Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Greg Burnham]

The sole purpose of that portion of my post was by way of ANALOGY! You cannot seriously be this stupid. The portion of my post that you quoted was only to establish the CONTEXT!!!! It is reporting what did NOT happen, as in, Weberman did NOT claim to have heard the alleged conversation between Hemming and Oswald. He claimed that is what Gerry told him! The rest of the post is the most important, but you ignored it:

My remaining post read:

However, that is NOT the case in this instance. Weberman did NOT claim that he himself actually heard Hemming make the call to Oswald. Weberman only claimed that is what Hemming told him he did--and it's a claim that Hemming denies.

Gerry told me that Weberman got that wrong; that Weberman either misinterpreted the documents, misunderstood Gerry's statement, or simply made it up. Gerry also told Noel Twyman the same thing about this specific allegation from Weberman.

So Paul Trejo says: "This [allegation] must be true because Gerry Patrick Hemming said so." [to Weberman]

But what about the fact that: "Gerry Patrick Hemming denied the accuracy of Weberman's interpretation--separately--to both Noel Twyman [1996] and Greg Burnham [2002]?"

You see, Paul, the PRIMARY SOURCE for the information remains Gerry Patrick Hemming, not A.J. Weberman!

I repeat: The alleged SOURCE of the information is HEMMING. Now you have Hemming's own words to clarify the statements he made to Weberman, notwithstanding Weberman's misinterpretation of those statements. Yet, you cling to the spurious allegation.

Your style and method of research embodies a degree of casuistry I have not previously encountered.

[end quoting myself]

So while you are suggesting Weberman is more credible than Hemming, you have not addressed whether Twyman and I are at least equally as credible as Weberman is. And, if Twyman and I are, in fact, each individually just as credible as Weberman, then combined we are TWICE as credible as we can corroborate each other's account, which is contrary to that reported by Weberman who has NO corroboration for his claim.

Please try to be intelligent.

[Ernie Lazar]

With respect to your comments about the sales of your eBook: Since Americans have NEVER believed the "lone nut" theory, there is nothing you are presenting that is "ahead of its time"...

Once again, Ernie, you show how out of touch you are with the common citizen. I was speaking with a young, professional computer progammer just last week, and he was *astounded* to learn that the HSCA in 1979 had reversed the Warren Commission conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Gunman. He had been raised to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK, and that's what he -- this college educated young professional -- sincerely believed all of his life.

So, Ernie, clearly you'll say anything to argue your weak points. Anything.

I have an alternative prediction: I predict that nobody will mention Harry Dean or his story regardless of how many new books or articles are written, or how many annual conferences are held. The reason is simply this (as I previously observed): There is nothing to research! Neither you or Harry has presented any NEW evidence and, more importantly, nobody even knows what new potential source could hypothetically be investigated.

Well Ernie, this is your broken record. You WISH that Harry Dean's account will just go away, will just vanish. But as academic interest in the history of Edwin Walker increases, the value of Harry Dean's account will increase exponentially.

When scholars and "Real Researchers" finally start digging where those closest to the action left off in 1964, and explore Edwin Walker without bias, a whole new gold mine of facts will open up before historians.,

One result will be that this will finally silence your biased and hostile nonsense once and for all.

It won't be so long to wait -- 2015 will be the year that this Forum will review all your posts on this thread going back to 2010, and have one great belly laugh.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

1. Paul: Earlier this week on MSNBC, they showed a segment where a roving reporter in New York City went around asking people (often in their 20's and 30's) the question: "Do you know who Joe Biden is?"

Many of the respondents could NOT identify him as our Vice President. There also recently was a news report which reported that more than half of the people who were asked to name the three branches of our government could NOT do so. In previous months, a random sample of Americans was asked to name the Chief Justice of the U.S. -- and a majority could not do so.

So....obviously, in a nation of 320 million people, you can ALWAYS find folks who have no knowledge about all sorts of subjects -- including subjects which you would ASSUME they would have learned in high school.

Your incompetent methodology continues to be revealed -- i.e. find ONE example and pretend it is normative, OR find one "expert" and pretend he "knows what he is talking about" as long as your one example supports something YOU prefer to believe and you are not required to carefully examine the original source of your information.

The FACT is, however, that every poll ever taken since 1963 has shown that the majority of the American people DO NOT believe and have NEVER believed the "lone gunman" theory. Furthermore, that conclusion has been reached by many of our MOST well-educated and politically-aware citizens and by many very prominent politicians and government officials.

2. I do not "wish" anything about Harry's "account" -- except, of course, I wish he would clearly answer questions -- which he won't.

My interest is in separating fact from fiction by use of normal rules of evidence and logic. If Harry's story is true -- then I would welcome it as advancing our knowledge. But if Harry's story is false -- there are consequences to believing false information -- particularly in terms of how human beings apply their intellect to recognize and resolve disputed evidence. I am NOT emotionally invested (as you are) in Harry's story. You see yourself as his "defender" and "ally". I am neither. I am simply an investigator who has independent fact-based knowledge about many of the subjects Harry discusses. You have repeatedly displayed your profound lack of knowledge about many different subjects which you claim to be knowledgeable about. And that is not just my personal opinion. Many people in this thread have made comparable judgments about you.

Plus you still don't get it. The people who are MOST committed to researching JFK's murder have already decided that Harry's story is NOT credible which is why his story has "vanished" from their books and articles and conference papers.

ACADEMIC INTEREST and YOUR "GOLD MINE" COMMENT

With respect to "academic interest in the history of Edwin Walker":

Paul -- you have seen Walker's papers. I think you have gone through ALL of them -- am I correct?

