Ernie Lazar

Sorry, Paul, but you rarely provide any sort of substantiation for your most definitive assertions or statements. Your typical procedure is to attribute some comment or belief to someone whom you think can be used in support of your argument (such as Donald Adams or Wes Swearingen or James Hosty or Harry Dean) but you rarely (if ever) actually QUOTE them verbatim or provide a link to what you claim supports your statement. [Of course, in Harry's case, you wrote an ENTIRE book without providing ANY supporting documentation or substantiation.] Second: if you make ANY personal attack upon me or anybody else and, especially, if you characterize something I write as dishonest or inaccurate or false -- THEN it is incumbent upon YOU to provide your specific evidence -- NOT just express your unkind or ad hominem slurs or evade obvious questions. This has NOTHING to do with whether or not EF is an "Academic Forum" --- another typical Trejo attempt at misdirection and straw-man argumentation. Nobody is requesting "footnotes". But this is an educational website -- and BY DEFINITION, educational means "intended or serving to educate or enlighten". SO---unless you are now telling us that OUTRIGHT LIES are "educational" -- OR -- if you are telling us that deliberate mis-direction and straw-man arguments are "educational" OR if you now want us to believe that rumor, gossip, and hearsay are "educational" -- OR -- if you are telling us that totally unsubstantiated personal opinion is "educational" --- THEN I don't really think ANY of us would bother to be here.

Well, Paul is entitled (like all the rest of us) to his share of honest errors. However, there is a difference between an honest mistake versus deliberately ignoring verifiable factual and documentary evidence.

What was your "error"?

Sorry, Jason, this is the most absurd comment you have ever posted. There are many different ways which can disprove your observation. Here are just a few: 1. THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF FILES CREATED In one respect, I began my FOIA research 36 years ago in order to address the very point you raise. I wondered if the FBI created files on right-wing individuals, groups and publications (or events) with the same zeal and thoroughness as they did with left-wing individuals, groups, publications, and events? When I submitted my first batch of FOIA requests, I asked that the FBI inform me (for each subject) if anybody else had requested and received documents on those subjects. Over 80% of the time, their answer was "NO" -- so I was the first person to make those requests. That triggered me into start making comprehensive requests on literally THOUSANDS of right-wing individuals, organizations, publications, events, controversies and other related subjects. You can get a general idea of the scope of my research on my FOIA request webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/foia/ I also attached a 253-page computer printout which the FBI produced for me in 2007 which showed all my FOIA requests up to that time. BRIEFLY THIS IS WHAT I DISCOVERED: (a) The files which the FBI opened on right-wing subjects were minimal compared to what they opened on left-wing subjects (b) The right-wing files, on average, were quite small. Often, the FBI just wanted some background info to ascertain who was involved and what their objectives were -- and then they closed the file except, sometimes, for responding to incoming inquiries from concerned citizens. The total number of serials often was less than 100. (c) IF a right-wing organization had chapters in different locations (multiple cities and/or states), the FBI rarely opened separate files for each location (major exceptions: KKK-related and White Citizens Council movement, Minutemen, JBS, and American Nazi Party). However, typically, all reports or info on most right-wing subjects was just combined into one HQ file. (d) By contrast, the CPUSA files were massive (often 8000 or more serials) AND the FBI opened a separate file for every city/state and in some cases even individual counties along with every individual CPUSA club. (e) In summary: the CPUSA files total MILLIONS of pages. There is so much material that NOBODY has ever seen all of it AND NOBODY could afford to obtain all of it. You can get a small idea of what I am talking about by reviewing my CPUSA webpage (scroll to bottom to see a few CPUSA-related file numbers) https://sites.google.com/site/xrt013/cpusa1 2. TRAINING MATERIAL FOR FBI EMPLOYEES The second question I was trying to answer is: what did the FBI do with all the information they collected? (a) With respect to the CPUSA, I discovered that the FBI created dozens upon dozens of training monographs for its employees -- and many of those monographs were periodically updated with new editions (see link below for their Bibliography of Central Research Monographs). https://archive.org/stream/BibliographyOfCentralResearchMonographsHQ1/Bibliography of Central Research Monographs-HQ-1#page/n1/mode/2up (b) BY CONTRAST: There is virtually nothing pertaining to right-wing groups (exceptions: one monograph and subsequent update on KKK / NSRP / American Nazi Party (c) Keep in mind that J. Edgar Hoover testified before the Warren Commission that: "I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies." "Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man." (Warren Commission, Volume 5, page 101) Hoover was lying for public relations purposes. Neither he (or the FBI) actually believed that the "extreme right" was "just as much a danger" as the "extreme left". His only concern about the extreme right was basically limited to violent groups like White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi----the most violent Klan in our nation's history -- and violence-prone groups like National States Rights Party. 3. BOTTOM LINE While it is correct to point out that the FBI did not exist in a vacuum --- and -- consequently, outside events (and political pressure) triggered changes in their emphasis or in resources devoted to certain types of investigations and intelligence gathering, it is a FALSEHOOD to pretend (as Jason falsely claims) that Hoover "had started tracking the southern-based right wingers with a vigilance comparable to the communist party." (a) Every FBI field office had what amounts to a "Communist squad" -- i.e. a permanent group of Agents assigned to work exclusively upon CPUSA-related cases (and other radical left groups such as Socialist Workers Party). In major cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco --- there might be 15-50 Agents assigned to work on just those cases. (b) BY CONTRAST: There was no permanent "Radical Right Squad" in any FBI field office. The FBI would flood resources into a field office (when required) to cope with something like the murder of civil rights workers -- but once those crimes were solved, those extra Agents would then return to their original assignments in their home office. (c) It is EXTREMELY rare for any file on a right-wing subject to total more than 2000 pages. Again -- the major exceptions being KKK, ANP, Minutemen, National States Rights Party, and JBS, and White Citizens Councils movement. However -- typically the FBI interest was predominantly in violent right-wing groups OR persons who were thought to be in a position to facilitate violence OR persons who might know information about potential or actual violence. BY CONTRAST: The FBI monitored/tracked/watched every conceivable aspect of the CPUSA (and related radical left wing individuals/groups). At its peak, the FBI had about 425 live informants inside the CPUSA -- massively dwarfing what they had inside extreme right-wing groups (if any at all!) Example: the FBI had no informants inside the JBS -- although they did maintain contacts with people who knew what was going on inside the JBS.

