Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, you are such a PEST!

Actually, I enjoy a congenial correspondence with Wes Swearingen, and I don't choose to compromise it with your nonsense.

You're worse than a two-year old!

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, I sent your message #834 to Swearingen and here was his reply:

Ernie,

I don't know how I can make it any clearer. In my opinion both Dean and Milteer are wishing they had a true story. I don't believe their stories, but that does not mean they don't know something. It means to me they don't know who actually killed JFK because they have no evidence that would hold up in a court of law...

Sincerely, M. Wesley Swearingen

So, we have a choice. We can believe what Paul tells us Swearingen believes OR we can believe what Swearingen tells us he believes.

[Ernie Lazar]

With respect to Harry Dean (and Paul Trejo), I copy below Mr. Swearingen's reply. As I have previously stated, nobody should EVER rely upon Paul Trejo for accurate information nor should anybody accept his tortured logic about what other people believe.

Ernie,

The fact that Dean has the names of two former agents in Chicago does not make Dean an informant. Maybe, in Dean's mind he was an informant, but not in the mind of the FBI. Just because someone gives information to the FBI, it does not make them an informant. Maybe a source, but not an informant. The FBI has very strict rules on informants and Dean does not appear to have met these rules.

Dean claims to have met with Wesley Grapp, SAC of the Los Angeles FBI office. Grapp did not become SAC until 1964. Agents are never assigned to an office and then made SAC. They are made SAC directly from the Training and Inspection Division in Washington, D.C.

Grapp would not have driven around in a car with Dean when Grapp was SAC. Grapp was not in Los Angeles before he became SAC of LA. Now that Grapp is deceased, Dean can claim anything, but he needs to get his facts straight.

The description of Dean by William McCauley as a "mental case" is proof to me that Dean was not an FBI informant. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It sounds as though Dean met McCauley, but is claiming to have met with Grapp, just to give his claims a little more class.

Dean may have illusions that he knew some group, whatever name he wants to pick, as wanting to kill JFK. If he knew some group that was thinking of killing JFK, that does not mean that the group he had in mind actually did kill JFK. In my opinion, Dean is just blowing smoke rings at Paul Trejo and Trelo is grasping into thin air.

I hope this answers your question about Dean and what I think of his theory and alleged information on the killing of JFK.

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

Edited March 11, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

As readers will recall, I have previously made the point that there are numerous different ways to analyze a story to determine if its internal construction presents a credible narrative OR whether the story appears to be fictional.

Many dozens of messages ago I pointed out that Wesley Grapp did not become SAC of Los Angeles field office until 1964 (as Swearingen confirmed in his message which I copied above).

And Swearingen adds one new fact which I did not have (but suspected) because I am waiting for Grapp's personnel file to be processed, i.e. Grapp was NOT in Los Angeles prior to being appointed SAC.

These are the types of factual issues which Paul could have easily determined IF Paul was a competent researcher -- which he is NOT. Instead, Paul is an advocate for ONE particular theory and ONE particular person's fictional story and he does not let mere facts get in the way of the narrative he wants to create.

So, where does this leave us?

1. Harry Dean states in the eBook that:

"Not long after we arrived in Los Angeles, Wesley Grapp of the local FBI contacted me out of the blue."

2. Harry arrived in Los Angeles circa the first week of July 1961. But Wesley Grapp was not in Los Angeles until March 1964.

3. In the eBook section captioned: "September 1963 with Gabby, Hall and Howard", Harry says:

"One day, FBI Agent Wesley Grapp came by for a visit."

4. But Wesley Grapp was not in Los Angeles until March 1964.

5. In the eBook section captioned "Fresh Reports for the FBI", Harry says:

"In the first days of October, Los Angeles FBI Special Agent in Charge, Wesley Grapp, drove out to my place in Rowland Heights where I told him all about the Rousselot-Walker plan."

5. But Wesley Grapp was not in Los Angeles until March 1964.

6. What logical conclusion should we draw?

Edited March 11, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, the trouble with your messages from Wes Swearingen is that you yourself are in the loop.

Who knows what one-sided, biased nonsense you're telling Wes Swearingen? We can only guess.

Yet if the opinon of former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen is regarded as important in this thread, then let me share what he wrote to me:

Dear Mr. Trejo,

... As to Deans knowledge of a plot to kill JFK, that is possible. I know the CIA was working on a plan. I have no idea who the CIA may have tried to recruit. I do know that they recruited the Chicago Mob and that Chicago Mob figures were at Dealey Plaza. All those whom I was told were involved have been murdered, Mafia style.

The FBI could be hiding info from the LA files. I don't know.

Dean could be right, but the fact that he is still alive is an indication to me that his group was not chosen as the final hit squad...

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

So, dear readers, let's parse what the intelligent and courageous Wes Swearingen wrote with his own hand:

(1) "As to Deans knowledge of a plot to kill JFK, that is possible."

This means that Wes Swearingen, although he is disinclined to accept Harry Dean's account as the whole story of the JFK murder, is nevertheless open-minded and honest enough to keep the door open. This is unlike Ernie Lazar, who wishes to slam the door shut on Harry Dean (and on yours truly).

(2) "I know the CIA was working on a plan. I have no idea who the CIA may have tried to recruit."

This means that Wes Swearingen can even conceive of a scenario within his own theory in which Harry Dean can be right -- namely, that the CIA could have recruited some people from the extreme right-wing in Southern California (including the personnel whom Harry Dean names).

So, Wes Swearingen is an open-minded gentleman -- the very opposite of Ernie Lazar.

(3) "I do know that they recruited the Chicago Mob and that Chicago Mob figures were at Dealey Plaza. All those whom I was told were involved have been murdered, Mafia style."

This means that in the theory of Wes Swearingen, the CIA put most of its hope for the JFK murder in the hands of the Mafia. Wes Swearingen was told by a reliable informant that the CIA and the Mafia were planning to murder JFK in Dallas, and this informant named names. Then, all the people who were named by that informant were all "bumped off" after the JFK murder. Wes Swearingen, therefore, remains certain that his theory is the correct one.

Nevertheless, Wes Swearingen is not so closed-minded as to believe that there were no other players involved at all -- though at a lower level. Nor does Wes Swearingen find it urgent (in his theory) to identity the ground-crew or the local players in Dallas.

