Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, since you addressed me by name I will respond one more time, but in the future I won't be monitoring these threads so if you want to communicate something or ask a question feel free to email me at xxxx@xxxx.net

The points you have listed have been noted and generally discussed in multiple places over the decades, you will find reference to Walker in Jerry Rose's Third and Fourth Decade Journals. His contacts with people such as Hemming and company, with other exiles, the shooting at his house, his politics and his various social network connections have been general knowledge and discussion in the research community since the earliest days. When the ultra right was considered as a conspiracy sponsor, his name routinely came up. Regardless of all that discussion, the majority of folks didn't find connections that they felt proved in anything directly connecting him to the attack in Dallas and focused elsewhere - as Mark noted in a separate post, its not necessary to prove a negative, only a positive so nobody invested a great deal of work in writing up reasons they didn't chase him further - that I recall at least. Just because you have chosen to continue down that path pretty much on your own doesn't mean nobody ever considered it ... I know other individuals who are pursuing non-mainstream leads and have been for ages, that's just their choice.

Early on I actually tried to provide you with some leads - such as Walkers summer visit to Florida - that I thought might be helpful. I don't recall seeing you post any research on that. Instead you continue to rely on sources and "confessions" that many in the research community find pretty questionable. That's your call of course. In any event, I won't be returning so I'll leave your threads to those who choose to go forward with them. Actually I have learned a great deal on the threat but that largely comes from Ernie's posts on FBI records and record searches as well as his research on Harry Dean. Both were helpful but 95 pages is enough....adios, Larry

l

Larry, it's perfectly fine if you're finally bored of this thread. It doesn't matter to me. Nor do you need to respond to this post.

I do appreciate, however, that you invited me to email you privately. That's very generous.

But I do want to set the record straight about the inferior information supplied by Jerry Rose in his Third and Fourth Decade series on the JFK murder.

I'll admit that Jerry Rose gave it his best shot - and he reported what almost nobody else was talking about ten and twenty years ago. My only point is that on the topic of Edwin Walker, he gave us mostly confused ideas.

I've read them all.

Jerry Rose takes a fairly left-wing approach to the Walker scenario, and has little problem regarding Edwin Walker as a Neo-Nazi, a Fascist, and so on. I've made a more complete study of Edwin Walker, and I find him to be a conflicted person, pulled by Southern politics on the one hand, and also refusing to join the ANP, the KKK and other groups when they pulled hard to get him to join. Walker was conflicted. Walker was complicated.

Although Jerry Rose did raise Edwin Walker's name in the context of the ultra-right, Jerry Rose referred to that whole scenario as, NUT COUNTRY. That doesn't elucidate the history, that simply forecloses the history with a negative opinion.

Yes, it's common sense among the left-wing that the John Birch Society was "plain nuts." But that's a political opinion. It doesn't help to understand the politics of 1963 by simply calling people names.

When Jerry Rose refers to the 10 April 1963 shooting at Walker at his home in Dallas -- he is virtually certain in every citation that Edwin Walker deliberately faked his own shooting -- for the express purpose of having an alibi EIGHT MONTHS LATER when JFK would be murdered in Dallas.

That's such a stretch of logic that I'm surprised that people accepted it -- yet I find on the Forum so many people who have accepted this bizarre interpretation of events that I'm surprised.

Given the shallow treatment of Edwin Walker by Jerry Rose, it's no wonder that "the majority of folks didn't find connections that they felt proved in anything directly connecting him to the attack in Dallas and focused elsewhere."

I'm not trying to prove a negative -- I'm saying that there is plenty of positive evidence about Edwin Walker, but that it's been poorly handled in the past 50 years.

Here are some of the errors made by Jerry Rose in his Third Decade series:

1. Suspecting Walker of faking a sniper attack on himself, to blame Lee Oswald for it, because Oswald was working for the FBI to spy on Surrey and Walker -- and to provide an alibi for himself for a planned attack on JFK eight months later.

(Actually, that's one of the most far-flung interpretations of the events that one can imagine. One has to be ultra-biased against the right-wing to make those sorts of leaps of logic.)

2. A continuing focus on William McDuff as a possible suspect in the JFK murder and/or the Walker shooting.

(Actually McDuff was a bisexual live-in gigolo and one of Walker's favorite playmates. Robert Allen Surrey and Julia Knecht, who both had their offices in Walker's home hated seeing McDuff around every day, so they called the DPD and accused him of the Walker shooting, but McDuff passed the lie detector test with ease. This history is easily available,in DPD files, and Jerry Rose just ignored it to try to make wild connections.)

3. Suspecting that Oswald's photographs of Walker's backyard (taken with Oswald's camera) were part of a set of FORGERIES somehow related to Oswald's own Backyard Photographs. No evidence was offered -- just suspicion.

4. Repeating the error that JFK fired Walker from his command in Germany for disseminating John Birch Society materials.

(Actually, JFK wasn't happy about the JBS materials, but he didn't fire Walker. Actually, JFK offered Walker another troop training post in Hawaii, but Walker had already tried to resign once under Eisenhower, and he took this as an opportunity to resign for a second time.)

5. Suspecting Larrie and Robbie Schmidt of shooting at Walker and/or JFK.

(Actually, Robbie Schmidt was an Army veteran but a ne'er do well, and loved his job as Walker's chauffeur. Larrie was struggling to rise up the JBS ladder, and he worked closely with Walker, e.g. to humiliate Adlai Stevenson in October 1963. Again, this history is easily available in DMN and DTH articles, but Jerry Rose just ignored it to make his wild accusations.)

As I say - no wonder people just look at the literature about Edwin Walker and shake their heads. Jerry Rose didn't do his homework one Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 20, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

If somebody would show me some SOLID evidence that Walker WASN'T (1) a member of the JBS; (2) a speaker for White Citizens Councils; (3) an outspoken speaker against JFK; (4) an beloved leader of the extreme right-wing in the USA in 1963; (5) aware of Lee Harvey Oswald for the bulk of 1963; (6) connected to the Minutemen in 1963; (7) connected to Gerry Patrick Hemming in 1963; (8) connected to Loran Hall and Larry Howard in 1963; (9) connected to Carlos Bringuier in 1963; (9) making speeches in Southern California JBS meetings in the 1963, where Harry Dean was attending them; (10) paranoid that RFK was trying to kill him using Lee Harvey Oswald --

-- then I could change my theory and be done with this long, long journey in which I am largely fighting an uphill battle.