Paul -- since you did not want to answer my question about "tracking" or "watching" - I will give you an example of the type of document created by the FBI when its Agents actually did perform those functions. See: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32191928.pdf The Special Agent assigned to perform the "tracking" would prepare a summary memo addressed to their Special Agent in Charge. Tracking/watching includes such techniques as: 1. physical observation (the most labor-intensive option -- which often involved 24/7 surveillance by a team of Agents; CPUSA "Smith Act" defendants were often surveilled on a regular basis). In other cases, FBI Agents would just physically confirm that the targeted person was in their home or at their place of employment 2. pretext phone calls (the FBI created a training monograph for its employees to instruct them how to obtain desired information by pretending to be someone else so the targeted person would not know of the FBI's interest) 3. pretext physical contacts (such as an Agent visiting an employer to ask a question without identifying himself as an FBI Agent) 4. contacts with informants or confidential sources who had daily direct knowledge about the targeted person's whereabouts and/or plans (often this would be co-workers or employees of the targeted person) 5. regular inquiries made with neighbors, and/or to postal employees, utility companies, credit reporting agencies -- to obtain desired information NOTE: These are just SOME of the techniques used. Notice they all have a common-denominator, namely, they are pro-active measures taken by FBI employees (usually with a specific goal in mind) -- not just passively waiting for someone to contact the FBI to share information -- which might not even be pertinent to what the FBI wanted to know. In addition, FBI Agents would write regular memos to report what they had done and what information they developed about the targeted person (or organization) as opposed to waiting for some contact to occur and then merely summarizing what some person told them---and not even knowing if that information was accurate or not.

Hard to know why they are "old" when un-redacted versions of some were just released two days ago! In any event -- you present your opinions without providing links to anything. By contrast, I supply direct quotations and/or links to EVIDENCE. Since you like conspiracy explanations -- try this one on from an article published in a UK newspaper: An informant identified Dallas police officer J.D Tippit as the actually killer of John F. Kennedy, the newly released assassination file documents reveal. Patrolman Tippit was shot dead by Oswald 45 minutes after he also assassinated Kennedy on November 22 1963. According to a note sent to the FBI, an informant was told by an H. Theodore Lee in that ‘the president was actually assassinated by Dallas police officer TIPPIT’. The informant also told Lee that the information came from individuals previously active in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC). The note also says a week before the assassination Tippit, allegedly head of the right-wing John Birch Society in Dallas, and a third party who was possibly Oswald, met in Jack Ruby's nightclub. Ruby shot Oswald two days after the assassination and died of lung cancer in 1967. He was found to have acted alone in killing Oswald. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5023235/Dallas-police-officer-JD-Tippit-JFK-s-REAL-assassin.html#ixzz4woqElG8q Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

