Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

...There will be no "FBI documents" added to your "second edition" Appendix UNLESS you plan to copy documents which I discovered and have posted online -- which again serves to prove that you are not capable of performing any research of your own and you merely copy what is handed to you by others who take the time and expend the resources to discover and then release relevant documentary evidence. BUT -- I will have something new and important to share in the near future.

Actually, Ernie, in early 2013 you were still writing in a web page entitled, "The Strange Love of Billy James Hargis," (on ThisLandPress.com) that Harry Dean had no FBI number at all.

The truth is that it was I, in 2013, who found that number and gave it to you, and started your buying spree of FBI materials on Harry Dean.

Since then, of course, the editors of that article subsumed our online debate in their article, so your deception is now covered. Yet you are frankly dishonest to claim that you "discovered" the FBI files on Harry Dean.

Harry Dean did call the FBI this year to obtain all FBI records about himself. The FBI responded by saying that all that material was sent to NARA. NARA, as we know, charges very high prices for their records -- so Harry Dean is basically locked out from viewing those records on his own.

Those are the facts. You might crow about being able to afford many of those NARA records, Ernie, but your blog about them still suffers from one major defect -- the Editor -- that's you.

Your collection of the Harry Dean material is questionable, because actually, who knows what you're withholding due to your bias?

Further, you provide a special link called "Analysis," which is nothing more than your bias and one-sided so-called logic having a field day in a web site that is completely protected from critiicism.

So what? Any objective reader can see through your bias.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

QUOTE what I wrote -- or admit you have NO EVIDENCE to support your accusations.

In a few weeks, Harry's files will be posted online and then you and everybody else will be able to see that I have accurately and truthfully reported on their content (and in context) and I did NOT leave anything out which was materially significant.

At that point, will YOU have the decency to PUBLICLY acknowledge that you have FALSELY LIBELED ME? I think not.

The fact remains that I "discovered" material which you were unaware of -- despite your intense interest in this subject.

The fact remains that I have posted online in this thread numerous files and documents -- NONE of which you have ever posted online anywhere.

The fact remains that you make unkind and malicious and libelous allegations with NO EVIDENCE to support them.

[Ernie Lazar]

Let's be honest Harry -- just once -- OK?

MODERATOR! MODERATOR! Is this form of insult still being allowed on John Simkin's Education Forum??

...Your shill, Paul Trejo, refuses to upload Rousselot's HQ file which I sent to Paul, because he does not want anybody to see what is contained in that file...

Well, you'll soon upload that silly little file of the FBI giving a green light to the JBS moron, former Congressman John Rousselot, to work for Ronald Reagan for two years as a "consultant," Ernie.

There's no need for me to sully my hands with it.

The FBI merely interviewed 33 of Rousselot's pals and provided no further investigation than that. It's extremely boring reading that all these neighbors and co-workers thought John was a "great guy." That's the sort of work we got from the FBI in response to a Presidential request. No cross-examination whatsoever.

I certainly don't care who sees that silly little file, Ernie. Still, your insults have for some reason obtained a new lease on life. Probably you're crowing because Harry Dean has divorced me -- by surprise -- using this very thread on the Education Forum.

I don't blame Harry Dean -- if Harry's exhausted from a lifetime of telling his truth, and being bashed in the teeth, to to speak, from FBI and JBS shills like yourself, then one can easily understand his exhaustion. A half-century of argumentation is long enough for anybody.

But I myself am not giving up. All FBI files on Harry Dean have still not been accounted for -- despite your biased web site, Ernie.

The TRUTH about the central role played by Ex-General Edwin Walker in the Dallas leg of the JFK murder plot has still not had its proper hearing.

BULLETIN: There is a new book coming out -- probably this year -- and probably more than a thousand pages long -- about the role of Ex-General Edwin Walker in the JFK murder plot. The scholar who's preparing this book has asked me to refrain from naming him until the book is in print. So, I'll honor his request. But get ready, dear readers; 2014 could be the year.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- your capacity for self-delusion appears limitless.