Sadly, nobody provides these proofs. They somehow believe they don't have to, because "Everybody Knows" that Walker wasn't important.

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/negative-proof-fallacy/

[Paul Trejo]

If somebody would show me some SOLID evidence that Walker WASN'T (1) a member of the JBS; (2) a speaker for White Citizens Councils; (3) an outspoken speaker against JFK; (4) an beloved leader of the extreme right-wing in the USA in 1963; (5) aware of Lee Harvey Oswald for the bulk of 1963; (6) connected to the Minutemen in 1963; (7) connected to Gerry Patrick Hemming in 1963; (8) connected to Loran Hall and Larry Howard in 1963; (9) connected to Carlos Bringuier in 1963; (9) making speeches in Southern California JBS meetings in the 1963, where Harry Dean was attending them; (10) paranoid that RFK was trying to kill him using Lee Harvey Oswald --

-- then I could change my theory and be done with this long, long journey in which I am largely fighting an uphill battle.

Sadly, nobody provides these proofs. They somehow believe they don't have to, because "Everybody Knows" that Walker wasn't important.

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/negative-proof-fallacy/

That's fine, Mark, but that isn't the whole of my position, or even its substance.

Nor have you shed any light on the question.

Again: I'm not trying to prove a negative -- I'm saying that there is plenty of positive evidence about Edwin Walker, but that it's been poorly handled in the past 50 years.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 20, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Actually, Paul...that is the CRUX of your "theory": If nobody can prove he DIDN'T, then the only logical [in YOUR mind] conclusion is that he DID.

Now, if that's NOT your theory in a nutshell...then perhaps you should explain it better. Because in all the pages I've read, when you strip away the extraneous matter, that's your argument. That's your argument to Ernie, regarding Harry Dean documents: that unless he can prove that documents don't exist, then they MUST exist.

And we must prove Walker WASN'T part of the JBS, otherwise it proves he WAS.

[Anyone BESIDES me seeing a pattern here?]

[Paul Trejo]

Actually, Paul...that is the CRUX of your "theory": If nobody can prove he DIDN'T, then the only logical [in YOUR mind] conclusion is that he DID.

Now, if that's NOT your theory in a nutshell...then perhaps you should explain it better. Because in all the pages I've read, when you strip away the extraneous matter, that's your argument. That's your argument to Ernie, regarding Harry Dean documents: that unless he can prove that documents don't exist, then they MUST exist.

And we must prove Walker WASN'T part of the JBS, otherwise it proves he WAS.

[Anyone BESIDES me seeing a pattern here?]

Actually, Mark, that isn't the CRUX of my theory.

I'm basing my portrait of Edwin Walker on far more evidence than the account told by Harry Dean. The Warren Commission materials are extensive on the man -- his name is mentioned more than 500 times in the WC volumes.

More than that, there are the personal papers of Edwin Walker at UT Austin in which he admits his awareness of Lee Harvey Oswald from April 1963 onward.

Also, Mark, you might be unaware of the many historical documents -- by Walker himself and others -- that show him to be a leader in the Dallas JBS.

I don't need anybody to "prove that he wasn't". THAT WAS MERE RHETORIC.

It's an established fact that he was. He never denied it. The JBS never denied it. Robert Welch himself admitted it. So did many others.

So, your skepticism jumps to conclusions.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 20, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Though I believe I may have only interjected ever so briefly into this lengthy thread on only one occasion, and trust me I am not going back to confirm this, I would like to echo Larry's comments regarding the one true positive that at least to my mind has come out of this at times frustrating and acerbic topic/exchanges - Ernie's incredibly detailed information of record searches and results obtained and obtainable from the files of the FBI. Paul, unfortunately the historical trail from November 22, 1963 to the present time is littered with the corpses of true village idiots, beginning on the very day of Kennedy's death with the likes of Howard Leslie Brennan and Helen Markham. And though I may be wrong, it seems to me, by your ever annoying failure to answer the countless questions posed of and to both you and Harry Dean by Ernie Lazar that you are intent on getting to the very head of this same historical trail. And I, too, will not be returning to this thread.

FWIW

Well, you're welcome to do as you please, Gary.

As for Ernie's requests -- first, I can't supply information that I don't have. Also, I don't control Harry Dean.

Secondly, Ernie does supply valuable information from the FBI -- but his personal manners are often insulting, and that's why Harry Dean won't accommodate Ernie.

Thirdly, Ernie's interpretation of the FBI information he receives is one-sided and biased. There is more FBI information to be obtained, but Ernie isn't interested in all of it -- only in those files that support his negative approach to Harry Dean's account.

In fact, there are others who also found Edwin Walker close to the events of the JFK murder. Harry Dean isn't a lone voice in the woods.

If this thread fades away -- that's OK -- it has become enormous. Yet there are other threads on the Forum that also deal with Edwin Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul: I don't understand (and i don't think anybody else does either) why you think my interpretation of FBI information is "one-sided and biased". it would be different if you had some experience with FBI files and you then shared something which YOU have discovered that gives us some alternative explanation. But the only examples we have of you making a different interpretation are when you INVENTED a hoax to describe FBI motives for producing what YOU claimed was a FORGERY -- but which we ultimately determined was GENUINE.

Remember when we first began debating the 11/63 Hoover letter? And I asked you what benefit there could be to the FBI to re-type a letter in ALL CAPS? And I also asked you how Harry was in any way disadvantaged IF we concluded that the 11/63 long version was genuine? Go back and read all YOUR replies. You DID NOT just give us a different interpretation. You FABRICATED in your mind a malicious story about the FBI as an institution which was TOTALLY FALSE (as we subsequently discovered).

