Paul Trejo

Ernie, I answer by the numbers: 1. If the Los Angeles FBI had praised Harry Dean, instead of insulting him (by calling him a mental case) then our problem would be much easier -- but not significantly different. The problem to solve is whether Harry Dean actually did -- as he claimed -- contact the FBI on the dates that he claimed he contacted him, with the information about Cubans, the FPCC and the JBS, as he claimed. Insofar as some FBI agents insulted Harry Dean, that does not prove that Harry Dean's claims were false -- in fact, Harry Dean himself told us that some FBI agents failed to believe him. So, with or without the FBI insults, the claims of Harry Dean can remain confirmed -- Harry contacted them on the dates in question, about the topics in question. That is the first thing history demands. So, the answer to your first question is: No, incorrect. It makes no difference to my case whether the FBI agents were flattering or insulting. I'm interested only in the factual content and dating of the communications. 2. You're mistaken in presuming that I wish to discredit comments made by FBI Agents which are derogatory references to Harry -- on the contrary, I wish to point them out. They show that the FBI in Los Angeles was composed of human beings with weaknesses -- and that they were prone to human failings such as insulting people who wanted to help. More than that, I wish to look beyond the insults to the facts themselves. What is the date of the contact? What is the topic reported by Harry? The opinion of the FBI agent might be interesting, or might be useless (e.g. calling Harry a mental case) but the factual content of the FBI record is vital for historiography. 3. What makes an FBI comment "snotty and insulting" is the sophomoric phrasing -- e.g. "mental case." It's the sort of thing we hear children say all the time. There is no way that this is "factual evidence," because no FBI agent is also a professional psychiatrist, who alone is qualified to offer such a medical opinion. Now, if the FBI agent had said something with a professional tone, like, "this source of information is unreliable because he called only yesterday to say that Martians were responsible for the JFK assassination," then I would be drawn to the logical conclusion that Harry Dean is indeed unreliable. But nothing of that kind was said by the FBI in Los Angeles. Instead, by calling Harry Dean "a mental case," that FBI agent merely showed his own unprofessional demeanor. 4. Now, WHY, in my opinion, were those FBI agents "snotty and insulting"? The only motive that is apparent is that they were personally immature individuals. To call a witness a "mental case," is not an objective observation, it is merely an insult -- pure and simple. That's obvious. That is different, by the way, from saying that somebody was "hard to follow," like Edwin Walker. It is surely relevant when the description is meant to truly describe -- but it is totally irrelevant when the phrase is used only to insult. 5. It is true that Larry Hancock once referred to Harry Dean as "inscrutable", yet Larry Hancock isn't interested in Harry Dean. Larry Hancock isn't interested in my theory about Ex-General Edwin Walker, either. Larry seems too quick to conclude that since RFK and JFK sent Walker to an insane asylum (which was a form of insult) that Walker was forever incompetent after that time. History tells a different story. So, my answer is that Larry Hancock isn't a professional FBI Agent whose job is to carefully weigh information from this or that source. Larry can afford to research what is interesting to himself -- and it just so happens that Harry Dean and Edwin Walker aren't interesting to Larry. The word 'inscrutable' connotes no childish insult; nor does it describe the details of Larry's position -- which he himself declined to offer. Larry was merely saying that he's not willing to expend the energy and patience to sort out what a complicated witness is trying to say. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Paul B., here's an update. Harry Dean has officially requested all FBI records that pertain to him. He recently passed their criteria for him to identify himself thoroughly -- and now Harry is waiting for a full listing of the those FBI files. It will take some time, but Harry is willing to go to these lengths to demonstrate that everything he said about what he actually witnessed and reported to the FBI in 1961-1963 is true and correct. I'll repeat that even if some FBI agents are snotty and insulting in their reports, this means little -- Harry already told us that the FBI tended to disbelieve and minimize his reports. The key is that the FBI has a record of Harry's reports. Soon the records that the FBI is willing to release today will be in hand, and Harry will share them with the world. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Larry, that's a very interesting and informative perspective, with much to recommend it. To summarize: (1) You suggest that the Bay of Pigs taught a key lesson, namely, that "men on the ground" comprises the "sort of thing that gets people compromised." Thus, minimalization was the byword. (2) You suggest that a professional hit team going into Dallas would need "local intelligence" but not a "point man." You narrow this down by adding that the attack itself (including ambush site, preparations, diversions) is their skill and business. So, what would "local intelligence" need to do, more precisely? In the interest of defining the ground-crew in Dallas, I think my question is reasonable. (2.1) You also emphasize that they would take extra care to avoid meeting anybody under FBI, DPD or ATF observation. That would clearly exclude Ex-General Edwin Walker, who was being monitored by the FBI in Dallas. However -- FBI agent James Hosty remarked that he wasn't tracking Lee Harvey Oswald very fervently because his larger assignment was to track the extreme right-wing in Dallas. Well -- that would place Edwin Walker high on his list. James Hosty was also a regular Bridge partner with Robert Allen Surrey, whose office was actually inside the home of Edwin Walker. We also know that Robert Allen Surrey, the well-known publisher of Walker, a JBS member and promoter of the Friends of Walker, was also a publisher for the American Nazi Party. So - one could reasonably inquire whether James Hosty played the rogue in this case, and assured General Lansdale and others almost certainly involved at a higher level, of unofficial FBI cooperation in Dallas. (3) The work of James Garrison and Joan Mellen has apparently disclosed a number of thug-like street-people who were involved in the JFK murder, including