Does Walker mention Harry Dean? OR anything about a "JBS plot"? Does Walker mention Galbadon? Is there any correspondence to Walker from Harry? or from Galbadon?

If your answers to all of these questions is "NO" -- then please tell us what, SPECIFICALLY, "scholars and real researchers" can research?

Where is your hypothetical "gold mine" located?

On several occasions, members of the Birch Society (including very senior officials) have challenged me to explain why I was so "hostile" toward the JBS and why I keep "attacking" JBS arguments. I then would explain, patiently, how I got interested in the subject. And I pointed out that when I first discovered that NOBODY had ever made an FOIA request to the FBI regarding the JBS and about JBS-related subjects, I was absolutely astonished. THEN---when I discovered that the FBI identified TENS OF THOUSANDS of pages of responsive documents I was ecstatic! Because I really had found an incredible "gold mine" which no other researcher had seen.

The problem with YOUR comment is that there is NOTHING to research. There is no evidence trail to pursue.

• Harry has no documents.
• You have no documents.
• The documents in FBI files about Harry do not support your or his contentions.
• Nor does Harry's CIA file.
• There is no LIVING person to interview (other than Harry).
• There are no OTHER personal papers (other than Walker's) of the alleged principals to the "JBS plot" to review.

​SO WHERE IS YOUR GOLD MINE????

BIASED AND HOSTILE NONSENSE?

You are projecting your own worst qualities upon me again.

Unlike yourself, I ask pertinent questions. Your methodology (by your own words) is to give "the benefit of the doubt" to a story for which there is NO supporting evidence -- which is why scholars have already made their judgment about Harry's story.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Key questions in the previous post are the questions about what is revealed in Walker's papers about JBS, Dean, Galbadon.

[Ernie Lazar]

Key questions in the previous post are the questions about what is revealed in Walker's papers about JBS, Dean, Galbadon.

I've asked Paul that question at least 4 times in this thread but he never answers it -- because he knows the answer is NOT helpful to his larger narrative.

In addition, there does not appear to be any sort of "finding aid" online to Walker's personal papers.

In fact, if you go to the University of Texas Briscoe Center For American History (which is where Walker's papers are supposedly archived), their "collections" listings do not even list Walker's personal papers under any of their categories of holdings. http://www.cah.utexas.edu/collections/index.php

Nor does entering "Edwin Walker" on the UoT Library catalog produce a "hit" for Walker's personal papers.

It is very odd that a reference to Walker's papers is so incredibly difficult to find -- which may help explain why more scholars and researchers have not perused them.

By contrast, the "Online Archive of California" lists the holdings of over 200 institutions (colleges, universities, historical societies, museums) -- and if you enter a search term, they provide a link to the specific collection that has references to your search term and then you can go directly to that collection's finding aid as a pdf document. For example, here is what comes up for "John Birch Society"........ http://www.oac.cdlib.org/search?query=%22john+birch+society%22&x=0&y=0

And for Edwin Walker: http://www.oac.cdlib.org/search?query=%22walker%2C+edwin+a.%22&x=0&y=0 -- which scholars should probably consider reviewing sometime.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

...There does not appear to be any sort of "finding aid" online to Walker's personal papers.

In fact, if you go to the University of Texas Briscoe Center For American History (which is where Walker's papers are supposedly archived), their "collections" listings do not even list Walker's personal papers under any of their categories of holdings. http://www.cah.utexas.edu/collections/index.php

Nor does entering "Edwin Walker" on the UoT Library catalog produce a "hit" for Walker's personal papers.

It is very odd that a reference to Walker's papers is so incredibly difficult to find -- which may help explain why more scholars and researchers have not perused them.

By contrast, the "Online Archive of California" lists the holdings of over 200 institutions (colleges, universities, historical societies, museums) -- and if you enter a search term, they provide a link to the specific collection that has references to your search term and then you can go directly to that collection's finding aid as a pdf document. For example, here is what comes up for "John Birch Society"........ http://www.oac.cdlib.org/search?query=%22john+birch+society%22&x=0&y=0

And for Edwin Walker: http://www.oac.cdlib.org/search?query=%22walker%2C+edwin+a.%22&x=0&y=0 -- which scholars should probably consider reviewing sometime.

For somebody with a genuine interest in Edwin Walker's personal papers at the Briscoe Center for American History at UT Austin, it is not difficult to find the official resources.

In other words -- it's there if you look.

Yet the truth about Edwin Walker will topple so many "sacred cows" among the JFK :"Real Researchers" who continue to preach that the CIA is to blame, or the FBI is to blame, or the Bush family is to blame, or International Bankers are to blame, or the CFR is to blame, or the Masonic Order is to blame -- that we find very few people who really and truly have a genuine interest in researching Edwin Walker in the context of the JFK murder.

Only a few have done it. Jim Root was one. Jeffrey Caufield was another. Chris Cravens was another. Not many -- but give me quality over quantity any day.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...There does not appear to be any sort of "finding aid" online to Walker's personal papers.

In fact, if you go to the University of Texas Briscoe Center For American History (which is where Walker's papers are supposedly archived), their "collections" listings do not even list Walker's personal papers under any of their categories of holdings. http://www.cah.utexas.edu/collections/index.php

Nor does entering "Edwin Walker" on the UoT Library catalog produce a "hit" for Walker's personal papers.

It is very odd that a reference to Walker's papers is so incredibly difficult to find -- which may help explain why more scholars and researchers have not perused them.

