Ernie Lazar

I have no interest in your pseudo-intellectual and pretentious phony "explanations". There is no "dialectical meaning of methodology". There is just the plain, ordinary, customary meaning of that word in the English language which can be found in EVERY English dictionary on this planet as it was first used circa the year 1800. That plain, ordinary, customary meaning is simply this: the study of empirical research and the suitability of the techniques employed in it---such as the methods used in a particular field of study to determine facts and reality and enable someone to separate fact from fiction. In short, and in summary: METHODOLOGY is that mental discipline which Paul Trejo does not understand, and will NEVER understand and which he NEVER applies to any matter under scrutiny and/or in dispute. EXAMPLE: (1) QUESTION: Did Edwin Walker attend a meeting of JBS members in September 1963 in southern California? (2) METHODOLOGY: One could explain whatever methodology (i.e. rules of evidence and logic) one proposes to use in order to credibly answer that question AND to dismiss or reject proposed answers that cannot meet the criteria for rules of evidence and logic NO "thesis" or "premise" or "counter-premise", or "antithesis" or any other abstraction or philosophical principle can even hypothetically enable a researcher to answer the question posed. ONLY specific credible and verifiable empirical evidence can do so-- AND methodology refers to the principles of fact-finding and fact-confirmation and data-falsification which enable a researcher to arrive at credible and verifiable empirical evidence.

Apparently, Paul, you do not understand the meaning of the word methodology. Methodology does not refer to premises. It refers to what system you use to determine reality and how you are able to distinguish fact from fiction. In other words, it refers to rules of evidence and logic which you employ. I asked my question in the context of your dependence upon specific sources of information such as former FBI Agents Swearingen and Adams but you exclude (and do not believe) other FBI Agents such as Skousen and Smoot. So in that context, you would need to explain what processes you use with respect to evidence and logic which allows you to make fact-based conclusions? I will give you some starting points: (1) One method universally accepted is that there must be independent confirmation for whatever assertions or conclusions are made. So, for example: if person "A" (such as Swearingen) makes a statement or accusation, then there must be some verifiable supporting evidence BEYOND the original statement or accusation made by Swearingen AND contradictory evidence which disputes what person "A" claims must be candidly acknowledged and refuted (if possible). (2) There must be credible primary source evidence which can be checked. So, for example, if person "B" claims to have special knowledge about subject "X", then there must be some kind of factual material available to confirm that person "B" actually has specific relevant education, training, and experience which makes that person a knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source to discuss subject "X" AND that person must have not just abstract knowledge but specific relevant experience in time, place, and scope. Example: If an FBI employee or an FBI Informant makes specific accusations or assertions about the status of our internal security during a particular time period, then one must be able to establish that such an FBI employee or informant had significant personal experience with the type of internal security cases he/she claims to know about AND that experience must be in the relevant time and location for whatever subject is under scrutiny. [Example: an FBI Agent or informant who spent all their time dealing with Communist infiltration into labor unions in southern Ohio during the 1940's would have no credible knowledge about Communist attempts to infiltrate the NAACP in Los Angeles during the 1960's nor would that person be able to speak or write authoritatively about Communist Party activities nationally.]

One wonders WHY you do NOT accept the testimony or writings of former FBI Agents whom aligned themselves with the Birch Society --- such as Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot? They both wrote numerous books and articles and gave numerous speeches around the country. They both worked at FBI HQ. In Skousen's case, he was a Supervisor for a significant period of time and he was recommended repeatedly for advancement. Skousen's performance evaluations while he served in the FBI were extremely complimentary. [Neither of us even knows if Swearingen or Adams had excellent or superior performance evaluations or if either of them was ever recommended for advancement.} SO...by what standard do you dismiss EVERYTHING written by Skousen and Smoot but ACCEPT EVERYTHING written by Swearingen and Adams? What is the process you used to arrive at your conclusions? Especially when you consider that you have NEVER seen their personnel files and there is no conceivable method you could use to verify their assertions since they don't provide footnotes or bibliographic references which you can check. SO...please enlighten us about your methodology!

No Paul, your first sentence is 100% false (as usual). But your sentence illustrates your intellectual problem better than anything I can write. YOU believe that when considering evidence, there is nothing valid between "conclusive proof" versus "nothing". Your comment is equivalent to you going from A to Z and skipping B through Y -- because as I have pointed out repeatedly, you have NO CRITERIA for separating fact from fiction. You believe EVERYTHING --regardless of source and even if there is NO supporting evidence AND even if the item you are citing contains NO footnotes or bibliographic references or even specific names of people discussed. THAT is the quality of your mind! There is nothing wrong with speculating and raising questions and developing theories or hypotheses. However, apparently you never took a course in logic while you were in college. There are things called "logical fallacies". Fallacies occur when there is a defect in reasoning which renders an argument invalid. This usually occurs when misleading or unsound arguments are proposed. For example: YOU have proposed that we accept as factual whatever Swearingen or Adams has written or said -- even though there is no independent confirming factual evidence being offered for their accusations and conclusions. Even more important, YOU would be the first person to acknowledge that you have NEVER independently investigated their FBI employment . In other words, whatever you "know" is based EXCLUSIVELY upon whatever Adams and Swearingen have told you. NO SERIOUS RESEARCHER mindlessly accepts everything some alleged main figure or leading character in a dispute says or writes. An investigative PROCESS is required that often requires arduous research. YOUR approach is totally different. You discover something written or said by someone that seems to conform to what you already believe -- and then you immediately cite that as INDISPUTABLE and FACTUAL --- and you also require us to accept YOUR contention that these people are authoritative and reliable even though you have NOT spent one nanosecond verifying whatever they present. What YOU are proposing is NOT honest intellectual discussion or debate or speculation or theorizing. ANY fiction writer can write something which YOU then propose we accept as the standard for credible evidence and arguments.

But, again, Paul -- you have no independent confirmation that establishes what you claim. You have no idea if it is factually true that either of them were "threatened" by anybody. For all you know, they just made that up for publicity purposes OR they may have mis-interpreted something OR misrepresented what actually happened. You have NEVER seen their personnel files so you have no clue what ACTUALLY occurred. How could you possibly corroborate what Swearingen writes in his book? There are no footnotes and he uses pseudonyms for most of the people he discusses. Apparently, THAT is the quality of "evidence" which most appeals to you! AND you still don't understand that neither of them were assigned to work on the JFK murder. As I have written many times --- you DO NOT accept normal rules of evidence or logic. You have absolutely NO criteria for separating fact from fiction. You just believe ANYTHING which you think conforms to what you already believe. Interestingly, however, you ignore the FACT that Swearingen does not believe anything in Harry's story and, in fact, Swearingen stated that Harry needs professional help for some mental issue.