NOTE TO PAUL TREJO: THIS IS WHAT PRESENTING EVIDENCE LOOKS LIKE JFK DOCS BY SUBJECT EDWIN WALKER DOCS https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134205-DOCID-32248018.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134206-DOCID-32248020.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140713-DOCID-32313660.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143805-DOCID-32335769.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143821-DOCID-32335796.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143833-DOCID-32335860.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143835-DOCID-32335866.html HARRY DEAN https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4132586-DOCID-32127956.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140478-DOCID-32312899.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140491-DOCID-32312909.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140494-DOCID-32312915.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140497-DOCID-32312925.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140501-DOCID-32312926.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140504-DOCID-32312927.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140926-DOCID-32319416.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4145040-DOCID-32389028.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4145044-DOCID-32389346.html JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4132791-DOCID-32158127.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4133632-DOCID-32191928.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4133784-DOCID-32202012.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134204-DOCID-32248016.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134206-DOCID-32248020.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134216-DOCID-32248213.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134273-DOCID-32270564.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134690-DOCID-32277355.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4135512-DOCID-32295871.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4139496-DOCID-32308444.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140293-DOCID-32312210.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4141335-DOCID-32323122.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4142188-DOCID-32328488.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143542-DOCID-32334414.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143757-DOCID-32335263.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143759-DOCID-32335267.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143792-DOCID-32335623.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143821-DOCID-32335796.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143840-DOCID-32335882.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4144822-DOCID-32356696.html LORAN EUGENE HALL https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134586-DOCID-32273595.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4135520-DOCID-32295875.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140700-DOCID-32313589.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143799-DOCID-32335663.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4144379-DOCID-32344747.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4144822-DOCID-32356696.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4144838-DOCID-32357166.html AMERICAN NAZI PARTY: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4132563-DOCID-32121661.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4132872-DOCID-32166013.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4133157-DOCID-32178675.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134205-DOCID-32248018.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134206-DOCID-32248020.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143309-DOCID-32333914.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143808-DOCID-32335776.html ROBERT DEPUGH https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143490-DOCID-32334364.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143509-DOCID-32334384.html JOHN THOMAS MASEN https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140660-DOCID-32313501.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140663-DOCID-32313507.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140667-DOCID-32313514.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140670-DOCID-32313518.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140673-DOCID-32313529.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140679-DOCID-32313532.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140683-DOCID-32313549.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140690-DOCID-32313561.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140700-DOCID-32313589.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140703-DOCID-32313597.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140710-DOCID-32313608.html KU KLUX KLAN https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4132744-DOCID-32153638.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4133299-DOCID-32182643.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134205-DOCID-32248018.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134817-DOCID-32284940.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4135343-DOCID-32295006.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4135347-DOCID-32295007.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140197-DOCID-32311578.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143410-DOCID-32334304.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143423-DOCID-32334317.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143490-DOCID-32334364.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143493-DOCID-32334366.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143506-DOCID-32334381.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143509-DOCID-32334384.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143752-DOCID-32335245.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143758-DOCID-32335264.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143796-DOCID-32335652.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143798-DOCID-32335655.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4145305-DOCID-32397527.html JOHN CROMMELIN: NONE PEDRO DEL VALLE: NONE GUY GALBADON: NONE JOHN ROUSSELOT: NONE ROBERT WELCH: NONE

NOTE TO PAUL TREJO: THIS IS WHAT PRESENTING EVIDENCE LOOKS LIKE JFK DOCS BY SUBJECT (Some are duplicates because same serial discusses several subjects) EDWIN WALKER DOCS https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134205-DOCID-32248018.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134206-DOCID-32248020.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140713-DOCID-32313660.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143805-DOCID-32335769.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143821-DOCID-32335796.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143833-DOCID-32335860.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143835-DOCID-32335866.html HARRY DEAN https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4132586-DOCID-32127956.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140478-DOCID-32312899.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140491-DOCID-32312909.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140494-DOCID-32312915.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140497-DOCID-32312925.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140501-DOCID-32312926.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140504-DOCID-32312927.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140926-DOCID-32319416.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4145040-DOCID-32389028.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4145044-DOCID-32389346.html JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4132791-DOCID-32158127.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4133632-DOCID-32191928.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4133784-DOCID-32202012.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134204-DOCID-32248016.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134206-DOCID-32248020.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134216-DOCID-32248213.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134273-DOCID-32270564.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134690-DOCID-32277355.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4135512-DOCID-32295871.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4139496-DOCID-32308444.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140293-DOCID-32312210.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4141335-DOCID-32323122.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4142188-DOCID-32328488.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143542-DOCID-32334414.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143757-DOCID-32335263.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143759-DOCID-32335267.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143792-DOCID-32335623.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143821-DOCID-32335796.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143840-DOCID-32335882.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4144822-DOCID-32356696.html LORAN EUGENE HALL https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134586-DOCID-32273595.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4135520-DOCID-32295875.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140700-DOCID-32313589.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143799-DOCID-32335663.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4144379-DOCID-32344747.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4144822-DOCID-32356696.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4144838-DOCID-32357166.html AMERICAN NAZI PARTY: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4132563-DOCID-32121661.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4132872-DOCID-32166013.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4133157-DOCID-32178675.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134205-DOCID-32248018.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134206-DOCID-32248020.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143309-DOCID-32333914.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143808-DOCID-32335776.html ROBERT DEPUGH https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143490-DOCID-32334364.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143509-DOCID-32334384.html JOHN THOMAS MASEN https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140660-DOCID-32313501.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140663-DOCID-32313507.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140667-DOCID-32313514.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140670-DOCID-32313518.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140673-DOCID-32313529.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140679-DOCID-32313532.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140683-DOCID-32313549.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140690-DOCID-32313561.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140700-DOCID-32313589.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140703-DOCID-32313597.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140710-DOCID-32313608.html KU KLUX KLAN https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4132744-DOCID-32153638.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4133299-DOCID-32182643.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134205-DOCID-32248018.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4134817-DOCID-32284940.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4135343-DOCID-32295006.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4135347-DOCID-32295007.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4140197-DOCID-32311578.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143410-DOCID-32334304.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143423-DOCID-32334317.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143490-DOCID-32334364.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143493-DOCID-32334366.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143506-DOCID-32334381.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143509-DOCID-32334384.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143752-DOCID-32335245.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143758-DOCID-32335264.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143796-DOCID-32335652.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4143798-DOCID-32335655.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4145305-DOCID-32397527.html JOHN CROMMELIN: NONE PEDRO DEL VALLE: NONE GUY GALBADON: NONE JOHN ROUSSELOT: NONE ROBERT WELCH: NONE

