cost for obtaining them since the FBI (at that time) did not offer the lower-cost option of getting files released on CDROM.

The very fact that you now admit that "Already this year Harry and I have seen more FBI and CIA records on Harry than we have ever seen in all our combined time working on this issue" -- makes your "rational response" argument totally bogus!

MY "INSULT"?? You really have a lot of nerve Paul. You CLAIM to be an independent and open-minded researcher (with a college degree no less!). I challenge you to find ANY legitimate scholar, researcher, or professional journalist anywhere on this planet that consciously, deliberately, and repeatedly REFUSES to obtain all available data on the subject he/she is researching. The only thing "shameful" is your PRETENSE to being interested in discovering factual truth about Harry's narrative.

"CALM ASSESSMENT OF FBI FILES": How can you "assess" something you never previously even had the curiosity to obtain for yourself BEFORE you wrote a book about Harry?

"OBJECTIVITY": By definition, being objective means employing one's normal critical faculties and suppressing one's own biases, interpretations, feelings, and speculations. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY for an "objective" person to "give the benefit of the doubt" to a story which cannot be confirmed through documentary evidence or through multiple independent sources.

ONLY an ADVOCATE gives the "benefit of the doubt" to the person he is researching. You are an advocate for Harry's story. You NEVER question anything he presents. You NEVER ask him probing questions. You NEVER dispute his recollections. You accept EVERYTHING he says without exception -- regardless of the subject matter. A genuinely objective person reviews all evidence and if he/she cannot prove a statement or assertion - then he/she says so. There is no "benefit of the doubt" -- waiting for some miraculous proof of "lying" (as if that was the only possible explanation for contradictory evidence).

AND worst of all -- you do not even understand the difference between "lying" versus normal honest mistakes in perception or recollections which are COMMON with ALL "eyewitness" testimony. I previously gave you a link to one of the scholarly articles that deals with problems with eyewitness testimony. Obviously, you never bothered to review it.

PARROTING THE FBI: Is this an example of your alleged "objectivity"? I have never "parroted" the FBI. But unlike yourself, I am familiar with their procedures and policies. And contrary to your statement, there are TONS of "missing information".

ADDENDUM:

Last night as I was doing some research, I came across something which may permit me to identify the person whose 1984-1985 FOIA requests resulted in the release of the documents which appear on Mary Ferrell's website. Not just the documents about Harry -- but also about anti-Castro Cubans, Minutemen, and other topics. I am in the process of following up on the clues I found, and if I can confirm the identity of the person whom I think may be the one who submitted the FOIA request --- I will post that info here because that person MAY have received entire files (not just specific documents) about Harry.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - I look forward to the files on Bannister, Walker, Loran Hall, etc.

i have read dozens of JFK books over decades, and continue to do so. While I agree that much literature on the subject is pushing one theory or another, and some are overviews of various theories, the books I mentioned previously rise above the usual clatter. I don't think that the plethora of theories make exploration of them useless, and I don't think that their existence make digging out the truth impossible. I suspect that those who think JFK was just another cold warrior don't fully comprehend the horror of his death. That is why I recommend 'Brothers', and JFK and the Unspeakable, a book that RFK jr. is currently mentioning. The biggest lie out there is that JFK was a militarist. His private communications with Khrushchev are eye opening. Once you know why he was killed its not that hard to see who did it, and to realize how large the conspiracy was. And that knowledge, if you will permit me to use that word, leads to understanding the difficulties researchers, Congress, the WC, etc faced and continue to face. Our intelligence agencies were complicit in covering up this horrible act before the assassination even occurred. The main value in the work of people like John Newman and Peter Dale Scott is to see how intelligence agencies laid the groundwork and continued to coverup their actions.