Paul -- I would not describe Don Adams as "a lifetime FBI agent" although he worked 22 years for the FBI, -- half of that time in Akron, OH -- which is not the location where superior FBI agents were assigned. "Lifetime" agents usually joined the FBI in their 20's and then retired when they were in their 60's. I also would not describe Swearingen or Adams as "whistle blowers". BTW, what "price" did they pay (according to you)? They retired with full government pensions and health benefits and lived happily ever after. A whistle blower makes a public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing by testifying under oath before a legislative body or in court proceedings or by contacting their agency Inspector General or comparable official. Adams and Swearingen did none of those. Which means they were both free to make money from books or lectures without ever being challenged to support their assertions --- which is probably why you like them (just like you prefer to believe Harry Dean's unprovable story). More importantly, anybody within government can complain about something or make allegations but if you do not have the ability to challenge their story and compare it to documentary evidence as well as testimony from other people who have direct personal knowledge then their accusations are a cost-free method of generating publicity. As previously mentioned, you could never PROVE anything Swearingen writes about because he does not even identify the individuals he writes about by their actual names! [A genuine whistle blower does not invent pseudonyms to conceal the identity of the persons whom he claims are engaged in corruption or dishonesty.] In addition, one always has to consider whether someone has a personal grudge or feels under-appreciated or not properly recognized (promotions and pay increases or being overlooked for desired assignments) etc. as explanations for their accusations or their adverse interpretations. And, as previously mentioned, one also has to become familiar with their actual employment history in order to determine whether or not an Agent had access to the type of information (and cases) which they claim to be knowledgeable about. But NONE of that interests you. You have never once shown ANY interest in details. YOUR entire approach to research is equivalent to going to an all-you-can-eat buffet at a casino. You just select whatever you like and then ignore everything else. OCTOBER: You do not need to wait until October because early last year, NARA released a 146-page document which lists all of the remaining documents to be released. The list is organized by NARA agency code (see list below). In addition, each remaining FBI document is identified by the file number it comes from. None of those file numbers pertain to Harry, Edwin Walker, or the JBS. The numerical agency code prefix for each document is as follows. The number in (parenthesis) reflects the total number of documents scheduled to be released. The total number of FBI and CIA documents combined is 2400. The largest number of FBI documents to be released come from FBI HQ file 62-116395 which is the Church Committee (aka Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities). 104- CIA - Central Intelligence Agency 111- DIA - Defense Intelligence Agency (6) 119- DOS - Department of State (94) 124- FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation 137- IRS - Internal Revenue Service (178) 157- SSCIA - Church Committee (26) 173- ONI - Office of Naval Intelligence (2) 176- USSS - US Secret Service (46) 177- LBJ Library (19) 178- ROCKCOM - Rockefeller Commission (30) 179- DOJ - Dept. of Justice (522) 180- HSCA - House Select Committee on Assassinations (167) 181- NARA - National Archives (39) 198- Army (6) 202- JCS - Joint Chiefs of Staff (2)

Numerous former FBI officials have told journalists and scholars and Congressional hearings about misbehavior and illegality during Hoover's time as Director. FBI documents have provided corroboration for what those individuals have alleged or revealed. What is different about JFK's assassination is that no FBI employee has ever come forward to substantiate what you claim. In addition, historians and political scientists and investigative reporters have never found what you allege with respect to entire files or serials never even being entered into the FBI indexing system. There are no "secret files of J. Edgar Hoover" which have not been released. There were documents which Hoover's long-time personal secretary (Helen Gandy) destroyed but nobody has ever suggested that any material pertaining to JFK's murder was among those documents. You frequently refer to Swearingen and Adams but you never once have told us how you went about establishing that their personal opinions are factual. Incidentally, Swearingen's book has no footnotes or bibliography and MOST of the persons he mentions or describes are given pseudonyms so there is no possible way for you (or anybody else) to confirm Swearingen's accusations! Nor have you ever explained why we should believe two Agents who never had any direct responsibility for investigating JFK's murder and who never even worked at FBI HQ. Again---you can ALWAYS find someone within a large organization who is critical of their employer for personal reasons (such as not being promoted or being given critical performance evaluations or having personality disputes with supervisors). But you seem to not care about any of that. You just reverse engineer everything. If someone says or writes something you think advances your argument, then, automatically you believe it -- while, simultaneously, you ignore anything which those individuals may write or say which contradicts what you believe --- such as Swearingen's contemptuous dismissal of Harry's narrative. In any event -- when NOTHING is released in October -- you will STILL claim that there are "hidden" files or serials OR that the "smoking gun" documentation has been destroyed.

For those interested in JFK-assassination-related books, Hamilton Books now shows the following titles available at very significant discounts: https://www.hamiltonbook.com/products/search?q=jfk+assassination&cat_id= Title Author Binding Item # Price Info HIT LIST: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination R. Belzer & D. Wayne Paperbound 5895596 $5.95$16.99 View » POST MORTEM: The Classic Investigation of the JFK Assassination Medical and Ballistics Evidence and Cover-Up Harold Weisberg Paperbound 5813689 $5.95$14.95 View » THE MISSING JFK ASSASSINATION FILM: The Mystery Surrounding the Orville Nix Home Movie of November 22, 1963 Gayle Nix Jackson Hardbound 5770548 $17.95$24.99 View » THE POISON PATRIARCH: How the Betrayals of Joseph P. Kennedy Caused the Assassination of JFK Mark Shaw Hardbound 7660448 $6.95$24.95 View » ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT: The Warren Commission, the Authorities & the Report on the JFK Assassination Sylvia Meagher Paperbound 3605566 $4.95$14.95 View » NEVER AGAIN! The Government Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination Harold Weisberg Paperbound 269865X $5.95$14.95 View » DAVID FERRIE: Mafia Pilot, Participant in Anti-Castro Bioweapon Plot, Friend of Lee Harvey Oswald and Key to the JFK Assassination Judyth Vary Baker Paperbound 3604551 $17.95$24.95 View » WHITEWASH IV: The Top Secret Warren Commission Transcript of the JFK Assassination Harold Weisberg Paperbound 7660626 $4.95$14.95 View » IN THE EYE OF HISTORY, SECOND EDITION: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence William Matson Law Paperbound 4530551 $19.95$29.95 View » OSWALD, MEXICO, AND DEEP POLITICS: Revelations from CIA Records on the Assassination of JFK Peter Dale Scott Paperbound 3678334 $4.95$14.95 View » BULLETINS FROM DALLAS: Reporting the JFK Assassination Bill Sanderson Hardbound 5882524 $17.95$24.99 View » THE REPORTER WHO KNEW TOO MUCH Mark Shaw Hardbound 5874874 $18.95$26.00 View » THEY KILLED OUR PRESIDENT: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK Jesse Ventura et al Hardbound 7582668 $5.95$24.95 View » AMERICAN LEGACY: The Story of John & Caroline Kennedy C. David Heymann Paperbound 3610004 $2.95$16.00 View » THE ACCIDENTAL VICTIM: JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, and the Real Target in Dallas James Reston, Jr Hardbound 2660776 $3.95 View » JFK: A New World Order DVD 2666219 $3.95 View » LEE HARVEY OSWALD--48 HOURS TO LIVE: Oswald, Kennedy, and the Conspiracy That Will Not Die Steven M. Gillon Paperbound 5899869 $3.95$16.95 View » KENNEDY: The Man, the President and the Tragedy DVD 5999863 $9.95$29.98 View » THE KENNEDY DETAIL: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence Gerald Blaine with L. McCubbin Paperbound 4503384 $5.95$16.00 View » LAST WORD: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK Mark Lane Paperbound 6526500 $4.95$14.95 View » THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy That Killed the President David Southwell Hardbound 4575881 $4.95$29.95 View » AUTOPSY: Postmortem with Michael Baden DVD 5708966 $4.95 View » AFTER CAMELOT J. Randy Taraborrelli Hardbound 760954X $2.95 View » JFK'S LAST HUNDRED DAYS: The Transformation of a Man and the Emergence of a Great President Thurston Clarke Hardbound 2747790 $2.95 View » THE BONE TREE Greg Iles Paperbound 5838509 $7.95$9.99 View » THE WAR CONSPIRACY: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War Peter Dale Scott Paperbound 5813743 $5.95$16.95 View » PARKLAND DVD 2695863 $3.95 View » THE THIRD BULLET Stephen Hunter Hardbound 5528755 $7.95$26.99 View » AMERICA'S QUEEN: The Life of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Sarah Bradford Paperbound 5778115 $7.95 View » DR. FEELGOOD R.A. Lertzman & W.J. Birnes Paperbound 577036X $4.95$14.95 View » THEY KILLED OUR PRESIDENT: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK Jesse Ventura et al Paperbound 3639533 $5.95$14.95 View » THE UNWITTING Ellen Feldman Hardbound 4588568 $2.95$26.00 View » TRUMPOCALYPSE NOW! The Triumph of the Conspiracy Spectacle Kenn Thomas Paperbound 6599133 $13.95$16.95 View » THE GREAT PARADE Peter Filichia Hardbound 6576397 $5.95$29.99