1. Rousselot was not "a consultant". He was appointed to a full-time position inside the White House.

2. You falsely describe the nature of the FBI's investigation of Rousselot. They did not just contact "33 of Rousselot's pals" -- but that shows your extreme bias against accurately reporting what documentary evidence reveals. Incidentally, if you compare Rousselot's background investigation to the investigation conducted about any other Presidential appointee (or any other person) -- you will notice that the FBI followed identical procedures and covers all the standard categories -- which I previously listed. There is nothing unusual about their investigation re: Rousselot. If you think of someone YOU RESPECT AND ADMIRE -- he would have been subjected to the exact same type of investigation. When there is adverse information of any type discovered, the FBI reports it. The problem you have is that you want your personal political beliefs to control what the final report states.

3. I have no clue what you mean by "cross-examination". Rousselot was not a criminal on trial. He provided a biographical statement and his employment history and his character references (including the AG of the United States) -- just like any other applicant.

4. Harry has "divorced you" simply because of something in THIS thread? How is that even possible? You lost me. And why was it "by surprise"? There must be something more substantial than what you are currently telling us. However, I certainly agree with you that presenting a fictional story for 50 years is exhausting.

5. I do not understand your comment about "all FBI files on Harry Dean have still not been accounted for". If you know about the existence of any other files, THEN BY ALL MEANS, SHARE THAT INFO WITH US.

6. I will look forward to reading the book you mention with respect to Walker. You state that the author is a "scholar". Can you at least give us a general idea of his research specialty? Has he published any other books or peer-reviewed articles in academic journals? Is he connected to any college or university?

Something tells me that you may be referring to Jeffrey H. Caufield -- a medical doctor -- who, like myself, has made numerous FOIA requests but I don't think it would be accurate to describe him as "a scholar". Instead, like myself, he is a freelance researcher.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Actually, Ernie, in early 2013 you were still writing in a web page entitled, "The Strange Love of Billy James Hargis," (on ThisLandPress.com) that Harry Dean had no FBI number at all.

The truth is that it was I, in 2013, who found that number and gave it to you, and then you started your buying spree of FBI materials on Harry Dean.

Since then, of course, the editors of that article subsumed our online debate in their article, so your deception is now covered. Yet you are frankly dishonest to claim that you "discovered" the FBI files on Harry Dean.

Harry Dean did call the FBI this year to obtain all FBI records about himself. The FBI responded by saying that all that material was sent to NARA. NARA, as we know, charges very high prices for their records -- so Harry Dean is basically locked out from viewing those records on his own.

Those are the facts. You might crow about being able to afford many of those NARA records, Ernie, but your blog about them still suffers from one major defect -- the Editor -- that's you.

Your collection of the Harry Dean material is questionable, because actually, who knows what you're withholding due to your bias?

Further, you provide a special link called "Analysis," which is nothing more than your bias and one-sided so-called logic having a field day in a web site that is completely protected from critiicism.

So what? Any objective reader can see through your bias.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you have made a serious allegation about something I allegedly wrote in "early 2013".

And you have made that accusation before here in EF.

But as is your routine custom you never QUOTE what I wrote. SO WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU?

The "number" you are referring to was an FBI file number right? Would you care to share with everyone here "the number" you are referring to?

If you would QUOTE what I actually wrote -- then all of this disagreement would immediately be resolved. SO DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS AND COMMON DECENCY TO QUOTE WHAT I WROTE? ...

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

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

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

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

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

Calm down, Ernie. Seek professional help.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 5, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Actually, Ernie, in early 2013 you were still writing in a web page entitled, "The Strange Love of Billy James Hargis," (on ThisLandPress.com) that Harry Dean had no FBI number at all.

The truth is that it was I, in 2013, who found that number and gave it to you, and then you started your buying spree of FBI materials on Harry Dean.

Since then, of course, the editors of that article subsumed our online debate in their article, so your deception is now covered. Yet you are frankly dishonest to claim that you "discovered" the FBI files on Harry Dean.

Harry Dean did call the FBI this year to obtain all FBI records about himself. The FBI responded by saying that all that material was sent to NARA. NARA, as we know, charges very high prices for their records -- so Harry Dean is basically locked out from viewing those records on his own.