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - I don't think I can give you the assistance you ask for. You and Ernie are several pay grades above me on the subject of Harry Dean. I keep an open mind about him, and look forward to anything Ernie digs up while not thinking that the lack of support for Harry's memories necessarily means that he is lying. His story dovetails with other research, such as yours, on Walker and the Minutemen. And the general idea that Walker and Bannister were part of the plot does not conflict with the idea of a larger conspiracy involving then active and former CIA, mafia figures, oil men, Secret Service, Dallas cops. The thread on Eladio Del Valle dovetails with your info. Garrison's investigation, flawed and compromised as it was, also dovetails with Harry's story. I have asked twice for anyone reading forum posts to shed some light on what happened with Maurice Philipps and his efforts to get Canadian authorities to release more of Louis Mortimer Bloomfield's papers. The story of Permindex may very well intersect with William Harvey, a person of great interest, and with HL Hunt and thus Walker. I know I'm rambling a bit, but its because I try to put your research into a larger context.

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - I recommended a few books for you because of your thorough understanding of FBI filing system. But I don't want to leave the impression that other authors than the ones I keep mentioning haven't also done incredible work. Two active posters on this board come to mind - Larry Hancock and Vince Palamara. I am reading Vince's latest expose on the Secret Service, have read Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, and am looking forward to his soon to be released book on shadow warfare.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - I recommended a few books for you because of your thorough understanding of FBI filing system. But I don't want to leave the impression that other authors than the ones I keep mentioning haven't also done incredible work. Two active posters on this board come to mind - Larry Hancock and Vince Palamara. I am reading Vince's latest expose on the Secret Service, have read Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, and am looking forward to his soon to be released book on shadow warfare.

I understand your point. I happen to enjoy FOIA research and finding new material which has never been previously known. FOIA research is comparable to detective work because there are always clues in documents received about other files which can be very pertinent but are obscure due to the incredibly complex and arcane FBI filing system which included so many sub-files and cross-references. The FBI also created a file devoted exclusively to Book Reviews -- and there are many FBI critiques of JFK-assassination books during the 1960's and 1970's..

I do have several JFK-assassination books on my "wish list" at Half.com for future purchase - including Legend by Edward Jay Epstein and Case Closed by Gerald Posner and Dallas 1963 by Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis....but there are many other books I need to purchase before I get around to purchasing those.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - I don't think I can give you the assistance you ask for. You and Ernie are several pay grades above me on the subject of Harry Dean. I keep an open mind about him, and look forward to anything Ernie digs up while not thinking that the lack of support for Harry's memories necessarily means that he is lying. His story dovetails with other research, such as yours, on Walker and the Minutemen. And the general idea that Walker and Bannister were part of the plot does not conflict with the idea of a larger conspiracy involving then active and former CIA, mafia figures, oil men, Secret Service, Dallas cops. The thread on Eladio Del Valle dovetails with your info. Garrison's investigation, flawed and compromised as it was, also dovetails with Harry's story. I have asked twice for anyone reading forum posts to shed some light on what happened with Maurice Philipps and his efforts to get Canadian authorities to release more of Louis Mortimer Bloomfield's papers. The story of Permindex may very well intersect with William Harvey, a person of great interest, and with HL Hunt and thus Walker. I know I'm rambling a bit, but its because I try to put your research into a larger context.

Well, Paul B., I'm not certain why you think that I have more information about Harry Dean than you do -- because you've read the eBook that Harry and I published last October, and that brings you up to speed on Harry's entire scenario from his viewpoint.

In any case, I appreciate that you'll keep an open mind about Harry Dean. I especially appreciate your courtesy of extending to Harry the benefit of the doubt for any temporary lack of support for Harry's memories. You and I both agree that Harry's memoirs (or "confessions") fit snugly with other JFK research without even trying.

By the way, I'm sympathetic to views that attempt to place the Walker/Minutemen scenario inside a larger plot. Harry Dean was mistaken about the central role of the Mormon Church, for example, and I'm pleased to say that he's changed his mind smoothly about this -- i.e. he is still convinced that the Mormons represent a significant force in right-wing and Tea Party politics -- yet without necessarily making them the central motor force of the John Birch Society.