Question for PAUL: 1. Let's assume you are correct. Let's assume that (as you assert), Harry Dean had contacts with the FBI office in Los Angeles (and specifically with SAC Grapp) BUT the FBI memos about those contacts were never serialized or put into the FBI's indexing system. 2. That must mean (according to your argument) that the FBI may have circulated their original copies of those memos about Dean's reports to some people within the FBI -- BUT -- they must have destroyed all those memos -- right? The reason they must have destroyed them (perhaps within a few days?) is because (again, according to your scheme of things), the Dean documents were so sensitive that they were NOT even given a serial number and they were never even entered into the FBI's indexing system for future reference, i.e. none of the subjects mentioned by Harry (personal names or organizations) were cross-referenced into the FBI's indexing system. That also explains why it is that when FBI employees subsequently did a Name Check on Harry Dean, none of his JFK-related or JBS-related reports were found and, consequently, his search slips DO NOT contain any references to such reports. 3. The ONLY way ANY FBI employee -- whether that is a lowly files clerk or a Special Agent in Charge of a field office, or an Agent assigned to a case, or an Assistant Director or even Hoover himself could ever know anything specific about what Dean reported OR anything about what dates Harry made his reports OR which FBI employees Harry spoke to OR which FBI employees read his letters is IF the FBI entered that information into their filing system so that, in subsequent weeks, months, years, or decades there would STILL be some kind of paper trail that could be reviewed. 4. Consequently, how would the FBI be able to find those unrecorded reports made by Harry in order to release them in October? They do not exist in their indexing system nor are there any references to them in the hundreds of pages of Harry's FBI files released in 1981 or in the millions of pages of JFK-related files already released. 5. IF the FBI were to magically release some documents re: Harry which YOU think will be released in October how could we know that those were the only "hidden" serials relating to Harry? And WHY would the FBI be willing to let it be publicly revealed that they have deliberately lied for 50+ years?

1. So why are you keeping us in suspense? Exactly what other contacts does Harry claim he had with the Los Angeles office? I "smash" Harry's alleged contacts with Grapp because Harry claims he had those contacts when, it turns out, Grapp was NOT even in Los Angeles. He was still SAC of the Miami office. So unless you have some NEW information to report, there is NO reason to believe Harry about Grapp. 2. Your second point makes absolutely no sense. As stated previously, the FBI did NOT delete contacts it had from other persons who disputed the Lone Nut Theory....so what was so special about Harry's alleged unreported contacts? 3. Swearingen and Adams had NO access to FBI files at HQ or at any field office they did not work at. So what possible "snooping" could they do? MORE IMPORTANTLY: Tell us as clearly as you can -- how you went about confirming that assertions made by Adams or Swearingen were factual? Be specific. LIST the specific research you did. Tell us what you reviewed or who you interviewed, etc. 4. Hoover's "Official and Confidential" files are available online. In addition, there are copies of "private" communications by Hoover available in other locations -- including, for example, Associate Director Tolson's files. 5. As I have stated many times, FICTION WRITERS can propose ANYTHING that comes into their mind. They are NOT constrained by rules of evidence. They DO NOT have to review actual empirical evidence nor do they have to interview anyone. Instead, fiction writers can just fabricate ANY scenario that they think might be plausible to some audience. 6. Your last sentence is what I have always asserted will ALWAYS be your argument. The "hidden files" scenario can NEVER be refuted or falsified. That explanation becomes an all-purpose intellectual escape hatch whenever you cannot PROVE something being disputed. FOR EXAMPLE: (1) How many "hidden files" are there? There is no conceivable methodology which ANYBODY can use to answer that question. By definition, something which is "hidden" is UNKNOWABLE because it is concealed. (2) This is indicative of the self-sealing nature of YOUR arguments. ANY scintilla of contradictory evidence will ALWAYS be rejected by you because there is no possible way to know, with certainty, that one has found and identified whatever has been "hidden". For example: suppose I said that there are 150 "hidden" files pertaining to the JFK assassination. Could YOU refute my contention? How would you even START to disprove (or confirm) my numerical statement? What possible method could you use? The answer is NONE -- and that is how the typical political conspiracy theory is constructed, i.e. they are based upon assumptions which can NEVER be falsified by any normal method of reasoning and logic.