Those are the facts. You might crow about being able to afford many of those NARA records, Ernie, but your blog about them still suffers from one major defect -- the Editor -- that's you.

Your collection of the Harry Dean material is questionable, because actually, who knows what you're withholding due to your bias?

Further, you provide a special link called "Analysis," which is nothing more than your bias and one-sided so-called logic having a field day in a web site that is completely protected from critiicism.

So what? Any objective reader can see through your bias.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you have made a serious allegation about something I allegedly wrote in "early 2013".

And you have made that accusation before here in EF.

But as is your routine custom you never QUOTE what I wrote. SO WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU?

The "number" you are referring to was an FBI file number right? Would you care to share with everyone here "the number" you are referring to?

If you would QUOTE what I actually wrote -- then all of this disagreement would immediately be resolved. SO DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS AND COMMON DECENCY TO QUOTE WHAT I WROTE? ...

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

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

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

The complete article is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calm down, Ernie. Seek professional help.

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

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- my comments appear underneath yours in BLUE FONT

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Also Paul -- you STILL do not understand the meaning of the word "fact"

BY DEFINITION -- a "fact" is something which is NOT being disputed because it has been PROVEN to be accurate and truthful -- and, therefore, is accepted as reality.

EVERYTHING you write -- is your PERSONAL OPINION. Opinion is NOT FACT.

So when you write "Those are the facts" --- you are referring to your SUBJECTIVE and BIASED personal opinions --- NOT something PROVEN to be accurate and truthful -- because if you had "FACTS" -- you would QUOTE from the ORIGINAL sources, OR, at a minimum, refer people to the ORIGINAL document to support your contentions.

You NEVER do that because you rely upon UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS and INSINUATIONS -- NOT FACT

[Paul Trejo]

Also Paul -- you STILL do not understand the meaning of the word "fact"

BY DEFINITION -- a "fact" is something which is NOT being disputed because it has been PROVEN to be accurate and truthful -- and, therefore, is accepted as reality.

EVERYTHING you write -- is your PERSONAL OPINION. Opinion is NOT FACT.

So when you write "Those are the facts" --- you are referring to your SUBJECTIVE and BIASED personal opinions --- NOT something PROVEN to be accurate and truthful -- because if you had "FACTS" -- you would QUOTE from the ORIGINAL sources, OR, at a minimum, refer people to the ORIGINAL document to support your contentions.

You NEVER do that because you rely upon UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS and INSINUATIONS -- NOT FACT

Actually, Ernie, I provide lots of facts and lots of documentation to substantiate them.

Your immature method however, is to cover your ears and sing la-la-la-la whenever a fact is presented -- and documented -- that does not fit into your bias.

Anybody who's familiar with the years of debates on this very thread knows of many, many artifacts I've shared with this thread. So, you're just making a fool of yourself, Ernie. Why not cut your losses?

Better yet -- why not finally explain to readers here what your point is? What are you trying to prove, after years of attacking Harry Dean on this thread -- since 2010?

What does Ernie Lazar stand for?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Also Paul -- you STILL do not understand the meaning of the word "fact"

BY DEFINITION -- a "fact" is something which is NOT being disputed because it has been PROVEN to be accurate and truthful -- and, therefore, is accepted as reality.

EVERYTHING you write -- is your PERSONAL OPINION. Opinion is NOT FACT.

So when you write "Those are the facts" --- you are referring to your SUBJECTIVE and BIASED personal opinions --- NOT something PROVEN to be accurate and truthful -- because if you had "FACTS" -- you would QUOTE from the ORIGINAL sources, OR, at a minimum, refer people to the ORIGINAL document to support your contentions.

You NEVER do that because you rely upon UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS and INSINUATIONS -- NOT FACT

Actually, Ernie, I provide lots of facts and lots of documentation to substantiate them.

Your immature method however, is to cover your ears and sing la-la-la-la whenever a fact is presented -- and documented -- that does not fit into your bias.

Anybody who's familiar with the years of debates on this very thread knows of many, many artifacts I've shared with this thread. So, you're just making a fool of yourself, Ernie. Why not cut your losses?