In my theory, the value of Harry Dean's memoir is that it points directly to the ground crew in Dallas, led by resigned Major General Edwin Walker.

(4) "The FBI could be hiding info from the LA files. I don't know."

This means, for our purposes, that there could be, according to Wes Swearingen, SECRET FILES that the FBI still retains. Wes Swearingen is open-minded enough to admit that possibility. Notice the sharp contrast with Ernie Lazar.

(5) "Dean could be right, but the fact that he is still alive is an indication to me that his group was not chosen as the final hit squad."

This means that Wes Swearingen is convinced that since Harry Dean was not "bumped off" that the ground-crew that Harry witnessed with regard to the JFK murder was too far removed from the action to be any bother to the CIA-Mafia who were the principal engineers of the JFK murder.

This could stand to reason -- and it could have been conclusive -- if only Wes Swearingen had also identified the Dallas ground-crew. Since this is still an open question, it still leaves room for doubt about the completeness of Wes Swearingen's theory.

So, we see, contrary to the nonsense that Ernie Lazar spreads with his exaggerations and bias, former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen actually leaves the door open (if only a little bit) for the memoirs of Harry Dean.

This is fortunate, I believe, since Wes Swearingen still neglects a full account of the story of Silvia Odio in his theory -- it is not very important to his theory -- in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald himself remains a secondary detail in Wes Swearingen's theory.

So -- even if Wes Swearingen turns out to be 90% correct in his theory, the testimony of Silvia Odio (as supported by the memoirs of Harry Dean) could be ready to support the remaining 10%. That's the least-case scenario as I read it.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, the trouble with your messages from Wes Swearingen is that you yourself are in the loop.

Who knows what one-sided, biased nonsense you're telling Wes Swearingen? We can only guess.

Yet if the opinon of former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen is regarded as important in this thread, then let me share what he wrote to me:

Dear Mr. Trejo,

... As to Deans knowledge of a plot to kill JFK, that is possible. I know the CIA was working on a plan. I have no idea who the CIA may have tried to recruit. I do know that they recruited the Chicago Mob and that Chicago Mob figures were at Dealey Plaza. All those whom I was told were involved have been murdered, Mafia style.

The FBI could be hiding info from the LA files. I don't know.

Dean could be right, but the fact that he is still alive is an indication to me that his group was not chosen as the final hit squad...

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

So, dear readers, let's parse what the intelligent and courageous Wes Swearingen wrote with his own hand:

(1) "As to Deans knowledge of a plot to kill JFK, that is possible."

This means that Wes Swearingen, although he is disinclined to accept Harry Dean's account as the whole story of the JFK murder, is nevertheless open-minded and honest enough to keep the door open. This is unlike Ernie Lazar, who wishes to slam the door shut on Harry Dean (and on yours truly).

(2) "I know the CIA was working on a plan. I have no idea who the CIA may have tried to recruit."

This means that Wes Swearingen can even conceive of a scenario within his own theory in which Harry Dean can be right -- namely, that the CIA could have recruited some people from the extreme right-wing in Southern California (including the personnel whom Harry Dean names).

So, Wes Swearingen is an open-minded gentleman -- the very opposite of Ernie Lazar.

(3) "I do know that they recruited the Chicago Mob and that Chicago Mob figures were at Dealey Plaza. All those whom I was told were involved have been murdered, Mafia style."

This means that in the theory of Wes Swearingen, the CIA put most of its hope for the JFK murder in the hands of the Mafia. Wes Swearingen was told by a reliable informant that the CIA and the Mafia were planning to murder JFK in Dallas, and this informant named names. Then, all the people who were named by that informant were all "bumped off" after the JFK murder. Wes Swearingen, therefore, remains certain that his theory is the correct one.

Nevertheless, Wes Swearingen is not so closed-minded as to believe that there were no other players involved at all -- though at a lower level. Nor does Wes Swearingen find it urgent (in his theory) to identity the ground-crew or the local players in Dallas.

In my theory, the value of Harry Dean's memoirs is that it points directly to the ground crew in Dallas, led by resigned Major General Edwin Walker.

(4) "The FBI could be hiding info from the LA files. I don't know."

This means, for our purposes, that there could be, according to Wes Swearingen, SECRET FILES that the FBI still retains. Wes Swearingen is open-minded enough to admit that possibility. Notice the sharp contrast with Ernie Lazar.

(5) "Dean could be right, but the fact that he is still alive is an indication to me that his group was not chosen as the final hit squad."

This means that Wes Swearingen is convinced that since Harry Dean was not "bumped off" that the ground-crew that Harry witnessed with regard to the JFK murder was too far removed from the action to be any bother to the CIA-Mafia who were the principal engineers of the JFK murder.

This could stand to reason -- and it could have been conclusive -- if only Wes Swearingen had also identified the Dallas ground-crew. Since this is still an open question, it still leaves room for doubt about the completeness of Wes Swearingen's theory.

So, we see, contrary to the nonsense that Ernie Lazar spreads with his exaggerations and bias, former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen actually leaves the door open (if only a little bit) for the memoirs of Harry Dean.

This is fortunate, I believe, since Wes Swearingen still neglects a full account of the story of Silvia Odio in his theory -- it is not very important to his theory -- in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald himself remains a secondary detail in his theory.

So -- even if Wes Swearingen turns out to be 90% correct in his theory, the testimony of Silvia Odio (as supported by the memoirs of Harry Dean) could be ready to support the remaining 10%. That's the least-case scenario as I read it.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul -- as I have repeatedly suggested:

1. Send Mr. Swearingen a new message today asking him whatever specific questions YOU think will best resolve our dispute.

2. Then let us know the answers which he gives to YOUR questions.

3. That way, I am not "in the loop".

4. FYI: I copied YOUR messages here in this thread and sent them to Swearingen. The only thing I excised were your personal attacks upon me because your ad hominem slurs against me are not relevant to the questions we are debating.