FROM POLITICO: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/03/jfk-assassination-lone-gunman-cia-new-files-215449 How the CIA Came to Doubt the Official Story of JFK’s Murder Newly released documents from long-secret Kennedy assassination files raise startling questions about what top agency officials knew and when they knew it. By PHILIP SHENON and LARRY J. SABATO August 03, 2017 Read more After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 1963, the CIA appeared eager, even desperate, to embrace the version of events being offered by the FBI, the Secret Service and other parts of the government. The official story: that a delusional misfit and self-proclaimed Marxist named Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president in Dallas with his $21 mail-order rifle and there was no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic. Certainly, the CIA’s leaders told the Warren Commission, the independent panel that investigated the murder, there was no evidence of a conspiracy that the spy agency could have foiled. But thousands of pages of long-secret, assassination-related documents released by the National Archives last week show that, within a few years of Kennedy’s murder, some in the CIA began to worry internally that the official story was wrong—an alarm the agency never sounded publicly. Specifically, key CIA officials were concerned by the mid-1970s that the agency, the FBI, the Secret Service and the White House commission led by Chief Justice Earl Warren had never followed up on important clues about Oswald’s contact with foreign agents, including diplomats and spies for the Communist governments of Cuba and the Soviet Union, who might have been aware of his plans to kill Kennedy and even encouraged the plot. (There is no credible evidence cited in the documents released so far that Cuban leader Fidel Castro or other foreign leaders had any personal role in ordering Kennedy’s murder.) The CIA documents also offer tantalizing speculation about the chain of events in late 1963 that explained Oswald’s motives for killing Kennedy, which have previously never been established with certainty—how he may have become enraged after reading a detailed article in his hometown newspaper in New Orleans in September suggesting that his hero Castro had been targeted for assassination by the Kennedy administration. According to that theory, Oswald, who had rifle training in the Marine Corps, then set out to seek vengeance on Castro’s behalf—to kill Kennedy before the American president managed to kill the Cuban leader. If that proved true, it would have raised a terrible question for the CIA: Was it possible that JFK’s assassination was, directly or indirectly, blowback for the spy agency’s plots to kill Castro? It would eventually be acknowledged the CIA had, in fact, repeatedly tried to assassinate Castro, sometimes in collusion with the Mafia, throughout Kennedy’s presidency. The CIA’s arsenal of weapons against Castro included a fungus-infected scuba suit, a poison-filled hypodermic needle hidden in a pen—and even an exploding cigar. The Warren Commission, never told about the CIA’s Castro plots, mostly ducked the question of Oswald’s motives, other than saying in its final report that he had expressed a “hatred for American society.” JFK historians and the nation’s large army of private assassination researchers are still scrambling to make sense of the latest batch of tens of thousands of pages of previously secret CIA and FBI documents that were unsealed last week by the National Archives. The documents—441 files that had previously been withheld entirely, along with 3,369 other documents that had been previously released only in part—were made public under terms of a 1992 law that requires the unsealing of all JFK assassination-related documents by October, the law’s 25-year deadline. Since the release last week, researchers do not appear to have identified any single document that could be labeled a bombshell or that rewrites the history of the assassination in any significant way. Many of the documents, which were made public only online, are duplicates of files that had been released years earlier. Other documents are totally illegible or refer to CIA and FBI code names and pseudonyms that even experienced researchers will take months to decipher. Several documents are written in foreign languages. Still, the newly released documents may offer an intriguing glimpse of what comes next. The National Archives is required to unseal a final batch of about 3,100 never-before-seen JFK-assassination files by the October deadline, assuming the move is not blocked by President Donald Trump. Under the 1992 Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act, the president is the only person empowered to stop the release. (Congressional and other government officials have told us in confidence that at least two federal agencies—likely the CIA and FBI—are expected to appeal to Trump to block the unsealing of at least some of the documents. Even after 54 years, some government officials apparently still want to keep secrets about this seminal event in U.S. history. The CIA and FBI acknowledged earlier this year they are conducting a final review of the documents, but have been unwilling to say if they will ask the president to block some from being released.) None of the files released last week undermines the Warren Commission’s finding that Oswald killed Kennedy with shots fired from his perch on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas’ Dealey Plaza—a conclusion supported by 21st century forensic analysis—and that there was no credible evidence of a second gunman. But the new documents do revive the question of why the CIA, so skeptical internally of many of the commission’s other findings by the 1970s, never acknowledged those suspicions to later government investigators—or to the public. Documents released decades ago show that CIA and FBI officials repeatedly misled—and often lied outright—to Chief Justice Warren and his commission, probably to hide evidence of the agencies’ bungling in their surveillance of Oswald before the president’s murder. The CIA appears also to have been determined to block the commission from stumbling on to evidence that might reveal the agency’s assassination plots against Castro and other foreign leaders. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDFNew Window The CIA historian's report from 2013 that refers to the "benign coverup." (Click to view full document.) New Window http://www.politico.com/magazine/f/?id=0000015d-a54b-d494-a77f-e75f2a570001 The 1964 letter. In 2013, the CIA’s in-house historian concluded that the spy agency had conducted a “benign cover-up” during the Warren Commission’s investigation in 1963 and 1964 in hopes of keeping the commission focused on “what the Agency believed was the ‘best truth’ — that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.” http://www.politico.com/magazine/f/?id=0000015d-a4cc-dd39-a75d-afdfd18d0001 New Window Labeled “SECRET” and stamped “REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED” on each page, this 1975 memo lists several important clues about Oswald that went unexplored in the months and years after Kennedy’s death. (Click to open full document) But what if the “best truth” was wrong? According to documents made public last week, the CIA was alarmed by the mid-1970s to realize that no one had properly followed up on clues about an especially mysterious chapter in Oswald’s life—a six-day, apparently self-financed trip to Mexico City beginning in late September 1963, two months before the assassination. The reason for the trip has never been determined with certainty, although he told his wife, Marina, that he went there to obtain a visa that would allow him to defect to Cuba, much as he had once attempted to defect to the Soviet Union. The CIA acknowledged long ago that the agency’s Mexico City station had Oswald under surveillance during the trip, and that he met there with Cuban and Soviet diplomats and spies. The CIA station chief said later he was convinced that Oswald had a brief sexual relationship with a Mexican woman who worked in the Cuban consulate. Although there is no credible evidence of Soviet involvement in the assassination, Oswald’s other contacts in Mexico included—shockingly enough—a KGB assassinations expert who doubled as an accredited Soviet diplomat. A top-secret June 1964 FBI report, made public in the 1990s but apparently never seen by key investigators for the Warren Commission, suggests that Oswald was overheard threatening to kill Kennedy during his visits to the Cuban diplomatic compound in Mexico. The files released last week also show that the CIA and other agencies failed to pursue clues that Oswald, who publicly championed Castro’s revolution even while serving in the Marine Corps, had been in contact with Cuban diplomats years before the Mexico trip—possibly as early as 1959, when he was deployed to a military base in Southern California. The information initially came to the FBI and the Warren Commission from a fellow Marine who recalled how Oswald boasted about his contacts with Cuban diplomats in Los Angeles, where Castro’s government then had an office. The account from the fellow Marine was of “a lot more possible operational significance” than was realized in the months after the assassination but was never “run down or developed by investigation,” according to a 1975 CIA internal memo released last week. “The record of the beginning of OSWALD’s relationship with the Cubans starts with a question mark.” That 27-page memo, which does not identify its author, is among the most intriguing of the documents in last week’s batch unsealed by the National Archives. Copies of the document were found inside larger CIA files released last week, including thick agency files labeled HELMS HEARING DUPLICATE. That seems to suggest the memo was given to former Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms, who led the agency from 1966 to 1973, when he was later summoned to testify secretly to Congress about his involvement in the CIA assassination plots against Castro and other foreign leaders. Similar documents about the Kennedy assassination and Oswald were written in the 1970s by a senior CIA counterintelligence official, Raymond Rocca, who had served as the agency’s chief liaison to the Warren Commission. Labeled “SECRET” and stamped “REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED” on each page, the 1975 memo lists several important clues about Oswald that went unexplored in the months and years after Kennedy’s death. (Versions of the same CIA memo were part of the flood of millions of pages of documents released after the 1992 law, although it has never attracted detailed attention outside a small circle of assassination researchers. Brian Latell, a respected former CIA analyst on Cuban intelligence, cited a version of the document in his 2012 book Castro’s Secrets, which suggested much closer links between Oswald and Cuba than had previously been known.) The 1975 document noted the failure of the CIA, FBI and the Warren Commission to interview a key witness in Mexico City—Silvia Duran, the Mexican woman who worked in the Cuban consulate and was reported to have had the affair with Oswald. She is the “sole live witness on the record regarding Oswald’s activities,” yet her testimony “was taken and presented, solely, by the Mexican governmental authorities,” the CIA memo said. Duran, who is still alive, has repeatedly insisted she had no sexual relationship with Oswald, although she readily acknowledges that she helped him with his unsuccessful visa application for Cuba. It was that same CIA memo that offered a detailed theory of the chain of events that led Oswald to kill Kennedy—how Oswald, who lived in his hometown of New Orleans for much of 1963, may have been inspired to assassinate the president if, as seemed probable, he read an article on Monday, September 9, in the local newspaper, that suggested Castro was targeted for murder by the United States. The article, written by a reporter for The Associated Press in Havana and then published prominently in the Times-Picayune, was an account of an AP interview with Castro two days earlier, in which the Cuban strongman angrily warned the Kennedy administration that he was aware of U.S. assassination plots aimed at Cuban leaders, presumably including him, and was prepared to retaliate. The article quoted Castro as saying: “U.S. leaders would be in danger if they helped in any attempt to do away with leaders of Cuba.” New Window The September 1963 Times Picayune story. (Click to view full-size image.) The CIA memo suggested that if Oswald, who was known to be an “avid reader” of the Times-Picayune, saw the article, it might have put the idea in his head to kill Kennedy as retaliation for the threat the United States posed to Castro—an idea that would have been in his mind as he left for his trip to Mexico that month. The possibility that Oswald read the article “must be considered of great significance in light of the pathological evolution of Oswald’s passive/aggressive makeup” and “his identification with Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution,” the CIA memo said. Immediately after the assassination, the CIA’s Mexico City station warned CIA headquarters that the AP article might contain a vital clue about Oswald’s motives for killing Kennedy—and even about possible Cuban involvement. But according to the 1975 analysis, “There is no evidence in the files on the Kennedy assassination that the Castro interview was considered in following up leads or in dealing with the Warren Commission, although Mexico Station specifically directed headquarters to the AP story very shortly after the Dallas killing.” Previously released internal documents from the Warren Commission show that one of the commission’s most aggressive staff lawyers believed that Castro’s remarks to the AP—and the possibility that Oswald read the article—might be of great significance in explaining Oswald’s motives. But the internal files show that more senior staff members decided against any reference to the AP article in the commission’s final report for fear of feeding conspiracy theories about a possible Cuban link to Kennedy’s death. It does not reflect well on the legacy of either the CIA or the commission that, half a century after those gunshots rang out in Dealey Plaza, the newly released documents suggest that at least some of those conspiracy theories might be true.

But what is your basis for that assumption? Have you asked Harry if he had other contacts (by phone, mail, or in person)? WHY would the FBI decide to delete from its own internal indexing system -- contacts from Harry Dean but they chose NOT to delete comparable contacts from all sorts of people who actually DID dispute the "Lone Nut Theory"?