David Ferrie, Loran Hall, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Larry Howard, Fred Crisman, Thomas Edward Beckham, Jack S. Martin, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler. These were mainly involved with what James Garrison called the "sheep-dipping" of Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet we also have information that some of these were in Dallas on 11/22/1963 (e.g. Loran Hall and Larry Howard). Martino himself remarks on part of this aspect. So -- limiting their exposure was evidently not a major priority in New Orleans. Look how many people Jim Garrison exposed! Would the bar be much higher in Dallas? Granted, Jack Ruby's business-as-usual was a natural funnel for back-room money distribution -- but Ex-General Edwin Walker also had a business-as-usual operating in Dallas -- his so-called Friends of Walker. (4) Finally, Larry, you say that DPD politics would show up in investigations. Normally that would be true -- but Dallas could be a major exception in the USA in 1963. William Turner describes the normal DPD officer in 1963 as radically right-wing. Gerry Patrick Hemming agreed when he said that elements in the DPD would "assassinate at a whisper." As for blackmail as a guarantor of silence, you find Jack Ruby to be a fitting resource -- yet a US General in 1963 who has been gay for his entire life, used to the underground, and very familiar with blackmail at all levels -- would be equally fitting in that regard. Finally -- Ex-General Edwin Walker still had connections -- only on the radical right -- within the Pentagon. That's something that Jack Ruby never had. I think this remains an open question -- what exactly was the Dallas contact tasked to do -- in as much detail as possible? Thanks for your insights into this. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, Larry, your correction is duly noted. Yet wouldn't Dallas absolutely require a local point-man? And if not Ruby, then who? Jim Garrison once said that the JFK conspiracy would never have gone forward without some assurance of cooperation by the Dallas Police Department (as well as the Press and Washington DC). While we know that Jack Ruby had many nightclub-level connections with many Dallas policemen, does this satisfy our criteria for a coordinating influence over the Dallas Police Department? Wouldn't a political influence -- say, from a widely respected and highly motivated Southern military officer -- be a better assurance of the coordination of the Dallas police? While one might object that Ex-General Edwin Walker was finished after his sojourn into an insane asylum as remanded there by JFK and RFK, one might also counter that the martyrdom of such a sojourn would revitalize his standing among the detractors of JFK and RFK. Further, we have plenty of evidence to show that Walker organized the attacks on Adlai Stevenson in Dallas only four weeks before the JFK murder there. Wasn't that a successful action for the right-wing? Isn't it a fact that Walker walked away from that media event scot-free? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

No, Ernie, I don't accept those flimsy criteria as definitive of an FBI 'gadfly.' The personal opinions of individual FBI agents are immaterial in building a factual case. For example, if a given FBI agent wrote his opinion that Harry Dean was a "mental case," that is merely an insult, since the FBI is not known for their psychiatric skills -- nor do they pretend to be qualified to make such judgments. So -- insults have no bearing. Rather -- a gadly to the FBI -- empirically speaking -- would be somebody whose communications were merely dimissed upon receipt. The fact that there are records of hundreds of FBI pages about Harry Dean, ranging from 1960 through 1965, is ample proof that Harry Dean had a significant interaction with the FBI (as he claimed), despite the empirical fact that some FBI Agents were snotty, arrogant and insulting. We gather that you've had ample time to read the various FBI records on Harry Dean that you've been able to accumulate this year, Ernie -- and we've been expecting to hear from you. You are taking your sweet time offering your feedback -- perhaps you need more time to phrase your findings just right, so that their contradiction of your position won't be so blatant. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Actually, Steven, I find this perspective to be intriguing. I prefer to remain closer to the ground-crew than to speculate exclusively on the highest-levels of command -- but it does add perspective to recognize that the histories can now reach to very high levels. I take it by your global political analysis that you agree with Jim Phelps to a significant degree. Do you also speculate (or do you care much) about the ground crew, Steven? I ask because while the ground-crew need not understand the intentions of the high command, they do require their own, local motivation and philosophy. For example, Larry Hancock (SWHT/2010) also finds the center of organization of the JFK murder to sit near JM/WAVE in Florida -- yet when he considers the need for a Dallas coordinator, he is willing to accept Jack Ruby as the point-man for Dallas coordination (ch. End Game). I myself require a Dallas coordinator with more paramilitary experience -- e.g. Ex-General Edwin Walker, the radical and outspoken rightist political candidate who was the only US General to resign in the 20th century. Walker continued to lead radical rightists even after he emerged from the Springfield insane asylum into which JFK and RFK had tossed him following the racial riots at Ole Miss on 9/30/1962. He coordinated and led the attack on Adlai Stevenson only four weeks before the JFK murder. I find Edwin Walker to be competent and active in November 1963. Any opinion about the ground-crew, in Dallas, Steven? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Actually, Ernie, in 2013, for the article, "The Strange Love of Dr. Billy James Hargis," by "This Land Press," you declared forcefully and nastily (as is your habit) that there were no FBI papers *at all* about Harry Dean, and that Harry Dean didn't even have an FBI number. Learning (with my help, which you conveniently forget) that Harry Dean does indeed have an FBI number, you suddenly turned up over a hundred FBI pages about Harry Dean. Rather than thank me -- or apologize to Harry Dean for your disinformation in 2013 -- you continue to take a nasty tone. That's unforgivable, Ernie. Your bad manners will dog you forever -- you can count on it. With utmost sincerity, --Paul Trejo