HERE ARE MY CONTENTIONS -- SO PLEASE CONTACT SWEARINGEN IF YOU THINK I HAVE THIS WRONG:

1. Swearingen does NOT believe that Harry Dean was an FBI informant

2. Swearingen does NOT believe that Harry Dean's story about a "JBS plot" to murder JFK is credible

3. Swearingen does NOT believe that Milteer's comments are credible

4. Swearingen does NOT believe that Harry Dean was sharing information with Wesley Grapp in 1961, or 1962, or 1963

5. With respect to YOUR subjective interpretations of what Swearingen believes, I quote his conclusion again from his recent message:

Dean may have illusions that he knew some group, whatever name he wants to pick, as wanting to kill JFK. If he knew some group that was thinking of killing JFK, that does not mean that the group he had in mind actually did kill JFK. In my opinion, Dean is just blowing smoke rings at Paul Trejo and Trelo is grasping into thin air.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

As we continue to read Paul Trejo's ever-more-imaginative defenses of Harry Dean, I think we should refresh our memories about the quality of Paul's analytical skills. In that spirit, I copy/paste below Paul's famous message #344 on page 23 of this thread. I use red font to highlight some of Paul's amazing deductions. Notice, also, one of Paul's conclusions, i.e. "somebody is lying" which, of course, Paul will now attempt to weasel-word his way out of.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted 11 November 2013 - 10:09 PM

Ernie Lazar, on 10 Nov 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:

Contrary to what Paul Trejo has suggested in his message to Harry (above) there was no "doctoring" by the FBI. FBI-Los Angeles merely excerpted Harry's long letter as is common practice when dealing with lengthy stuff and they inserted an ellipsis to indicate when they were skipping over certain sections and moving on to Harry's key points in his letter.

<snip>

Case closed.

Ernie, the case is far from closed. I found a ton of discrepancies comparing the FBI memo that you shared with the letter of the same date that Harry Dean published publicly in 1990 (which is the same as the FBI memo that Bill Kelly shared with us last week in post #253). There is only one letter that Harry Dean sent to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963, and there are so many differences that they cannot both be the real letter. Let's take a good look.

Point 1: The original memo by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover was written in sentence case, that is, it was not all UPPER CASE or CAPITAL LETTERS. This is a MAJOR difference. Therefore, the first item to notice is that this memo that Ernie Lazar kindly provided to us from the Mary Ferrell website was typed by the FBI and not by Harry Dean.

Point 2: Harry Dean's memo as published in his CROSSTRAILS manuscript/book on page 31 of chapter 2, is heavily redacted using a heavy black marker. So I will only be able to (i) compare the words we can read; and (ii) estimate a word count for the words that we cannot read.

Point 3: I compared the word count of words we can read in both. In the FBI memo we can read ~750 words. In Harry Dean's published memo, we can read ~175 words. That's a very wide margin, but we should now count, by approximation, the blacked-out words.

Point 4: To count words that are entirely blacked out, I estimated ten words per line (the average number of words in a line that we can fully read in Harry's letter) and approximately 5.5 inches per line. I measured approximately 40 inches of blanked out words, giving an approximate count of ~75 blacked out words. That is not precise, but given the circumstances, one is unlikely to find a hugely different count by some other measurement.

Point 5: Adding 175 readable words to 75 blanked-out words will total 250 words in Harry Dean's original memo to J. Edgar Hoover. Here is a MAJOR difference: the FBI proposes that Harry Dean wrote a memo of about 750 words, and Harry Dean claims that he wrote a memo of about 250 words. This immediately suggests that somebody is lying. It is now possible that the FBI added 500 words to Harry's original memo, MINIMUM. I say MINIMUM, because I don't yet know how much of Harry's original memo the FBI actually left intact.

Point 6: In the text that follows I will trace the 25 lines of Harry Dean's version of his memo.

FIRST LINE: The FBI version has three words and a number before the number, 1960. Harry Dean's version has one word before the number, 1960.

SECOND LINE: The FBI version follows the words, "FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE" with "AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME." Harry Dean's version omits that second clause.

THIRD LINE: Harry's version has the phrase, "local Chicago office of the Bureau." The FBI version lacks that phrase.

FOURTH LINE: Harry's version has the phrase, "present assignments." The FBI version lacks that phrase.

FIFTH LINE: Harry's version of the 5th line is entirely blacked out.

SIXTH LINE: Harry's version of the 6th line uses the phrase, "has this information." The FBI version lacks that phrase.

SEVENTH LINE: Harry's version of the 7th line uses the phrase, "undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago". The FBI version lacks anything like that phrase.

EIGHTH LINE: Harry's version of the 8th line reads, "done in June 1961 because Eastland's Committee was issuing", while the FBI version lacks anything like that text.

NINTH LINE: Harry's version of the 9th line reads, "subpoenas to hold hearings on the Fair Play for", while the FBI version lacks anything like that text.

TENTH LINE: Harry's version of the 10th line reads, "Cuba Communists and the 26th of July Movement [REDACTED]." The FBI version lacks anything like that text.

ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH LINES: Harry's 11th and 12th lines are almost entirely blacked out - except for the phrase "moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time", while the FBI version lacks any strings matching that text.

THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH LINES: Harry's 13th and 14th lines begin with three inches of blanked-out text, and then reads, "I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports". However, the FBI version lacks any four sequential words from that phrase.

FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH LINES: Harry's 15th and 16th lines contain the phrase, "making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] limiting my effectiveness". However, the FBI version lacks any three sequential words from that phrase.

SEVENTEENTH THROUGH NINETEENTH LINES: Harry's 17th, 18th and 19th lines read almost in full, "name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee's report no. 96465 part 2 pages 84 & 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level". Finally we have a partial match with the FBI document. In this case the FBI semi-matching lines read as follows: "THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT NO. 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE)." We can see that 18 words match in the same sequence, yet another 18 words clearly fail to match. Insofar as this is an alteration of Harry's original memo, it should cause alarms to go off.

TWENTIETH THROUGH TWENTY-SECOND LINES: Harry's 20th, 21st and 22nd lines are partly redacted, but read, "[REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure, live to regret this fact." Again we have a partial match with the FBI document. In this case the FBI semi-matching lines read as follows: "BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD." Again, we can see that 11 words match in sequence, but another 16 words fail to match. Again, one may argue that the FBI has altered Harry's text.