By contrast, the "Online Archive of California" lists the holdings of over 200 institutions (colleges, universities, historical societies, museums) -- and if you enter a search term, they provide a link to the specific collection that has references to your search term and then you can go directly to that collection's finding aid as a pdf document. For example, here is what comes up for "John Birch Society"........ http://www.oac.cdlib.org/search?query=%22john+birch+society%22&x=0&y=0

And for Edwin Walker: http://www.oac.cdlib.org/search?query=%22walker%2C+edwin+a.%22&x=0&y=0 -- which scholars should probably consider reviewing sometime.

For somebody with a genuine interest in Edwin Walker's personal papers at the Briscoe Center for American History at UT Austin, it is not difficult to find the official resources.

In other words -- it's there if you look.

Yet the truth about Edwin Walker will topple so many "sacred cows" among the JFK :"Real Researchers" who continue to preach that the CIA is to blame, or the FBI is to blame, or the Bush family is to blame, or International Bankers are to blame, or the CFR is to blame, or the Masonic Order is to blame -- that we find very few people who really and truly have a genuine interest in researching Edwin Walker in the context of the JFK murder.

Only a few have done it. Jim Root was one. Jeffrey Caufield was another. Chris Cravens was another. Not many -- but give me quality over quantity any day.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Actually, Paul, it is NOT there even if "you look". Instead, one must contact the library and then they will send you a 12-page Word document which is their "finding aid". But the "aid" is not very helpful because it does not identify any specific persons or correspondents. Instead, everything is subsumed under general alpha categories and years like what is shown below.

Furthermore, as I previously pointed out, there is NO listing in the most OBVIOUS locations for Walker's papers -- i.e. under collections of personal papers and in the library catalog.

By contrast, typically when you search a person's name in a university library catalog, their personal papers are listed under that person's name. And most libraries list all of their "personal papers" collections together. For example, see the extensive University of Oregon listings which I included in my "archives" webpage (see list below)

WALKER FINDING AID - typical listings

Correspondence

H-Z, 1965

B, 1962-1963

Pres, Radio, TV, contacts, 1962-1964

Speech requist [sic], 1964

96-30/14 Official government correspondence and records re: Mississippi, FBI, and FOIA

96-30/16 Correspondence, 1962-1963

96-30/17 Correspondence

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

Private Papers of Right-Wing Personalities – University of Oregon (Eugene)

Numbers in parentheses refer to the collection number. Link to finding aids appear underneath each name – and they usually include a short biographical sketch.

Lee J. Adamson (86)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv71491

Thomas Jefferson Anderson (157)

http://janus.uoregon.edu/record=b1981716

T. Coleman Andrews (119)

http://janus.uoregon.edu/record=b1975951

Bryton Barron (Az463)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv96124

John O. Beaty (135)

http://janus.uoregon.edu/record=b1955560

Wally Butterworth (129)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv60544

Circuit Riders, Inc. (bx167)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv69783

James W. Clise (114)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv02407

Conservative and Libertarian Studies (254)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv10150

Lucille Cardin Crain (095)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv68414

Pedro A. Del Valle (126)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv35240

Brice P. Disque (115)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv69776

John T. Flynn (116)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv00698

Merwin Kimball Hart (121)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv74575

A.G. Heinsohn (127)

http://janus.uoregon.edu/record=b1954242

Ashley E. Holden (138)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv91666

James C. Ingebretsen (147)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/nwda-search/fstyle.aspx?doc=ORUColl_147.xml&t=a&k1=&k2=anti-communist&k3=&t1=0&t2=0&t3=0&o1=0&o2=0&s=0&i=0

Howard E. Kershner (128)

http://janus.uoregon.edu/record=b1954244

Willford I. King (89)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv64995

Granville F. Knight (082)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv42427

Robert T. LeFevre (202)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv29769

Eugene Lyons (117)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv30454

William C. Mullendore (125)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv02410

Edmund A. Opitz (009)

http://nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu/print/ark:/80444/xv02746

Frank Purinton (210)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv55756

George Washington Robnett ((077)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv29423

E. Merrill Root (51)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv99873

Polly K. Ruhtenberg (81)

http://janus.uoregon.edu/record=b3602254

Edward A. Rumely (122)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv26002

Marjorie O. Shearon (131)

http://janus.uoregon.edu/record=b1954237

John Howland Snow (106)

http://janus.uoregon.edu/record=b1975336

Keith Stimely (183)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv98853

Willis E. Stone (118)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv22930

Lawrence Timbers (123)

http://janus.uoregon.edu/record=b1951525

Grace Wick (mss49)

http://nwda-db.orbiscascade.org/print/ark:/80444/xv71827

Edited October 25, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

In other words, nothing is revealed about Dean, Galbadon, or the JBS in Walker's papers

[Paul Trejo]

...Where is your hypothetical "gold mine" located?

On several occasions, members of the Birch Society (including very senior officials) have challenged me to explain why I was so "hostile" toward the JBS and why I keep "attacking" JBS arguments. I then would explain, patiently, how I got interested in the subject. And I pointed out that when I first discovered that NOBODY had ever made an FOIA request to the FBI regarding the JBS and about JBS-related subjects, I was absolutely astonished. THEN---when I discovered that the FBI identified TENS OF THOUSANDS of pages of responsive documents I was ecstatic! Because I really had found an incredible "gold mine" which no other researcher had seen.

The problem with YOUR comment is that there is NOTHING to research. There is no evidence trail to pursue.

• 1. Harry has no documents.
• 2. You have no documents.
• 3. The documents in FBI files about Harry do not support your or his contentions.
• 4. Nor does Harry's CIA file.
• 5. There is no LIVING person to interview (other than Harry).
• 6. There are no OTHER personal papers (other than Walker's) of the alleged principals to the "JBS plot" to review.

​SO WHERE IS YOUR GOLD MINE????