Well, Paul, as is often the case with your argument, it is based upon a totally false predicate. There is no evidence that the FBI treated Harry with "harsh words" -- and that is according TO HARRY! Let's briefly summarize what happened: 1. The FBI never heard of Harry Dean until HE started contacting the FBI in the summer of 1960. 2. According to Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover, he was treated with respect and he explicitly stated that all of the Agents he dealt with "were my kind of people. They went by the book, they were patriots..." And then, in June 1961, when Harry was told by Chicago FBI Agents that he could "no longer continue as an undercover agent, I was saddened to tears, the fact that they were sorry about the whole thing turning out as it did made me realize they are not only human but also dedicated to the same principles as we are." 3. Then, circa July 1961, Harry moved to Los Angeles. In August 1962, Harry contacted the Los Angeles-FBI office by phone. He told an FBI Agent during that phone conversation that he had been an FBI informant in Chicago and he declared at that time that "...while he himself is personally not averse to resuming informant activities in behalf of the FBI, he hesitates to do so because of his wife’s feeling in the matter.” 4. Harry continued to contact the FBI-Los Angeles office by phone or by letter. The FBI politely listened to everything he had to say and an Agent memorialized on paper whatever Harry wanted to tell the FBI---just like the FBI does for any person who contacted the FBI. 5. HOWEVER, when Harry started a major self-promotion campaign around southern California (particularly with respect to contacting media outlets) and Harry claimed through newspaper interviews and other contacts that he was some kind of FBI undercover agent or political spy, then those media outlets began contacting the FBI to ascertain whether or not Harry's claims about his status were accurate and truthful. 6. EVERY FBI reply was the standard type of FBI reply to all such inquiries when the person seeking publicity mis-represented their association with the FBI. The FBI simply told inquirers that Harry had never worked for the FBI or been asked to do anything for the FBI. Period. End of story. [See 1977 letter by Assistant Director of Los Angeles office for example of how the FBI replied to ALL incoming inquiries.] 7. When Harry would NOT stop describing himself as an FBI undercover agent or spy -- the FBI wrote letters to Harry asking him to cease and desist doing so. There were no threats and no harsh words. Just a request that Harry change his behavior. Harry did not change -- but the FBI took no actions against Harry. 8. LONE-NUT THEORY: YOUR argument is that: "Now -- why did the FBI treat Harry Dean with such harsh words? The answer is clear to any reader of JFK CT literature -- the FBI was committed to the 'Lone Nut' theory of the JFK assassination, and any evidence of any 'conspiracy' in the JFK assassination had to be squashed with extreme prejudice." This is where your argument crumbles into total absurdity -- for the following reasons: (1) Harry had 16 contacts with the FBI in the period from November 1963 through December 1966. (2) Of those 16 contacts, ONLY ONE pertains to JFK's murder. ONE! (3) NONE of Harry's contacts with the FBI mention the Birch Society or Edwin Walker or any "JBS plot". (4) Consequently, how could the FBI be motivated against Harry (as you claim) because of the Bureau's obsession with protecting the "Lone Nut theory" -- when Harry's contacts with the FBI never involved him disputing the "Lone Nut Theory" in his communications with the FBI?? POSTSCRIPT: 1. The ACTUAL subject matters which Harry wanted to discuss with the FBI during his 16 contacts with the FBI from November 1963 onward had nothing to do with JFK's murder. 2. Of those 16 contacts which Harry had with the FBI, FOURTEEN of them (92%) pertained in some way to FPCC or pro-Castro/anti-Castro Cubans. ONE of them (11/19/64) pertained to LHO's contacts with Mexicans and Cubans. Here is the summary of that contact--which Harry described as his "speculation". [NOTE: by definition, speculation means: "conjecture without firm evidence" "Special Agent Ferd Rapp stated that Harry “was interviewed at his request and in response to his telephone call to the Los Angeles office.” Harry told Rapp that he read the Warren Report’s comments about Oswald’s “alleged association with various Mexican or Cuban individuals”. Specifically, Harry mentioned testimony by Sylvia Odio re: Lawrence Howard and Loran Eugene Hall. Harry told Rapp that he had met Hall (Monterey Park CA) and had heard him make an anti-Castro speech in Covina CA in September 1963. Harry also met Lawrence Hall Jr. (Pico Rivera CA) about this time but Harry stated he “had no contact with either of these persons since the time of the assassination” and he has not heard “either of them make any anti-Kennedy statements.” Harry stated that it “was interesting to speculate that it might have been Oswald actually with these two men in Dallas” and that “both Hall and Howard who are anti-Castro leaders of the Cuban underground, actually wanted President Kennedy removed from the scene because of the failure of the 1960 Cuban invasion.” Harry told Rapp that “in his opinion Hall and Howard would be capable of entering into conspiracy with Oswald to commit the assassination” and the FBI might want to check out that possibility.

What you describe as my "rant" -- was me carefully dissecting everything YOU have written over the years and demonstrating through empirical evidence (including direct quotations by you and Harry) that you both are incapable of admitting error. Frankly, I cannot imagine ANYBODY whom could penetrate the bubble you have created around your falsehoods. As I have stated before -- you create self-sealing and circular arguments (often based upon entirely false predicates) and then you have the gall to complain and whine when someone reveals and quotes your numerous falsehoods. EVEN WORSE---you sometimes claim that you have acknowledged your errors when you have NEVER actually done so. Example: I recently asked you to specify WHEN and WHERE you publicly stated that your original arguments against the FBI were NOT TRUE. As usual -- you REFUSED to answer --- because THAT is your standard method of operation, i.e. you make absurdly false statements, accusations, and conclusions and when someone categorically falsifies what you present, you NEVER acknowledge that your basic argument was DELUSIONAL! Instead -- you berate and malign the integrity, common sense, and character of whoever is your critic!

Paul -- I have a confession to make to you. I am "biased" against ANYBODY who presents falsehoods and expects us to accept them. Everybody in EF is looking forward to your comments in October 2017 when you finally have to admit that the narrative you and Harry have promoted for years is FALSE. HOWEVER -- I predict that you will NEVER acknowledge your error. Instead, you will dumb-down your final comment to: "Well, everything I wrote over the past 8 years regarding Harry was simply a matter of opinion -- and at least I was never 'biased' against him."

AGAIN PAUL: Then contact Leroy Chapman (email address previously supplied to you) and TELL HIM that you think he is a l-i-a-r because that PDF file "clearly cannot be the one" I referred to in my messages. Your use of the term "clearly" ALWAYS precedes some new delusional falsehood which you wish to disseminate -- such as when you have previously declared boldly that Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover was a "forgery" by the FBI-- and then you "clearly" assured us that.... "There is no other conclusion that ordinary common sense can make..." AND "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." AND "Your bias against Harry Dean amounts to a blind spot in your vision, Ernie. Your lack of objectivity is probably obvious to everybody on this thread except yourself."

Paul -- I never said ONE WORD about your demeanor or style of writing in that Hargis thread. You just invented that. What I said is that you do not like to be corrected regarding your errors. I spent considerable time during our debate in that Hargis article explaining FBI policies and procedures and explaining exactly why Harry's narrative could not possibly be true. EVEN YOU recognized (in writing) that I had made serious points which deserved consideration. It is astounding that you think Harry Dean's 50-year campaign of self-promotion through his lies and mis-representations along with your utter falsehoods which have repeatedly been revealed during our debates amounts to nothing more than "a simple matter of opinion". I guess that is your new omnipresent intellectual escape hatch -- i.e. no matter how many times your arguments are proven to be delusional falsehoods, you will dumb-down the dispute to nothing more than "a simple matter of opinion". What appears to be the case is that you received your college degree from Trump University -- and you majored in "Alternative Facts"

I have told you THREE TIMES that I have done exactly what you want. The PDF file of our ENTIRE DEBATE is attached to my previous message. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The FIRST comment regarding that Hargis article was posted on November 3, 2012 at 9:27pm. The LAST comment was posted a year later on November 23, 2013 at 5:09am AND ALL OF OUR messages between those two dates appear in the PDF file whose link I gave to you. The PDF file totals 28 pages.

Paul -- what are you talking about? The comments which originally appeared in the Hargis article were deleted because the moderators of that website did not want to spend time reviewing each new comment. However, the ENTIRE comment section was sent to me as a PDF file and I posted a link to that pdf file (28 pages in total) here on EF when you first made your false accusations. I also copied that link again yesterday into my reply to you. IF you are claiming that the comments from that Hargis article which I posted here on EF again yesterday IS NOT the entire original comments thread, then please contact Leroy Chapman (whose email address I gave to you) and ASK HIM. That "original debate" is STILL in the PDF file whose link I gave you in my message yesterday and which is the same link I previously provided on page 85 of the Harry Dean Memoirs thread on August 6, 2014. My comments in reply to your assertions in that thread were "calm and respectful" -- but the problem is that (as always is the case with you), you don't want ANYBODY to correct your numerous errors. ADDENDUM FOR PAUL: FYI -- The FIRST comment regarding that Hargis article was posted on November 3, 2012 at 9:27pm. The LAST comment was posted a year later on November 23, 2013 at 5:09am AND all comments between those two dates appear in the PDF file whose link I gave to you.