Since I mentioned Judge Tunheim -- I suggest Paul read his most recent comments contained in this Politico article--because Tunheim DOES know what is in the remaining documents. See especially his comment at end of the article which I bolded: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/27/jfk-records-rollout-judge-criticism-244257 Judge rebukes handling of JFK records By BRYAN BENDER, 10/27/2017 05:29 PM EDT The federal judge who oversaw the collection of government documents on John F. Kennedy's assassination called it "disappointing" that President Donald Trump is holding back so many of the records while the CIA, FBI and other agencies review them. "I just don't think there is anything in these records that require keeping them secret now," John Tunheim, who from 1992 to 1998 chaired a congressionally established board that reviewed all the files on the assassination, told POLITICO in a telephone interview Friday. He is now a U.S. district judge in Minnesota. Trump announced the partial delay Thursday night, just days after pledging to release the remaining collection. He instead granted agencies six more months to review many of the documents to ensure they do not reveal sensitive intelligence sources or practices — 25 years after Congress had set Thursday as the deadline for releasing them. The National Archives released about 2,800 documents Thursday while holding back an unspecified number. The CIA said Thursday that the details it is concerned about include "the names of CIA assets and current and former CIA officers, as well as specific intelligence methods and partnerships that remain viable to protecting the nation today." Even so, "the President has demanded unprecedented transparency from the agencies and directed them to minimize redactions without delay," the White House said in a statement. "The National Archives will therefore release more records, with redactions only in the rarest of circumstances, by the deadline of April 26, 2018." Dismayed assassination scholars and researchers assert that Thursday's release encompasses only a fraction of what had remained undisclosed in the National Archives. The final batch that scholars have been waiting for total more than 3,100 files that had previously been "withheld in full," and about 30,000 others that were partially released over the years with some information blacked out. All those documents were collected by Tunheim's Assassination Records Review Board, which Congress created in 1992 amid the public interest generated by the Oliver Stone film JFK. Thursday's released contained only 52 new documents that had previously been completely withheld — less than 2 percent of the total, said Rex Bradford, president of the nonprofit Mary Ferrell Foundation, which has digitized hundreds of thousands of the records related to Kennedy's murder. Meanwhile, he said, Thursday's release of 2,839 previously redacted documents accounts for less than 10 percent of what had remained in the Archives' files, he said. "To borrow a phrase," Bradford said, "sad." And many of the "new" documents aren't even new, several noted authorities on the subject contend, despite some of the headlines they generated. For example, the BBC and other news outlets reported the revelation Friday that a British newspaper had gotten an anonymous tip about "some big news" in the U.S. just 25 minutes before Kennedy's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963. But a British research organization had unearthed that report in other files in 1995. Another document that generated early interest from the JFK assassination research community was an FBI memo from Nov. 24, 1963 — the day Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald — expressing worries about public perception of Kennedy's murder. The memo related a remark by then-Director J. Edgar Hoover: “The thing I am concerned about is having something issued so that we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.” But several scholars pointed out that a document written by then-Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach — made public decades ago — revealed similar sentiments. "So a lot of what is being reported is old news," remarked Bradford. Still, a number of researchers intimately familiar with the government paper trail on the Kennedy case were dumbfounded at the government's inability or unwillingness to release more of the final documents by Thursday's deadline. The 1992 law establishing the Assassination Records Review Board set a deadline of Oct. 26, 2017, to automatically release all remaining records, unless the president ordered them kept secret to protect national security based on the recommendations of government agencies. "Why did this delay have to happen at the last minute?" asked Richard Anderson, a historian who has research the Kennedy assassination. "The intelligence agencies have had 25 years to prepare." "The original JFK act law specified immediate release of JFK records and only in the most rarest of occasions should there be a postponement or redactions," he added. "Even if postponements are legitimate they risk the public’s trust at this point by not releasing everything as promised." Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) slamed the delay as "ridiculous," tweeting: "YeGods u had fifty yrs NOW CIA WANTS FURTHER COVERUP/POTUS STOP." Tunheim said he believes that the CIA and FBI are probably most concerned that the documents could reveal secret relationships with foreign countries. "They knew this deadline long ago," Tunheim said. "It should have been done by Oct. 26, 2017."