Furthermore, we now know that Harry ROUTINELY typed ALL his correspondence in ALL CAPS. Even if Harry had initial doubts about the authenticity of the long version of his 11/63 letter, WHY did he not come forward immediately to acknowledge that his normal practice was to type ALL his outgoing correspondence in CAPS -- including, for example, his letter to the Director of the Joe Pyne Program?

These kinds of issues are NOT differences in interpretation.

With respect to "one-sided" and "biased" -- YOUR contributions here have repeatedly been shown to be both one-sided and biased -- which is what was clearly revealed when we saw the defective logic and mental process YOU used with respect to the 11/63 Hoover letter.

But what really angers me is this comment by you:

"There is more FBI information to be obtained, but Ernie isn't interested in all of it -- only in those files that support his negative approach to Harry Dean's account"

1. First, I am the only person here who has made FOIA requests or purchased everything I can get my hands on with respect to "FBI information" (and CIA files).

2. So for YOU to make such a malicious statement is really galling. You have NEVER made ANY effort to obtain FBI documents.

3. What do you mean by "negative approach"? I do not control what is contained in FBI files or serials. And when I have summarized what is contained in those documents, in almost every instance I have quoted verbatim THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. In other words, I did NOT excerpt anything to make Harry look bad nor did I exclude materially important information which would help Harry's story. The unfortunate FACT (for you and Harry) is that FBI documents DO NOT support YOUR beliefs!

4. Significantly, you accuse ME of YOUR OWN worst qualities. Between us, there is only ONE person who has spent hundreds of dollars obtaining relevant FBI files and there is only ONE person who has made DOZENS of FOIA requests pertaining to Harry.

5. At ANY time you are free to obtain your own copies of these files -- OR -- very shortly you will be able to see all of them online. As I asked you once before---will you THEN have the decency to apologize to me for your malicious and libelous comments about my character, integrity, and honesty? Of course not!

Postscript

With respect to this comment by you:

"There is more FBI information to be obtained, but Ernie isn't interested in all of it...."

I have repeatedly asked you to tell us what "more FBI information" you are referring to?

BE SPECIFIC.

What do I need to see that you think will radically change what we already know from existing accumulated knowledge?

Do you have specific FBI file numbers? If so, tell us what they are.

Has somebody told you about specific documents or files which contain important information about Harry that I do not presently have pending FOIA requests for? If so, then, again, BE SPECIFIC and tell us what those files are!!!

Edited October 21, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, since you addressed me by name I will respond one more time, but in the future I won't be monitoring these threads so if you want to communicate something or ask a question feel free to email me at xxxx@xxxx.net

The points you have listed have been noted and generally discussed in multiple places over the decades, you will find reference to Walker in Jerry Rose's Third and Fourth Decade Journals. His contacts with people such as Hemming and company, with other exiles, the shooting at his house, his politics and his various social network connections have been general knowledge and discussion in the research community since the earliest days. When the ultra right was considered as a conspiracy sponsor, his name routinely came up. Regardless of all that discussion, the majority of folks didn't find connections that they felt proved in anything directly connecting him to the attack in Dallas and focused elsewhere - as Mark noted in a separate post, its not necessary to prove a negative, only a positive so nobody invested a great deal of work in writing up reasons they didn't chase him further - that I recall at least. Just because you have chosen to continue down that path pretty much on your own doesn't mean nobody ever considered it ... I know other individuals who are pursuing non-mainstream leads and have been for ages, that's just their choice.

Early on I actually tried to provide you with some leads - such as Walkers summer visit to Florida - that I thought might be helpful. I don't recall seeing you post any research on that. Instead you continue to rely on sources and "confessions" that many in the research community find pretty questionable. That's your call of course. In any event, I won't be returning so I'll leave your threads to those who choose to go forward with them. Actually I have learned a great deal on the threat but that largely comes from Ernie's posts on FBI records and record searches as well as his research on Harry Dean. Both were helpful but 95 pages is enough....adios, Larry

l

Larry, it's perfectly fine if you're finally bored of this thread. It doesn't matter to me. Nor do you need to respond to this post.

I do appreciate, however, that you invited me to email you privately. That's very generous.

But I do want to set the record straight about the inferior information supplied by Jerry Rose in his Third and Fourth Decade series on the JFK murder.

I'll admit that Jerry Rose gave it his best shot - and he reported what almost nobody else was talking about ten and twenty years ago. My only point is that on the topic of Edwin Walker, he gave us mostly confused ideas.

I've read them all.

Jerry Rose takes a fairly left-wing approach to the Walker scenario, and has little problem regarding Edwin Walker as a Neo-Nazi, a Fascist, and so on. I've made a more complete study of Edwin Walker, and I find him to be a conflicted person, pulled by Southern politics on the one hand, and also refusing to join the ANP, the KKK and other groups when they pulled hard to get him to join. Walker was conflicted. Walker was complicated.

Although Jerry Rose did raise Edwin Walker's name in the context of the ultra-right, Jerry Rose referred to that whole scenario as, NUT COUNTRY. That doesn't elucidate the history, that simply forecloses the history with a negative opinion.

Yes, it's common sense among the left-wing that the John Birch Society was "plain nuts." But that's a political opinion. It doesn't help to understand the politics of 1963 by simply calling people names.

When Jerry Rose refers to the 10 April 1963 shooting at Walker at his home in Dallas -- he is virtually certain in every citation that Edwin Walker deliberately faked his own shooting -- for the express purpose of having an alibi EIGHT MONTHS LATER when JFK would be murdered in Dallas.

That's such a stretch of logic that I'm surprised that people accepted it -- yet I find on the Forum so many people who have accepted this bizarre interpretation of events that I'm surprised.

Given the shallow treatment of Edwin Walker by Jerry Rose, it's no wonder that "the majority of folks didn't find connections that they felt proved in anything directly connecting him to the attack in Dallas and focused elsewhere."

I'm not trying to prove a negative -- I'm saying that there is plenty of positive evidence about Edwin Walker, but that it's been poorly handled in the past 50 years.

Here are some of the errors made by Jerry Rose in his Third Decade series:

1. Suspecting Walker of faking a sniper attack on himself, to blame Lee Oswald for it, because Oswald was working for the FBI to spy on Surrey and Walker -- and to provide an alibi for himself for a planned attack on JFK eight months later.