TWENTY-THIRD THROUGH TWENTY-FIFTH LINES: Harry's 23rd, 24th and 25th lines are almost entirely blanked-out, except for this phrase, "that you will see to this urgent matter." For the first time we have a very close match as the FBI document reads, "IT IS MY PRAYER THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS.

Point 7: Of course, we cannot comment on the blanked-out lines of Harry's memo, except to say that there are only about 75 words blanked out, and the FBI has at least 500 additional words to account for.

In conclusion, given that Harry Dean is telling the truth, then the FBI has clearly forged this document that Ernie Lazar presents as a "case closed." This is what I meant when I said last week (when Bill Kelley shared Harry Dean's original memo with the Forum) that there is a "divergence" early in the memo that does not seem to return. In my results tonight, I find that fewer than 50 words match in sequence between the two memos. That is, the FBI must account for about 700 words that they present as Harry Dean's writing, which Harry Dean today denies is his writing.

It therefore appears to me that the FBI has conducted a well-orchestrated smear campaign against Harry Dean regarding Harry Dean's claims about the JFK assassination.

The FBI has not only accused Harry Dean of being "certified insane" and "committed" with a criminal record (i.e. all together that means 'criminally insane,' which is folly to anybody who knows Harry Dean), but they have evidently, by Harry Dean's claim this week -- put up to 700 words into Harry Dean's mouth, in order to influence gullible readers to regard Harry's witness as a "case closed."

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- as I have repeatedly suggested:

1. Send Mr. Swearingen a new message today asking him whatever specific questions YOU think will best resolve our dispute.

2. Then let us know the answers which he gives to YOUR questions.

3. That way, I am not "in the loop".

4. FYI: I copied YOUR messages here in this thread and sent them to Swearingen...

HERE ARE MY CONTENTIONS -- SO PLEASE CONTACT SWEARINGEN IF YOU THINK I HAVE THIS WRONG:

1. Swearingen does NOT believe that Harry Dean was an FBI informant

2. Swearingen does NOT believe that Harry Dean's story about a "JBS plot" to murder JFK is credible

3. Swearingen does NOT believe that Milteer's comments are credible

4. Swearingen does NOT believe that Harry Dean was sharing information with Wesley Grapp in 1961, or 1962, or 1963...

Ernie, I have no intention of compromising my congenial correspondence with Wes Swearingen by subjecting him to your bickering manners.

Wes Swearingen has already made it crystal clear in his book what he believes -- and Harry Dean is not on his radar (nor is Don Adams). Wes Swearingen is in hot pursuit of a CIA-Mafia theory of the JFK murder.

Nevertheless, he is honest enough to admit that it is still "a matter of opinion." It's only you, Ernie, who want to shut down the debate ASAP.

Wes Swearingen has already told me (and I've shared it with this thread) that:

1. Wes Swearingen does NOT challenge Harry Dean's claims -- he simply finds no place for Harry Dean within his own current CIA-Mafia theory.

2. Wes Swearingen does NOT discount the possibility that the CIA recruited lunatics from the right-wing JBS in Southern California who could supply many resources and plenty of hatred for JFK.

3. Wes Swearingen does NOT discount the possibility that Joseph Milteer "might have heard something" about the JFK assassination.

4. Wes Swearingen knows that Wesley Grapp was not a SAC in Los Angeles in 1963 -- but only later than that. This makes sense, because as Wes Swearingen told me, if Harry Dean rode in a car with Wesley Grapp, even in early 1964, Wesley Grapp could not have been a SAC, since a SAC does no field work. (Besides, Ernie, try to keep up; Harry has already stated that his memory about the Los Angeles FBI is a bit blurry, and that he never met Wesley Grapp in 1961.)

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 11, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- as I have repeatedly suggested:

1. Send Mr. Swearingen a new message today asking him whatever specific questions YOU think will best resolve our dispute.

2. Then let us know the answers which he gives to YOUR questions.

3. That way, I am not "in the loop".

4. FYI: I copied YOUR messages here in this thread and sent them to Swearingen...

HERE ARE MY CONTENTIONS -- SO PLEASE CONTACT SWEARINGEN IF YOU THINK I HAVE THIS WRONG:

1. Swearingen does NOT believe that Harry Dean was an FBI informant

2. Swearingen does NOT believe that Harry Dean's story about a "JBS plot" to murder JFK is credible

3. Swearingen does NOT believe that Milteer's comments are credible

4. Swearingen does NOT believe that Harry Dean was sharing information with Wesley Grapp in 1961, or 1962, or 1963...

Ernie, I have no intention of compromising my congenial correspondence with Wes Swearingen by subjecting him to your bickering manners.

Wes Swearingen has already made it crystal clear in his book what he believes -- and Harry Dean is not on his radar (nor is Don Adams). Wes Swearingen is in hot pursuit of a CIA-Mafia theory of the JFK murder.

Nevertheless, he is honest enough to admit that it is still "a matter of opinion." It's only you, Ernie, who want to shut down the debate ASAP.

Wes Swearingen has already told me (and I've shared it with this thread) that:

1. Wes Swearingen does NOT challenge Harry Dean's claims -- he simply finds no place for Harry Dean within his own current CIA-Mafia theory.

2. Wes Swearingen does NOT discount the possibility that the CIA recruited lunatics from the right-wing JBS in Southern California who could supply many resources and plenty of hatred for JFK.

3. Wes Swearingen does NOT discount the possibility that Joseph Milteer "might have heard something" about the JFK assassination.

4. Wes Swearingen knows that Wesley Grapp was not a SAC in Los Angeles in 1963 -- but only later than that. This makes sense, because as Wes Swearingen told me, if Harry Dean rode in a car with Wesley Grapp, even in early 1964, Wesley Grapp could not have been a SAC, since a SAC does no field work. (Besides, Ernie, try to keep up; Harry has already stated that his memory about the Los Angeles FBI is a bit blurry, and that he never met Wesley Grapp in 1961.)