Better yet -- why not finally explain to readers here what your point is? What are you trying to prove, after years of attacking Harry Dean on this thread -- since 2010?

What does Ernie Lazar stand for?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

What "facts" and "documentation" are you referring to? I am referring to our debates here in this thread. Correct me if I am mistaken -- but have you EVER uploaded ONE single document to prove anything which has been disputed here?

Paul I sincerely want to understand your point of view. As I wrote previously, a "fact" by definition is NOT disputed. So if you cannot present conclusive and definitive evidence for something you claim -- then it is NOT a fact. Let me give you a specific example. You (or Harry) can claim (as often as you want) that Harry "met with" or "drove around with" Wesley Grapp. But unless there is some kind of PROOF for that statement -- it is NOT factual.

Similarly, do you remember when we had our discussion regarding "independent verification"? By your own stated rules -- you have never provided "independent verification" for MOST of what you have written here. You have CLAIMED that you contacted person "a" or person "b" --- but you have never produced ANY verifiable evidence of those contacts.

Lastly, with respect to the Leroy Chapman article --- after performing a search of my "JBS Debates" file (which, incidentally, is currently 949 pages in length) -- I found all the comments I posted online in reply to you,

SO...again, if anybody here wants to compare what Paul has claimed I wrote last October to what I actually DID write regarding Harry Dean -- I will be happy to forward the text of ALL of those comments. Let me say this however: EVERYTHING I presented in comments posted on that website are IDENTICAL to the statements I have made here on many occasions. But, as usual, Paul totally ignores the CONTEXT for my comments -- which were EXCLUSIVELY in terms of Harry's claims with respect to the JBS and Harry's description of himself as an "undercover agent" OR "spy" or "informant" or "confidential source" or whatever other comparable term you want to use to describe his relationship with the FBI.

[Ernie Lazar]

Also Paul -- you STILL do not understand the meaning of the word "fact"

BY DEFINITION -- a "fact" is something which is NOT being disputed because it has been PROVEN to be accurate and truthful -- and, therefore, is accepted as reality.

EVERYTHING you write -- is your PERSONAL OPINION. Opinion is NOT FACT.

So when you write "Those are the facts" --- you are referring to your SUBJECTIVE and BIASED personal opinions --- NOT something PROVEN to be accurate and truthful -- because if you had "FACTS" -- you would QUOTE from the ORIGINAL sources, OR, at a minimum, refer people to the ORIGINAL document to support your contentions.

You NEVER do that because you rely upon UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS and INSINUATIONS -- NOT FACT

Actually, Ernie, I provide lots of facts and lots of documentation to substantiate them.

Your immature method however, is to cover your ears and sing la-la-la-la whenever a fact is presented -- and documented -- that does not fit into your bias.

Anybody who's familiar with the years of debates on this very thread knows of many, many artifacts I've shared with this thread. So, you're just making a fool of yourself, Ernie. Why not cut your losses?

Better yet -- why not finally explain to readers here what your point is? What are you trying to prove, after years of attacking Harry Dean on this thread -- since 2010?

What does Ernie Lazar stand for?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

With respect to your comment/question:

Better yet -- why not finally explain to readers here what your point is? What are you trying to prove, after years of attacking Harry Dean on this thread -- since 2010? What does Ernie Lazar stand for?

Isn't what I "stand for" obvious by now? Isn't my "point" just as obvious?

Let's turn the question around: WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR?

My "point" is very simple and you know now, AND you have always known what it is -- namely, that the story you are circulating regarding Harry Dean is mostly FICTIONAL. Like all good fiction, it contains kernels of truth -- but, overall, it is FICTION.

What do I stand for? I stand for accurate and fact-based history and commentary.

FACTS matter

Accurate history matters

Believing false information can (and usually does) have adverse consequences.

I am intrigued by the premise of your question. Let me ask you a few questions:

(1) Are you suggesting that Americans are NOT entitled to post messages online or have their thoughts published nor should they be allowed to share research data UNLESS and UNTIL they first establish their credentials to YOUR satisfaction?

(2) WHOM do YOU propose should be the "judge" of the "credentials"? Is there some sort of Committee to which you want Americans to submit their evidence with respect to how they have furthered the cause of factual discussions about historical events and furthered the pursuit of objective truth?

(4) IN YOUR SCHEME OF THINGS: Would ANY critic of Harry Dean EVER be considered a decent, honorable, principled and knowledgeable person who deserves to have their research published or their comments given respectful consideration and posted online?

(5) Give us TWO examples of persons whom have categorically rejected Harry Dean's story (and yours) -- but whom, nevertheless, you regard as principled and intelligent and honorable critics.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Michael Mason <mmason@thislandpress.com> To: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com> Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2014 5:45 am Attachment HargisComments.docx

Hi Ernie, nice to hear from you--and sorry to learn that you are being pestered. As to your questions:

1) Yes, I do, and they are in the attached document. I retracted email addresses to avoid privacy complaints, but all the comments should be there.

2) No, there is no truth that we removed any of your comments because of your tone, or anything having to do with you, or any individual. We made the decision several months ago to disable all comments on our entire website, as moderation of the comment board was becoming too time consuming for our small operation.

Please let me know if you have any new information to share regarding your research.

Best,

Michael

----SO....once again we see how Paul Trejo cannot be trusted to accurately report upon what has transpired or the reasons for why certain actions are taken. We also can now see, beyond any rational dispute, that Paul subscribes to what is generally known as "situational ethics". Anything which Paul thinks advances HIS personal opinions is "good" and "true" and "ethical" and "moral". However, ANY person who challenges Paul's perceptions or beliefs or assertions is, by definition:, "biased", "dishonest", morally depraved and totally without decency or honor.

AND AGAIN -- Notice the difference between myself and Paul.

* I quote primary source evidence

* I upload important documentary evidence

* I provide clear bibiliographic references

* I make it easy for anybody to discover the original sources where disputed information appears

BY CONTRAST:

* Paul almost never quotes from primary sources

* Paul never uploads documentary evidence

* Paul never provides specific bibliographic references

* Paul never makes it easy to discover the original sources where disputed information appears

AND

* Worst of all --- Paul merely ATTRIBUTES beliefs and ideas and values to people and organizations without EVER providing substantiation for his personal opinions. Instead, he uses phrases like "it is common knowledge" -- to cover everything he cannot prove or to mask his profound ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Comments Thread on BJH Article.pdf

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

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

<snip>

As usual, Ernie, you don't read very carefully.

I never said that This Land Press removed your comments because of their tone or substance, but only because they chose to re-edit their article about Billy James Hargis, and "absorbed" our debate inside their article.

So, once again, Ernie, your post is a dog chasing his own tail.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 7, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

With respect to your comment/question:

Better yet -- why not finally explain to readers here what your point is? What are you trying to prove, after years of attacking Harry Dean on this thread -- since 2010? What does Ernie Lazar stand for?

Isn't what I "stand for" obvious by now? Isn't my "point" just as obvious?

Actually, no, Ernie. Because you post more than any other person on this thread -- repeating yourself countless times -- and you seem only to want to harrass 87-year old Harry Dean because he claims that in September 1963 he heard Ex-General Edwin Walker address a gathering of John Birch Society members in Southern California and announce that their patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, was ready for the patsy role in the JFK murder.

Harry also said he gave this information to the FBI.

You can't find that report in the FBI records, Ernie, so you've spent YEARS on this thread defending the FBI records and how they are complete, and how they shared everything with you (!) and you can't find proof of Harry Dean's claim.

But most folks here just laugh at your naivete and jejune belief that the FBI would single you out and share data with you that they've withheld from the Warren Commision, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Senator Church, Senator Schweiker, the HSCA, Gaeton Fonzi and even our current member, Larry Hancock.

You think you have all the FBI records (which is a laugh) and you then choose to insult, insult, insult Harry Dean on this thread FOR YEARS, along with anybody who happens to believe him (which I do).

But this is all you really stand for, Ernie. You want to be RIGHT. And you can't stand it if somebody points out the dozens of HOLES in your flimsy theory.

What do I stand for? I stand for the TRUTH -- and Historical Accuracy -- and also pointing out the dozens of HOLES in your naive faith in the FBI's record-keeping, honesty and sharing procedures.

Former FBI Agent Wesley Swearington just laughs at your immature belief that the FBI always keeps perfect records, and always plays by the rules. He should know.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 7, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

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

<snip>

As usual, Ernie, you don't read very carefully.

I never said that This Land Press removed your comments because of their tone or substance, but only because they chose to re-edit their article about Billy James Hargis, and "absorbed" our debate inside their article.

So, once again, Ernie, your post is a dog chasing his own tail.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

No, Paul, your message singled out only MY comments and you said that they were "removed". Nor did they "absorb" our debate inside their article. There is no reference to "our debate" inside their article.

So, once again, Paul you try to weasel-word your way out of what you clearly attempted to insinuate about MY comments in that article.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

With respect to your comment/question:

Better yet -- why not finally explain to readers here what your point is? What are you trying to prove, after years of attacking Harry Dean on this thread -- since 2010? What does Ernie Lazar stand for?

Isn't what I "stand for" obvious by now? Isn't my "point" just as obvious?

Actually, no, Ernie. Because you post more than any other person on this thread -- repeating yourself countless times -- and you seem only to want to harrass 87-year old Harry Dean because he claims that in September 1963 he heard Ex-General Edwin Walker address a gathering of John Birch Society members in Southern California and announce that their patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, was ready for the patsy role in the JFK murder.

Harry also said he gave this information to the FBI.

You can't find that report in the FBI records, Ernie, so you've spent YEARS on this thread defending the FBI records and how they are complete, and how they shared everything with you (!) and you can't find proof of Harry Dean's claim.

But most folks here just laugh at your naivete and jejune belief that the FBI would single you out and share data with you that they've withheld from the Warren Commision, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Senator Church, Senator Schweiker, the HSCA, Gaeton Fonzi and even our current member, Larry Hancock.

You think you have all the FBI records (which is a laugh) and you then choose to insult, insult, insult Harry Dean on this thread FOR YEARS, along with anybody who happens to believe him (which I do).

But this is all you really stand for, Ernie. You want to be RIGHT. And you can't stand it if somebody points out the dozens of HOLES in your flimsy theory.

What do I stand for? I stand for the TRUTH -- and Historical Accuracy -- and also pointing out the dozens of HOLES in your naive faith in the FBI's record-keeping, honesty and sharing procedures.

Former FBI Agent Wesley Swearington just laughs at your immature belief that the FBI always keeps perfect records, and always plays by the rules. He should know.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

No, Paul, you are NOT correctly summarizing my position. How couid you NOT understand what I have written after all this time? Maybe that is why I allegedly have to repeat myself, i.e. because of your massive reading comprehension problems?

My criticism of your or Harry's position is not now, nor has it EVER been, limited to the one item you mention (i.e. the 9/63 Walker announcement to JBS members re LHO as their patsy) . And, once again, you DO NOT QUOTE what I have written, You just FALSELY ATTRIBUTE a position or belief to me.

Instead, my criticism is based upon NUMEROUS different contentions by you and by Harry -- ALL of which have NO verifiable evidence to support them -- which is why your eBook does not contain a single document or bibliographic reference to support them.

I have not "defended" FBI records. You still do not understand this critically important point Paul. My point is that there is NOTHING in ANY FBI file pertaining to the main subject matters we have discussed which even reveals the EXISTENCE of the type of information which you and Harry insist exists.

I also have pointed out repeatedly that your understanding of FBI record-keeping practices is gravely flawed which is why researchers can find comparable information about OTHER people allegedly connected to the JFK assassination but NOTHING WHATSOEVER about Harry's reports concerning the JBS or any other related subject. Normally, when NO documentary evidence can be found, a researcher candidly admits that. But YOU think the absence of proof, becomes proof!

The type of information we have discussed is NOT the type which the FBI withholds -- which is why we have comparable information about many of the other figures who were allegedly involved in the assassination or supposedly had foreknowledge of it (such as the Milteer-Somersett conversation OR FBI files on John Martino OR files on Edwin Walker etc.). That is the fundamental problem with your argument. We have contemporaneous FBI documents about Harry but they prove that your entire story is FALSE.

I have never said that I have "all FBI records" (another fabrication by you). Instead, I have said that NONE of the FBI records I have seen -- present ANY corroboration for Harry. And neither you or Harry or anybody else has produced EVEN ONE document from anywhere to support your fictional narrative regarding the JBS and related subjects. [Now, go ahead and pretend that you do not understand the limited CONTEXT which I just presented -- i.e. start talking about FBI documents on FPCC or some other subject NOT related to JBS, Minutemen, Galbadon, Rousselot, Walker, Grapp etc.]

I do not have any "theory" -- flimsy or otherwise. YOU and Harry have a theory. BUT If you cannot withstand scrutiny of your theory, then that speaks volumes about you and Harry---not me. The only "holes" anybody has proven in this thread pertain to YOUR lies and misrepresentations or as Tommy calls them, "word twisting".

There is no way for you to "point out dozens of holes" in my "faith" in the FBI's record-keeping process -- because, first of all, you have utterly no familiarity with their record-keeping procedures.

Have you EVER made an FOIA request to the FBI?

Have you ever studied the various lawsuits which have dealt with the FBI record-keeping process?

Have you EVER contacted ANY scholar or archivist who has studied FBI indexing systems?

Of course not -- because you prefer to INVENT everything in your mind.

And since when do you accept the views of Wesley Swearingen as the gold standard about anything? As is your custom, you misrepresent the issue being discussed. It is not "perfect" record-keeping.

I suggest, for openers, that you read the 1982 report by James E. O'Neill, who was the Director of the FBI Records Appraisal Project for the Archivist of the United States. His 568 page report was prepared pursuant to a court order by U.S. District Court Judge Harold H. Greene. This study of the FBI Records system took almost 2 years to complete.

ONLY WHEN you show familiarity with that report -- will anybody EVER want to discuss FBI records keeping procedures with you.

Wesley Swearingen had NO CLUE about HQ filing systems. He never worked there. But this is another example of how you attempt to use anybody (no matter how deficient is their factual understanding of any given matter) - if you think you can advance your subjective personal opinions.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul:

A very long time ago I pointed out that it is INEVITABLE that when October 2017 arrives and there STILL is nothing to support your "theory", you will INVENT another sinister explanation for the total ABSENCE of documentary evidence to support your "theory".

Can you give us ANY ALTERNATIVE method by which you think could substantiate Harry's narrative?

In other words, something OTHER than relying upon FBI files or relying upon any other government agency files?

1. Is there ANY living person who could corroborate Harry's narrative? I don't mean minor details -- I mean someone who could establish, for example, that Harry "met with" Wesley Grapp? OR that Harry presented his "JBS plot" information to ANY law enforcement agency or person? [For example: do ANY of Harry's children (or other relatives) have personal knowledge about any of this?]

2. If you inform us that there are NO living persons anywhere who have any first-hand knowledge about Harry's story -- AND -- if we can at least agree that there is no FBI documentary evidence to support Harry's story regarding a "JBS plot" --- THEN when 2017 arrives and no other documentary evidence is found --- would you THEN agree that NO OTHER productive research possibility exists with respect to verifying Harry's story?

Edited August 7, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul:

A very long time ago I pointed out that it is INEVITABLE that when October 2017 arrives and there STILL is nothing to support your "theory", you will INVENT another sinister explanation for the total ABSENCE of documentary evidence to support your "theory".

Can you give us ANY ALTERNATIVE method by which you think could substantiate Harry's narrative?

In other words, something OTHER than relying upon FBI files or relying upon any other government agency files?

1. Is there ANY living person who could corroborate Harry's narrative? I don't mean minor details -- I mean someone who could establish, for example, that Harry "met with" Wesley Grapp? OR that Harry presented his "JBS plot" information to ANY law enforcement agency or person? [For example: do ANY of Harry's children (or other relatives) have personal knowledge about any of this?]

2. If you inform us that there are NO living persons anywhere who have any first-hand knowledge about Harry's story -- AND -- if we can at least agree that there is no FBI documentary evidence to support Harry's story regarding a "JBS plot" --- THEN when 2017 arrives and no other documentary evidence is found --- would you THEN agree that NO OTHER productive research possibility exists with respect to verifying Harry's story?

Ernie,

As to (1) I agree that the only person still living today who can verify Harry Dean's claim is Harry Dean himself. All the other parties to that alleged John Birch Society meeting have died.

As to (2) I agree that when 2017 arrives and the US Government finally releases all FBI and CIA records associated with Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK murder (presuming they really and truly do this, as they promised) and if we still cannot find documentary evidence to substantiate Harry Dean's claim, then yes, I will give up that particular search.

I will continue to maintain that Loran Hall was somehow involved in the JFK murder. We have ample evidence that he was, from Gaeton Fonzi, Joan Mellen and Larry Hancock -- and even from Gerry Patrick Hemming (who said Loran Hall had his 30.06 rifle with him in Dallas on 11/22/1963; and we know the FBI seized that same rifle on that day, and soon after the JFK murder questioned its most recent pawn-broker because of the fingerprints found on it).

Even without a 2017 FBI corroboration of Harry Dean's story, we still have reason to suspect Loran Hall. Even New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison suspected Loran Hall back in 1968.

Also, I will still maintain that Ex-General Edwin Walker was somehow involved in the JFK murder. We have ample evidence from the record that Edwin Walker lied to the Warren Commission about Lee Harvey Oswald when he told them he never heard of Oswald until the JFK murder.

Walker in 1975 wrote to Senator Frank Church that he knew Oswald was his shooter only days after his April 1963 shooting. Walker boasted about this connection to a German newspaper within hours of the JFK assassination. He boasted about it for the rest of his life.

The connecting link between Loran Hall and Ex-General Edwin Walker was the John Birch Society.

Wherever Loran Hall went, so went Larry Howard (both were members of La Sambra and former members of Interpen). Larry Howard's name was also on the lease of the Louisiana paramilitary training camp at which Guy Banister, David Ferrie and the DRE were active in 1963. Even without FBI corroboration of Harry Dean's claims -- I still suspect Larry Howard was somehow involved in the murder of JFK.

My reasoning is, Ernie, that long before I ever cared about Harry Dean's story I was already researching the noise about Ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall and Larry Howard with regard to the JFK murder.

I believe Harry Dean when he said he went to the FBI about his claims, however we have seen from a few FBI documents that have already been released, that some FBI Agents had been known to rudely dismiss Harry Dean as a "mental case."

That's no shame, because actually Sylvia Odio, a highly educated, upper-class woman from pre-Castro Cuba was also called a "mental case" by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI -- mainly because she, too, said that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices.

(In her case the FBI promptly picked up Loran Hall as a prime suspect, and actually he confessed that he visited Sylvia Odio with Larry Howard that day, only he denied it was Lee Harvey Oswald with them. His story soon fell apart, and J. Edgar Hoover knew it, but still Hoover's final word to the Warren Commission about Sylvia Odio was that she was a "mental case.")

We know that anybody who disputed the claim of J. Edgar Hoover that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the murder of JFK was to be bureaucratically dismissed. That was simple; just call them a "mental case."

So -- after 2017, if released FBI documents fail to corroborate Harry's story, my conclusion would be that Harry Dean really did try to tell the FBI (because actually we have plenty of documentary evidence that Harry Dean liked calling the FBI) but the FBI refused to listen, and they patronized him, humored him and privately laughed behind his back -- even though Harry Dean's story would have cracked the JFK murder case wide open.

I will always believe that Harry Dean really saw what he saw, and he really heard what he heard in that John Birch Society meeting in September, 1963. The pieces fit snugly into a well-reasoned suspect list for the JFK murder.

All that said -- I have more faith in the US Government in general than in Hoover's FBI, so I will continue to expect to see FBI corroboration of Harry Dean's story by FBI documents in the year 2017.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 8, 2014 by Paul Trejo