Getting back to the topic of this thread, what we're finding from the tireless efforts of Ernie Lazar to deny this thread's claims about Harry Dean's many years of interaction with the FBI, continue to crumble before Ernie's eyes, as the FBI produces more and more documentation about Harry Dean. In desperation, Ernie Lazar hopes to find evidence in these FBI records to show that Harry Dean was somehow a mere gadfly for the FBI -- somebody to ignore. Yet the mere preponderance of FBI papers and files accumulated over years of interaction increasingly frustrates Ernie's tireless efforts. This is one of most entertaining spectacles available on the Internet today. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Actually, Ernie, my messages don't need translation -- they are very clear on their own. 1.0. I can tolerate any legitimate and logical criticism of my theory -- however, your criticisms are shallow and sophomoric. 1.1. Your self-contradictory defense of these neo-Fascist Birchers and your attempts to link my arguments with Bircher arguments merely betrays the weakness of your approach. 2.0. I'm always open to solid arguments, Ernie -- but you've offered nearly none. Your arguments are consistently weak. 2.1. Years ago you claimed that there were no FBI records about Harry Dean. Today, after hundreds of pages of FBI records on Harry Dean have been identified, you scramble to justify your old bias. It's pathetic. 2.1. Most recently you quoted KKK writer, Keith Gilbert here, in order to show that "there are many examples of 'plots' which mention Oswald but which did NOT mention one word about Walker, Rousselot, Welch, Galbadon, or the JBS." In doing so, you stepped in cow manure, because you missed the fact that Keith Gilbert repeats two key elements from Harry Dean's story: (1) that Loran Hall knew Lee Harvey Oswald; and (2) that both men were associated with the Southern California Minutemen. 2.2. FBI records clearly link Loran Hall with the John Birch Society -- so you are caught in a major blunder -- but you STILL refuse to admit when you're wrong! LOL. 3.0. My arguments aren't self-sealing -- I'm open to valid arguments, yet you have presented nearly none. That's the first problem. The second problem is that when I show the several fallacies in your amateur logic, you refuse to admit that you were mistaken. 3.1. If anybody is self-sealing here, Ernie, it's clearly yourself. 4.0. By trying to link me with the Birchers, Ernie, you show the weakness of your hand. You're here to defend the Birchers, and also to deny the fact that you're defending them. You resemble nothing so much as their paid shill. 4.1. Don't pretend that nobody at all is responsible for "criminal", "un-American" "disloyal" and "treasonous" views and positions, Ernie -- because anybody who claims that US Presidents were Communist is clearly disloyal to the USA. 5.0. I believe in Freedom and the US Constitution -- and in loyalty to these. The 1963 JBS was manifestly composed of neo-Fascists, and they evidently overstepped their legal boundaries insofar as they knowingly supported criminals who intended to murder JFK. 5.1. These criminals need to be brought to Justice. That's a good old American virtue. 6.0. I cope very well with ambiguity, complexity, incompleteness, contradictions and puzzles. But people like you, Ernie, who begin sentences with abstract universal terms, like "ALL Theorists" as you often do, are clearly challenged with regard to nuanced thinking -- you're so one-sided that it's actually silly. 7.0. The facts show, Ernie, that your arguments amount to minor complaints, nit-picking, bias and envy. That is intuitively obvious to the impartial reader here. 7.1. This is no ploy, Ernie -- and so until you finally present a worthwhile argument, I'm going to keep rebuking your cantankerous posts. With utmost sincerity, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

I'd like to revive this discussion, now nine years old -- not by extolling Joan Mellen's book, "Farewell to Justice" (2005), but by criticising her position. Although Mellen's book is a must-read, I think her conclusions merit criticism. In her opinion, she amassed enough data to name Thomas Edward Beckham along with Jack S. Martin and Fred Crisman as employees of the CIA. That equation is central to her conclusion that the CIA plotted JFK's murder, and I believe her conclusion is hasty. During the famous JM/WAVE period of the Cold War, thugs and street people of many sorts were exploited by the CIA as "assets" to be tossed around as needed, e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming, David Ferrie, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, even members of the Mafia as well as Lee Harvey Oswald. This was unfortunate for history and politics because these thug-like elements were less than team players, and association with the CIA went to their heads. They would boast about it (when they could) and exploit the connection as best they could for personal aggrandisement. It went to their heads. The culture of secrecy among CIA assets became a sub-culture in which crime could literally flourish -- even the crime of the murder of JFK. Yet to blame the CIA for officially planning the JFK murder goes too far with the available evidence, in my opinion. Joan Mellen showed that Fred Crisman and Thomas Edward Beckham were deeply involved in the JFK murder. This was something that the great Jim Garrison tried and failed to prove. We are greatly indebted to Joan Mellen for this advance in our knowledge. However, Ms. Mellen also concluded that the CIA itself was behind the plot. That wasn't proven, in my opinion. In his capable review above, Robert Howard rightly distinguished two plots -- the plot to murder JFK and the plot to cover it up. We can clearly find the official CIA knee-deep in the second plot. But we can clearly find the street-thugs alone in the first plot. Now, this could lead to an unwarranted conclusion; that the street-thugs were "agents" of the CIA and only following orders. But this is to ignore the nature of street-thugs -- that they are essentiallfy disobedient, headstrong, self-serving and not team players. It seems to me that we find right-wing radicals among those street thugs involved -- and I find Interpen members (as Joan Mellen does) as well as other Cuban Exile groups (as Joan Mellen does) as well as those suspected by Jim Garrison (as Joan Mellen does) to be front and center in the JFK murder. The official CIA, it seems clear to me, was involved in the cover-up. Now -- one could argue that the cover-up makes the CIA accessories after the fact, or accessories before the fact. There seems to be no other choice here. Joan Mellen concludes -- too hastily I believe -- that the CIA was at least an accessory before the fact. Yet I