Let's see what we can AGREE upon -- ok? Let's start with a true/false test. TRUE OR FALSE? 1. The FBI is our nation's primary internal security investigative agency? 2. By law, the FBI is responsible for such matters as: subversion, espionage, treason, civil rights violations, counterintelligence operations, and all kinds of domestic security-related matters? 3. All governmental agencies (local, state, and federal) know that the FBI is our nation's primary internal security investigative agency? 4. Because of #3, literally hundreds of federal and state and county and city governmental agencies and departments and commissions (and their field office locations in every state or city/town) know that, by law, it is their responsibility to share any internal-security-related information with the FBI? 5. In addition: many independent investigative bodies (such as military intelligence, i.e. G-2, ONI, OSI) -- along with foreign governments AND even private citizens and journalists and employers know that it is also their responsibility to share internal-security-related information with the FBI? 6. Because of #5, the FBI has received literally MILLIONS of unsolicited contacts from outside independent sources of information (by phone, by mail, and by in-person visits -- and even (in former decades) by telegram. [See, for example, Harry Dean file]. 7. HOWEVER, in many instances, these contacts with the FBI did NOT produce usable or factually true information. In fact, FBI files contain numerous notations describing certain individuals as "mental cases". Nevertheless, ALL of this information is contained in FBI files (HQ and field office)? IN SUMMARY: -- Do you agree OR disagree with the following? FBI files contain LOTS of unverified raw information. By definition, "unverified raw information" consists of assertions or statements which have NOT been checked for accuracy or errors. Usually, such information has never been analyzed and fact-checked by some knowledgeable person or investigator in order to identify and filter out the false or misleading or exaggerated information. Raw information often includes subjective or biased assertions or conclusions because the original source has some sort of ax to grind OR the source has a specific agenda which he/she wants to advance which colors the judgments they make OR the original source is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject matters being discussed to make fair, reasonable, and accurate conclusions. Furthermore, the original source may just be giving the FBI rumors, gossip, speculation, half-truths, or hearsay information. EXAMPLE: Numerous FBI files contain incoming reports (aka unverified raw information) from FBI informants. Not everything they relay to the FBI is true or factual. In other words, not ALL information received by the FBI has equal value or validity or relevance. NOW---WITH ALL THIS IN MIND---perhaps you would like to go back and review the FBI files which pertain to Edwin Walker and tell us why you think the FBI was "tracking" or "watching" him?? (1) What, exactly, was the FBI looking for? and what did they DO with all the information they developed from "tracking" or "watching" him? (2) IS IT YOUR CONTENTION that every single FBI file (HQ or field office) that pertains to a human being -- is an example of the FBI "tracking" or "watching" that person? (3) IF an FBI file on a person has biographical information about that person (such as: date of birth, names of immediate relatives, education, current employment, military service record, residence address, criminal history) -- does that mean the FBI was "tracking" or "watching" that person?

Apparently, Paul, you have never performed an impartial audit of any controversial matter. An audit means: you just accurately summarize whatever is the position of each relevant person i.e. you correctly state what they believe in context -- WITHOUT editorial comment or interpretation OR you just summarize accurately the information shown in every document without adding any personal comments. For example: I did that with respect to Harry Dean's FBI files. The first two sections of my Report merely summarize exactly every single serial in Harry's FBI HQ and Los Angeles files. I did NOT interpret anything. I did NOT add any comments of my own. I did not attempt to refute or prove anything. I just presented what is shown in each serial. IF YOU would do exactly that (and nothing more) for Edwin Walker's HQ and Dallas field files -- THEN you would understand how to present evidence WITHOUT adding your own interpretations. Let me put this slightly differently so you might understand. WHAT QUALITIES WOULD YOU EXPECT TO FIND IN AN FBI FILE ABOUT SOME PERSON OR ORGANIZATION WHEN THE FBI DID NOT "TRACK' THAT PERSON OR ORGANIZATION? In other words, what type of serials WOULD NOT appear in that type of file when the FBI was NOT "tracking" that person or organization? OR If you would rather use the opposite formula: WHAT TYPE OF INFORMATION WOULD APPEAR IN AN FBI FILE -- ONLY WHEN THE FBI WAS "TRACKING" A PERSON OR ORGANIZATION??

ANYBODY (even you) can provide verifiable evidence. The problem is that 99% of the time you never provide it. Instead, you just express your personal opinion OR you ATTRIBUTE beliefs to a person which they DO NOT believe OR you cite as "experts" - people who refute what YOU believe! As I previously pointed out (and you don't even deny this), your favorite sources of "information" (Harry Dean, James Hosty, Wesley Swearingen, Don Adams) do NOT even include bibliographic footnotes or documentary evidence references in their writings which can be fact-checked. THAT is the type (and quality) of "information" which excites and convinces YOU. Think of this like a jury trial. What YOU are doing is functioning like a lawyer who NEVER provides ANY contradictory evidence which can be verified. Instead, your approach is to bring to the witness stand, a host of people who share your OPINIONS -- even though NONE of you have ever performed any independent investigation. Instead, you just quote each other.