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

OK, Paul, thanks for your attempt at providing us with what Mr. Swearingen believes -- particularly with respect to Harry's story. HOWEVER, here is the actual truth of the matter:

From: WESSWEAR <WESSWEAR@aol.com> To: Paul.Trejo <Paul.Trejo@mccombs.utexas.edu> Cc: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2014 12:16 pm

Mr. Trejo,

Please let me explain one more time what I think of Dean's information. If you read my book TO KILL A PRESIDENT, you should know what my position is on who killed JFL. I have reliable witnesses. Dean has only his opinion, which he cannot support with reliable witnesses or physical evidence.

Dean claims to have been a FBI informant and to have ridden in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp. Dean could have talked to FBI agents in Chicago. That does not make him a FBI informant. As to Dean's informant status, FBI agent William McCauley of Los Angeles characterized Dean as a "mental case." There is no way McCauley would have had Dean as an informant. Dean may have talked to an agent in Los Angeles. This does not make him an informant.

As to Dean riding around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp, that is absolutely preposterous. SACs do not do agent field work. JFK was killed in 1963. Grapp did not become SAC of Los Angeles until 1964.

Dean may, or may not have talked to various individuals and groups. These people may have been joking with Dean, especially if they thought Dean was a "mental case," just as FBI agent McCauley thought.

Dean's idea that some people he talked to were involved in the JFK assassination is as weak as his idea that he was a FBI informant and that he rode around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp.

It is my opinion, after reading Dean's manuscript and hearing what you claim is true about Dean, that Dean is drastically in need of professional help. It is also my opinion that what Dean has claimed as fact is absolute fiction.

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

Edited March 11, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

OK, Paul, thanks for your attempt at providing us with what Mr. Swearingen believes -- particularly with respect to Harry's story. HOWEVER, here is the actual truth of the matter:

From: WESSWEAR <WESSWEAR@aol.com> To: Paul.Trejo <Paul.Trejo@mccombs.utexas.edu> Cc: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2014 12:16 pm

Mr. Trejo,

Please let me explain one more time what I think of Dean's information. If you read my book TO KILL A PRESIDENT, you should know what my position is on who killed JFL. I have reliable witnesses. Dean has only his opinion, which he cannot support with reliable witnesses or physical evidence.

Dean claims to have been a FBI informant and to have ridden in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp. Dean could have talked to FBI agents in Chicago. That does not make him a FBI informant. As to Dean's informant status, FBI agent William McCauley of Los Angeles characterized Dean as a "mental case." There is no way McCauley would have had Dean as an informant. Dean may have talked to an agent in Los Angeles. This does not make him an informant.

As to Dean riding around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp, that is absolutely preposterous. SACs do not do agent field work. JFK was killed in 1963. Grapp did not become SAC of Los Angeles until 1964.

Dean may, or may not have talked to various individuals and groups. These people may have been joking with Dean, especially if they thought Dean was a "mental case," just as FBI agent McCauley thought.

Dean's idea that some people he talked to were involved in the JFK assassination is as weak as his idea that he was a FBI informant and that he rode around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp.

It is my opinion, after reading Dean's manuscript and hearing what you claim is true about Dean, that Dean is drastically in need of professional help. It is also my opinion that what Dean has claimed as fact is absolute fiction.

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

Yes, Ernie, in fact, Wes Swearingen addressed me on that memo.

My response to him was to correct the errors that your bias has fed him, viz:

1. Harry Dean never claimed to be an FBI Informant (in the official sense).

2. Harry Dean simply claimed to volunteer information to the Chicago FBI (1960-1961) about the FPCC when Harry was the Chicago FPCC Secretary.

3. Harry Dean simply claimed to volunteer information to the Los Angeles FBI (1963) about specific suspicious members of the John Birch Society who mentioned Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to kill JFK.

Finally, although Wes Swearingen has a firm focus on a CIA-Mafia plot -- still I reminded him that his theory lacks a full account of the Dallas ground-crew.

I repeat here that in the case of the Dallas ground-crew, which likely consists of the "Friends of Walker," as well as Cuban Exiles and perhaps Interpen members, both of the accounts by Don Adams and Harry Dean can find a place at the table.

What is obvious in Wes Swearingen's effort to reply is that ERNIE LAZAR was in the loop, and feeding Wes Swearingen disinformation about Harry Dean (i.e. that he claimed to be an official FBI Informant). Naturally, with bad data from ERNIE LAZAR, he would come to the same harsh opinions as Ernie Lazar.

I re-affirm for the record -- Harry Dean is an honest man, a friendly man, he has a fine sense of humor, and is surrounded by loving children and grandchildren. Although Harry Dean has no college degrees, he is an honorable Veteran of World War Two, and I'm proud to call him my friend.

In my opinion, Ernie Lazar, you have NONE of Harry Dean's good qualities.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 11, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

OK, Paul, thanks for your attempt at providing us with what Mr. Swearingen believes -- particularly with respect to Harry's story. HOWEVER, here is the actual truth of the matter:

From: WESSWEAR <WESSWEAR@aol.com> To: Paul.Trejo <Paul.Trejo@mccombs.utexas.edu> Cc: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2014 12:16 pm

Mr. Trejo,

Please let me explain one more time what I think of Dean's information. If you read my book TO KILL A PRESIDENT, you should know what my position is on who killed JFL. I have reliable witnesses. Dean has only his opinion, which he cannot support with reliable witnesses or physical evidence.

Dean claims to have been a FBI informant and to have ridden in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp. Dean could have talked to FBI agents in Chicago. That does not make him a FBI informant. As to Dean's informant status, FBI agent William McCauley of Los Angeles characterized Dean as a "mental case." There is no way McCauley would have had Dean as an informant. Dean may have talked to an agent in Los Angeles. This does not make him an informant.

As to Dean riding around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp, that is absolutely preposterous. SACs do not do agent field work. JFK was killed in 1963. Grapp did not become SAC of Los Angeles until 1964.

Dean may, or may not have talked to various individuals and groups. These people may have been joking with Dean, especially if they thought Dean was a "mental case," just as FBI agent McCauley thought.

Dean's idea that some people he talked to were involved in the JFK assassination is as weak as his idea that he was a FBI informant and that he rode around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp.

It is my opinion, after reading Dean's manuscript and hearing what you claim is true about Dean, that Dean is drastically in need of professional help. It is also my opinion that what Dean has claimed as fact is absolute fiction.