find reason to doubt that, and to more sharply divide the two separate plots. In my view, given that groups like Interpen and other Cuban Exile paramilitary groups were involved, then the motivation for the JFK assassination was the eventual US invasion of Cuba and the further murder of Fidel Castro. The sheep-dip of Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist (as Jim Garrison put it) leads us to that plausibility. Yet the most blatant result of the cover-up -- i.e. the Warren Commission -- was the very opposite, namely, that the USA never invaded Cuba. This geo-political result is decisive for my criticism of Joan Mellen's conclusion. The JFK murder plot could not have reached the highest levels of the US government as charged, otherwise, the full intent of the JFK murder would have been played out, and the USA would have invaded Cuba as revenge for the JFK murder. On the contrary -- those who successfully conducted the first plot, to murder JFK -- were literally foiled by those who conducted the second plot to cover-up the crime! But if the second-plotters were not accessories with only one goal -- to conceal and protect the first-plotters, then how are we to understand their fierce efforts? My answer is the same as that offered by LBJ and the Warren Commission, namely, National Security. It would have been clear in the context of the politics of 1963/1964 that if the truth came out about the radical right-wing in the USA murdering JFK, that a Civil War could have been ignited. (Remember, these were also the days of the Civil Rights marches.) Futhermore, a Civil War in the midst of a Cold War would have tempted the USSR to intervene, and thus World War III could have been a likely outcome. Therefore, to prevent World War III, that is, in the interest of National Security, the second-plotters sealed the Truth of the murder of JFK for 75 years. (At least, this was the date that Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren placed on the sealing of the records. Note that this was a tacit promise to eventually reveal the Truth.) My attempt at a Unified Field theory of JFK Research would accept all of the insights of Joan Mellen and her 2005 book, "Farewell to Justice," which is a glowing tribute to the brilliance and courage of NOLA DA Jim Garrison -- and yet dialectically retain a respect for the CIA, the Warren Commission and LBJ. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

My remarks about the murder of JFK and suspicious charactrers in the John Birch Society (JBS) have clearly hit a sensitive note with those who would say anything to protect the name of these pseudo-patriots. Yet the JBS have cleary taken McCarthyism to its extreme point by accusing sitting US Presidents of Communism. The JBS fomented a culture of disloyalty in the USA during the JFK administration, and it is finally time for historians to openly recognize their Un-American hypocrisy in 1963. Those associated with the Southern California JBS included Congressman John Rousselot, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon. Those associated with the Louisiana JBS included Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier and Kent Courtney. Those associated with the Dallas JBS included Ex-General Edwin Walker, H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Lester Logue, Robert Morris, Joseph P. Grinnan, Bernard Weissman, Larrie Schmidt, Robbie Schmidt and Robert Allen Surrey. It is no accident and no mistake that all of these people were at some point named by the Warren Commission, the FBI, Jim Garrison and/or the HSCA with regard to their investigation of the murder of JFK. Harry Dean's MEMOIRS, which basically remain unchanged since 1965, have named four of those individuals above in connection with the murder of JFK. The JBS smells like a stinking fish when a Unified Field Theory of the 1963 murder of JFK is researched properly, and all the evidence is allowed impartially to emerge. Despite those who would nit-pick at my English grammar, it should be clear that what motivates their criticisms of my position is their own envy of the consistency, the plausibility as well as the originality of my theory. The pieces are falling together as in no other time in the past half-century. These JBS members are more suspicious now than ever before. The testimony of Silvia Odio and the memoirs of Harry Dean are harmonious. We now have "the proof of the plot." As time progresses my position -- originally speculative -- will continue to be revealed by history to be correct. Only bias and envy motivate my opposition on this thread. That should be clear to all readers. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit font>

Larry, I finished reading your Chapter 12 of "SHADOW WARFARE," namely, Autonomous and Deniable. Again, your writing is rich in historical detail and facts gleaned from recent FOIA documents. This time you focused on the Cuban problem as handled (or mishandled) by JFK and RFK. After Bay of Pigs disaster, for which the CIA was rightly blamed, JFK gave RFK the problem in what was called The Special Group. RFK returned to Ike's idea of a using local opposition parties in a covert war, fully deniable, with the appearance of a local rebellion and “avoiding any appearance of US intervention.” RFK chose to focus an "autonomous group strategy" of Cuban Exiles who would do everything themselves -- with secret and deniable US finance, military hardware and logistics support. RFK would select Exile leaders and groups would be supported only if they moved operations offshore and publicly broke any and all connection to the US. The missions would primarily be naval (probably because a large air force would be a clear sign that the US was involved). RFK selected one group in particular -- that of Manuel Artime, a Bay of Pigs survivor. The group was MRR (Movement to Recover the Revolution). His co-leader was Rafael Quinteros. The code-name of the program was AM/WORLD. Far fewer CIA officers were involved (e.g. Richard Helms and Maxwell Taylor) who acted only as advisors and coordinators (rather than commanders as in JM/WAVE). Henry Hecksher was liaison for the “autonomous group” in Washington DC and gave media advice to Artime. Carl Jenkins, paramilitary specialist, helped arrange advanced combat training -- strictly offshore. As a corrollary to AM/WORLD, all other efforts to take back Cuba were dropped. CIA officer Desmond FitzGerald was appointed to ochestrate the Coast Guard, Air Force, Navy, Immigration, police and FBI to block all Cuban Exile group missions from being launched from the USA. Only offshore efforts were allowed -- and only one offshore group (MRR) was covertly financed. This was