(Actually, that's one of the most far-flung interpretations of the events that one can imagine. One has to be ultra-biased against the right-wing to make those sorts of leaps of logic.)

2. A continuing focus on William McDuff as a possible suspect in the JFK murder and/or the Walker shooting.

(Actually McDuff was a bisexual live-in gigolo and one of Walker's favorite playmates. Robert Allen Surrey and Julia Knecht, who both had their offices in Walker's home hated seeing McDuff around every day, so they called the DPD and accused him of the Walker shooting, but McDuff passed the lie detector test with ease. This history is easily available,in DPD files, and Jerry Rose just ignored it to try to make wild connections.)

3. Suspecting that Oswald's photographs of Walker's backyard (taken with Oswald's camera) were part of a set of FORGERIES somehow related to Oswald's own Backyard Photographs. No evidence was offered -- just suspicion.

4. Repeating the error that JFK fired Walker from his command in Germany for disseminating John Birch Society materials.

(Actually, JFK wasn't happy about the JBS materials, but he didn't fire Walker. Actually, JFK offered Walker another troop training post in Hawaii, but Walker had already tried to resign once under Eisenhower, and he took this as an opportunity to resign for a second time.)

5. Suspecting Larrie and Robbie Schmidt of shooting at Walker and/or JFK.

(Actually, Robbie Schmidt was an Army veteran but a ne'er do well, and loved his job as Walker's chauffeur. Larrie was struggling to rise up the JBS ladder, and he worked closely with Walker, e.g. to humiliate Adlai Stevenson in October 1963. Again, this history is easily available in DMN and DTH articles, but Jerry Rose just ignored it to make his wild accusations.)

As I say - no wonder people just look at the literature about Edwin Walker and shake their heads. Jerry Rose didn't do his homework one Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. The reason why Walker declined to "join" the KKK or ANP or similar groups was NOT because he was "conflicted" or a "complicated" person.

2. First of all, one does NOT have to actually "join" and pay member dues to an organization to express support for it.

3. There is what is known as "state-of-mind members" -- i.e. persons who for various reasons do not want to be directly associated with controversial groups which have very negative reputations. For example: Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot never "joined" the JBS.

4. The Birch Society probably had 10 times as many "state-of-mind members" as they had actually dues-paying members.

These were folks who

• subscribed to JBS magazines
• read publications on the JBS "recommended literature" list
• circulated JBS literature
• used information from JBS publications when they submitted letters-to-the-editor to their local newspapers and magazines -- and defended the JBS as a patriotic anti-communist organization
• helped disseminate publications which the JBS recommended such as John Stormer's 1964 book, None Dare Call It Treason (over 6 million copies were distributed) and Phyllis Schlafly's books
• believed and presented JBS arguments in their local communities (at their local libraries, PTA meetings, city council meetings, etc), and
• attended JBS public events and purchased JBS literature at those events or at JBS bookstores
• voted for political candidates which received favorable comments in JBS publications

​Ditto for the Communist Party.

5. One must remember that Walker had political ambitions. He certainly was bright enough to know that his direct association as a member of the KKK and ANP would have DOOMED his political prospects from day one.

Walker also knew that if he joined such organizations he would be monitored by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. [incidentally, he refused to condemn the KKK -- which tells you a LOT about his real values and beliefs.]

Edited October 21, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Trejo has stated that he views Walker as an American hero who went bad. This is the context in which to view his statement that Walker was complicated. Btw in Trejo's view Alan Dulles and his brother and J Edgar Hoover were also American heroes whose participation in the coverup after the assassination was for the good of the country. Paul, if I have misstated your nuanced position please correct me.

Trejo - in my opinion Mr. Knight is correct when he points out the logical flaw in your basic argument. That is not to say that you haven't done more research on Walker than say Jerry Rose. It does say that you have no direct proof of many of your claims yet persist in asking others to disprove what you cannot prove. As you say, it is only a theory.

Lastly, in regards to Harry Dean, his feelings about Ernie Lazar are not material to whether he can present something to us here or in his book that proves his claim. He cannot, and the FBI has not come up with anything either. I for one doubt that the problem is how Ernie asks the FBI, or what he asks for. Ernie might disagree when I say that he might not be getting the whole story. But that isn't really the point.

[Ernie Lazar]

Trejo has stated that he views Walker as an American hero who went bad. This is the context in which to view his statement that Walker was complicated. Btw in Trejo's view Alan Dulles and his brother and J Edgar Hoover were also American heroes whose participation in the coverup after the assassination was for the good of the country. Paul, if I have misstated your nuanced position please correct me.

Trejo - in my opinion Mr. Knight is correct when he points out the logical flaw in your basic argument. That is not to say that you haven't done more research on Walker than say Jerry Rose. It does say that you have no direct proof of many of your claims yet persist in asking others to disprove what you cannot prove. As you say, it is only a theory.

Lastly, in regards to Harry Dean, his feelings about Ernie Lazar are not material to whether he can present something to us here or in his book that proves his claim. He cannot, and the FBI has not come up with anything either. I for one doubt that the problem is how Ernie asks the FBI, or what he asks for. Ernie might disagree when I say that he might not be getting the whole story. But that isn't really the point.

Paul B.: I have absolutely NO problem with someone who proposes that I (or anybody else who makes FOIA requests) "might not be getting the whole story" about any subject matter. I can give you MANY examples of how the FBI hides significant information -- and I think I mentioned some of those pertaining to Sen. Joseph McCarthy which Dr. Theoharis discovered from his research.

My position is that the FBI cannot perpetually hide THE EXISTENCE of its files -- regardless of how they attempt to prevent disclosure by redaction or citing FOIA exemptions.

Lastly, my position is (contrary to what Trejo believes), there Is NOTHING which Harry claims he told the FBI which the FBI would currently forbid to be released. And, as I have pointed out, Harry's FBI HQ file and his Los Angeles field file ALREADY contain documents pertaining to JFK's murder i.e. documents which were originally filed in the FBI's JFK assassination file which contains THOUSANDS of serials. And, lastly, that OTHER people who (like Harry) made all sorts of assertions regarding "plots" to murder JFK by radical rightists -- have had THEIR files released or documents summarizing their assertions are ALREADY available on websites like Mary Ferrell and other sites.