Below I copy the very first message which I posted after becoming a member on EF. It is dated June 8, 2009. As I have previously explained, I had received emails from several people who had seen EF messages pertaining to Harry Dean and who also had seen my online report about the JBS. They asked me for my opinion regarding Harry's narrative. Up to that time, I never heard of Harry Dean --- so I reviewed his EF messages and then wrote and posted the following message. NOTHING which I wrote in June 2009 has changed EXCEPT that in subsequent years I discovered even more compelling documentation (on Mary Ferrell's website AND from obtaining Harry's FBI and CIA files at NARA) that everything which I concluded in June 2009 was ACCURATE and TRUTHFUL. Notice that I supplied the FBI file number and serial number and date of the letter about Harry which was written by the Assistant Director in Charge of the Los Angeles FBI field office. As previously mentioned, THAT serial contains a notation on bottom of the file copy which reveals Harry's Los Angeles file number. You may see his letter below along with a copy of the newspaper interview of Harry (pages 340-343 in link below). I should point out that the Los Angeles-FBI file on the JBS was received by me on several different occasions. The first time I obtained it was in April 2006 when I received the file as paper documents. However, when the FBI began allowing requesters to obtain FBI documents as pdf files scanned onto a CD -- I requested the JBS-Los Angeles file again so that I would be able to upload it onto internet websites as well as donate it to colleges/universities or other institutions and individuals. So--the second time I received the Los Angeles JBS file was on a CD in 2008. Interestingly, the original paper copy in 2006 did not redact anything from serial #1258 https://archive.org/stream/foia_JBS-Los_Angeles-9/JBS-Los_Angeles-9#page/n339/mode/2up ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MY FIRST MESSAGE ON EF (June 8, 2009 -- page 9 of Harry Dean Memoirs Thread A while back I was asked for information concerning Harry Dean who claims that he infiltrated the John Birch Society from 1962-1964 and that he was an informant for the FBI. During my research into FBI HQ and field office files pertaining to the John Birch Society I received an FBI document which pertains to an inquiry about a column by James Horwitz on page 2 of the 3/16/77 issue of the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley News. The Horwitz column reported upon an "exclusive interview" with Harry Dean during which Dean repeated his claims about his alleged association with the FBI as an undercover operative or informant from 1960-1965 (notice that in this interview, Dean changed the years to include 1965). The Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office (Robert E. Gebhardt) saw a copy of the Horwitz column because of an inquiry which he received about it. Gebhardt responded to the inquiry about Dean’s assertions and he forwarded a copy of his 4/1/77 reply to James K. Coffin, the Publisher of the Las Virgenes Independent Valley News. You may obtain a copy of the column, the inquiry, and the reply by requesting Los Angeles FBI field office file #100-59001, serial #1258. Here is the pertinent excerpt: “In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has never been an informant of this Bureau, and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society. I am bringing the above information your attention. You might consider furnishing this information to the readers of your column.” Since I have obtained the entire FBI HQ file on the John Birch Society (12,000 pages), as well as almost all of the FBI field office files on the JBS -- it seems very odd that there is no mention whatsoever of anybody who "infiltrated" the JBS at the request of the FBI. More significantly, there is the matter of standard Bureau procedure regarding ALL prospective informants: 1. Standard Bureau procedure regarding field office interest in using informants of any kind was that the field office had to submit a detailed investigative report about the proposed informant. 2. In addition, the informant was placed in probationary status until it could be determined whether or not the informant was providing useful and reliable information. Field offices prepared periodic summaries of the information which every informant provided. 3. Furthermore, any expenses incurred by informants (such as travel, purchasing literature, attending conferences etc) were itemized and requests for reimbursement were routinely submitted to HQ for approval (or rejection). 4. Any other monies paid to an informant also had to be explicitly approved by HQ. 5. Any verbal reports by informants were converted into typewritten memoranda summarizing what information they provided. Those written reports were placed into the files of the subjects they discussed (along with cross-referenced copies in other pertinent files). 6. I might also add that standard Bureau procedure regarding its informants was to provide a factual summary of their status. For example, here is the summary which the Bureau routinely sent out when people inquired about Julia Brown, an FBI informant within the Communist Party who subsequently became a Birch Society member and paid speaker under the auspices of its American Opinion Speakers Bureau: "Concerning Mrs. Julia Brown, she furnished information on subversive activities to the FBI on a confidential basis from 1951 to 1960. Although she was not an employee of this Bureau, she was compensated for her services. Her current views are strictly her own and do not represent the FBI in any way." [HQ 62-104401-2499, 4/24/65]. THERE IS NO COMPARABLE BUREAU STATEMENT REGARDING HARRY J DEAN! Given everything I have mentioned above, I would bring everyone's attention to the following facts: 1. There is no record of any kind whatsoever in any FBI HQ or field office file that Harry Dean ever was even considered as an informant much less accepted as one. 2. No official investigation of the JBS was ever opened by the FBI. There was a preliminary inquiry during 1959 and 1960 -- but once it was established that the JBS was an anti-communist organization which did not advocate or participate in criminal or subversive activities, there was no reason to "infiltrate" it. 3. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever concerning payments made to any "informant" within the JBS for expenses of any kind. 4. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever reflecting continuing periodic reports (verbal or written) by a specific "informant" whom the FBI authorized to "infiltrate" the JBS Since I have acquired numerous FBI files on actual informants it authorized to infiltrate both legitimate and subversive organizations -- and I am, therefore, intimately familiar with the type of data contained in such files -- it is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his "FBI" association in order to inflate his credentials. Furthermore, Harry Dean is on record stating that former FBI Special Agents Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen were "members" of the Birch Society. But that is a total falsehood. Neither Smoot or Skousen joined the JBS. They did, however, support the JBS and both spoke at JBS functions or wrote for JBS publications. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ernie1241@aol.com FBI FILES ON JBS: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1

Paul -- regardless of the entirely false accusations which you want people to believe -- I never made any statement whatsoever that corresponds to your lie that I claimed Harry had no official FBI number at all. Furthermore, I uploaded copies of FBI documents into my EF messages which I found on the Mary Ferrell website and those documents contained Harry's FBI file numbers!! This is what I mean by you sometimes losing your mind --- when you make statements which are indisputably false and easily shown to be deliberate falsehoods by you. Nor did I "vanish" from any discussion -- as pages 84-86 of the Memoirs thread clearly demonstrates. I continued to respond to all of your falsehoods at that time and subsequently. Just once Paul -- admit you are wrong and then move on.