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

Yes, Ernie, in fact, Wes Swearingen addressed me on that memo.

My response to him was to correct the errors that your bias has fed him, viz:

1. Harry Dean never claimed to be an FBI Informant (in the official sense).

2. Harry Dean simply claimed to volunteer information to the Chicago FBI (1960-1961) about the FPCC when Harry was the Chicago FPCC Secretary.

3. Harry Dean simply claimed to volunteer information to the Los Angeles FBI (1963) about specific suspicious members of the John Birch Society who mentioned Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to kill JFK.

Finally, although Wes Swearingen has a firm focus on a CIA-Mafia plot -- still I reminded him that his theory lacks a full account of the Dallas ground-crew.

I repeat here that in the case of the Dallas ground-crew, which likely consists of the "Friends of Walker," as well as Cuban Exiles and perhaps Interpen members, both of the accounts by Don Adams and Harry Dean can find a place at the table.

What is obvious in Wes Swearingen's effort to reply is that ERNIE LAZAR was in the loop, and feeding Wes Swearingen disinformation about Harry Dean (i.e. that he claimed to be an official FBI Informant). Naturally, with bad data from ERNIE LAZAR, he would come to the same harsh opinions as Ernie Lazar.

I re-affirm for the record -- Harry Dean is an honest man, a friendly man, an outgoing man -- and although he is not an educated man, he is an honorable Veteran of World War Two, and I'm proud to call him my friend.

In my opinion, Ernie Lazar, you have NONE of Harry Dean's good qualities.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Totally false predicate Paul. First of all, Wesley Swearingen has read Harry's 1990 manuscript (and I have not). So he is totally aware of what Harry's story is.

Second, Harry has ALWAYS described himself as an FBI informant and as an FBI undercover operative.

See, for example:

7/2/05 message:

"I was recruited by U.S. Intelligence by their uniquely convincing tactics....I was given the task of entering Cuba to gather information for U.S. Intelligence."

7/15/05

"It should be remembered, that before and after, reporting to the Bureau re: conversations about Kennedy by those JBS persons involved, I was at the same time advising the Bureau, as requested, re: certain other individuals and groups,{eg} of my section {as a member} Southern California, Minuteman activities, Fair Play For Cuba Committee person{s}, Alpha 66 Los Angeles leader{s} etc...Certainly the Bureau checked any and all such details, as remote, or impossible as some reports might seem..... Bureau agents reactions were always no-nonsence, matter-of-fact, in personal meetings, or by phone. It is important that further questions on these subjects be refered to the CD as the agency {FBI} no doubt continues " upset" as shown by it's past denials of my association with them. Which is nearly always the case, especially where we who expose this association are concerned. Harry".

8/24/05

"Re; FBI they always denie associations with spys/informants for their protection and in my case because in 1965 I blabbed on TV, Radio and newspapers re; spying for the FBI in order to cut loose from that fearful existance of near five year involvement with them and the Cuba waste of life. My main task then was to openly expose the people that I knew, who hastened the death of President Kennedy."

11/8/13:

"If any become informants for the F B I And tell later the facts, such as did I They'll suffer silence or half-truth lies National Security supersedes all things To be involved one feels endless stings When abused life and facts lie buried By words or silence we'll always be harried. Harry"

11/11/13

"Let us face the direct fact that for urgent personal reasons I decided to cut-off further connections as a political informant to any concerned federal or state agency, being fully aware of the penalty."

AND IN HIS 1966 ADVERTISING FLYER CAPTIONED "I CONFESS" in which Harry wrote (I underline and use red font the operative phrase):

"I CONFESS my association in the Oswald, Communist Front, The Fair Play For Cuba Committee, my membership in the Castro Revolutionary 26th of July Movement, my duty in detail as an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, my anti-Castro activities..."

No "layman" could misunderstand what Harry intended to convey. Which is also why the FBI and every newspaper in southern California also understood what Harry meant.

With respect to this comment by Paul:

I re-affirm for the record -- Harry Dean is an honest man, a friendly man, an outgoing man -- and although he is not an educated man, he is an honorable Veteran of World War Two, and I'm proud to call him my friend.

We are NOT discussing Harry's personal qualities. As I have written previously, many honorable, decent, intelligent, thoughtful, caring, principled, friendly, outgoing, and patriotic Americans nevertheless have been TOTALLY MISTAKEN in their personal opinions and evaluations -- and that INCLUDES members of the John Birch Society.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

OK, Paul, thanks for your attempt at providing us with what Mr. Swearingen believes -- particularly with respect to Harry's story. HOWEVER, here is the actual truth of the matter:

From: WESSWEAR <WESSWEAR@aol.com> To: Paul.Trejo <Paul.Trejo@mccombs.utexas.edu> Cc: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2014 12:16 pm

Mr. Trejo,

Please let me explain one more time what I think of Dean's information. If you read my book TO KILL A PRESIDENT, you should know what my position is on who killed JFL. I have reliable witnesses. Dean has only his opinion, which he cannot support with reliable witnesses or physical evidence.

Dean claims to have been a FBI informant and to have ridden in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp. Dean could have talked to FBI agents in Chicago. That does not make him a FBI informant. As to Dean's informant status, FBI agent William McCauley of Los Angeles characterized Dean as a "mental case." There is no way McCauley would have had Dean as an informant. Dean may have talked to an agent in Los Angeles. This does not make him an informant.

As to Dean riding around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp, that is absolutely preposterous. SACs do not do agent field work. JFK was killed in 1963. Grapp did not become SAC of Los Angeles until 1964.

Dean may, or may not have talked to various individuals and groups. These people may have been joking with Dean, especially if they thought Dean was a "mental case," just as FBI agent McCauley thought.

Dean's idea that some people he talked to were involved in the JFK assassination is as weak as his idea that he was a FBI informant and that he rode around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp.

It is my opinion, after reading Dean's manuscript and hearing what you claim is true about Dean, that Dean is drastically in need of professional help. It is also my opinion that what Dean has claimed as fact is absolute fiction.

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

Yes, Ernie, in fact, Wes Swearingen addressed me on that memo.