And, by the way, the most sensitive "top secret" information which our government ever created (concerning topics such as our "war plans", our penetration of the Communist Party and our most important moles inside the Party who met with Soviet and Chinese Communist leaders, and many other extremely sensitive documents and files -- HAVE been released.

So why would the FBI care about speculations and gossip and "inscrutable" information from somebody they told in 1961 that they were not interested in?

Edited October 21, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Trejo has stated that he views Walker as an American hero who went bad. This is the context in which to view his statement that Walker was complicated. Btw in Trejo's view Alan Dulles and his brother and J Edgar Hoover were also American heroes whose participation in the coverup after the assassination was for the good of the country. Paul, if I have misstated your nuanced position please correct me.

Trejo - in my opinion Mr. Knight is correct when he points out the logical flaw in your basic argument. That is not to say that you haven't done more research on Walker than say Jerry Rose. It does say that you have no direct proof of many of your claims yet persist in asking others to disprove what you cannot prove. As you say, it is only a theory.

Lastly, in regards to Harry Dean, his feelings about Ernie Lazar are not material to whether he can present something to us here or in his book that proves his claim. He cannot, and the FBI has not come up with anything either. I for one doubt that the problem is how Ernie asks the FBI, or what he asks for. Ernie might disagree when I say that he might not be getting the whole story. But that isn't really the point.

Well, Paul B., you have correctly stated an important part of my nuanced position.

As for proof -- well, Paul B., if I had PROOF, then I wouldn't have a THEORY at all -- I'd have True and Unquestionable History. My long-term goal -- which I do not possess today with regard to the JFK murder -- is to attain True and Unquestionable History.

In my defense I can say with absolute certainty that no other JFK researcher has been able to attain True and Unquestionable History with regard to the JFK murder. I don't think this makes our theories equal -- I believe I have more solid evidence on my side, and fewer guesses and less bias.

It doesn't phase me at all if somebody refers to my theory as a theory -- the only thing that phases me is that these same people might refuse to admit that their OWN theory is a theory.

I have plenty of facts about Walker on my side.

Finally, Paul B., I disagree with your insensitive attitude toward Harry Dean, which doesn't care if he is insulted publicly, harshly, year after year -- and to expect Harry to somehow cooperate with those who continue to mistreat him in such a blatant display of biased, one-sided and immovable prejudice.

It is simply incorrect to say that the FBI records have all been examined now, and that we can now draw conclusions about the account of the JFK murder that Harry Dean publicly told America starting in 1965. We have not seen all the FBI records on the JFK murder, and that is the only criterion I'll accept before I draw any final conclusions about Harry Dean's account.

Try to remember, Paul B., that Sylvia Odio's testimony also presented evidence of accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald (probably also Loran Hall and Larry Howard, according to Gaeton Fonzi), and the FBI also declared her to be a "mental case."

When the top-secret FBI records on JFK are finally made public, I predict that America will learn that Sylvia Odio -- and Harry Dean -- were telling the truth. I conclude by adding that Jack Ruby also named Edwin Walker and the JBS as leaders in the JFK murder. Harry Dean is not alone in his account -- despite Ernie Lazar's false charges.

The main point is that all of the FBI records have not been seen, therefore, all of Ernie Lazar's conclusions are hasty, ungrounded, biased and unfair. Add that fact to Ernie's hostile attitude, and no sensitive person should blame Harry Dean for refusing to cooperate with that sort of badgering.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited October 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Trejo has stated that he views Walker as an American hero who went bad. This is the context in which to view his statement that Walker was complicated. Btw in Trejo's view Alan Dulles and his brother and J Edgar Hoover were also American heroes whose participation in the coverup after the assassination was for the good of the country. Paul, if I have misstated your nuanced position please correct me.

Trejo - in my opinion Mr. Knight is correct when he points out the logical flaw in your basic argument. That is not to say that you haven't done more research on Walker than say Jerry Rose. It does say that you have no direct proof of many of your claims yet persist in asking others to disprove what you cannot prove. As you say, it is only a theory.

Lastly, in regards to Harry Dean, his feelings about Ernie Lazar are not material to whether he can present something to us here or in his book that proves his claim. He cannot, and the FBI has not come up with anything either. I for one doubt that the problem is how Ernie asks the FBI, or what he asks for. Ernie might disagree when I say that he might not be getting the whole story. But that isn't really the point.

Well, Paul B., you have correctly stated an important part of my nuanced position.

As for proof -- well, Paul B., if I had PROOF, then I wouldn't have a THEORY at all -- I'd have True and Unquestionable History.

My long-term goal -- which I do not possess today with regard to the JFK murder -- is to attain True and Unquestionable History.

In my defense I can say with absolute certainty that no other JFK researcher has been able to attain True and Unquestionable History with regard to the JFK murder. I don't think this makes our theories equal -- I believe I have more solid evidence on my side, and fewer guesses and less bias.

It doesn't phase me at all if somebody refers to my theory as a theory -- the only thing that phases me is that these same people might refuse to admit that their OWN theory is a theory.

I have plenty of facts about Walker on my side.

Finally, Paul B., I disagree with your insensitive attitude toward Harry Dean, which doesn't care if he is insulted publicly, harshly, year after year -- and to expect Harry to somehow cooperate with those who continue to mistreat him in such a blatant display of biased, one-sided and immovable prejudice.

It is simply incorrect to say that the FBI records have all be examined now, and that we can now draw conclusions about the account that Harry Dean publicly told America about the JFK murder since 1965. We have not seen all the FBI records on the JFK murder, and that is the ONLY criterion I will accept before I draw any final conclusions about Harry Dean's account.

Try to remember, Paul B., that Sylvia Odio's testimony also presented evidence of accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald (probably also Loran Hall and Larry Howard, according to Gaeton Fonzi), and yet the FBI declared her to be a "mental case."