Your problem, Ernie, is that you just keep repeating yourself -- year after year -- not with new information, but with vapid claims that NOBODY ELSE has any information.

You have spent a lot of years and a lot of money filling out FOIA requests for the FBI, and you've identifed "tens of thousands of pages" of mostly useless junk -- which interests almost nobody but yourself -- and you're "ecstatic."

You're evidently "ecstatic" because you think you have an inside track on FBI documents -- which is debatable -- and you even believe that you know more about FBI documents than former FBI Agents, Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen.

Wesley Swearingen, however, simply laughed at you.

Furthermore, you evidently believe that on the basis of the "tens of thousands of pages" of FBI documents that you've seen -- that you're somehow an authority on the JFK murder, and you even suggest that you know what sorts of files that the FBI is hiding about the JFK murder and related topics.

Yet you don't really know. The FBI has accepted lots of your money, and has sent you thousands of pages of mostly junk -- and you're "ecstatic" and you kid yourself that you really and truly know what the FBI doesn't have about the JFK murder (and Harry Dean).

It's nonsense. And as long as you keep boasting about this nothingness, I'll keep pointing out how little you actually have.

You repeat, repeat, repeat, that I have NOTHING TO RESEARCH, because your searches came up blank.

But you can't even find the Edwin Walker papers at the Briscoe Center, Ernie -- how can we believe that you can find the right FBI documents among the MILLIONS of pages that the FBI has, what to speak of its TOP SECRET files -- of which you have utterly no accurate knowledge.

As for your six false claims above, here's my response:

(1) Harry has plenty of documents that are already available from the FBI, proving that he communicated with them from 1961-1964. You keep saying NOTHING, but you know that's untrue.

(2) I have all the documents about Harry Dean from the FBI that you have, Ernie. Maybe some that you don't know about (from Dr. Jeffrey Caufield) which I can't divulge until he publishes his book (probably next year).

(3) The documents in FBI files about Harry (which you actually admit do exist) do support many of Harry's claims -- and I predict that when the TOP SECRET files of the FBI are released in 2017, that all of Harry Dean's claims about Edwin Walker and the JBS will be vindicated.

(4) As for Harry's CIA files, insofar as they refer to evidence about the JFK murder and any accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald, of course they have not yet been made public. So you're continual dreaming and wishing that there will be NOTHING TO RESEARCH must be driving you to distraction as the clock keeps ticking toward 2017.

(5) Yes, one can still interview David Robbins if one wishes -- although he is difficult to reach.

(6) The fact that Edwin Walker has papers is a solid fact in my favor. Furthermore, we have papers by Jim Garrison regarding Loran Hall, Larry Howard, as well as FBI reports on Sylvia Odio, that also fill in details of the scenario portrayed by Harry Dean. It's just that you have a closed mind about it.

Many JFK "Real Researchers" have a closed mind about Edwin Walker, and that is why you get so much support on the Forum, Ernie -- not because you have a positive, theory, but because you have a NEGATIVE THEORY, which spends YEARS to SHUT DOWN Harry Dean's story.

Yet when academic scholarship on Edwin Walker finally makes a spike forward, Ernie, your posts here will be the subject of many jokes; you can count on it.

And THAT will be my Gold Mine. It's only a matter of time.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...Where is your hypothetical "gold mine" located?

On several occasions, members of the Birch Society (including very senior officials) have challenged me to explain why I was so "hostile" toward the JBS and why I keep "attacking" JBS arguments. I then would explain, patiently, how I got interested in the subject. And I pointed out that when I first discovered that NOBODY had ever made an FOIA request to the FBI regarding the JBS and about JBS-related subjects, I was absolutely astonished. THEN---when I discovered that the FBI identified TENS OF THOUSANDS of pages of responsive documents I was ecstatic! Because I really had found an incredible "gold mine" which no other researcher had seen.

The problem with YOUR comment is that there is NOTHING to research. There is no evidence trail to pursue.

• 1. Harry has no documents.
• 2. You have no documents.
• 3. The documents in FBI files about Harry do not support your or his contentions.
• 4. Nor does Harry's CIA file.
• 5. There is no LIVING person to interview (other than Harry).
• 6. There are no OTHER personal papers (other than Walker's) of the alleged principals to the "JBS plot" to review.

​SO WHERE IS YOUR GOLD MINE????

Your problem, Ernie, is that you just keep repeating yourself -- year after year -- not with new information, but with vapid claims that NOBODY ELSE has any information.

If I am mistaken about there being no new information from either you or Harry, you could just tell us what NEW information you have so we could look at it. However, to my knowledge, Harry's story is the same but there is NO new evidence which either you or he can present to us -- right? The only "new" information we have SEEN is from the FBI files I obtained -- such as Harry's letters to FBI-Los Angeles. But nobody interested in this subject has seen anything from you or from Harry.

You have spent a lot of years and a lot of money filling out FOIA requests for the FBI, and you've identifed "tens of thousands of pages" of mostly useless junk -- which interests almost nobody but yourself -- and you're "ecstatic."

"Useless junk"? That is not what you used to write. In October 2013 you wrote:

"Ernie, first I should clarify that I respect your research and that I believe you are asking excellent questions...I repeat that I respect your research."

If nothing else, this shows your unlimited capacity to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

"Useless junk"?? Is that why prominent scholars contact me about it? Is that why editors of magazines contact me about it? Is that why DOZENS of authors have used material from my collection in their books, articles, master's theses, and doctoral dissertations? As this is written, my "Contact" list of researchers and scholars who have asked me to keep them apprised of whatever I discover through my FOIA research about various subjects totals 129 individuals. How many people contact you about YOUR research? How many people or publications cite YOU as providing them with significant information?