supremely confusing to all other Cuban Exiles and even to CIA personnel still working out of JM/WAVE in Miami. Mistakes were made. Still, Artime, with all this top-secret CIA help, made lots of progress coordinating arms purchases and cooperative deals with Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Venezuela. To obtain weapons, the USA would 'grant' US weapons to these other Latin American nations, and also 'grant' covert cash (in the millions) to MRR through Swiss Bank accounts. Then Artime and his captains would 'purchase' the weapons, and it would appear like the USA was never in the loop. Other deniable weapons purchases were made through CIA fronts like 'InterArmCo.' Unfortunately, Artime was also obliged to publicly announce, again and again, that the USA had nothing to do with any Cuban groups anymore -- and certainly not his own group. Artime was always open to private funding, he claimed. The end result (perhaps unexpected by RFK and JFK) was that all other Cuban Exile groups (the majority) and their former CIA supporters from JM/WAVE (and Bay of Pigs) came to believe the cover story! Perhaps most Cuban Exiles and the JM/WAVE personnel believed that JFK had totally abandoned the Cuban Crisis, and was now willing to leave Fidel Castro alone -- though nothing was further from the truth. At this time, too, JM/WAVE could make no move without JFK's signature, which he rarely gave them. They were very frustrated with the scenario. Some of these frustrated people included David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales and William Harvey. (I might add to this list of frusrated folks many JM/WAVE thug-like street assets such as Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, David Ferrie, Jack Martin, Fred Crisman and Guy Banister. I might also add JM/WAVE financial backers like Clay Shaw, Santos Traficante, Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Lester Logue and Congressman John Rousselot.) AM/WORLD proposed a new, local Cuban coup'd'etat effort code-named AM/TRUNK, which was widely held to be unrealistic unless Fidel Castro could first be assassinated. Many AM/TRUNK assets inside Cuba, identified as AM/WHIP, were “turned” by Castro spies very early. One AM/TRUNK asset, Rolando Cubela, unsuccessfully tried to poison Fidel Castro. His code-name was AM/LASH.) In other plans, Artime made progress. Somoza was active in supporting Artime – buying planes from England and offering military support and bases. The “autonomous group” cover worked so well it even fooled the US military at some bases. They also purchased (or leased) several Naval vessels. Sadly for AM/WORLD, too many mistakes were made. Artime was caught at Customs with secret government documents which were Xeroxed by Customs, and was only released after hours of high-level intervention. Fortunately for history, those Xeroxed documents were preserved and released through FOIA requests, and used by you, Larry, to document this history. Unfortunately for AM/WORLD, their cover was breached. Worse yet, a Florida Reporter (Hal Hendrix) obtained news from "confidential sources" about Manuel Artime's project in July 1963, and exposed it to the world. AM/WORLD was all but defunct. Denials flew, but it was too late. But Hal Hendrix had up to then been a trusted, vetted Newspaper man in Miami, very close to the CIA and JM/WAVE. Who could have leaked this information to Hendrix? You hint, Larry, that it may have been disaffected JM/WAVE staff themselves. Over two years Artime’s military operation involved 14 missions, with four being partially successful. Very poor results, yet the expense to the USA was enormous. Then, in September 1964, Artime’s team accidentally attacked a commercial Spanish freighter off the Cuban coast, and caused an international diplomatic scandal. By the end of 1964, the AM/WORLD project was washed up, and by early 1965 the US State Department pulled the plug. The Cuba project started under Ike and ended under LBJ. As you conclude, Larry, it had been the most intense regime-change effort ever undertaken by the USA – and ultimately a flop. Cuban Exiles themselves, with a few JM/WAVE resources, would finally stop Che Guevarra, but Fidel Castro still stands to this very day. The CIA never fully recovered from this black-eye. So, I did appreciate your history of the CIA with regard to the Cuba project, all the way past the murder of JFK, Larry. You don't discuss the JFK assassination in this book (as you explained) yet the specific history of the CIA was presented in a detailed, factual and documented manner more clearly than I've ever seen in print. This orientation will be helpful, I believe, in formulating a Unified Field Theory of the conspiracy to murder JFK. Many thanks, --Paul Trejo

OK, Ernie, you hope to justify your posting of this Nazi psychopath's statements on this thread by using your post #1082. So I'll hold my nose as I review post #1082. (2) You continue to deny that anything presented by Keith Gilbert "helped to confirm" two claims by Harry Dean -- which everybody here can plainly see -- namely, that (i) Loran Hall knew Lee Harvey Oswald; and (ii) they were both connected with the Southern California Minutemen. Your denial of these obvious facts shows your disconnect from reason and reality. You'll say anything, Ernie, to avoid admitting that you're mistaken -- which you clearly, obviously are. (4) As for "deposition" argument, it's a pittance, and you know it. Gilbert offered his eye-witness remarks in an official statement to the Police. It was not under oath -- so it's not technically a "deposition." However -- it remains a fact that it was presented in an official manner to authorities -- and it was presented as EYE-WITNESS information. (5) You don't admit your mistakes, Ernie. You'll say anything at all to wiggle out. YOU posted this Nazi's words on this list. The very obvious fact is that Keith Gilbert's official statement to the Police agrees with Harry Dean's two claims that: (i) Loran Hall knew Lee Harvey Oswald; and (ii) they were both connected with the Southern California Minutemen. Then you continue to deny any such connection. You've got some nerve to call anybody 'dishonest' here, Ernie. You're completely lacking in intellectual integrity. It's obvious to every impartial reader. (6) Again, you're mistaken when you try to reduce my position to the "JBS plot" theory promoted by Harry. My research has always been independent of Harry Dean -- and I only met Harry Dean on this Forum in 2011. My research has always been a focus on Ex-General EdwinWalker -- the only US General to resign in the 20th century. His connections with Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard are now matters of US history, thanks to the opening of his personal papers at the University of Texas at Austin. (6.1) You now claim that you posted this dirty Nazi's words on this thread to show that "there are many examples of 'plots' which mention Oswald but which did NOT mention one word about Walker, Rousselot, Welch, Galbadon, or the JBS." The problem with your wiggling there, Ernie, is that actually Loran Hall was a speaker for the Southern California JBS. Loran Hall is mentioned in FBI records as associated with the JBS in Texas. Loran Hall is the material connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and the JBS. So, once again, Ernie, you are entirely mistaken. But of course, we don't expect you to admit it. (7) You continually evade the truths before you, including the facts that you yourself post here without thinking them through (e.g. the Keith Gilbert statement). I have continually pointed out your steady stream of falsehoods -- and you never admit them. (8) There is no way I'm going to call a dirty, filthy Nazi, Ernie. You're the one who posted his words here, so YOU are the one who should contact him, if you honestly believe he should be contacted. In any case, there is nothing further needed from Keith Gilbert than this official statement that he gave to the Police. Either he was lying or he was telling the truth. You presented his words, Ernie, as if he was telling the truth. I pointed out the contradiction in your logic (again) by showing that if Keith Gilbert is telling the truth, then he is also SUPPORTING the claims of Harry Dean. You've been caught in a major blunder, Ernie. But again, we don't expect you to admit it -- although everybody here can see it clearly (even you). (8.1) Your own post to John Dolva above admitted many points of agreement and cooperation between the JBS and the Minutemen, Ernie -- and now you try to backpedal like crazy, and deny the connection? Your logic is failing you. Certainly the JBS and the Minutemen relationship did not last beyond the JFK murder -- they went in separate directions after that point. But until December 1963, the points in common between the JBS and the Minutemen are well documented -- even by you. (9) The truth is that Wesley Swearingen personally wrote to me to tell me that he could not entirely eliminate the claims of Harry Dean -- all he could do was to promote his own observations. You, Ernie, are the incorrigible twister of words. When you're caught in a self-contradiction, you turn to crass insults. Well, that's your personality. With utmost sincerity, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> P.S. You've been getting away with calling me a xxxx for six months, Ernie, so I suppose that John Simkin's rule isn't being enforced anymore -- maybe that word is now acceptable culture here. I'll ask a Moderator again.

OK, OK, Tommy. It wasn't a deposition, it was a series of official statements to the police. Satisfied? Warmer regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

It's a good point, Larry. The Monroe Doctrine evidently remains alive and well today, as it did for the entire 20th century. The US justification seems to be that nationalization of privately held resources is a menace to Free Enterprise and to the institution of Private Property upon which Western Civilization is founded. It is surely rational to enact taxation in order to pay for a necessary Military and Police system designed to protect Private Property -- and actually Private Property cannot exist apart from the Legal Institutions that are funded by it. Yet one can go too far in taxation, namely, nationalization which amounts to full confiscation of Property. That undermines all Western Law -- whether Family Law, Civil Law or Criminal Law -- and so our perception has been that nationalization must be prevented at all costs before it spreads. Fidel Castro didn't know that he made a major blunder by nationalizing Cuban utilities -- he practically froze the progress of Cuba at the level of 1963-1989. With the fall of the USSR and the Eastern bloc, Cuba lost its international market -- and still suffers for that today. The trouble with the Monroe Doctrine is that it remains myopic -- once Private Property is guaranteed, the consideration of the Freedom of the People is ignored outside US borders. The Batista regime in Cuba is a perfect case in point -- Batista's regime was tyrannical and brutal -- no better than the USSR. Countless well-meaning Americans supported Fidel Castro in the early days because of the bad reputation of Batista -- and befriending a tyrant like Batista gave the USA a bad name. So we saw the paradox of conservative Americans like Gerry Patrick Hemming, David Ferrie, Frank Sturgis and Harry Dean (to name a tiny few who are also relevant to the murder of JFK) who did everything they could to support Fidel Castro's rise to power. Only when Castro began to nationalize Cuba's utilities industries did these conservative Americans realize too late what they had done -- and afterwards they tended to congregate in Florida (near JM/WAVE) to reverse their efforts. So we shouldn't be surprised to learn that Ike also supported the idea of assassinating Fidel Castro. Communism in the Western Hemisphere was especially serious during the Cold War, which arguably reached its peak after Ike. JFK inherited a can of worms when he inherited the Cuba problem. It's a pity that the CIA staff in Florida failed to muster more loyalty and trust in their Commander in Chief. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, Why did you post the words of Keith Gilbert on this thread? What was your purpose? What was your intention? What were you trying to communicate by sharing the words of that filthy, dirty Nazi on this thread? Explain yourself! Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Larry, I completed reading your Chapter 11 of SHADOW WARFARE, Against the Castro Regime. It is rich in detail and facts about the transition of the Cuba problem from Ike to JFK and through the Bay of Pigs disaster. You started with Fidel Castro's turn to nationalize US businesses in Cuba in 1959, and the US State Department recommendation to pursue covert regime-change in Cuba, Eisenhower's approval, and the assembly of a new CIA Cuba project, headed by several folks from the successful Guatemala project. Jacob Esterline drafted a project in January, 1960, and by March 1960 Ike signed off, and station JM/WAVE in Miami was launched and continued to mushroom for many years. Richard Bissell, Tracy Barnes and J.C. King took the lead. David Morales was to be the trainer. Ike’s initial plan was for a small covert operation -- it would entice a group of Cubans off the island, train them, and put them back in the Trinidad region, in an operation named ‘Pluto’ (near existing Anti-Castro groups). Their guerrilla actions should have ignited a major anti-Castro revolt. The original CIA Cuba Task Force (WH/4) was planned for only forty CIA Agents; 18 in Washington, 22 in Cuba. In a weird twist of fate, CIA Agent in charge, Richard Bissell, developed bigger ideas -- a full-scale, conventional military invasion with a big propaganda-psych division headed by David Phillips. Bissell envisioned about 600 CIA employees to help E. Howard Hunt manage a Cuban Exile organization in Florida; a secret spy network inside Cuba; and manage a huge paramilitary force to go into Cuba to organize, train, and lead resistance groups. Also, a new plan was added to assassinate Fidel (that part of the plan alone took on a life of its own). Bissell demanded an invasion force of at least 1,500 men. When Colonel Jack Hawkins, detailed from the Marines to head the paramilitary preparation of the Bay of Pigs, was directed to update his plans, he warned in January 1961, of serious drawbacks. Ike's original plan had absolutely mandated “avoiding any appearance of US intervention.:" How could this have any other appearance? Colonel Hawkins emphasized in another memo that if the Bay of Pigs invasion would be successful, that a given number of aircraft running a given number of missions was mandatory. Without this, he warned, the Bay of Pigs project should be canceled. But this memo never got past Bissell -- it never made it to JFK's desk or to the NSC. In your research, Larry, Hawkins and Esterline admitted that Richard Bissell assured them that their concerns were being heard by JFK, although Bissell banned the two from his secret meetings with JFK. Actually -- Bissell assured JFK that the invasion would require minimal air power (as we know today from FOIA documents released). Not only did Bissell keep his top advisors in the dark, he also kept Cuban Exile leaders, like Manuel Artime and Rafael Quintero, in the dark. Hawkins and Esterline made a final, last-minute effort to object; they told Bissell that even if they seized the Bay of Pigs, there was no plan to extend beyond the beachhead. The plan was doomed to fail, they insisted for three hours to Bissell personally at his home. Bissell wouldn't listen. Both officers threatened to resign if the Bay of Pigs invasion wasn't canceled. Bissell's response was to solemnly pledge JFK’s authorization for more aircraft and more strikes. Actually, Bissell did the opposite, and promised JFK that he would cut the attacking air force in half. Of course the Bay of Pigs was a disaster. But it took decades for even these highly placed CIA employees to learn all the facts. They had been convinced, like many people, even inside the CIA, that JFK was given all the facts and made all the decisions of the Bay of Pigs. For example, the 1998 book by Grayston Lynch, Decision for Disaster: Betrayal at the Bay of Pigs, blames JFK entirely. But the view that you promote, Larry, from more recent final evaluations by Colonel Hawkins and Jake Esterline, fills in information that Lynch and many CIA Agents did not know for most of the 20th century. After the Bay of Pigs, JFK was completely disappointed in the abilities of the CIA and took matters into his own hands. He assigned RFK to redo the entire job with a much smaller group, called, The Special Group. The emphasis was on deniability. Everything had to appear that the Cubans were acting without US help. RFK all but by-passed the JM/WAVE station. This caused yet more friction between the CIA and the Kennedy Administration. RFK asked General Lansdale for his expert leadership. Lansdale made plans for a totally new Cuban government by October, 1962. Instead, the opposite happened -- the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'm now going to begin reading your Chapter 12, Larry, namely, Autonomous and Deniable. I'm looking forward to it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, your rhetoric is becoming transparent and sophomoric. YOU are the one who posted the words of this Nazi, Keith Gilbert, onto this Harry Dean thread. All I did was point out that Keith Gilbert's deposition suggested two facts: 1. Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald. 2. Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald associated with Minutemen from Southern California. When I pointed this out to you, you froze -- stunned. You have been trying to backpedal ever since. Now you're trying to blame me for bringing this Nazi onto this thread. But it was YOUR post, Ernie, as anyone can see. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Quite right, Tommy, turnabout is always fair play. As for your first excellent question: (1) Why do you think the FBI waited nine whole months after interviewing Sylvia Odio in December of 1963 to interrogate Loran Hall? My opinion is that three conditions were at work: (1a) J. Edgar Hoover had already insisted on the "Lone Gunman" theory of the case on the very evening of 11/22/1963, the day JFK was murdered; (1b) J. Edgar Hoover held an iron-fist control over the FBI; (1c) As Sylvia Meagher noted, the Silvia Odio episode was "proof of the plot," that is, proof that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices. So Silvia Odio had evidence that J. Edgar Hoover was mistaken. Given these three condition, the FBI put the Silvia Odio case on a back burner, hoping to find some way to discredit her testimony, so that the "Lone Gunman" argument would have no opposition. The strongest material evidence that the Warren Commission ever entertained regarding accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald, was the Silvia Odio episode. Therefore, the FBI -- which could have easily picked up suspects on the first day, and offered Silvia Odio substantial witness protection -- chose instead to leave her dangling, question her sanity, and made her uncomfortable for nine whole months. As for your second excellent question: (2) Why do you think the FBI waited two whole months after Sylvia Odio testified to the Warren Commission in July of 1964 to interrogate him? In my opinion, Silvia Odio was delayed so that she was among that final witnesses called to testify for the Warren Commission. She gave her testimony on 22 July 1964, and attorney Liebeler did his best to minimize her story. However, in late September, the final month of the Warren Hearings, the Warren Commission was worried about going to print with such a weak conclusion on the Silvia Odio episode. It was only at that time -- nearly two months after her testimony -- that J. Edgar Hoover was asked to obtain