When the top-secret FBI records on JFK are finally made public, I predict that America will learn that Sylvia Odio -- and Harry Dean -- were telling the truth. I conclude by adding that Jack Ruby also named Edwin Walker and the JBS as leaders in the JFK murder. Harry Dean is not alone in his account -- despite Ernie Lazar's false charges.

The main point is that all of the FBI records have not been seen, therefore, all of Ernie Lazar's conclusions are hasty, ungrounded, biased and unfair. Add that fact to his hostile attitude, and no sensitive person will blame Harry Dean for refusing to cooperate with that sort of badgering.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My only comment Paul concerns your last paragraph. You have never once explained why you think that there exist any OTHER FBI records pertaining to Harry Dean OTHER THAN those we know about because of lawsuits (by Mark Allen) and FOIA requests which have produced the FBI's contemporaneous search slips (from the 1960's) that list EVERYTHING they created re: Harry.

IF (for example) you could show us that the FBI did NOT list pertinent files or serials on contemporaneous search slips pertaining to OTHER subjects -- THEN, at least, we would have a FACTUAL basis for entertaining your "theory" about "more" records.

But no serious scholar or researcher has ever discovered that the FBI deliberately excluded any sort of JFK-related files from its INTERNAL search slips or correlation summaries which were designed so that FBI employees would have a quick-reference to EVERYTHING in their files.

If you could present us with some plausible reason for why the FBI would want to HIDE FROM ITSELF the existence of files or serials - we could then discuss your hypothesis. Suppose, for example, that the FBI wanted to know the criminal history of some person but it deliberately EXCLUDED from its records the data it received from other law enforcement agencies concerning that criminal history. WHY would they want to do that?

We are back into the territory which I mentioned in a previous message when I discussed your false analysis and interpretation of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover. You maintained that the FBI would RE-TYPE a letter they received from somebody in sentence case (but re-type it in all CAPS) and then PRETEND that the all CAPS version was the ORIGINAL copy.

You then produced a convoluted psychological analysis to explain WHY the FBI would want to FORGE such a document to make somebody look bad --- even though we were only referring to documents contained in FBI files not available to the public.

NOTHING you wrote made ANY logical sense because there was NOTHING disadvantageous to Harry in the "ALL CAPS" version of his 11/63 letter to Hoover and nothing in it which would benefit the FBI by FORGING such a document -- especially since the FBI could never know how many copies of the ORIGINAL were in circulation which would easily discredit their supposed forgery.

But THAT is how your intellect operated and how you attempted to defend Harry and convict the FBI.

And NOW you want us to believe that the FBI is (YET AGAIN) hiding relevant information when you have absolutely NO reason to believe that they have forged or doctored their own internal documents (such as their search slips) to make it impossible for FBI employees to know what FBI files existed pertaining to Harry. It makes NO sense -- BUT you want us to accept your IRRATIONAL premise and conclusion!

Edited October 21, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

HARRY'S FBI HQ MAIN FILE (62-109068)

For interested parties, I now have updated my Harry Dean webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/xrt013/harrydean to include a summary of every serial in Harry's HQ main file.

When I receive Rousselot's file from NARA (probably this week) that contains serials pertaining to Harry I will update my webpage again.

[Paul Trejo]

My only comment Paul concerns your last paragraph. You have never once explained why you think that there exist any OTHER FBI records pertaining to Harry Dean OTHER THAN those we know about because of lawsuits (by Mark Allen) and FOIA requests which have produced the FBI's contemporaneous search slips (from the 1960's) that list EVERYTHING they created re: Harry.

IF (for example) you could show us that the FBI did NOT list pertinent files or serials on contemporaneous search slips pertaining to OTHER subjects -- THEN, at least, we would have a FACTUAL basis for entertaining your "theory" about "more" records.

But no serious scholar or researcher has ever discovered that the FBI deliberately excluded any sort of JFK-related files from its INTERNAL search slips or correlation summaries which were designed so that FBI employees would have a quick-reference to EVERYTHING in their files.

If you could present us with some plausible reason for why the FBI would want to HIDE FROM ITSELF the existence of files or serials - we could then discuss your hypothesis. Suppose, for example, that the FBI wanted to know the criminal history of some person but it deliberately EXCLUDED from its records the data it received from other law enforcement agencies concerning that criminal history. WHY would they want to do that?

We are back into the territory which I mentioned in a previous message when I discussed your false analysis and interpretation of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover. You maintained that the FBI would RE-TYPE a letter they received from somebody in sentence case (but re-type it in all CAPS) and then PRETEND that the all CAPS version was the ORIGINAL copy.

You then produced a convoluted psychological analysis to explain WHY the FBI would want to FORGE such a document to make somebody look bad --- even though we were only referring to documents contained in FBI files not available to the public.

NOTHING you wrote made ANY logical sense because there was NOTHING disadvantageous to Harry in the "ALL CAPS" version of his 11/63 letter to Hoover and nothing in it which would benefit the FBI by FORGING such a document -- especially since the FBI could never know how many copies of the ORIGINAL were in circulation which would easily discredit their supposed forgery.

But THAT is how your intellect operated and how you attempted to defend Harry and convict the FBI.

And NOW you want us to believe that the FBI is (YET AGAIN) hiding relevant information when you have absolutely NO reason to believe that they have forged or doctored their own internal documents (such as their search slips) to make it impossible for FBI employees to know what FBI files existed pertaining to Harry. It makes NO sense -- BUT you want us to accept your IRRATIONAL premise and conclusion!

Well, Ernie, your continuing insults are true to form.

My contention (yet again) is that the FBI has never revealed all of its top secret files on the JFK murder, and furthermore, it has not revealed how many there are, nor what their file numbers are, nor what their topics contain, nor what their topics exclude.

I believe that every reasonable person accepts my view of FBI secrecy on the JFK murder.

You say I'm guessing in the dark about FBI secret files about the JFK murder, and I say you're guessing in the dark. The main difference between us is that you're very insulting about it.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

My only comment Paul concerns your last paragraph. You have never once explained why you think that there exist any OTHER FBI records pertaining to Harry Dean OTHER THAN those we know about because of lawsuits (by Mark Allen) and FOIA requests which have produced the FBI's contemporaneous search slips (from the 1960's) that list EVERYTHING they created re: Harry.