Paul -- it is NOT "impossible to quote exactly" what both you and I wrote in that BJH article because I uploaded the ENTIRE comments section here in EF when you first made your false accusations against me. In addition: I gave everybody the email address of the website's owner so that anybody could confirm you were lying: leroychapman@yahoo.com See page 85 of the Memoirs thread for my message AND for the PDF file attachment of the ENTIRE comments thread in that article about Hargis. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/4269-harry-dean-memoirs/?page=85 There were other falsehoods contained in your comments at that time -- which I addressed in two of my replies to you in August 2014. I copy/paste below your message and my replies (in blue font) below: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PAUL's MESSAGE AND MY REPLIES IN BLUE FONT As I factually wrote, Ernie, your claims on the web page, "The Strange Loves of Billy James Hargis" from 2013, made in a long and insulting thread, much like the tone of this thread, were removed by the editors of that web page, and the conclusions were absorbed into the next version of his article. Paul -- the editors did not single out or "remove" my comments because of their tone. They removed ALL comments made by everyone who posted any comments. Incidentally, the author the article (Leroy Chapman) made this observation in his footnote #20 -- I underline one critical point: "20. In 1962, a former Castro sympathizer turned CIA informant named Harry Dean infiltrated the John Birch Society. He claimed that society members Walker and John Rousselot hired two gunmen to kill John F. Kennedy, and that they planned to frame Lee Harvey Oswald. Dean, however, could not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim." The complete article is here: http://thislandpress.com/11/02/2012/the-strange-love-of-dr-billy-james-hargis/?read=complete For anyone who believes Paul's false insinuation and accusations, contact Leroy directly at his email here: leroychapman@yahoo.com So, you're simply lucky there -- your crimes have been covered over, and you can continue your lies and pretences with impunity -- at least on that count. Contact LeRoy Chapman and ask him who is presenting "lies". Incidentally, I sent Leroy and his editor (Michael Mason) material concerning Edwin Walker for their article Make no mistake, Ernie. Many readers here see right through your bias, your hostility, your insulting arrogance -- and know that you're a weak writer with poor logical skills. You mean like when you fabricated a hoax to explain why Harry's 11/19/63 short-version letter to Hoover was genuine but the long version was a fake? Another thing I know with certainty, former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen has lost all respect for your truly ignorant methods of so-called fact-finding, and of claiming that if the FBI wrote something, it must be true -- and that the FBI never broke their own rules or procedures. Like any large bureaucracy, the FBI had people who used short-cuts and broke rules and procedures and even violated laws. But knowing that is different from being able to prove, with verifiable evidence, what, exactly, was done and when and by whom and for what reasons. All of those factors require careful research -- which is foreign to you. The harsh words that FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen wrote about you I have deliberately withheld from this Forum until today. Yet if you persist in your incessant insults, I'll have no other moral choice but to air them publicly. You are free to quote anything you like from his messages to me. He and I have a disagreement about his beliefs concerning the number of Security Index subjects in the Chicago office. All FBI documentary evidence refutes what he claims. But he also is the first person to acknowledge that he DID NOT work at FBI HQ, nor did he ever work inside Division 5 (the Domestic Intelligence Division) which was responsible for compiling statistics. He also would be the first person to acknowledge that one must clearly understand the operative rules and procedures and how they change over time. Nothing you can quote regarding my principled disagreement with Swearingen about statistical data remotely approaches his CATEGORICAL REJECTION of your ENTIRE narrative regarding Harry Dean. Calm down, Ernie. Seek professional help. You are merely projecting your own personal deficiencies onto me again. (2) MY MESSAGE WHICH CONTAINED THE PDF FILE ATTACHMENT WITH ALL COMMENTS IN THE HARGIS ARTICLE: Notice my summary at the end of the following message regarding the difference between Paul Trejo and myself --- WHICH STILL IS AN ACCURATE SUMMARY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH PAUL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Because Paul Trejo made such an issue about this -- and he even insinuated that "the editors" of This Land website singled out my comments and had them "removed" because of their tone or substance, I contacted the editor of This Land (Michael Mason) to ask him if there was any truth to what Paul wrote. Below I copy Michael's entire email to me. Michael was also kind enough to send me a copy of the entire comment thread -- so everybody can now read exactly what I wrote and Paul's replies and then compare what I wrote to the grossly distorted description which Paul Trejo has presented here in EF. [Note: the comments appear in reverse chronological order so you have to go to the end of the attached PDF document to see the first comments.] Notice how many times during our exchange that Paul said that he "respected" my research -- and notice also the message where Paul stated "As I've already admitted, you make some excellent points". In particular --- read my two messages which begin with: "Paul, what I find most troubling..." and "I think we are splitting semantic hairs..." As will become immediately obvious -- there is NOTHING substantively different in my This Land comments from what I have stated here in EF since the beginning in June 2010. The ONLY difference is that during my exchange with Paul in "This Land", he acknowledged that I had raised significant discrepancies or omissions in Harry's narrative -- whereas, now, Paul wants to pretend that there are no such discrepancies or omissions worthy of consideration! From: Michael Mason <mmason@thislandpress.com> To: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com> Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2014 5:45 am Attachment HargisComments.docx Hi Ernie, nice to hear from you--and sorry to learn that you are being pestered. As to your questions: 1) Yes, I do, and they are in the attached document. I retracted email addresses to avoid privacy complaints, but all the comments should be there. 2) No, there is no truth that we removed any of your comments because of your tone, or anything having to do with you, or any individual. We made the decision several months ago to disable all comments on our entire website, as moderation of the comment board was becoming too time consuming for our small operation. Please let me know if you have any new information to share regarding your research. Best, Michael ----SO....once again we see how Paul Trejo cannot be trusted to accurately report upon what has transpired or the reasons for why certain actions are taken. We also can now see, beyond any rational dispute, that Paul subscribes to what is generally known as "situational ethics". Anything which Paul thinks advances HIS personal opinions is "good" and "true" and "ethical" and "moral". However, ANY person who challenges Paul's perceptions or beliefs or assertions is, by definition:, "biased", "dishonest", morally depraved and totally without decency or honor. AND AGAIN -- Notice the difference between myself and Paul. * I quote primary source evidence * I upload important documentary evidence * I provide clear bibiliographic references * I make it easy for anybody to discover the original sources where disputed information appears BY CONTRAST: * Paul almost never quotes from primary sources * Paul never uploads documentary evidence * Paul never provides specific bibliographic references * Paul never makes it easy to discover the original sources where disputed information appears AND * Worst of all --- Paul merely ATTRIBUTES beliefs and ideas and values to people and organizations without EVER providing substantiation for his personal opinions. Instead, he uses phrases like "it is common knowledge" -- to cover everything he cannot prove or to mask his profound ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Comments Thread on BJH Article.pdf

BTW---if anyone wants to see the Hargis article comments section which contains my comments in reply to Paul's messages -- I can send you a pdf file which contains ALL the comments made about that article so you can see for yourself that Paul has deliberately misrepresented what transpired during that debate. Just contact me at: ernie1241@aol.com The point which Paul cannot seem to grasp is that I have never changed my comments about Harry Dean since the very first message I posted here on EF (June 2009) -- with one temporary exception. At one point during our debate, I explicitly accepted a potential alternative explanation regarding Harry because Paul objected to my use of the word "l-i-a-r" when describing Harry. For a short period of time, I suggested that it might be possible that Harry was very confused about his status and he also embellished what he claimed was his relationship with the FBI but he did not actually intend to mislead anyone. In other words, I accepted Paul's suggestion that Harry did not understand how his use of language could be misinterpreted. HOWEVER -- that possibility went out the window when I discovered that Harry continued to mis-represent his relationship with our "intelligence agencies" -- even including as recently as last month. Also, Harry's (1) refusal to answer obvious probing questions and (2) Harry's refusal to publicly post a clear and unambiguous correction regarding his previous status is a strong indication that he is a fake "eyewitness" who STILL just wants attention. In this respect, he has NEVER changed his behavior since the 1960's. EVERYBODY who came into contact with Harry since the 1960's, came away with the exact same impression (which Harry cultivated), i.e. that he was "recruited by" our intelligence agencies and he complied with instructions given to him by our "intelligence agencies" because THEY wanted Harry to infiltrate or "spy" upon certain individuals or organizations and report back to them about what he discovered AND furthermore, they even paid Harry's "expenses" -- which Harry claims were paid to him in cash. Not true. Never true.