Define "tracked"

It is not a question of me knowing or making a claim. It is a function of documentary evidence which is publicly available concerning ALL the remaining documents to be released. But since you never rely upon EVIDENCE because you prefer FANTASIES and DELUSIONS -- then you can claim anything you want -- just like every other FICTION writer. THAT is why every JFK researcher INCLUDING all the people who totally believe there was a conspiracy involved --- DO NOT discuss Harry Dean or Jeff Caufield -- because they, too, rely upon verifiable factual EVIDENCE -- not your delusional beliefs and baseless opinions.

The FBI-Dallas field file on "Un-Named Organization of Dallas Patriots" is Dallas 104-1475. I received that file in 2006. This file was NOT created as a function of "tracking" Edwin Walker or tracking John Thomas Masen (as Paul falsely states) but, instead, it was created as a consequence of the arrest of Ashland F. Burchwell. I copy some of my notes (below) re: this file. [The HQ file is HQ 100-439312]. I also copy my notes from the HQ and Dallas files on Burchwell. This file pertains to Texas “patriots” org which the FBI discovered as result of arrest of Burchwell. Burchwell met with 6 other people just prior to being arrested on 9/30/62 and Dallas PD found 200-300 coded cards (some with names and addresses) in his vehicle. Burchwell acknowledged existence of organization similar to Minutemen but refused to provide any other info. Some reports claimed that the mailing list consisted of JBS members in Dallas area. Dallas PD arrested Burchwell in his car and found 4 pistols, a rifle, and 3000 rounds of ammunition plus a JBS mailing list. He was reportedly on his way to Mississippi. Burchwell was member of Friends of Walker and he had worked for the Walker for Governor campaign. Dallas 105-1475, #1 (10/4/62 Dallas report pp 2-3) quotes informant as stating that the group is “not connected with the JBS” but “most of its members are present or former members of the JBS.” Frank McGehee was proposed as a member but was rejected because he was an atheist. Serial #11 (12/6/52 SAC Dallas to Hoover refers to interview of person connected with the group: “At this time he stated the members of captioned group are convinced the U.S. State Department is infiltrated by communists who are prepared to surrender the United States to international communism, possibly through the United Nations.” BURCHWELL [Dallas 152-2, Dallas 190-59, HQ 152-40] Burchwell, Ashland Frederic (9/62 = 1527 Annex #204 – Dallas) (12/62 = 5309 Ellsworth Ave – Dallas) 368-36-1975; b: 09-28-40 (Ashland KY); d: 02-19-68 (South Vietnam) 1949 = moved from Ashland KY to Detroit MI 12/9/57 --> 06/58 = In active reserve of Michigan National Guard 6/58 – 10/58 = active duty at Fort Ord and Fort Leonard Wood. 3/7/58 = arrested (17yo) in Roseville MI for stealing tires; 6 months probation and restitution costs. 2/27/59 = arrested in New Orleans for vagrancy—then enlisted in U.S. Army in New Orleans. 1959 --> 4/2/62 = U.S Army (serial RA 27035664), rank of Sergeant E/5. 10/60 --> 06/61 = Served in 24th Division, Augsburg Germany, under command of Gen Edwin A. Walker. 5/1/62--> 7/62 = worked as campaign aide for Gen. Edwin A. Walker when he ran for Gov of TX; then after defeat, was Walker’s office manager. Paid about $50 week. 9/30/62, 6:30am = Stopped by Dallas PD for speeding. Officers noticed a 357 magnum pistol on front seat. Upon searching vehicle, they found 3 Strum-Ruger pistols, an Enfield rifle, and 3000 rounds of ammunition plus Burchwell had a switchblade knife in his pocket. Burchwell initially told officers that he was on his way to MS to assist Gen. Walker in resisting federal encroachment on states’ rights (integration of Ole Miss). However, later he changed his story. He stated that, at the last minute, he decided not to go to MS but told the officers he was going because he thought they, as southerners, would be sympathetic and release him. Police also found 200-300 coded index cards which Burchwell claimed he was transporting to a friend and he knew nothing about them. Some news reports claimed it was a JBS mailing list. Below is one such characterization: “JOSEPH P. GRINNAN's name was found among ASHLAND BURCHWELL possessions in the car BURCHWELL was driving when BURCHWELL was arrested and a large cache of arms and ammunition was found inside car (according to a memorandum for the FBI dated 14NOV62 by the Headquarters Department of the Army Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Summary information Region 2, 112th Intelligence NTC Group, Station "C," Commerce Street, Dallas, TX) J. GRINNAN was also a local coordinator for the John Birch Society. Besides a large cache of arms and ammunition found inside car was also names, addresses, and phone number's of certain people (some of the persons info was coded), and BURCHWELL said he was "enroute to Mississippi to aid Governor Barnett's cause by lending support to former Major General Edwin A. Walker." 08/63 = Burchwell had re-enlisted in the Army and was then assigned to 511th Infantry Battalion at Ft. Benning GA. He contacted Dallas FBI in 08/64 because he had been denied a security clearance in the military and wanted to know how to purge derogatory info from his FBI file which claimed he was a member of a subversive or extremist organization. He also appeared at the Dallas office in 12/64 and wrote to J. Edgar Hoover on 6/20/67 to again ask how to purge the info since such data would “destroy my military career”. 1964 = served one year in Vietnam with 1st Cavalry Division and awarded Purple Heart and Army Commendation Medal. 01/67 = promoted to 2nd Lieutenant. 1968 = was serving second tour in Vietnam as civilian affairs officer with 101st Airborne Division when killed in action. 152-2, #24 (12/12/62 SAC Dallas report which summarizes interview of Burchwell to determine his connection with Edwin A. Walker and the desegregation controversy in Oxford MS. On pages 3-4, Burchwell discusses the membership cards found in his vehicle when arrested: pg 3: “Burchwell stated he was not a member of the organization for which he had the membership cards but stated he was in sympathy with its aims and purpose and had been asked to join but stated he did not have the time for this group. Burchwell described the group as being similar in aims and purposes to the Minutemen and stated that this group was organizing to resist a communist takeover of the United States…” Pg 4: “Burchwell stated he sincerely believed that a communist takeover in the U.S. was possible, pointing out what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1948. He also reported that they had heard reports that Mongolian troops were massing in lower California in Mexico. When asked where he received such information, Burchwell stated he had heard it from a minister, named unrecalled, who claimed to have seen these Mongolian troops in California, and the publication, ‘Common Sense’ which Burchwell described as an anti-semitic newspaper. Burchwell insisted that the real issue in MS, according to what Walker told him, was not racial, but the constitutional issue of whether the Federal government could interfere with the states rights of MS.”