My response to him was to correct the errors that your bias has fed him, viz:

1. Harry Dean never claimed to be an FBI Informant (in the official sense).

2. Harry Dean simply claimed to volunteer information to the Chicago FBI (1960-1961) about the FPCC when Harry was the Chicago FPCC Secretary.

3. Harry Dean simply claimed to volunteer information to the Los Angeles FBI (1963) about specific suspicious members of the John Birch Society who mentioned Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to kill JFK.

Finally, although Wes Swearingen has a firm focus on a CIA-Mafia plot -- still I reminded him that his theory lacks a full account of the Dallas ground-crew.

I repeat here that in the case of the Dallas ground-crew, which likely consists of the "Friends of Walker," as well as Cuban Exiles and perhaps Interpen members, both of the accounts by Don Adams and Harry Dean can find a place at the table.

What is obvious in Wes Swearingen's effort to reply is that ERNIE LAZAR was in the loop, and feeding Wes Swearingen disinformation about Harry Dean (i.e. that he claimed to be an official FBI Informant). Naturally, with bad data from ERNIE LAZAR, he would come to the same harsh opinions as Ernie Lazar.

I re-affirm for the record -- Harry Dean is an honest man, a friendly man, an outgoing man -- and although he is not an educated man, he is an honorable Veteran of World War Two, and I'm proud to call him my friend.

In my opinion, Ernie Lazar, you have NONE of Harry Dean's good qualities.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

He "addressed" you and sent a copy to me --- so why are you whining?

The bottom-line is that Swearingen totally rejects Harry's story -- not because of anything which I wrote to him - but because of what HARRY wrote in his own 1990 manuscript (including that comment about riding around with Wesley Grapp which Swearingen described as "absolutely preposterous". )

Furthermore, unlike yourself, Swearingen does not think that Agent McCauley's evaluation should be summarily dismissed.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Totally false predicate Paul. First of all, Wesley Swearingen has read Harry's 1990 manuscript (and I have not). So he is totally aware of what Harry's story is.

Second, Harry has ALWAYS described himself as an FBI informant and as an FBI undercover operative.

See, for example:

7/2/05 message:

"I was recruited by U.S. Intelligence by their uniquely convincing tactics....I was given the task of entering Cuba to gather information for U.S. Intelligence."[/size]

7/15/05[/size]

"It should be remembered, that before and after, reporting to the Bureau re: [/size]conversations about Kennedy by those JBS persons involved, I was at the same time advising the Bureau, as requested, re: certain other individuals and groups,{eg} of my section {as a member} Southern California, Minuteman activities, Fair Play For Cuba Committee person{s}, Alpha 66 Los Angeles leader{s} etc...[/size]Certainly the Bureau checked any and all such details, as remote, or impossible as some reports might seem..... Bureau agents reactions were always no-nonsence, matter-of-fact, in personal meetings, or by phone. [/size]It is important that further questions on these subjects be refered to the CD [/size]as the agency {FBI} no doubt continues " upset" as shown by it's past denials [/size]of my association with them. Which is nearly always the case, especially where [/size]we who expose this association are concerned. [/size]Harry".[/size]

8/24/05[/size]

"Re; FBI they always denie associations with spys/informants for their protection and in my case because in 1965 I blabbed on TV, Radio and newspapers re; spying for the FBI in order to cut loose from that fearful existance of near five year involvement with them and the Cuba waste of life. My main task then was to openly expose the people that I knew, who hastened the death of President Kennedy."[/size]

11/8/13:[/size]

"If any become informants for the F B I And tell later the facts, such as did I They'll suffer silence or half-truth lies National Security supersedes all things To be involved one feels endless stings When abused life and facts lie buried By words or silence we'll always be harried. [/size]Harry"[/size]

11/11/13[/size]

"Let us face the direct fact that for urgent personal reasons I decided to cut-off further connections as a political informant to any concerned federal or state agency, being fully aware of the penalty."[/size]

AND IN HIS 1966 ADVERTISING FLYER CAPTIONED "I CONFESS" in which Harry wrote (I underline and use red font the operative phrase):

"I CONFESS my association in the Oswald, Communist Front, The Fair Play For Cuba Committee, my membership in the Castro Revolutionary 26th of July Movement, my duty in detail as an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, my anti-Castro activities..."

No "layman" could misunderstand what Harry intended to convey. Which is also why the FBI and every newspaper in southern California also understood what Harry meant.

With respect to this comment by Paul:

I re-affirm for the record -- Harry Dean is an honest man, a friendly man, an outgoing man -- and although he is not an educated man, he is an honorable Veteran of World War Two, and I'm proud to call him my friend.

We are NOT discussing Harry's personal qualities. As I have written previously, many honorable, decent, intelligent, thoughtful, caring, principled, friendly, outgoing, and patriotic Americans nevertheless have been TOTALLY MISTAKEN in their personal opinions and evaluations -- and that INCLUDES members of the John Birch Society.

.

Ernie Lazar -- you continue to spread disinformation about Harry Dean by twisting and distorting according to your own bias.

In fact, Harry Dean NEVER claimed to have an OFFICIAL role as an FBI Informer -- in every case cited above, his role was an UNOFFICIAL role of volunteering information to the FBI about the FPCC and the JBS as a patriotic citizen.

You really know that, and it's obvious to everybody -- but you want to spread disinformation about Harry Dean for some bizarre reason. You've been doing this since 2010 -- it's really bizarre.

Everything that Harry Dean wrote above can be read in terms of the LAYMAN -- written by a LAYMAN and written for LAYMEN.

Yet you, in your characteristic way, Ernie, merely twist and distort and misrepresent actual facts to match your bias and your exaggerations.

It seems that you're seeking to sell something, Ernie -- but nobody can yet tell just what that might be.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 11, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Totally false predicate Paul. First of all, Wesley Swearingen has read Harry's 1990 manuscript (and I have not). So he is totally aware of what Harry's story is.

Second, Harry has ALWAYS described himself as an FBI informant and as an FBI undercover operative.