The same must be said about Harry's original opinions about Loran Hall and Larry Howard. Harry can only report what he saw -- and about the rest he must speculate like the rest of us. He helped Loran Hall and Larry Howard load their cars and trucks with drugs that were collected from JBS doctors to invest in raids on Cuba. (This was a disturbing moment in USA history, and we do well to remind our children that it happened.)

Based on events like that, Harry used to conclude that Loran Hall and Larry Howard were the shooters at Dealey Plaza that day. Based on his conversations with me this year, Harry is willing to concede that these men might have only been part of the support crew for the shooters. How could he conclude otherwise? Harry was not in Dallas that day, so no matter what he saw and heard leading up to 22 November 1963, he has no proof of what happened outside of his field of vision.

It is this eye-witness data that is all-important, in my theory. It is very easy to speculate one way or another -- but it is all in the imagination, unless one has eye-witness data to use.

The opposition of the FBI to Harry Dean's memoirs is based only on the fact that their official conclusions as dogmatically stated by J. Edgar Hoover on 22 November 1963 are flatly contradicted by Harry Dean's eye-witness account -- no matter how humble it might be. It's believable, and it tarnishes the reputation of the FBI that their Founder and Director would lie to the American people. So, Harry's personal commitment to the truth must be sullied by the FBI at all costs.

Either J. Edgar Hoover is lying, or Harry Dean is lying -- and there is no middle term here.

Harry, of course, is not the only person to regard J. Edgar Hoover as a xxxx. It is based on fifty years of JFK research that the vast majority of educated researchers conclude that J. Edgar Hoover lied to the USA, and that the FBI continues to spread that lie to this very day.

As for the notion that the JFK assassination was an "official" conspiracy against JFK, I still cannot accept it, based on principle. First, you have no eye-witnesses to these doctrines. Secondly, it is based on a political stance about JFK. Instead, although I recognize many of the same players to be involved (by eye-witness and photographic evidence) yet I say their involvement was "unofficial." That's a major difference in our positions.

Nobody can deny that the Walker/JBS plot that Harry Dean personally witnessed over the course of many months was impossible without a larger culture of right-wing mania in the USA in 1963. I believe this is what you are observing when you see the same data that I see. Of course the Cuban Exile reactionaries were burning with rage. Of course the Bay of Pigs made the CIA burn with rage. Of course the contractors between those two groups would have plotted to kill JFK dozens of times.

Of course the wealthiest members of the JBS (the oil men of Dallas) as well as JBS sympathizers who worked in government (e.g. the Secret Service) and open JBS members in the Dallas police department and on the streets of New Orleans would have eagerly lent their support for any promising JFK plot. Of course the Mafia threw untold millions of dollars into any plot to stop RFK from hammering down upon their heads. And of course the old Nazi forces in Permindex, the KKK and the ANP would have lent their support whenever possible.

Yet I think that it is the Walker/JBS story that gives us the proper, street-level perspective that we need. We are more in focus when we focus on the ground-crew, and we open the door to political speculation when we lose that focus. In other words, when trying to put the ground-crew into any "larger picture," one must inevitably lose focus and begin to ramble.

I think you can be helpful here, Paul B., by stating your opinion. Which single complaint voiced by Ernie has the most weight? Your opinion matters here.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 31, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - how do you account for the Secret Service orchestrated failure to protect JFK in Dealey Plaza without concluding conspiracy

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - how do you account for the Secret Service orchestrated failure to protect JFK in Dealey Plaza without concluding conspiracy?

Ernie is right that all files of intelligence agencies should be sought when trying to assess Dean's credibility. You never know what might pop up. The FBI did a poor job of investigating the assassination, covered its own tracks, destroyed, altered, possibly planted evidence. So if further release of files on the subjects of Dean Walker Bannister etc sheds no new light it would not surprise me. I'm glad that Ernie is pursuing this though. Let's see what he digs up. Certainly past data dumps have yielded results to intrepid researchers.