INTERESTING DOCS: History of attempts to kill Castro: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32273546.pdf Anti-Castro Activities and LHO in New Orleans: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32273595.pdf Secret Service Index File: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32277356.pdf Secret Service Methodology for Evaluating Threats to JFK: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32277355.pdf Secret Service List of Persons Threatening JFK (413pp): https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32241845.pdf

But the information you refer to re: the medical supplies has been public knowledge for decades -- and NOT because of anything Harry Dean reported! Significantly, none of the JFK assassination research community is looking for or expects to find documents which mention Harry or any JBS plot -- because, frankly, nobody BUT YOU believes Harry's story.

Paul -- I suggest you read the WAshington Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trump-expected-to-release-remaining-jfk-assassination-documents-thursday/2017/10/25/52c8f71a-b9b7-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.17f02bd02c51 The problem (again) with your assumption is that there are no "national security" implications within documents pertaining to Harry Dean -- which is precisely why his FBI and CIA files were released 30+ years ago without redaction---even though he was (and still is) a living person. In other words, there is no conceivable rational or plausible reason why the FBI would want to withhold anything re: Harry Dean because he was nothing more than an annoyance and he was considered to be a mental case --- not a valuable resource or witness. IF the FBI thought otherwise, they would have NEVER released his HQ and Los Angeles files 30 years ago.

Apparently, the only additional docs being withheld until April 2018 are CIA docs -- so they would not be of any significance to your argument. Your "NOBODY can know" argument is not very convincing. Judge Tunheim (the Chairman of the ARRB) certainly knows since it was the ARRB which saw all the withheld docs and approved them for being withheld. Tunheim has said repeatedly that there are no bombshells in the remaining docs. Most of the material just reveals names of informants or confidential sources along with income tax records and other material which has nothing to do with any radical right conspiracy. This is borne out by the NARA list of withheld docs---none of which originate from an FBI file number whose subject matter pertains to what YOU think is being withheld. Every time you post one of these messages, it just reveals your unwillingness to face reality.