You're evidently "ecstatic" because you think you have an inside track on FBI documents -- which is debatable -- and you even believe that you know more about FBI documents than former FBI Agents, Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen. Wesley Swearingen, however, simply laughed at you.

Since when do you place so much credence in Swearingen? He suggested that Harry needed professional attention. And, FYI, Swearingen ASKED ME to find specific FBI documents pertaining to Chicago field because he had NEVER SEEN THEM! Which shows, once again, how "vapid" YOU are! Have you asked Swearingen or Adams about your "secret files" hallucination with respect to your "JBS plot" story? And if not, why not? Afraid that he will express contempt and laugh at you AGAIN?

By the way -- just for clarity: I still am the only person who has obtained the entire FBI HQ main file on the JBS (all 60 sections). How do I know that? Because I recently asked the FBI for a list of all previous requesters and the number of pages released and the dates.

So, "yes", I know that I have the "inside track on FBI documents" pertaining to the JBS (and to JBS-related subjects).

Many of the FBI files I obtained during the 1980's and 1990's as paper documents have now been destroyed -- and I was the ONLY person to request and receive them. Other files have now been transferred to NARA -- but since NARA charges 80 cents per page to make photocopies or to copy documents onto a CD -- I very much doubt that many interested researchers will be willing or able to pay NARA $9600 for the FBI main file on the JBS or, for that matter, tens of thousands of dollars more for other JBS-related subjects.

The FBI file on HUAC is more than 60,000 pages. How many researchers do you know who plan to spend $48,000 to obtain it?

Also---just FYI--- many of the FBI files I have obtained contain few or no redactions because (unlike other requesters) I provide the FBI with exhaustive death records on persons associated with the subject I request. My newest JBS-related requests included 8 pages of death records for example---which explains why my releases contain many fewer redactions.

I also have many CPUSA-related files which contain almost no redactions -- because I have provided the FBI with death records on all the 1950's and 1960's CPUSA officials -- which explains why so many exceptionally prominent and award-winning scholars like Dr. John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr and David J. Garrow have requested copies of my files and they have gone out of their way to publicize my research.

Anybody publicize YOUR research? No? I thought not.

Furthermore, you evidently believe that on the basis of the "tens of thousands of pages" of FBI documents that you've seen -- that you're somehow an authority on the JFK murder, and you even suggest that you know what sorts of files that the FBI is hiding about the JFK murder and related topics.

Quite the opposite and I have so stated from the very beginning of our debate when I observed that there are at least 13 different major theories regarding JFK's murder and there is no way for anybody to "disprove" any of them nor is it likely that anybody can do so -- especially to the satisfaction of the author of the original theory. I am, however, an authority about certain aspects of JBS history. In fact, the late Dr. John George used to tell me repeatedly that I knew more about JBS history than anybody outside the JBS itself -- which is why he wanted me to write a book about the JBS and he even offered to put me in touch with his (and Laird Wilcox's) publisher.

You still do not understand my point about FBI files -- but since you are brain-dead about this matter there is no point in re-hashing it again. As I have repeatedly suggested to you however, contact someone whom YOU believe IS knowledgeable and authoritative about the nature of FBI files -- i.e. somebody who has spent decades researching FBI history and is intimately familiar with FBI filing systems because (for example) they were part of the ARRB or the Church Committee research staff or they took part in the study made by the Archivist of the United States. Ask them whether your ASSUMPTIONS are correct and then let us know the answer.

Yet you don't really know. The FBI has accepted lots of your money, and has sent you thousands of pages of mostly junk -- and you're "ecstatic" and you kid yourself that you really and truly know what the FBI doesn't have about the JFK murder (and Harry Dean).

You have not spent ONE penny nor received ANY FBI documents -- but you don't have one clue about the existence of ANY "secret" file. But you have created this hallucination because you know it cannot be disproven by any rational means -- since you are applying an IRRATIONAL rule of evidence and logic.

It's nonsense. And as long as you keep boasting about this nothingness, I'll keep pointing out how little you actually have.

You repeat, repeat, repeat, that I have NOTHING TO RESEARCH, because your searches came up blank.

No, Paul, you once again are using your famous Word Twisting Game. There is no evidence trail to research with respect to Harry's story. If I am mistaken, then just tell us WHERE we should look for that NEW information because you know something exists in that NEW source.

But you can't even find the Edwin Walker papers at the Briscoe Center, Ernie -- how can we believe that you can find the right FBI documents among the MILLIONS of pages that the FBI has, what to speak of its TOP SECRET files -- of which you have utterly no accurate knowledge.

Again, you don't seem to understand plain English.

I previously wrote that Walker's papers are NOT listed anywhere ONLINE where you would expect to find them listed.

Instead, an interested researcher has to CONTACT THE LIBRARY in order to receive a copy of a 12-page finding aid which was created as a Word document.

But that finding aid is NOT available ONLINE -- nor is any reference to Walker's papers listed in the UoT catalog under his name nor are his personal papers listed in their papers "collections" section online --- and I even provided the link so you could verify what I wrote without relying upon my word. BUT--as you have previously acknowledged, you are NOT a researcher so we can forgive you for spouting nonsense.

As for your six false claims above, here's my response:

(1) Harry has plenty of documents that are already available from the FBI, proving that he communicated with them from 1961-1964. You keep saying NOTHING, but you know that's untrue.

He has plenty of documents? Then why hasn't he shared them after all these years? Do you have a computer printer which includes a scanner or a separate scanning device? If so, why didn't you scan copies of significant documents into your eBook? And why didn't you or Harry post copies of such documents online here in EF after FOUR YEARS of debate and discussion?