See, for example:

7/2/05 message:

"I was recruited by U.S. Intelligence by their uniquely convincing tactics....I was given the task of entering Cuba to gather information for U.S. Intelligence."[/size]

7/15/05[/size]

"It should be remembered, that before and after, reporting to the Bureau re: [/size]conversations about Kennedy by those JBS persons involved, I was at the same time advising the Bureau, as requested, re: certain other individuals and groups,{eg} of my section {as a member} Southern California, Minuteman activities, Fair Play For Cuba Committee person{s}, Alpha 66 Los Angeles leader{s} etc...[/size]Certainly the Bureau checked any and all such details, as remote, or impossible as some reports might seem..... Bureau agents reactions were always no-nonsence, matter-of-fact, in personal meetings, or by phone. [/size]It is important that further questions on these subjects be refered to the CD [/size]as the agency {FBI} no doubt continues " upset" as shown by it's past denials [/size]of my association with them. Which is nearly always the case, especially where [/size]we who expose this association are concerned. [/size]Harry".[/size]

8/24/05[/size]

"Re; FBI they always denie associations with spys/informants for their protection and in my case because in 1965 I blabbed on TV, Radio and newspapers re; spying for the FBI in order to cut loose from that fearful existance of near five year involvement with them and the Cuba waste of life. My main task then was to openly expose the people that I knew, who hastened the death of President Kennedy."[/size]

11/8/13:[/size]

"If any become informants for the F B I And tell later the facts, such as did I They'll suffer silence or half-truth lies National Security supersedes all things To be involved one feels endless stings When abused life and facts lie buried By words or silence we'll always be harried. [/size]Harry"[/size]

11/11/13[/size]

"Let us face the direct fact that for urgent personal reasons I decided to cut-off further connections as a political informant to any concerned federal or state agency, being fully aware of the penalty."[/size]

AND IN HIS 1966 ADVERTISING FLYER CAPTIONED "I CONFESS" in which Harry wrote (I underline and use red font the operative phrase):

"I CONFESS my association in the Oswald, Communist Front, The Fair Play For Cuba Committee, my membership in the Castro Revolutionary 26th of July Movement, my duty in detail as an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, my anti-Castro activities..."

No "layman" could misunderstand what Harry intended to convey. Which is also why the FBI and every newspaper in southern California also understood what Harry meant.

With respect to this comment by Paul:

I re-affirm for the record -- Harry Dean is an honest man, a friendly man, an outgoing man -- and although he is not an educated man, he is an honorable Veteran of World War Two, and I'm proud to call him my friend.

We are NOT discussing Harry's personal qualities. As I have written previously, many honorable, decent, intelligent, thoughtful, caring, principled, friendly, outgoing, and patriotic Americans nevertheless have been TOTALLY MISTAKEN in their personal opinions and evaluations -- and that INCLUDES members of the John Birch Society.

.

Ernie Lazar -- you continue to spread disinformation about Harry Dean by twisting and distorting according to your own bias.

In fact, Harry Dean NEVER claimed to have an OFFICIAL role as an FBI Informer -- in every case cited above, his role was an UNOFFICIAL role of volunteering information to the FBI about the FPCC and the JBS as a patriotic citizen.

You really know that, and it's obvious to everybody -- but you want to spread disinformation about Harry Dean for some bizarre reason. You've been doing this since 2010 -- it's really bizarre.

Everything that Harry Dean wrote above can be read in terms of the LAYMAN -- written by a LAYMAN and written for LAYMEN.

Yet you, in your characteristic way, Ernie, merely twist and distort and misrepresent actual facts to match your bias and your exaggerations.

It seems that you're seeking to sell something, Ernie -- but nobody can yet tell just what that might be.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

What "disinformation" am I spreading? Be specific.

1. OFFICIAL vs UNOFFICIAL ROLE:

That is YOUR INVENTION not anything which I have claimed. There is no such thing as an "unofficial" role or "unofficial" informant.

My argument (since June 2010) is that Harry was never an official or unofficial informant or confidential source. Only YOU created that distinction to confuse the issues we have been debating.

2. LAYMAN'S UNDERSTANDING

I have previously written that laymen could not possibly understand the distinctions which YOU are attempting to make now. I have explicitly stated that how people interpreted Harry's comments would depend upon their level of sophistication. The MOST sophisticated (such as professional law enforcement types) came to the SAME conclusion as the LEAST sophisticated. ALL of them concluded that Harry was presenting himself as an FBI informant or FBI undercover operative - which is PRECISELY how Harry described himself IN WRITING!

So STOP pretending that you have some sort of special knowledge here and just admit candidly that Harry was trying to capitalize upon his brief "association" with the FBI in Chicago in order to get someone to interview him on radio/TV or write articles about his story in a newspaper or other publication.

The FBI made the conclusion which I have made. Southern California newspaper publishers and journalists made the same conclusion. And Harry EXPLICITLY stated IN WRITING (in 1966) in his self-promoting advertisements that he was an "undercover informant to the FBI". Why do YOU suppose that he CHOSE that language?

I AM SELLING SOMETHING?

The ONLY thing I am "selling" is that your child-like fealty to Harry has totally blinded you to the OBVIOUS SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH.

Your current analysis is no different in style or substance than your previous absolutist statements and conclusions about the "forgery" which the FBI supposedly invented of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover --- which, as we all now know, is not a forgery.

You still have not come to grips with your previous statements about that matter when you wrote things like:

"...my current thinking is that the FBI is lying, scheming, plotting and FORGING documents to make Harry Dean look bad" and

"As for myself, I realize that I am relying entirely on the honesty of Harry Dean -- he tells me that the letter he published in 1990 is the original letter (except for the REDACTIONS) and I believe him. Taking that as my premise, I must conclude -- obviously -- that the FBI version which is typed in all CAPS with 500 extra words is a forgery. There is no other conclusion that ordinary common sense can make, given my premise."

The ONLY proven "DISINFORMATION" in this thread has been written by PAUL TREJO!

Edited March 11, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Incidentally, Paul, have you ever asked Harry to give you proof that he was ever (as he claims) a "private investigator" in California?

OR

Is this another case where you intend to INVENT a phony distinction between "official" vs "unofficial", OR "formal" vs "informal" OR "laymen" vs "expert" understanding of what "private investigator" means?

[Paul Trejo]

BUMP

Edited March 11, 2014 by Paul Trejo