I think one of the problems with conspiracy theories re JFK (or probably any other political conspiracy theory) is that all sorts of names come up. At one time, I attempted to keep a chart of all the persons who had predicted that JFK would not finish his first term. There were DOZENS. Many of the FBI memos discussing all those folks are on Mary Ferrell's website -- and, of course, their names and predictions appear in the FBI HQ main file on the assassination (62-109060). The 413-page Secret Secret document which I mentioned in a previous message contains hundreds of people who either threatened JFK OR they claimed to have some knowledge about such threats. So what makes any one report any more compelling than another? In other words, what is the criteria for separating out the mentally unbalanced people (the Secret Service document often contains "paranoid schizo" or "mental case" descriptive comments) versus the people who might actually have had some actual foreknowledge OR serious intent? A while back I posted a message about Maynard Nelsen of Chicago IL. Nelsen was a self-described Hitler admirer. For a time, he was the Illinois leader of the National States Rights Party. He also was a member of the American Nazi Party. During his college years in Minnesota -- he posted "Kill Jews" signs around his campus. He made death threats against the Mayor of Minneapolis at that time (Hubert Humphrey). Nelsen also praised the bombing of synagogues around the country BUT he stated that it would be better to bomb them when Jews were inside -- instead of when they were vacant. He wrote all sorts of vile and disgusting messages. So----by any normal standards of evidence, it is entirely understandable why the FBI put him on their list of Illinois possible bombing suspects. In January 1964, Nelsen wrote a letter to Robert Kennedy about JFK's murder: “Dear Bobby-O: Well, now that the shooting is over I want to convey my very personal condolences to you and your entire anti-White, Jew-worshipping, n-loving family…I enjoyed the death of Rockefeller’s son in New Guinea…and I also enjoyed the Dallas shooting. It is good to see the rich suffer and die just as the poor…I look forward to reading the front pages of the local newspapers re: that Jimmy Hoffa has personally beaten you to within an inch of your life. Happy Hate, Max Nelsen.” [HQ 100-351528, #31, 1/6/64 Max Nelsen to “Attorney General Commissar, Bobby Kennedy”] Despite his virulent hatred, Nelsen never acted upon his viciousness. He never was arrested for any violent crime or incident. He never attempted to bomb a building or maim anybody. Some psychologists believe that people who publicly express their hatred and venom are often the least dangerous -- because their verbal or written expressions of hate and bigotry are in lieu of taking actions commensurate with their inner demons. I think the same principle applies to most JFK haters. YES---there are DOZENS of examples of radical right extremists making vicious declarations of their contempt and revulsion toward JFK and some even threaten bodily harm or death (see Secret Service document and FBI 89-series files) -- but none of them actually did anything. So -- it is important to not jump to conclusions about every hate-filled letter or communication -- as predictive of actual behavior.

Jason -- I know you think you have found something compelling but all of this information has been public knowledge for decades. Briefly -- here is what happened. The FBI was contacted by one of its Klan informants. He is identified above as Jackson-59-R (which refers to a racial informant used by the Jackson MS office). This Klan informant had previously provided reliable information to the FBI about other Klan-related matters. [A second Klan informant from Birmingham AL also initially reported similar information in September 1964.] However, when the FBI checked further (including a follow-up contact with Jackson 59-R) it was determined that the "Klan insurrection" was just a rumor. You can see more details here on Mary Ferrell's website: Scroll through the pages to see all the details. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145523#relPageId=98&tab=page You can also see the same information in the Dallas FBI field file on Walker here: https://archive.org/stream/WalkerEdwinA.Dallas2/Walker%2C Edwin A.-Dallas-2#page/n61/mode/2up I think the problem you and I are having is because you make no distinction between unsolicited raw information which comes into the Bureau from hundreds or even thousands of outside sources----versus----specific instructions given to FBI employees to "watch" or "track" a person or organization -- and the resulting regular reports which are produced as a consequence of those instructions (not to mention the authorizations requested up the chain of command when a field office wanted to perform actual surveillance). In other words -- in the Jason Ward scheme of things, EVERY SINGLE FILE ever created by the FBI on ANY person, organization, or event is evidence that the FBI was "watching", "tracking" and "monitoring" ALL those MILLIONS of people. In 1981, when the National Archivist completed a court-ordered Records Appraisal project on the FBI -- they declared that the FBI had opened 25 MILLION case files. So, Jason Ward thinks that FBI Agents "tracked" and "watched" MILLIONS of people up through 1980 --- which explains (in Jason's scheme of things) how the FBI obtained all of the information appearing in its files. Of course, it makes no difference to Jason that up until World War II, the FBI never had more than 1600 Agents. Jason actually believes that the information in MILLIONS of files created by the FBI could only be the result of all 1600 Agents (HQ and field) being out in the field "watching" and "tracking" those MILLIONS of people. Let's assume that a typical Agent could "watch" or "track" 8 people in the course of an 8-hour day (i.e. spend one hour per day per person). Since a typical employee works 2000 hours a year, that means each Agent could "watch" or "track" 16,000 people a year (but only spend one hour on each person per year). So---let's say that 15 million of those 25 million case files were created on people and the rest of the FBI files are on organizations, publications, events, and other matters. How many FBI Agents would it take to produce reports on 15 million people? YOU do the math and then report back to us.

Again -- nothing new here. All these files have been released before -- many years ago. I received the FBI HQ and Dallas files on National Indignation Convention 13 years ago as paper docs and then I received them again 4 years ago as pdf files which are in my Internet Archive collection. https://archive.org/search.php?query=FOIA%3A National Indignation

Hosty did not "insert himself" into anything. Hosty is just one of three Dallas FBI Agents listed. The "Info) (RM)" notation by the Dallas file refers to "Racial Matters" -- which probably means that if we saw the entire serial, there is something contained in that serial which pertains to a racial matter that New Orleans thought would be of interest to the Dallas field office. 105-prefix files often include investigations of KKK-related matters along with other fringe racial hate groups.

Nothing new here. I received these docs 22 years ago along with the other 2628 pages released on Edwin Walker.

I saw the document which discusses HUAC and Robert Shelton/KKK. The second page states that when checked, the information presented on page one was found to be bogus.