(2) I have all the documents about Harry Dean from the FBI that you have, Ernie. Maybe some that you don't know about (from Dr. Jeffrey Caufield) which I can't divulge until he publishes his book (probably next year).

I will be happy to learn about any new documents (FBI or non-FBI) regarding Harry's story. You may have all the FBI documents now - but you never had them prior to me posting them online -- other than the few which appeared on Mary Ferrell's website.

(3) The documents in FBI files about Harry (which you actually admit do exist) do support many of Harry's claims -- and I predict that when the TOP SECRET files of the FBI are released in 2017, that all of Harry Dean's claims about Edwin Walker and the JBS will be vindicated.

The problem here Paul is your use of the word "support".

Normally, "support" in the context you are using the term means substantiate or validate.

But neither FBI or CIA documentary evidence currently "supports many of Harry's claims".

I previously have summarized what those documents reveal. You want to insert your personal subjective interpretation into the documents instead of just using a neutral audit approach to whatever FBI documents reveal. BUT...All genuine research begins with neutral questions. For example: "What did the FBI think about Harry Dean?" is a neutral question --- and then you look for any FBI document which expresses an evaluation about Harry and you quote it accurately and in context without adding your own interpretation.

In other words, you let the original authors speak for themselves without adding or subtracting anything from their contemporaneous observations and statements.

But YOU want to insert your personal subjective opinions -- such as describing a comment as an "insult" -- as opposed to letting the original author speak for himself. THAT is why you concocted an entirely false "analysis" of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover -- even though (if you had "all the FBI documents about Harry") you would have already known that Harry routinely typed ALL his correspondence in ALL CAPS -- so the "long version" of his 11/63 letter was much more credible than what you originally claimed.

(4) As for Harry's CIA files, insofar as they refer to evidence about the JFK murder and any accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald, of course they have not yet been made public. So you're continual dreaming and wishing that there will be NOTHING TO RESEARCH must be driving you to distraction as the clock keeps ticking toward 2017.

Nope. Just reporting factually upon what Harry's CIA file reveals. Nothing more. Nothing less. Keep in mind that the CIA de-classified Harry's file decades ago.

(5) Yes, one can still interview David Robbins if one wishes -- although he is difficult to reach.

Great! Then do so and provide us with a written transcript of your interview which he signs and has notarized-- not just your unsubstantiated assertions OR provide an unedited tape recording.

(6) The fact that Edwin Walker has papers is a solid fact in my favor. Furthermore, we have papers by Jim Garrison regarding Loran Hall, Larry Howard, as well as FBI reports on Sylvia Odio, that also fill in details of the scenario portrayed by Harry Dean. It's just that you have a closed mind about it.

No, Paul, you have changed what I originally wrote.

There are no personal papers BY the participants in the alleged "JBS plot" which would give us a NEW avenue to pursue. Personal papers refers to primary source documents which they wrote (such as correspondence, diaries, journals, emails, articles, first drafts of publications such as books and articles, etc.) along with correspondence which they received from other individuals and their replies to that correspondence. Such items are kept over the years and ultimately they are donated to some institution (college, university, historical society OR other location that is accessible to researchers).

Personal papers DOES NOT refer to secondary evidence -- i.e. what OTHER people have said or written about the primary actors or participants.

For example: if Harry Dean turns over ALL of his personal papers to some institution -- then independent researchers could then have a new resource to review.

Of course, there is no guarantee that someone will turn over ALL their personal papers. Walker, for example, may have destroyed documentary evidence that reveals what you think is his connection to JFK's murder or about his connections to white supremacist and neo-nazi organizations and about his homosexuality. BUT---we still have the personal papers of OTHER persons who received correspondence from Walker so we can re-construct at least some of what Walker might have wanted to conceal or destroy.

Many JFK "Real Researchers" have a closed mind about Edwin Walker, and that is why you get so much support on the Forum, Ernie -- not because you have a positive, theory, but because you have a NEGATIVE THEORY, which spends YEARS to SHUT DOWN Harry Dean's story.

I don't have ANY "theory" Paul. That is what you still don't understand. My approach is to ask questions and seek out verifiable factual evidence. YOUR approach, by contrast, is to give Harry the benefit of the doubt EVEN WHEN he has no documentary or oral history evidence to support his contentions. Nor have I ever attempted to "shut-down" Harry Dean's story. Instead, UNLIKE YOURSELF, I have gone to great lengths to acquire relevant documentary evidence AND, as previously noted, I contacted numerous JFK researchers to ask THEIR opinion regarding not just Harry -- but also about the "JBS plot" theory. That is not the behavior of someone who wants to "shut down" anybody. It is the behavior of somebody who is performing RESEARCH --- which, obviously, is a foreign concept to you.

Incidentally, the "support" I get on this forum has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the subject of Edwin Walker. ALL of the criticisms you have received here have been from people who brought up some OTHER subject. For example, your recent spat with Greg Burnham was about what Gerald Hemming said and about your reliance upon Weberman. That has NOTHING to do with Walker. Also, Tommy Graves, Larry Hancock, Gary Murr, and other critics of your contributions have observed that you twist their statements and/or present assertions which have no basis in fact.

98% of our disputes have had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Walker -- because you have made absolutely stupid comments for which you had NO supporting evidence. I have repeatedly challenged you to QUOTE my original statements to prove various assertions which you have made about me -- but you REFUSE to do so. The most recent example being what you claimed with respect to my comments in Leroy Chapman's Hargis article. I even did the research for you and got the Editor of that website to send me the complete comments section which they had deleted. And STILL you refused to QUOTE what I originally wrote -- because you KNEW that you had misrepresented what I clearly said.

THAT is your fundamental problem Paul. Normal people expect derogatory or adverse statements to be supported by EVIDENCE -- not just assertions.

Yet when academic scholarship on Edwin Walker finally makes a spike forward, Ernie, your posts here will be the subject of many jokes; you can count on it.

I don't see why Paul. My comments or observations about Walker can be found in virtually everything written about him by very accomplished scholars -- most of whom even you cite in your own bibliography captioned, "A Brief History of Ex-General Edwin Walker, 1961-1964".

Actually, Paul, I have some material BY Walker and ABOUT Walker which you probably have never seen. The last "joke" may be on you when I decide to donate it to some institution.

And THAT will be my Gold Mine. It's only a matter of time.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- my replies appear underneath your comments.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

In other words, nothing is revealed about Dean, Galbadon, or the JBS in Walker's papers

I suspect you are correct -- but Paul does not want to acknowledge that.

[Ernie Lazar]

Not sure if I mentioned this before -- but since this forum can use a little humor....

1. When I began my FOIA research -- my focus was limited to making requests about the JBS as an organization and about JBS members and related subjects. However, as I became more familiar with what could be obtained through the FOIA, I became addicted to making requests and I started making requests about all sorts of subject matters which had nothing to do with the JBS or which were only marginally or coincidentally JBS-related.

2. Because of the extreme volume of paperwork which I was receiving from the FBI, I was not able to make detailed notes about everything which I received in the 1980's and 1990's as paper documents -- particularly since I was still working full-time and since I only had about 3 hours a day in "free" time. Often, during any typical week, I was receiving large boxes of FBI documents, -- any one of which would have taken 10 or 20 hours to properly review.

3. As a result, there are numerous files in my collection which I briefly reviewed when I got them -- and I made checkmarks next to interesting stuff contained in those documents but I never had the time to take notes -- so I just filed them away and looked forward to a time when I could make notes -- and perhaps even discover additional files to request.

4. Over the past 30 years there have been several major examples of FRONT PAGE newspaper stories published nationwide which breathlessly "revealed" what they described as "new" evidence from FBI files. For example: I suppose everyone here has seen the front page articles regarding Ezra Taft Benson such as this one in November 2010 in the Salt Lake City Tribune: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=11289154&itype=storyID

5. When I first read that article, I was shocked because I had received Benson's FBI file in April 1999 -- over TEN YEARS before that Tribune article -- but I never thought there was anything particularly unique or newsworthy about its contents.

6. Same thing happened when I saw a huge article in the New York Times in late December of 2007 by reporter Tim Weiner captioned "A 1950 Plan: Arrest 12,000 and Suspend Due Process". Weiner reported upon the FBI's "DETCOM" [Detention of Communists] program as though it was new information which he discovered for the first time in FBI files. I had that FBI file since April 2002 -- and, in fact, I sent Weiner an email correcting one error in his report.

Here is the revised version of that article which added a correction: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/washington/23habeas.html?pagewanted=print

7. This scenario has been repeated several more times. Most recently, it occurred this summer when the editor of The Progressive magazine [Lisa Graves] published a major "expose" article about Charles Koch which included details about his JBS membership as though she had been the FIRST person to discover his JBS membership.

However, over a year before Lisa's article, I had posted documents online (on Internet Archive) and I also had sent copies of those documents to specific scholars and journalists (including to The Nation magazine] which confirmed Koch's JBS membership AND explained why he resigned from the JBS in May 1968 AND I also uploaded a letter from Robert Welch to Koch about a year later asking Koch to accept appointment to the JBS National Council. That Koch article by Lisa Graves was subsequently published on DOZENS of websites and became the basis for literally THOUSANDS of comments posted online by interested parties.

8. My last example pertains to W. Cleon Skousen. Journalist Alexander Zaitchik published a major article about Glen Beck on Salon.com. However, BEFORE he published that article (and BEFORE he published his subsequent book about Beck), Zaitchik contacted me because he knew I was the FIRST (and at that time, the ONLY) person who had obtained Skousen's FBI files (his FBI personnel file and another post-FBI service file -- both of which totaled almost 2000 pages of material).

As a result of several emails between me and Zaitchik, several major errors of fact re: Skousen were corrected before publication of his Salon.com article and his book. And Alex cited my contributions in both his article and book. He also included a link to my Skousen report. Subsequent to its publication, Alex's Salon article was re-published on DOZENS of websites and his article and book produced THOUSANDS of comments by interested readers -- and I noticed that many of those commenters mentioned or quoted material from my online report.

I mention all this simply to address Paul's typically malicious comment about my FBI files being "useless junk".

The fact is that many newspaper reporters and scholars and researchers have published books and articles which reference material which they received from me and many of them have cited me in their article, book, thesis, dissertation or academic conference paper, "Acknowledgements" sections. Can Paul say the same about himself?

IF NOT -- then may we fairly conclude that Paul's "research" amounts to "useless junk"??

IF NOT -- then why should we believe anything which Paul writes about the subject of "research" ??

Edited October 25, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

In other words, nothing is revealed about Dean, Galbadon, or the JBS in Walker's papers

I suspect you are correct -- but Paul does not want to acknowledge that.

Well, Ernie, you have convinced Paul Brancato of your theory, but that wasn't so hard, since Paul Brancato is firmly committed to the theory that the official CIA murdered JFK. So, like most such theorists, he cannot tolerate my theory that Ex=General Edwin Walker and members of the JBS and Minutemen killed JFK.

So, you're both biased.

For the open-minded reader, however, the truth is that Edwin Walker's personal papers reveal a great deal about the John Birch Society (JBS).

There are ninety boxes full of personal papers belonging to Edwin Walker stored at the Briscoe Center archives at UT Austin. When one goes through all 90 boxes (as I have) one sees a floodlight of evidence showing that Edwin Walker was obsessed with the JBS, and collected countless documents by them.

Among Walker's papers, for example, there's a full-page cartoon of JFK dressed in a woman's white wedding gown, and batting his eyes at Nikita Khrushchev at a UN meeting.

THIS was the sort of political pornography that the JBS was dishing out to its inner circle. THIS is what got JFK murdered -- I have no doubts about it anymore.

For "Real Researchers" to ignore this huge cache of literature in connection with the JFK murder is inexcusable. Only political bias allows this to happen.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

In other words, nothing is revealed about Dean, Galbadon, or the JBS in Walker's papers

I suspect you are correct -- but Paul does not want to acknowledge that.

Well, Ernie, you have convinced Paul Brancato of your theory, but that wasn't so hard, since Paul Brancato is firmly committed to the theory that the official CIA murdered JFK. So, like most such theorists, he cannot tolerate my theory that Ex=General Edwin Walker and members of the JBS and Minutemen killed JFK.

So, you're both biased.

For the open-minded reader, however, the truth is that Edwin Walker's personal papers reveal a great deal about the John Birch Society (JBS).

There are ninety boxes full of personal papers belonging to Edwin Walker stored at the Briscoe Center archives at UT Austin. When one goes through all 90 boxes (as I have) one sees a floodlight of evidence showing that Edwin Walker was obsessed with the JBS, and collected countless documents by them.

Among Walker's papers, for example, there's a full-page cartoon of JFK dressed in a woman's white wedding gown, and batting his eyes at Nikita Khrushchev at a UN meeting.

THIS was the sort of political pornography that the JBS was dishing out to its inner circle. THIS is what got JFK murdered -- I have no doubts about it anymore.

For "Real Researchers" to ignore this huge cache of literature in connection with the JFK murder is inexcusable. Only political bias allows this to happen.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

I haven't "convinced' Paul B. of anything. He just responded to YOUR unwillingness to answer a question which you've been asked repeatedly.

Nobody asked you if Walker's papers reveal anything about the JBS. You were asked a VERY specific question -- i.e. do his papers contain anything about OR from Harry Dean? or about the "JBS plot" or about/from Galbadon?

Your reply is precisely the type of NON-responsive smart-ass comment that convinces everybody that you are NOT an honorable or competent researcher.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

I haven't "convinced' Paul B. of anything. He just responded to YOUR unwillingness to answer a question which you've been asked repeatedly.

Nobody asked you if Walker's papers reveal anything about the JBS. You were asked a VERY specific question -- i.e. do his papers contain anything about OR from Harry Dean? or about the "JBS plot" or about/from Gabaldon? ...

On the contrary, Ernie, I have repeatedly answered this question that I've been asked repeatedly -- it's just that you (and Paul B.) find that my answer shatters your prize theories.

I have shown that Edwin Walker's papers prove that he was obsessed with the JBS (as Harry Dean reports).

I have shown that Edwin Walker's papers prove that he was obsessed with JFK (as Harry Dean reports).

I have shown that Edwin Walker's papers prove that he was in direct communication with Gerry Patrick Hemming, who was directly connected with Loran Hall and Larry Howard (whom Harry Dean also cite by name in his report).

I have shown that Edwin Walker's papers prove that he was obsessed with Lee Harvey Oswald from Easter Sunday 1963 through the end of the year (which confirms Harry Dean's report).

For "Real Researchers" this should be interesting. But for readers whose minds are already slammed shut like a steel trap -- these many demonstrations appear to be NOTHING TO RESEARCH.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I haven't "convinced' Paul B. of anything. He just responded to YOUR unwillingness to answer a question which you've been asked repeatedly.

Nobody asked you if Walker's papers reveal anything about the JBS. You were asked a VERY specific question -- i.e. do his papers contain anything about OR from Harry Dean? or about the "JBS plot" or about/from Gabaldon? ...

On the contrary, Ernie, I have repeatedly answered this question that I've been asked repeatedly -- it's just that you (and Paul B.) find that my answer shatters your prize theories.

I have shown that Edwin Walker's papers prove that he was obsessed with the JBS (as Harry Dean reports).

I have shown that Edwin Walker's papers prove that he was obsessed with JFK (as Harry Dean reports).

I have shown that Edwin Walker's papers prove that he was in direct communication with Gerry Patrick Hemming, who was directly connected with Loran Hall and Larry Howard (whom Harry Dean also cite by name in his report).

I have shown that Edwin Walker's papers prove that he was obsessed with Lee Harvey Oswald from Easter Sunday 1963 through the end of the year (which confirms Harry Dean's report).

For "Real Researchers" this should be interesting. But for readers whose minds are already slammed shut like a steel trap -- these many demonstrations appear to be NOTHING TO RESEARCH.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- when somebody asks you a question which requires only a yes or no answer -- you should answer it YES or NO.

From your misdirection, we can all now properly conclude that:

1. There is no correspondence from Harry Dean to Walker in Walker's papers.

2. There are no comments by Walker or correspondence from Walker about Harry Dean in Walker's papers.

3. There is no correspondence from Galbadon to Walker in Walker's papers.

4. There are no comments by Walker or correspondence from Walker about Galbadon in Walker's papers.

5. There are no comments by Walker or correspondence from Walker regarding any "JBS plot" in Walker's papers.

Everything else in your "reply" is smoke and mirrors and represents just your personal opinions. By contrast, "real researchers" look for primary source documents and evidence -- and when they are asked direct questions, they provide clear and direct answers without attempting to manipulate or misdirect people into other subjects -- which is your standard operating procedure.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Ernie Lazar