Huh? (1) When and where did you "publicly retract" your "earlier attacks on the FBI"? (2) Your claim re: my comments on the Billy James Hargis article is 100% false and I even contacted the owner of the website where that article appeared to request that he send me a printout of all the comments which were posted on that article and I then posted here on EF those full comments--so everyone could see for themselves that you were lying. (3) It should be noted that during our debate about Harry in that Hargis thread YOU wrote the following comment about me: "Ernie, First I should clarify that I respect your research, and that I believe you are raising excellent questions." (4) I have previously stated upon numerous occasions that you FALSELY paraphrase or summarize what you CLAIM somebody writes -- but you almost never ACCURATELY QUOTE their exact comments. You have just done that YET AGAIN with respect to your FALSE assertion that I "forcefully insisted that Harry Dean's account was utterly bogus because no official FBI file number for Harry ever existed." There is a general rule which ALWAYS applies to ANYTHING where Paul inserts into a message what HE claims somebody else has said or written. That general rule is simply this: Paul deliberately LIES about the actual position stated by whomever he is describing. WHAT DID I ACTUALLY WRITE IN THAT HARGIS THREAD REGARDING FBI FILES AND HARRY? I QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE BELOW. You will notice that what I wrote in October 2013 is EXACTLY VERBATIM what I have ALWAYS written here in EF “Paul: I think we are splitting semantic hairs here to no purpose. Whether Harry supplied 'information' to the FBI about individual JBS members or about the JBS as an organization or both — either way, he claims to have provided such information starting in September 1963 (although he says he joined the JBS prior to that time). My only point continues to be that IF Harry actually supplied such 'information', there should be some record of it SOMEWHERE — but there is none (not in the JBS HQ file, not in the JBS Los Angeles field file). As previously noted, it was standard practice for the FBI to file copies of memos or reports into multiple files. In some cases, I have seen the exact same FBI memo or report in 6 or more different files because of how the FBI cross-referenced everything. Consequently, EVEN IF (by some incredible omission) something Harry reported to his Los Angeles FBI contacts about, say, John Rousselot — does NOT appear in the Los Angeles JBS file, then it should be in Rousselot’s Los Angeles or HQ file. And if not in either of those files, then it could have been placed in yet more files if, for example, Rousselot and Harry mentioned any other subject (individual or organization or publication etc.) AND if STILL not in those files, there could be references to that information in yet other files." FURTHERMORE -- consider the TOTALLY BOGUS LOGIC of what Paul claims was my position. At the time I made my statement (above) in October 2013 -- I already was familiar with the fact that the Los Angeles field file on the JBS contained a letter written by the Assistant Director in Charge of the Los Angeles field office which reported that Harry had no connection to the FBI. THAT letter contains a notation at the bottom which is Harry's Los Angeles file number! And here is the real whopper. I quoted from that letter in my FIRST message ever posted here on EF -- i.e. on June 8, 2009 -- on page 9 of the Harry Dean Memoirs thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/4269-harry-dean-memoirs/?page=9 So, obviously, I knew about a specific FBI file number pertaining to Harry in June 2009. But there is something even more compelling. There is no conceivable way I could make the type of definitive statement about FBI files pertaining to Harry (which Paul falsely claims I made in October 2013) UNLESS I had submitted an FOIA request to the FBI about Harry. But I did not submit my first FOIA request on Harry to the FBI until February 2014. I then discovered that his files were transferred to NARA. Furthermore, I had seen documents on the Mary Ferrell website which contained Harry's Chicago, HQ, and Los Angeles field file numbers -- so there is no possibility that I would ever have made the type of statement which Paul falsely attributes to me (which is why he does not QUOTE what I wrote). BOTTOM-LINE: There was no "error" on my part to "retract" because this entire episode WAS INVENTED by you. (5) Not being content to deliberately LIE just once -- you then deliberately LIE again when you state: "You then changed course, found dozens of FBI files on Harry Dean, and began to criticize them." I have never found "dozens of FBI files on Harry Dean". There are only 3 files which the FBI created on Harry. They are: Chicago 100-38257 (destroyed in May 1990) HQ 62-109068 (now at NARA -- but originally released on May 6, 1981 without redaction to Mark A. Allen as part of his larger FOIA request for documents obtained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations) Los Angeles 105-12933 (now at NARA -- but originally released May 6, 1981 without redaction to Mark A. Allen as part of his larger FOIA request for documents obtained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations) WHAT PAUL PROBABLY IS CONFUSED ABOUT (AS USUAL): The "dozens" comment by Paul MIGHT refer to "cross-references" which contain the name "Harry Dean" -- which were shown on HQ and Los Angeles field "search slips". However, many of those "dozens" of references are NOT about our Harry Dean -- they are about someone else by that name. The ones which actually pertain to our Harry Dean merely repeat the exact same information which appears in his HQ or Los Angeles files. For example: HQ 97-4362 is an 8-page FBI memo which mentions Harry in one sentence that states when Harry gave 16 items to the Los Angeles field office, one of them mentioned Joaquin Freire (Freire was the subject of HQ file 97-4362.] BOTTOM-LINE: Yet again, Paul lies about me because of his own ignorance.

(1) THE ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION FROM BILL KELLY Jim: This began on November 5, 2013 when Bill Kelly posted a message in the Harry Dean Memoirs thread. Unfortunately, EF no longer identifies messages with a message number but you can see Bill's original message on page 17 of the "Memoirs" thread. This is what Bill Kelly wrote -- and he included an attachment of Harry's redacted letter addressed to J. Edgar Hoover on 11/19/63 (aka the short version): "I don't know if these docs are at Mary Ferrell or not, and have not revisited this in years, but I did locate a few redacted documents that I pulled out of Harry's file a few years ago to ask him about it - and got sidetracked. In any case, here's one document from Harry's file that I pulled and wanted to ask him about. Harry, did you write this letter or is it someone else who wrote it and your name is written in at the bottom for some other reason? And who redacted it? Thanks - BK" 18109 xitina Dr. La Xuente Calif. Nov. 19, 1963 Director J. E. Hoover F.B.I. Washington D.C. Dear Sir, [REDACTED] 1960 [REDACTED] the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [REDACTED] information [REDACTED] local Chicago office of the Bureau. My present assignments [REDACTED] Los Angeles office [REDACTED] has this information. [REDACTED] undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago [REDACTED] done in June 1961 because Eastland’s Committee was issuing subpoenas to hold hearing on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the 26th of July Movement ([REDACTED] moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time [REDACTED] I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports [REDACTED] released [REDACTED] making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] groups limiting my effectiveness. [REDACTED] name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee’s report no.96465 part 2 pages 84 and 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level [REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact. [REDACTED] that you will see to this urgent matter, [REDACTED] J.R. [REDACTED] Harry J. Dean (2) WHAT HAPPENED AFTER KELLY POSTED THIS "SHORT VERSION" OF HARRY'S LETTER? Very briefly: (a) I found a non-redacted excerpt of Harry's letter which Kelly mentioned -- on Mary Ferrell's website. That excerpt was from an FBI memo which discussed it. I posted that non-redacted excerpt on page 18 of the Memoirs thread on November 6, 2013. (b) Paul Trejo began his campaign to discredit the FBI's excerpt from Harry's letter -- starting on page 19 of the Memoirs thread. (c) On November 10, 2013 (page 22 of Memoirs thread) I posted the ENTIRE letter written by Harry to Hoover on 11/19/63. At this time, all of Paul's arguments became total falsehoods because it became apparent that Harry routinely typed ALL his outgoing correspondence in ALL CAPS and the FBI had NOT "doctored" his letter---as Paul had claimed. (d) On November 10, Harry posted a message (page 22 of Memoirs thread) stating that his letter to Hoover had been edited in some manner to make it a "composite" and it included items which he claims he "did not write". (e) Without ANY further investigation, Paul Trejo immediately accepted what Harry wrote and then Paul declared: "Fair enough, Harry. Unless somebody beats me to the punch, after work today I'll make a detailed comparison of the FBI version of your letter to J. Edgar Hoover, with the letter to Hoover that you yourself published in 1990 on page 31 chapter 2 of your MS/Book, CROSSTRAILS. This promises to be interesting." (f) By November 11th (page 23 of Memoirs thread), Paul had concluded that: 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. and, furthermore, Paul began his screed against the FBI's motives for creating a "forgery": "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." (g) Later -- when I obtained both of Harry's FBI files -- I found the ORIGINAL copy of his November 1963 letter to Hoover (and his mailing envelope) along with ALL the other letters which Harry wrote (also in ALL CAPS) so we finally discovered that Paul's entire argument was bogus and his jeremiad against the FBI was based upon absolute "forgery" falsehoods which Paul fabricated in his own mind.