IF (for example) you could show us that the FBI did NOT list pertinent files or serials on contemporaneous search slips pertaining to OTHER subjects -- THEN, at least, we would have a FACTUAL basis for entertaining your "theory" about "more" records.

But no serious scholar or researcher has ever discovered that the FBI deliberately excluded any sort of JFK-related files from its INTERNAL search slips or correlation summaries which were designed so that FBI employees would have a quick-reference to EVERYTHING in their files.

If you could present us with some plausible reason for why the FBI would want to HIDE FROM ITSELF the existence of files or serials - we could then discuss your hypothesis. Suppose, for example, that the FBI wanted to know the criminal history of some person but it deliberately EXCLUDED from its records the data it received from other law enforcement agencies concerning that criminal history. WHY would they want to do that?

We are back into the territory which I mentioned in a previous message when I discussed your false analysis and interpretation of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover. You maintained that the FBI would RE-TYPE a letter they received from somebody in sentence case (but re-type it in all CAPS) and then PRETEND that the all CAPS version was the ORIGINAL copy.

You then produced a convoluted psychological analysis to explain WHY the FBI would want to FORGE such a document to make somebody look bad --- even though we were only referring to documents contained in FBI files not available to the public.

NOTHING you wrote made ANY logical sense because there was NOTHING disadvantageous to Harry in the "ALL CAPS" version of his 11/63 letter to Hoover and nothing in it which would benefit the FBI by FORGING such a document -- especially since the FBI could never know how many copies of the ORIGINAL were in circulation which would easily discredit their supposed forgery.

But THAT is how your intellect operated and how you attempted to defend Harry and convict the FBI.

And NOW you want us to believe that the FBI is (YET AGAIN) hiding relevant information when you have absolutely NO reason to believe that they have forged or doctored their own internal documents (such as their search slips) to make it impossible for FBI employees to know what FBI files existed pertaining to Harry. It makes NO sense -- BUT you want us to accept your IRRATIONAL premise and conclusion!

Well, Ernie, your continuing insults are true to form.

My contention (yet again) is that the FBI has never revealed all of its top secret files on the JFK murder, and furthermore, it has not revealed how many there are, nor what their file numbers are, nor what their topics contain, nor what their topics exclude.

I believe that every reasonable person accepts my view of FBI secrecy on the JFK murder.

You say I'm guessing in the dark about FBI secret files about the JFK murder, and I say you're guessing in the dark. The main difference between us is that you're very insulting about it.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

OK, Paul, let's try this from another perspective.

What is your BEST CASE SCENARIO for your hypothesis? Would it be something like this?

1. Sometime in the summer of 1963 (if we believe Harry's original story as told in your eBook), the FBI-Los Angeles office created one or more serials which report that Harry told Wesley Grapp about various persons who were JBS members and they were planning the murder of JFK.

2. HOWEVER, when FBI-Los Angeles created those serials in the summer of 1963, it consciously decided to NOT follow its normal procedure which would be to channel copies into their already existing main file pertaining to Harry (i.e. Los Angeles 105-12933) AND they also consciously decided to NOT file copies of those serials into the main files of the persons Harry mentioned (such as Walker, Rousselot, Galbadon, etc.) who also already had existing main files.

3. In addition, for some reason (which you need to explain), FBI-Los Angeles also decided to adopt a policy which forbid its records-keeping personnel from indexing those serials into their filing system so that when anybody at Los Angeles field and/or HQ or from another field office made a request to the Los Angeles office to search its records on Harry Dean, NOTHING regarding those serials would appear on "search slips" used by Los Angeles name check personnel.

4. NOW, at this time (summer of 1963), there was no main file created yet on the assassination of JFK -- so WHERE did Los Angeles file those serials pertaining to Harry's reports about a "JBS plot" to murder JFK?

• They did not file them in the JBS file (HQ or Los Angeles).
• They did not file them in Harry's main files (HQ or Los Angeles).
• They did not file them in the files of the persons whom Harry identified as being part of the "JBS plot".

So WHERE did they file them?

5. FURTHERMORE, the type of information which you and Harry claim was given to Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963 was NOT the type of information which would be put into a separate or "secret" main file. Which is why we know about other files that discuss comparable subject matter-- i.e. various "plots" to kill JFK. So the next question you need to answer is WHY would FBI-Los Angeles think that Harry's information was so unique that it had to be hidden and all normal protocols violated?

6. Lastly -- correct me if I am wrong --- but AFTER Harry gave his "JBS plot" information to Wesley Grapp (or whomever) -- the FBI-Los Angeles office DID NOT send Agents out to Harry's home to interview him to get more details about that plot --- isn't that correct?

THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS "SMALL" PROBLEM >>>>>>>>>>>>>

7. AFTER Harry sent his 11/19/63 letter to Hoover, FBI-Los Angeles was instructed by HQ to send "mature" Agents to interview Harry and they did so on 12/10/63. Remember ---JFK had just been murdered 18 days previously and Harry thought he knew who were the likely persons involved!!!

It was during THAT interview that Harry gave those two Agents (Cromwell and McCauley) copies of correspondence between himself and Juan Orta and copies of various documents showing his connection to FPCC and J26M.

HOWEVER---Harry did not mention ONE WORD to those Agents about the JBS, or about the "JBS plot", or about any of the people connected to that "plot". Why is that?? Please explain!!!

Edited October 21, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

OK, Paul, let's try this from another perspective.

What is your BEST CASE SCENARIO for your hypothesis? Would it be something like this?

1. Sometime in the summer of 1963 (if we believe Harry's original story as told in your eBook), the FBI-Los Angeles office created one or more serials which report that Harry told Wesley Grapp about various persons who were JBS members and they were planning the murder of JFK.

2. HOWEVER, when FBI-Los Angeles created those serials in the summer of 1963, it consciously decided to NOT follow its normal procedure which would be to channel copies into their already existing main file pertaining to Harry (i.e. Los Angeles 105-12933) AND they also consciously decided to NOT file copies of those serials into the main files of the persons (such as Walker, Rousselot, Galbadon, etc.) who also already had existing main files.