a better, more convincing conclusion on the Silvia Odio episode. So Hoover then liberated his FBI agents and finally allowed them to do their job. The FBI (immediately it seems) came up with Loran Hall -- I still don't know how they did it -- and Loran Hall promptly confessed that, yes, it was him and Larry Howard at Silvia Odio's doorstep a year ago with an American -- who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald, but really wasn't Oswald. That was good enough for J. Edgar Hoover. He prepared his report for the Warren Commission based on that. However, in only a couple more days, the FBI, again doing their normal good job of research, checked out Loran Hall's story, and found that the two men he named, Larry Howard and William Seymour, both denied Loran Hall's story! When the FBI brought these denials to Loran Hall, Loran Hall then denied he ever met Silvia Odio in his life. It was some other Cuban woman, whose name he didn't remember, and it was probably Celio Castro instead of William Seymour with him and Larry Howard that day. When the FBI took this news to J. Edgar Hoover -- Hoover tossed it aside and took Loran Hall's first report to the Warren Commission. He told the Warren Commission that Silvia Odio was a neurotic who saw William Seymour and hysterically believed he was Lee Harvey Oswald. That is what the official record says today. Silvia Odio was insulted by this outcome, naturally. And J. Edgar Hoover knew that he took a blatant lie to the Warren Commission and the American public. So, Tommy, my opinion about the time delays in responding to Odio and obtaining the deposition of Loran Hall with regard to the Silvia Odio story is that J. Edgar Hoover personally put a brake on the FBI to prevent the truth from coming out. My evidence is that Hoover deliberately published a lie about it. As Sylvia Meagher wrote in 1965, the "proof of the plot" has always been in the Silvia Odio episode. I find it remarkable that the latest research (e.g. Fonzi, Hancock, Mellen) is able to link the Silvia Odio episode with research done by Jim Garrison in 1968. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

As I'm reading Chapter 11 of SHADOW WARFARE (2014) by Larry Hancock and Stuart Wexler, I'll add one remark here to tie this back to the original thread, in which Jim Phelps raised the historical role of the secret society of Masons. Reading all these details in SHADOW WARFARE about the birth of the CIA, I'm impressed with their specific methods of secrecy, and how closely these resemble the methods of secrecy that the Masons used (as read about in historical works on Masons). For just one brief example, a "naming convention" that is arbitrarily invented and agreed upon by the group, is an excellent secret-keeping and breach-alerting device. For example, take the CIA projects, AM/WORLD or AM/TRUNK or PB/SUCCESS or PB/FORTUNE. The first two characters are private acronyms, followed by a common word. That's a "naming convention." Now, if anybody in the entire world repeated the secret phrase, "AM/WORLD," then it was guaranteed that a breach had occurred. Nobody could ever guess this arbitrary convention. This was actually a medieval secret-keeping device, and the Masons used it -- and now we see the CIA using it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Tommy, at least you admit that you don't have a strong answer for it. The FBI picked up Loran Hall. Loran Hall admitted it is was himself and Larry Howard at Silvia Odio's doorstep with an American guy during the final week of September 1963. There we have "Leopoldo" and "Angel." Coincidentally we have independent confirmation from Harry Dean that he and Guy Gabaldon collected the money, arms and medical supplies (as donated from well-to-do John Birch Society members in Southern California) that Loran Hall and Larry Howard would transport in their trailer to NOLA and Miami for Cuba Raids. Also, Harry Dean says that Hall and Howard had agreed with Gabaldon to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, and drive him to Mexico City (via Texas) to meet Guy Gabaldon for some cash and a project. The pieces fit -- except for the height-and-weight of the two Latinos as described by Silvia Odio. For my part, I will meet you half-way and admit that this part is a mystery to me. While IMHO the weight of the evidence seems to point to Hall and Howard -- it remains inconclusive. Regards, --Paul Trejo

There is no "issue" other than your willingness to believe, or invent, anything which you think advances Harry's narrative. Since you now want to use Keith Gilbert, please let us know what contacts you have had with Keith and what questions you asked him and what were his answers? In other words, how did you determine that Keith was presenting accurate, truthful, factual information? There certainly is an issue, Ernie. The words that you recently posted from Keith Gilbert created an issue. Period. You are clearly stunned by the surprise that your own posts have helped to confirm Harry Dean's position. Now you want to back out of it? You want ME to do your leg-work for you? You want ME to disprove Keith Gilbert's own deposition? LOL You simply refuse to admit when you're mistaken, Ernie. Like Tommy, you'll go to any lengths of evasion and retain an offensive posture than admit the weakness of your argument. YOU POSTED THE KEITH GILBERT INFORMATION, ERNIE. Now YOU explain why it just so happens to agree with Harry Dean -- the very person you've been attacking here since 2010. The whole world is watching. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Say,Tommy, I thought you said you were FINISHED and EXHAUSTED! Since you still have some energy left, how about returning to my two main questions about "Leopoldo" that I keep asking about week affter week, namely: (1) Why did the FBI pick up Loran Hall in the first place? (2) Why did Loran Hall confess at first? No? No idea? No clue? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo .

OK, so Tommy refuses to deal with the two most urgent questions about "Leopoldo," namely, (1) why the FBI picked up Loran Hall about Silvia Odio's story; and (2) why Loran Hall originally confessed to being "Leopoldo" and identifying Larry Howard as "Angel." Instead, Tommy will escape from the pressures. It proves that the question is a strong one. It also speaks to the deposition of Keith Gilbert that Ernie Lazar shared above -- which also links Loran Hall (Lorenzo Pacillo) with Lee Harvey Oswald, and both of them to the Southern California Minutemen. The words of Keith Gilbert accidentally supported the claims of Harry Dean -- but will the debaters here also AVOID THIS ISSUE? With utmost sincerity, --Paul Trejo