3. In addition, for some reason (which you need to explain), FBI-Los Angeles also decided to adopt a policy which forbid its records-keeping personnel from indexing those serials into their filing system so that when anybody at Los Angeles field and/or HQ or another field office made a request to the Los Angeles office to search its records on Harry Dean, NOTHING would appear on "search slips" used by Los Angeles name check personnel.

4. NOW, at this time (summer of 1963), there was no main file created yet on the assassination of JFK -- so WHERE did Los Angeles file those serials pertaining to Harry's reports about a "JBS plot" to murder JFK?

• They did not file them in the JBS file (HQ or Los Angeles).
• They did not file them in Harry's main files (HQ or Los Angeles).
• They did not file them in the files of the persons whom Harry identified as being part of the "JBS plot".

So WHERE did they file them?

5. FURTHERMORE, the type of information which you and Harry claim was given to Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963 was NOT the type of information which would be put into a separate or "secret" main file. Which is why we know about other files that discuss comparable subject matter-- i.e. various "plots" to kill JFK. So the next question you need to answer is WHY would FBI-Los Angeles think that Harry's information was so unique that it had to be hidden and all normal protocols violated?

6. Lastly -- correct me if I am wrong --- but AFTER Harry gave his "JBS plot" information to Wesley Grapp (or whomever) -- the FBI-Los Angeles office DID NOT send Agents out to Harry's home to interview him to get more details about that plot --- isn't that correct?

THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS "SMALL" PROBLEM >>>>>>>>>>>>>

7. AFTER Harry sent his 11/19/63 letter to Hoover, FBI-Los Angeles was instructed by HQ to send "mature" Agents to interview Harry and they did so on 12/10/63.

It was during THAT interview that Harry gave those two Agents (Cromwell and McCauley) copies of correspondence between him and Juan Orta and copies of various documents showing his connection to FPCC and J26M.

HOWEVER---Harry did not mention ONE WORD about the JBS, about the "JBS plot", or about any of the people connected to that "plot". Why is that?? Please explain!!!

OK, Ernie, let's try it by the numbers:

1. It is not guaranteed that the FBI recorded or kept Harry's original story about Walker, Rousselot and the JBS in September 1963. I offer as evidence the fact that when Lee Harvey Oswald made reports to the FBI, sometimes those notes were simply destroyed (e.g. by Hosty, but also by others). This is common knowledge among the JFK researchers.

Why would the FBI break protocol in that way? We only need to ask two former FBI Agents, namely Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen, who will tell us that FBI protocols were frequently broken in the interest of expedience. The rules were not so rigidly obeyed, as you seem to believe, Ernie.

One plausible scenario for the absence of Harry's story in current FBI files is that the FBI Agent who heard the story, just assumed that Harry was a "mental case" and threw the notes away (just as James Hosty threw away the note he received from Lee Harvey Oswald only weeks before the JFK murder).

2. However, if the records of Harry's story really were kept, then another plausible scenario is that AFTER the JFK murder and J. Edgar Hoover's mandate that any evidence of ACCOMPLICES of Lee Harvey Oswald must be squashed as soon as possible -- that the record of Harry's volunteer information about the JBS was moved to a special, secret folder of JFK murder files, AND ALL TRACES OF THAT DATA MOVEMENT WERE DESTROYED.

Again, I cite Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen, both of whom attest that the FBI would manipulate and suppress data related to the JFK murder -- including their own formally filed FBI reports.

3. Again -- because of the top secret nature of FBI files pertaining to the JFK murder, it is plausible to propose that the FBI violated its own policy and either DESTROYED the indexes to those files, or MODIFIED the indexes to those files. This would be reasonable, given the Top Secret nature of all FBI files dealing with the JFK murder that have been classified for the past fifty years. NOTHING must appear on "search slips" to give away ANYTHING about the Top Secret files -- not their quantity, their ID numbers or their contents.

If this is correct, this would expalin why even the most careful FBI researcher today cannot claim to know the quantity or file numbers of ALL of the FBI Secret Files on the JFK murder.

4. As for the summer of 1963, I have already proposed two scenarios: (i) that the FBI Agents who heard Harry's story simply destroyed those notes, thinking Harry was a "mental case" (as we have heard FBI Agents doing in the past); and (ii) that the files kept about Harry Dean were RECLASSIFIED at a point AFTER the JFK murder, and all INDEXES and records of their existence either destroyed or well-hidden. That would include HQ or LAX files about Harry Dean, the JBS or related personnel.

Of course nobody can have proof for or against this hypothesis at this point -- but at the end of 2017, we expect to have a full disclosure from the FBI.

5. Again, Ernie, even if the JBS information about JFK that Harry gave to the FBI in the summer of 1963 was seemingly trivial at the time, it was clearly AFTER the JFK murder that the significance of Harry's story would sting like a bee -- that is, Harry Dean (like Sylvia Odio) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had KNOWN ACCOMPLICES. Therefore, AFTER the JFK murder (which was clearly a major exception to FBI protocol) the account of Harry Dean would be far more sensitive, and would then be RECLASSIFIED among the JFK murder files, which remain Top Secret to this very day.

Of course nobody can have proof for or against this hypothesis at this point -- but at the end of 2017, we expect to have a full disclosure from the FBI.

6. I have no idea what the FBI did or didn't do after Harry Dean gave his JBS plot information to Wesley Grapp (or whomever), and furthermore, any FBI records on the matter would have likely been REMOVED FROM MAIN BUREAU FILES because of their relevance to the JFK murder.

I think my explanation is very easy to understand, and quite plausible.

7. Again -- when FBI Agents interviewed Harry Dean on 12/10/1963, there is a possibility that Harry Dean told them everything on his mind -- including JBS information -- but AFTER the JFK murder and Hoover's mandate to hide all data regarding accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald, it is plausible that this SENSITIVE information was SEPARATED from those files we possess today, and all INDEXES changed, and all traces of the DATA MOVE were either destroyed or well-hidden.

Again, I think my explanation is very easy to understand, and quite plausible.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo