Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar would have to read Harry's 1961 letter to JFK and his 1963 letter to J. Edgar Hoover with a biased eye to arrive at his conclusions. There is nothing in those letters that is the least bit "devastating" to Harry's claims. Harry's claims stand up just fine in the light of both those letters. This is where I accuse Ernie Lazar of spreading disinformation about Harry Dean and of a rush to judgment. Ernie doesn't see how anything on the Mary Ferrell web site supports Harry's story? Well, Harry claimed he wrote to JFK in 1961 and to Hoover in 1963. The Mary Ferrell web site produced those documents -- proving Harry told the truth. So, again Ernie is simply prejudiced. Ernie thinks Harry's 1961 letter to JFK is "devastating" to my entire argument? Why? Just because Harry told JFK that the Chicago FBI in 1961 told Harry that they no longer wanted information from him? But Ernie's biased judgment jumps to conclusions. In my reading, before that announcement, the Chicago FBI was gladly accepting information from Harry Dean -- that remains plausible in light of Harry's letter to JFK. But not to Ernie Lazar. Ernie Lazar finds the JFK letter "devastating" to my position about Harry Dean, so Ernie is insinuating that the Chicago FBI never considered Harry Dean's information to be valuable or useful! Even though Ernie doesn't come out and say it, Ernie's underhanded words insinuate it. Ernie Lazar thinks that Harry's reference to his "past difficulty with the law," and his "outstanding debts" is a "bombshell". A bombshell? Not at all. Harry was addressing the President of the USA, so he wanted to come clean. Insofar as Harry Dean, a WW2 Veteran, had some youthful indiscretions, and some outstanding debts -- that only makes Harry normal. Yet for Ernie Lazar, that is a "bombshell". This is the bias I'm talking about with regard to Ernie. It shows through in every long, repetitive post that Ernie Lazar unloads on this thread about Harry Dean. Ernie has been doing this since 2010 and has not changed his tune. Ernie does not want to change his story that he has been preaching for years on the Internet, to the effect that the Harry Dean story has no merit. Even after seeing dozens of FBI files that confirm specific parts of Harry Dean's story -- still Ernie Lazar does not want to change his story. All right -- I admit that no solid proof has been presented either way -- but the more Ernie Lazar behaves as though Harry Dean's story has no merit, the more I'll continue to oppose his opinion, and to demand that he cough up PROOF. Insinuations alone don't make proof. Let's see the PROOF. In my view, the growing case against Ex-General Edwin Walker, a prominent member of the John Birch Society starting in 1959, and a personal friend of JBS founder, Robert Welch, is a growing independent confirmation of Harry Dean's story. History will vindicate Harry Dean -- that's my position. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Your make some thought-provoking points, Paul B. If these newly released Los Angeles FBI files on Harry Dean fail to show a "deeper relationship with the FBI" (i.e. a relationship such as Harry described between himself and Wesley Grapp in his Confessions) then you would raise the question of whether this failure could be taken as conclusive proof of the falsity of Harry Dean's claim. I have to admit that your idea sounds plausible. Certainly such a failure would be at least "strike one" for the Harry Dean story. So I completely agree with you that the contents of the Los Angeles FBI files are important. You are also willing to raise the question regarding the FBI destruction of FBI files -- that cannot be automatically discounted. My thinking is somewhere between. If there are FBI files that really do corroborate Harry Dean's story -- I personally don't expect to see them in 2014. If they exist, then I suspect that they cannot -- by law -- be released until 2017, when the JFK Act comes due. That's because Harry Dean's story identifies names and places. My worry, as an advocate of Harry Dean, is that these Los Angeles FBI files might completely demolish the Harry Dean story. I have to be open to that possibility -- my mind is not closed. For example, if all 60+ FBI serials and their hundreds of pages of FBI text contain nothing at all except complaints by the FBI that Harry Dean is a "very minor annoyance" who has to be continually reminded to stop claiming to be an FBI agent -- then, I would count that as "strike two" for Harry's story. I personally expect to see something more than that -- some complaints, yes, but also some real questions and real answers between the FBI and Harry in some of those 60+ FBI serials. Time will tell. Thanks for your response. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Larry, as I read your perception, Ernie Lazar and Harry Dean actually agree on this: (1) Harry was never a paid agent of the FBI; (2) Harry never claimed to be a paid agent of the FBI, as this FBI document witnesses; and (3) only third-parties who promoted Harry Dean's story claimed that Harry was a paid agent of the FBI. That is indeed Harry Dean's story. I've been laboring under the impression that this is not Ernie Lazar's story. My impression is that Ernie says: (4) Harry did claim to be a paid agent of the FBI; and (5) the FBI spent 60+ serials and hundreds of pages largely to keep telling Harry Dean to stop claiming to be an FBI agent. It would be GREAT if somehow my perceptions were mistaken. Somehow, I don't feel that lucky this month. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Many thanks to Larry Hancock and Paul Brancato for their opinions. Very useful. I'd also like to hear from John Dolva and Malcom Ward if possible. All best, --Paul P.S. I agree that this thread is very long and repetitive -- some people seem to believe that volume and repetition is convincing. I would love to move on from the barrage of charges and defenses.

FYI, we reduced the price of our eBook to $4.99, for those interested. Here is the Smashwords URL: https://www.smashwor...oks/view/367550 Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Let me try this yet again -- will somebody else besides Ernie please comment on this? This is what the FBI actually wrote about Harry Dean: "...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it." (From Los Angeles FBI SAC to J. Edgar Hoover, 12/2/1963) Does anybody else here -- aside from Ernie Lazar -- think that this sounds like the exact opposite of what Ernie Lazar has been claiming on this thread? Many thanks, --Paul Trejo

Let me try this again -- will somebody else besides Ernie please comment on this? This is what the FBI actually wrote about Harry Dean: "...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it." (From Los Angeles FBI SAC to J. Edgar Hoover, 12/2/1963) Does anybody else here -- aside from Ernie Lazar -- think that this sounds like the exact opposite of what Ernie Lazar has been claiming here for all these months? Many thanks, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, every single one of your comments is comical. Your so-called research is a one-sided broken record with no aim. What do you even believe? What do you stand for? Who can tell from your comments which are uniformly negative! Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

These selected quotes of Ernie Lazar are from post #635. I used Ernie’s numbers as far as possible to simplify answering them by the numbers. As the date of post #635 shows, I’m still about ten days behind in answering the torrent of challenges that Ernie Lazar posts to my efforts to defend the case of Harry Dean. It’s an uphill battle, but I'll keep plowing forward: (1) Ernie Lazar notes that Harry Dean moved from Chicago to L.A. in 1961 and thought that the LA-FBI contacted him soon afterward. Ernie wants to see some record of that 1961 contact, however, Harry revised his recollection this month.. Harry now recalls that it wasn’t until 1962 that he and the FBI made contact in Los Angeles, specifically about FPCC and Castro questions. Nor can Harry recall the names of those FBI agents he spoke with in 1962, yet Harry looks forward to seeing the FBI records of those contacts. (2) Ernie Lazar cites FBI serial #1 in the FBI headquarters main file on Harry Dean (62-109068) dated 11/22/63. Hoover got a letter from Harry Dean dated 11/19/1963 in which he claimed he had been in contact with the Chicago FBI since 1960. Hoover, however, had no file in FBI headquarters about Harry Dean, so Hoover demanded from the Chicago FBI that they send FBI headquarters and the LA-FBI a summary of everything they had on Harry Dean. This is comical to me. The Chicago FBI here looks like the Keystone Kops, bumbling and falling all over each other. JFK has just been assassinated and Hoover demanded information about Harry Dean which Chicago kept to itself since 1960. So, the Chicago FBI rushed to send their Harry Dean files to FBI headquarters and to the LA-FBI when commanded by Hoover. (2.1) Ernie Lazar asks why FBI headquarters had no copies of reports about Harry’s alleged contact with the Los Angeles FBI before 1963. Chicago’s Keystone Kops model provides a reasonable guess. The LA-FBI, like the Chicago-FBI, apparently decided that their Harry Dean files weren’t very important. Still, they had Harry Dean on file, and that’s the main point. (2.2) Ernie Lazar asks why Serial #1 in the FBI HQ main file on Harry Dean was opened on 11/22/1963. The answer seems obvious: the Chicago and LA FBI offices failed to send these reports to J. Edgar Hoover, because they believed that Harry Dean wasn’t very important. But after JFK was killed, Hoover demanded to see those files immediately. (3) Ernie Lazar notes that Serial #2 in the FBI HQ main file on Harry Dean consists of Chicago FBI’s speedy reply to Hoover’s command. According to Ernie, their records went back to August, 1960, and then in December 1960, which were phone contacts. Next, says Ernie, this file also contains “information which they received from FBI-Indianapolis that reported Harry’s background as provided by the Whiting IN Police Department.” But I will doubt that until I see it. IMHO, Hoover was upset with the Chicago FBI because JFK has just been killed, and Harry Dean was a person of interest in those critical days, yet Chicago was sitting on data that it failed to share. IMHO, the Chicago FBI was motivated to prove to J. Edgar Hoover that Harry Dean was an unimportant figure – that would excuse them from failing to send vital data to FBI headquarters. In this scenario, the Chicago-FBI could have pulled data from some other Harry Dean (as it’s a common name). Or, since Indiana is next to Chicago, perhaps the FPCC was also active in Indiana, and the police busted Harry and the FPCC in Indianapolis. Of course, until we can see the data, we can’t really form an opinion. (3.1) Ernie Lazar notes that “Chicago then advised HQ that on 6/7/61, two Chicago Special Agents told Harry ‘that this office did not desire his assistance’.” Again, insofar as this was highlighted, it seems obvious that the Chicago FBI was trying to convince Hoover that Harry Dean was unimportant, and thus shift blame from themselves onto Harry Dean for their failure to regard Harry’s file as important enough to send to FBI headquarters. Finally, Ernie Lazar notes that the Chicago FBI told FBI HQ that they sent all this information to the Los Angeles (LA) FBI on 9/19/1962. This confirms my suspicion of the Chicago-FBI shifting blame – here they want the LA-FBI to share some of the blame – after all, the LA-FBI also had the same information going back to 9/19/1962. (3.2) Ernie Lazar next asks why the Chicago FBI would have sent its oldest files on Harry to the LA-FBI in September of 1962. However, Ernie then answers his own question. (3.3) Ernie Lazar notes that if the Los Angeles FBI was in contact with Harry Dean in 1962 [not 1961] then it would have been standard practice for the LA-FBI to ask the Chicago-FBI for any files on him. Bingo! So, here we have our first independent confirmation of Harry Dean’s claim that the Los Angeles FBI was in contact with Harry Dean in 1962 – and specifically around September of 1962! (4) Ernie Lazar notes that Harry’s FBI HQ main file (62-109068) was later updated with other FBI serials (62-109217) which contained archive data about ”Harry’s claims about his trip to Cuba.” Well, so what? (5) Ernie Lazar notes that Serial #1 of HQ 62-109217 is a 2/19/64 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to the LA-FBI which responds to their memos dated 1/28/64 and 12/10/63. Hoover demanded an immediate summary of the background of Harry Dean, including his Cuba trip and his membership in the FPCC and the 26th of July Movement. Hoover also demanded that the LA-FBI find out what Harry Dean knew about Frank Vega and his alleged ties to the Cuban G-2 and the time when Vega was allegedly in NYC. This tells me that J. Edgar Hoover wanted the FBI to interview Harry Dean. This tells me that Harry Dean was considered a viable source of information to the Director of the FBI, no matter what low opinion the field offices of the FBI might have expressed about Harry Dean. This suggests to me that the field office FBI minimized Harry Dean in order to excuse their own failures – they had to make Harry Dean look unimportant, because the FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, was breathing down their necks. All this makes more sense to me than the “very minor annoyance” theory that Ernie has been pushing about Harry Dean. Ernie Lazar notes that Serial #2 of HQ 62-109217 is the 3/6/64 reply of the LA-FBI to Hoover, claiming to use “concealed sources” for its data about the FPCC. Concealed even from J. Edgar Hoover? That sounds dumb. Did they bother to ask Harry Dean himself? Ernie doesn’t say. Again, we must see the document ourselves for the full picture. The LA-FBI named two SACs, John N. Morgan in Chicago (7/26/61) and Lee R. Inman in Los Angeles (7/26/62). Are these the concealed sources? What was their role? Again, we must see this document for ourselves. (5.1) Ernie Lazar asks why Serial #1 of HQ 62-109217 was opened in February 1964 since Harry claims he provided the LA-FBI information about the FPCC as early as 1962 (not 1961). I want to know that, too, especially since the Chicago-FBI admitted that it sent its files to the LA-FBI in 1962, thus independently confirming Harry Dean’s 1962 claim. It sounds like FBI headquarters had its own bureaucratic foibles. (5.2) Ernie Lazar asks why, in February 1964, FBI HQ again had to tell the LA-FBI to interview Harry Dean and provide a report concerning his story! Again, FBI HQ had files on Harry Dean since November 1963, but now it demands even more! .It sounds as though the LA-FBI and the Chicago-FBI did a poor job of capturing data on Harry Dean! Probably they thought Harry Dean was “unimportant” so they just went through the motions – but it sounds like that wasn’t good enough for J. Edgar Hoover in February 1964! (5.3) Ernie Lazar asks why FBI headquarters demanded further information about Frank Vega, even after Harry told the Chicago FBI everything he knew about Vega in 1960? I think the answer is becoming clearer – the Chicago FBI most likely dropped the ball and kept terrible records of its activities. Hoover didn’t trust their shoddy work. The Chicago FBI didn’t even send their 1960 and 1961 records about Harry Dean to FBI headquarters! Hoover didn’t ask the Chicago FBI to interview Harry again – instead, he asked the LA-FBI to interview Harry this time. So, perhaps Hoover was miffed at the Chicago FBI for dropping the ball so badly on the topic of Harry Dean. This is a reasonable guess – until we can actually see the FBI HQ records for ourselves. (5.4) Ernie Lazar asks why the primary case agent in Chicago in 1961 assigned to the FPCC (John Morgan) isn’t named by Harry as his case agent. It’s a fair question, but I think we have the answer. The Chicago FBI was probably incompetent. We have a Senate Subcommittee of the HUAC period that named Harry Dean as FPCC Secretary in Chicago, but SAC John Morgan didn’t have a file on Harry Dean? That sounds like gross incompetence. Of course, once we actually see all the Chicago FBI files on Harry Dean – oh, wait – those have all been destroyed! Hmm. (6) Ernie Lazar asks why, when the LA-FBI contacted Harry in 1964, and Harry gave them 16 documents that he saved from the FPCC period, the LA-FBI “seemed to think that none of this information had ever previously been given to the FBI in Chicago, because Los Angeles forwarded copies of everything to Chicago.” Well, I think that we can propose a theory. The Chicago FBI was apparently incompetent. They dropped the ball, they failed to keep clear records, they failed to share their Harry Dean files with FBI headquarters, their FPCC SAC didn’t keep a file on Harry Dean despite Senate Subcommittee hearings, and now they seem to have lost important documents that Harry Dean probably gave them. How could they be so incompetent? In the absence of further information, we can justly conclude that Chicago FBI was 100% certain that Harry Dean was a “very minor annoyance.” And that’s why they kept dropping the ball. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

This is what the FBI actually wrote about Harry Dean: "...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it." (From Los Angeles FBI SAC to J. Edgar Hoover, 12/2/1963) Does anybody else here -- aside from Ernie Lazar -- think that this sounds like the exact opposite of what Ernie Lazar has been claiming here for all these months? Thanks, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, you posted two PDF files for our review. The first was one page of an alleged transcript of the Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder interviewing Harry Dean in 1975. In that page, Harry Dean categorically accuses the John Birch Society of complicity in the assassination of JFK. This is a plausible conclusion based on Harry's claimed eye-witness of an event that occurred in mid-September 1963 in the main office of the John Birch Society in Southern California, in the office of the landlord of the John Birch Society building, who was also one of the fiercest advocates of the John Birch Society in Southern California and in the US Congress, namely, Congressman John Rousselot. In that meeting, claims Harry Dean, was not only Congressman Rousselot behind his desk, but also Ex-General Edwin Walker, one of the most prominent members of the John Birch Society, and a frequent speaker at JBS events. Walker was especially prominent in Dallas, Texas where he allegedly led his own John Birch Society chapter in 1963. Walker was also well known throughout the South, among John Birch Society chapters in Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. In that meeting, claims Harry Dean, was also WW2-hero and frequent John Birch Society speaker Guy Gabaldon. Gabaldon was also a right-wing activist and a supporter of all anti-Castro causes. He wrote a book in 1970 entitled, America Betrayed, that extols the right-wing, bashes gays, and also bashes the Kennedy family. Dave Robbins was also a personal friend of Guy Gabaldon in Southern California. In that meeting, claims Harry Dean, were also two prominent members of the local John Birch Society whose names he cannot yet recall. It was in the context of this secret but official meeting of these John Birch Society members in offices owned by the John Birch Society principals that Harry Dean claims he heard both Rousselot and Walker speak about the exploitation of Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy in the planned assassination of JFK in Dallas in November, 1963. All parties present heard the announcement and ostensibly shook hands on it. That is Harry's claim. The scene strongly, combined with the John Birch Society literature he had read, suggested to Harry Dean that the plot to kill JFK clearly implicated the John Birch Society. The data I have seen so far tends to confirm Harry's claim, and I have yet to see data that convincingly debunks Harry's claim. As for the second document that you posted, it was from the Los Angeles (LA) FBI. The LA-FBI wrote the following in this Airtel of 2 December 1963: "...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it." (From SAC-LA FBI to J. Edgar Hoover, 12/2/1963) I can't help noticing that this is the exact opposite of what you, Ernie, have been alleging for several months (or years) on this very Forum thread. And although the FBI is the source of this, I have independent confirmation of this particular FBI report from Harry Dean himself. So, keep trying to debunk Harry Dean, Ernie, and keep posting your latest FBI materials here, because it keeps making our case stronger and stronger. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Thanks, Malcom, for sharing this important news. Any idea when the subscription to the Forum expires? Thanks, --Paul Trejo

These selected quotes of Ernie Lazar are from post #632. I numbered them above so that I can answer them by the numbers (which is far more courteous to the reader, IMHO). (1) Ernie Lazar says that he is only “relying upon what HARRY said during an interview.” By this Ernie means a 1975 interview with Tom Snyder and W.R. Morris on the Tomorrow Show. Actually, the only thing Harry said in response to that interview question by Tom Snyder which Ernie keeps citing is the single word, “Yes.” That’s not a full sentence, and so it’s always open to doubt because we can’t be sure that Harry heard Tom Snyder’s question correctly. I keep pointing this out, but Ernie keeps evading it. Ernie seems obsessed with charging Harry Dean with lying. (2) Ernie Lazar says, “You are focusing all your attention upon one single comment I made…and you are blowing up that ONE comment as though it represents your ENTIRE argument.” That’s because, Ernie, your comment – that Harry Dean is a xxxx – is the only comment I’m interested in. I’d ignore you otherwise. You keep repeating that Harry Dean claimed that he was an FBI Agent – which Harry denies. Then you keep repeating that Harry Dean cannot be believed because he said he was an FBI Agent! Your so-called logic is circular. (3) Ernie Lazar says, “I am willing to be corrected if anything I say or write is mistaken.” But clearly that’s incorrect, Ernie, as you have continually refused to correct yourself on the key point here. You need to apologize to Harry Dean for accusing him of LYING. That’s the key here – but you seem to have blinders on – and ear muffs. (4) Ernie Lazar says, “Harry has never once been asked a probing question. All the questions posed are softballs, based upon the assumption that Harry is telling the truth.” Actually, Ernie – you yourself ensure that Harry Dean is kept on the defensive here as you pummel his position with unfair accusations and name-calling going back to 2010. (5) Ernie Lazar says, “Nobody has EVER contradicted anything Harry has said or written.” Actually, Ernie, you yourself seem to write little else except to contradict Harry Dean. Also, plenty of people contradict Harry Dean; W.R. Morris is a prime example, because his book, The Men Behind the Guns (1977) tells a false story about Harry Dean, and it is so widely distributed that our Forum sister site, Spartacus, repeats the W.R. Morris fiction about Harry Dean instead of Harry Dean’s own account! So, actually Harry’s position is contradicted here every single day. (6) Ernie Lazar says, “Numerous very famous and highly respected award-winning scholars (with doctoral degrees) went after each other hammer and tong!” Actually, Ernie, those same people have also been courteous on occasion – and we question when you’ll get around to being courteous. Or perhaps you’re hoping for an award for going after Harry Dean with “hammer and tong!” (7) Ernie Lazar says, “So, Paul, GROW UP. Stop making excuses! If Harry cannot or will not answer important questions -- then stop pretending that he welcomes scrutiny of his story.” Actually, Harry Dean welcomes scrutiny of his story, Ernie. We make no excuses; we only object to the name-calling which we regard as a violation of Forum policy. We’re collecting confirming data and evidence as fast as we can, and you know it. Yet once Harry Dean accumulates all the independent confirmation he needs – you do know that you’ll be expected to apologize publicly to him – don’t you? (8) Ernie Lazar says, “Incidentally, the FACT that neither you or Harry has ever made ANY effort to obtain his CIA or FBI files -- does not give any serious person confidence that you have ANY genuine interest in discovering anything.” Actually, Ernie, we welcome every single FBI document that has surfaced in the past year. This gives us a chance to demonstrate the unfairness of the case against Harry Dean. To everybody else, it is obvious that Harry and I have a genuine interest in discovering what the US Government has to say about Harry Dean. (9) Ernie Lazar says, “Being grilled is precisely what happens when serious researchers take interest in any disputed subject matter -- especially when there is very little (or no) documentary evidence available…” Actually, Ernie, it is also possible to be courteous about it. Questions are welcome, yet unbridled hostility is very different. Where’s your sense of courtesy? (10) Ernie Lazar says, “According to you, there MUST be verifiable documentary evidence, i.e. something "written by" the FBI that substantiates your "allegation"...and...as you have previously stated, you WILL NOT ACCEPT any mere assertion....It must be PROVEN by quoting a comment written by the originating party.” Very good, Ernie. You’re finally, after all these months, beginning to understand my simple criteria. Keep up the good work. (11) Ernie Lazar says, “No, Paul, here again we see your incredible bias and total unfamiliarity with standard procedures or principles involved with historical research.” Oops, you lost it again, Ernie. And you were so close. Actually, Ernie, you got it backwards. You’re the one who doesn’t understand the basics. The burden of proof is on the FBI to prove their claim. FBI Agents are the only ones (aside from you, their advocate) charging Harry Dean with claiming to be an FBI agent. Your side bears the burden of proof – and everybody here knows it – and everybody here is waiting patiently to see the 60+ FBI serials from Los Angeles and their hundreds of pages of FBI text to prove once and for all if Ernie Lazar is right or wrong. (12) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo: “This is why nobody can trust ANYTHING you write or say - because you seem incapable of understanding rudimentary principles of logic, evidence, and argument.” Actually, Ernie, you are again exaggerating and over-reaching. Besides, it’s you who evade the simple rules of logic when you accuse Harry Dean of LYING for allegedly claimed to be an FBI agent, even after Harry Dean repeatedly denies claiming that. You exclude Harry’s denial in your so-called ‘logic.’ You remain unable to provide independent confirmation of this charge outside FBI Agents, whom history has shown to be unreliable on the topic of the JFK assassination (of which Harry’s story is a part). You have a lot of nerve to keep harping on this key point, month after month. (13) Ernie Lazar says, “As the accuser, Harry MUST provide substantiation for his claim.” Actually, Ernie, the FBI is the accuser in this case. The FBI have accused Harry Dean of claiming to be an FBI Agent. The FBI must provide substantiation beyond their own word. That’s the state of this thread today. (14) Ernie Lazar says, “HOWEVER: It is also true that some witnesses do lie, or they grossly exaggerate, or they color their answers to questions to present themselves in the most favorable light.” Actually, Ernie, even accusers can lie, or grossly exaggerate (which is your specialty). We have to be careful of both sides – or don’t you agree? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

MODERATOR PLEASE: On 9 June 2013, John Simkin began a new thread entitled, "The Future of the JFK Forum." In post #1 of that thread, John Simkin reminded everybody of a post he wrote in November 2004, which contained this sentence: "The word 'xxxx' is banned from use on the forum." In the course of that thread John Simkin announced he was deleting the membership of some long-time members, because they broke this rule. The FORUM shut down shortly after that, but was revived late last year. What is the current policy of the Forum? Ernie Lazar, as I have directly shown from quotes, has freely used that term on this list, apparently with impunity. John Simkin cannot be sent a message these days. What is the current future of this Forum? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

This selection of quotes from Ernie Lazar is from post #627. (Again, I numbered these quotes so I can respond to them below – which I believe is a courtesy to the reader.) (1) Ernie Lazar says that, I, Paul Trejo, am “probably are the only person on Planet Earth who does not accept written transcripts as ‘proof’ of what people say.” That is an exaggeration on multiple levels. First, I’m not in any way unique in my demand for independent confirmation as proof. Secondly, I’m not in any way unique in my suspicion of FBI statements about the JFK assassination. We must recall that when Ernie Lazar speaks here of “written transcripts” he means “FBI written transcripts” and he would like us all to take the FBI’s word for anything at all that they might print in their memos; period. I know too many people who laugh at such a notion to know that I'm far from “the only person on Planet Earth” who laughs at such a notion. (2) Ernie Lazar repeats, “Harry has repeatedly stated in writing that he was an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Actually Ernie Lazar and I spin on the definition of “undercover informant,” and Ernie is dissatisfied when I say that the term can be used to describe an informal volunteer offering information to the FBI. Ernie replies that the FBI has rigorous procedures for processing official informants – with forms to fill out, meetings, signatures, payrolls and so on. I remind Ernie that Harry never claimed to be a paid informant – but Ernie keeps ignoring that. Ernie is frustrated because he has been claiming this nonsense FOR YEARS on the Internet (not only on this Forum thread) and I keep challenging Ernie to put up or shut up – but Ernie will do neither. (3) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “I am bemused by your semantic ploys because it reveals how un-serious a person you are.” Actually, I’m a very serious and sincere person who wants very much to get at the truth and the hidden evidence behind the JFK assassination. (4) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “ You DO NOT accept or apply any normal rules of logic or evidence, so, instead, you want to fabricate your own idiosyncratic rules.” Actually, I observe the rules of logic very faithfully. I have no idiosyncratic rules of any kind. I fabricate nothing. My demands are clear – if the FBI says anything about the JFK assassination, I want to see independent confirmation. I leave it to the readers here to decide whether that is too much to ask. (5) Ernie Lazar says, “There are only so many times you can use W.R. Morris as your whipping boy and all-purpose excuse.“ I reply that even to this very day, the Spartacus web site which is associated with this very Forum, continues to publish the W.R. Morris fiction about Harry Dean, that he claimed to be an FBI agent! This is unacceptable because it encourages people like Ernie Lazar to promote his own fiction about Harry Dean. After all, if the lies of W.R. Morris are still believed in 2014, despite all the protests by Harry Dean, then why should Ernie Lazar expect less? (6) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo, that “the only person who constantly refers to Harry as a xxxx is yourself.” Actually, that’s backward and Ernie knows it. I’m the number one defender of Harry Dean’s story as true. I’m the one who spent months interviewing Harry and writing his Confessions into an eBook. Ernie Lazar has openly and publicly called Harry Dean “a xxxx” (post #551) and has the nerve not only to deny it, but to accuse me of being the one who called Harry Dean “a xxxx.” Obviously, Ernie prefers rhetoric, not logic or facts, to make his points. (7) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo, that “I even offered you an alternative…that Harry is very confused and often exaggerates to inflate his credentials.” Actually, I reject those ‘alternatives,’ because Harry Dean is a sharp-witted guy – very intelligent and very clever. Yes, he’s slowing down now at 86 years old, but that suggests to me that when he was in his thirties, in the 1960’s, that he was fast, sharp, well-spoken, friendly out-going and well-liked. Ernie Lazar tends to lack these qualities, so I suspect that Ernie is probably jealous of Harry Dean. That would explain Ernie’s incessant, unfair and unkind attacks on Harry Dean. (8) Ernie Lazar says that, “One has to carefully examine FBI protocols for handling legitimate informants and then determine if any evidence exists to substantiate Harry's claims (which none does).” Actually, neither Harry Dean nor I have ever argued that Harry Dean was a formal, paid informant of the FBI. This fact undercuts all of Ernie Lazar’s attacks – so Ernie just ignores it and goes on his merry way, repeating the fiction by W.R. Morris that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent – and then showing again and again that Harry Dean never was an FBI agent. So Ernie Lazar is really only arguing with himself! Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

In respose to Post #623 by Ernie... As for proof that David Robbins told me these things -- the fact is that anybody can contact David Robbins if they want to -- and I posted his web site on this very thread, to give everybody an equal access to him. I don't control access to David Robbins -- he's an American citizen. Dave Robbins is a Christian Evangelist and an honest gentleman. He still subscribes to the Schwarz Report and to Human Events, and he's happy to talk about right-wing politics even today. Just contact him and ask him yourself. It's easy -- unless you lack people skills. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

In response to Post #621 by Ernie... The evidence that Loran Hall was personally acquainted with Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra is given in Loran Hall's own words as recorded in one of the speeches he gave before the John Birch Society in 1963, entitled, CUBA BETRAYED. It is preserved on YouTube in two parts: LORAN HALL, Part One: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6daWtQYlydQ LORAN HALL, Part Two: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kLVVHQ_Myg The case of Loran Hall is special because it parallels Harry Dean's case to an extraordinary degree. Both Loran and Harry were supporters of Castro in 1959 and early 1960, and both Loran and Harry became enemies of Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra in early 1960. There were many militant Americans who switched from supporting Fidel's Cuba to attacking it within that same time period -- including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie and even TV host, Ed Sullivan (though Ed Sullivan's role was only on the propaganda side). Ex-General Edwin Walker claims that the CIA itself supported Fidel Castro in the early years -- that's how confusing politics were for countless thousands of activists in the USA. All of this history gives real body and substance to the claims made by Harry Dean. As for Gerry Patrick Hemming himself, it was right here in this Forum, less than a decade ago, that Gerry Patrick Hemming told us about his close relationship with Che Guevarra. Hemming respected Che very much, even after Hemming changed sides -- that was part of his confusion. As for Harry Dean's claim that he attended Loran Hall's speeches to the JBS in Southern California, that has been independenty confirmed by David Robbins, who is still living and still willing to talk. David does not deny that he arranged speakers for the JBS from 1962-1963, and that these speakers included Congressman John Rousselot, Ex-General Edwin Walker, mercenary Loran Hall and former FPCC Secretary-turned-anti-Red, Harry Dean. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Ernie, people who live in tin houses shouldn't throw can-openers. I'll continue to supply more push-back to your many falsehoods on this Forum thread. I'm glad you "welcome any corrections," because there are plenty more. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I appreciate your observations. First of all, you're 100% correct -- the main issue here is the JFK assassination and the central role that might have been played by Ex-General Edwin Walker in it. There are other threads about Edwin Walker on the Forum, but they tend to be armchair quarterback experiments in guesswork. Dick Russell did some digging back in the 1990's, and even interviewed Edwin Walker, but his questions were far off track -- he never got close. For instance, Dick Russell's pursuit of the Larrie Schmidt story was weak -- a dead end -- and he pushed it too far. The only person who would have known more about Ex-General Walker and his plans in 1963 was the brother of Larrie, namely, Robbie Schmidt, who died in the 1990's. Robbie Schmidt used to live with Edwin Walker, for the better part of 1963. Larrie Schmidt insists that Robbie Schmidt had no clout with Walker, because Robbie was only Walker's chauffeur, and there was a great social distance between them -- so Robbie would not even pay attention to people who came and went from Walker's home while he lived there -- says Larrie Schmidt. He might be right -- but in any case, the death of Robbie Schmidt ends all certainty on that score, IMHO. The only living persons who could have associated with Ex-General Walker in the summer of 1963 who are still alive today -- that I know about -- are Harry Dean, David Robbins and Jack Martin, whose home movie showed the bullet holes in Walker's home at the start of the film, and the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans at the end of the film. I spoke with David Robbins and he confirmed for me that the key persons whom Harry Dean names in his Confessions did indeed congregate around his JBS speaker events in 1962-1963. The key men -- including Edwin Walker, John Rousselot, Loran Hall and Harry Dean -- were all speakers at one time or other for David Robbins' events, and they were also frequently seen at the JBS where David Robbins also hung out. However -- that's about all that David Robbins can say. I've pressed him -- he knows very little more than that. He admitted that he was very close to John Rousselot, and that he was at his side when Rousselot died in 2003. Jack Martin flatly refuses to talk with anybody about Walker -- anybody -- at least that what he told the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas which has his home movie on their web site. As for Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray, he faced off with Edwin Walker in 1962 at Ole Miss University, challenging Walker to send the out-of-towners home and to stop the violence against the Federal Troops who were trying to enforce the Supreme Court decision to racially integrate Ole Miss. Bishop Duncan Gray (then a lowly Reverend) told me plainly that Edwin Walker scowled at this peace-loving Pastor, and directed men in the crowd to beat up Gray. This is a matter of history, told at Ole Miss down to this day. However, Gray stopped tracking Walker after that point, and has no knowledge of Walker's activities in 1963. So -- that leaves me with Harry Dean. I grant that there are technical issues that remain with Harry Dean's story -- for example, independent confirmation. However, the paradox is that all these negative FBI files about Harry Dean actually support most of the claims that Harry Dean makes -- that is, they tend to place Harry at certain locations at certain dates, and associate Harry with specific people there. No matter what problems Harry Dean may have had with the FBI, the paradox is that their records so far have substantiated the locations and the general society of Harry's story. Even if there are more negative things that the FBI will have to say about Harry Dean, I suspect that we will also find further confirmations of Harry Dean's story as regards his location and society in question. My ultimate goal here is scientific. My ultimate goal is historical in the most scholarly sense of the term. I admit we have a lot more work to do. I have always admitted that Harry Dean's case as it stood twp years ago was weak -- but I believed in Harry Dean all this time because I have a growing case against Ex-General Edwin Walker, and Harry Dean is my star living witness today. Furthermore, even the case against Ex-General Edwin Walker gives Harry Dean's story a bit more independent confirmation, so I will continue to defend Harry Dean to the very end. I appreciate your objectivity, Paul B. I can't tell you how much. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

BUMP

This selection of quotes from Ernie Lazar is from post #612. (Again, I numbered these quotes so I can respond to them below – which I believe is a courtesy to the reader.) (1) Ernie Lazar wishes to define a “fact” as “a transcript of an interview.” Actually, if the FBI had provided “a transcript of an interview” to J. Edgar Hoover when they claimed they had to repeatedly warn Harry Dean to stop calling himself an FBI agent, I would have accepted it. But I have yet to see “a transcript of an interview” from the FBI to J. Edgar Hoover about Harry Dean. At best they provide their “recollection” of an interview, or their personal feeling on the topic. Once again, Ernie Lazar is playing fast and loose with “facts.” (2) Ernie Lazar wishes to claim that for me, Paul Trejo, "’proof’ is anything which Harry tells you.” This is obviously false and biased. Ernie hopes to silence my demand for independent confirmation of FBI statements with regard to the JFK assassination. All I want is independent confirmation. (3) Ernie Lazar charges me, Paul Trejo, with daring to doubt “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” I am guilty as charged. Nor am I alone; former FBI agents also criticize J. Edgar Hoover himself precisely on the topic of the JFK assassination. As former FBI Agent Don Adams reported, J. Edgar Hoover himself directed FBI agents in investigating the JFK murder, despite protests and all their training. In the JFK case, it did not matter that FBI Agents had degrees in law or accounting – or whether they were personally susceptible to rumors or innuendos – they took orders from Hoover. (4) Ernie Lazar claims that, “everything said or written by an FBI Special Agent had to be documented in such a way that it would withstand the most brutal courtroom scrutiny.” Ernie seems to be unaware of standard JFK research literature. For example, one widely read book in this genre is Gerald McKnight’s Breach of Trust (2005), which is subtitled, “How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation And Why.” McKnight’s well-researched book clarifies that the FBI was the investigation source for the Warren Commission – and how the FBI manipulated evidence from start to finish. We have substantial evidence that the JFK case was an exception to normal FBI operating procedures. (5) Ernie Lazar remembers when Harry and I reversed our claim about Harry Dean’s writing of a memo to Hoover in November, 1963 which the FBI published. Ernie charges, “did you discover your error because of any research you did and shared here? Nope!” Well, that’s obviously false because I had interviewed Harry Dean very recently, and I shared the result with this Forum in a timely manner. So again, Ernie is simply biased. (6) Ernie Lazar charges that Harry Dean refuses to answer his questions “which any impartial researcher would ask.” But I claim that Ernie Lazar asks Harry Dean in a cruel and unusual manner. I say Ernie is acting like a Gestapo, like a prosecuting attorney in a murder case, placing Harry Dean under suspicion from the start. There is no respect, there is no courtesy, there is only a cold, calculating suspicion. No wonder Harry Dean doesn’t want to respond to Ernie Lazar. No reasonable person would want to. Yet for Ernie Lazar, Harry Dean challenges “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency,” and Ernie is very emotional about this. (7) Ernie Lazar suggests that Harry Dean is a ‘public figure’ because he is among those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Based on this, Ernie seems to believe he can mistreat Harry Dean on this Forum any way he feels. This is clear to all readers. I, Paul Trejo, on the other hand, regard Harry Dean as a personal friend and an honest man who is attempting to recollect for the public his memoirs from 1963 so that history can recover from the damage done by the FBI’s investigation into the JFK assassination. I’ve always admitted we don’t have all the proof we need, but we’re working on it. This is not enough for Ernie, who would rush to judgment. (8) Ernie Lazar attempts to patronize Harry Dean by recalling other “caring and decent and moral and patriotic and principled individuals whom, nevertheless, are simply mistaken or confused or otherwise not presenting accurate information.” So Ernie, as a “genuine researcher,” seeks to step in and “critique such testimony.” That would be welcome if Ernie was impartial. We have seen, however, ample evidence that Ernie is biased. Ernie does not like to see the “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency” subjected to Harry’s challenges. Ernie has been on this Forum thread since 2010 repeating the same charges relentlessly. (9) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo: “You leave all the real research (and expense) to other people. You are a parasite.” Despite the slur, and even the libel of that last remark, I will note here that I have done a lot of research in this case. It takes time to obtain the memoirs of anybody – months of difficult review. Also, I researched the personal papers of Ex-General Edwin Walker in this case. Also, I interviewed several others on this case, including Larrie Schmidt, Dave Robbins, Bishop Duncan Gray and James Meredith. Such interviews are not easy to do, and are very time consuming. It is comparatively easy to collect documents, as Ernie Lazar does. But interviewing people requires courteous manners – an attribute Ernie appears to lack. (10) Ernie Lazar charges that “there is nothing contained in FBI files which you will EVER accept as "factual" or "proof" so why do you care what they contain?” It is simply false that I’d accept nothing in FBI files. It all depends on the files! Again, Ernie is exaggerating. I care very much what they contain and I’ll accept them when they’re true and correct and I’ll criticize them when they’re false and incorrect. (11) Ernie Lazar also charges that, “everything currently known about Harry which appears in FBI documents, falsifies or diminishes Harry's story.” That is clearly false. Actually, FBI documents prove many aspects of Harry’s story: They prove, for example: (i) that Harry Dean was an officer of the FPCC; (ii) that Harry Dean spoke with the FBI in Chicago when he was an officer of the FPCC; (iii) that Harry Dean wrote a letter to JFK in June of 1961; (iv) that Harry Dean moved to Los Angeles in mid-1961; (v) that Harry Dean associated with JBS and Minutemen while in Los Angeles; (vi) that Harry Dean wrote a letter to J. Edgar Hoover in November, 1963; and (vii) that the FBI was aware that Harry Dean appeared on the Joe Pyne Show in early 1965. That’s only the beginning! Before these FBI documents were available, we had no independent confirmation of these aspects of Harry’s story! Thanks to the FBI we have a growing list of these! So, again, Ernie Lazar is guilty of exaggeration – his usual mode of communication. (12) Ernie Lazar says of me, Paul Trejo, that the presence of “not even one FBI file number on Harry which has a classification code which the FBI used to archive data regarding its informants, means nothing to you.” But that is simply false. It’s significant to me that the FBI won’t list Harry Dean as a formal, paid informant of the FBI. I take that very seriously. However, only the FBI and their quislings (like W.R. Morris) ever claimed that Harry Dean claimed to be a paid FBI agent or informant in the formal sense. Harry always told me, and he also claimed in his Crosstrails manuscript (1990) that he was unpaid by the FBI. So, actually, the lack of an FBI file number with an informant classification code is yet one more independent confirmation of Harry Dean’s memoirs! (13) Ernie Lazar charges that “the fact that all of Harry's FBI files are very small (250 or less pages) means nothing to you.” Of course that is false and it is also misleading. While it is significant that Harry Dean’s FBI-LA files contain less than 250 pages, I regard quality to be more important that quantity. I regard the content of those files is to be the more important factor. Here again we see Ernie’s use of exaggeration to make his points. (14) Ernie Lazar charges that, “the fact that FBI HQ had to send inquiries to its Chicago and Los Angeles field offices just to discover who Harry was, means nothing to you.” Of course that is also false, and just as misleading. In my opinion, the fact that FBI Headquarters had to send inquiries to its Chicago field office in November of 1963, after the JFK assassination, is a matter of major importance. Of course, we must see those Chicago FBI files on Harry Dean to make a final decision – however, the Chicago FBI destroyed those documents! Ernie Lazar has suggested that that Chicago FBI destroyed them because they were trivial (e.g. post #675). This also explains to Ernie the absence of these files at FBI headquarters when Hoover wanted them. Notice that Ernie never saw those documents, but he is certain that they must have been trivial. This shows Ernie’s bias, and the unreliability of his research. Actually, the proper way to make a decision about the Chicago FBI files on Harry Dean is to recover them. FBI Headquarters demanded those files in the wake of the JFK assassination, so we presume that the FBI Headquarters did not also destroy those records after the Chicago field office sent them – because they are part of the JFK assassination records. Can we recover them? Ernie claims this “means nothing” to me, but the opposite is true – I want to see them perhaps more than anybody else here. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

This selection of quotes from Ernie Lazar is from post #608. I am just about one week behind in catching up with a thorough, quote by quote response to Ernie's relentless challenges. (Again, I numbered these quotes so I can respond to them below -- which I believe is a courtesy to the reader.) (1) Ernie Lazar charges that my demand for independent confirmation of statements from the FBI about Harry Dean “reveals” that I, Paul Trejo, “would never accept ANYTHING except a direct admission by Harry.” If that were true, then Ernie could also charge, as he does, that I, Paul Trejo, “have no OBJECTIVE standard.” But it isn’t true, and Ernie knows it. As usual, Ernie Lazar is over-stating his case, exaggerating and using rhetoric instead of logic. Actually, I’ve always accepted information outside of Harry Dean for independent confirmation, with the clear exception of the FBI and their quislings (like W.R. Morris). (2) Ernie Lazar charges that I, Paul Trejo, “do not even accept Harry's answer to a direct question by Tom Snyder as recorded in the written transcript of his interview program.” That depends, however, upon whether the question was ambiguous, unclear or could be taken in different ways under the pressure of a live TV program. But obviously, in cases where Harry Dean merely says, “Yes,” that does not automatically justify attributing to Harry every ambiguous remark the interviewer's question would impute, because we have no guarantee that Harry clearly heard the full question. Even from Harry Dean I demand to see full sentences before I go around making public statements. Also, when Harry Dean claims that his trunk full of documents was stolen – I see no reason on earth to call him a xxxx. Ernie Lazar, however, has very little problem throwing this word around, as we have seen from direct quotations of his recent posts. (3) Ernie Lazar wants me to imagine applying my standard – my demand for independent confirmation beyond the magnificent FBI, to “any other matter of dispute in history.” I can easily imagine it. We can all easily imagine it. The FBI has proven over the decades that they are only human. Former FBI Agent Don Adams admitted that if J. Edgar Hoover directed an FBI to go down a particular line of investigation – even if it wasn’t best practice – that FBI Agent would follow Hoover rather than best practices or his own best judgment. Therefore, when it comes to J. Edgar Hoover, especially in the cases of JFK and MLK, we have every historical right and even a duty to challenge the FBI. (4) Ernie Lazar is so frustrated with my willingness to challenge the FBI that he tries to liken my demand for independent confirmation with Holocaust revisionism. This shows Ernie’s bias and preference for rhetoric instead of logic. (5) Ernie claims that because I demand independent confirmation from the FBI in the case of the JFK assassination, that, “from now on, we will demand THE EXACT SAME STANDARD OF PROOF” from me, Paul Trejo. To this I say that I’ve always welcomed independent confirmation of Harry’s story, e.g. from Dave Robbins, from the Edwin Walker personal papers, and from objective FBI reports and more. So, no problem. (6) Ernie Lazar, however, doesn’t really mean “the exact same standard,” as he said. Insetead he means that if Harry Dean and I cannot provide official, notarized documentation, then, in Ernie’s own words, “NOTHING you state will be accepted. NOTHING...(REPEAT: NOTHING) you or Harry writes from this point forward will be accepted!” In other words, even before all the FBI evidence is in, Ernie Lazar wants to shut Harry Dean down today. This is bias. Ernie wants to take the FBI at its word without a mature challenge and even without seeing forthcoming FOIA releases. (What if further evidence contradicts Ernie’s prejudiced accusations? That could be embarrassing to Ernie! Better shut down Harry Dean first!) (7) Ernie Lazar says that if I challenge a question by Tom Snyder as “ambiguous,” Ernie will demand a “DOCUMENT signed by Snyder or his employees stating that (i) there was any pressure during the interview and (ii) that Morris in any way coerced Harry into stating what he did and (iii) that the transcript of the interview is NOT accurate.” Again, this irrational leap by Ernie Lazar is mere rhetoric, a mere playing with words. (8) Ernie Lazar insists that anything the FBI wrote about Harry Dean, even without independent confirmation, should be accepted as though independent witnesses “were interviewed by many different FBI Special Agents OR sources which sent letters to the FBI or CIA -- all of which made the same general statements about what Harry claimed about himself.” Yet if such letters really exist, then the FBI should be able to cough them up. Where are these letters? (9) Ernie Lazar, in his endless rhetoric, pretends that he must define common English words to me, like “hearsay,” because I simply refuse to agree with his accusations although he claims to be a world expert on the FBI. Ernie Lazar may or may not speak well, but Ernie Lazar doesn’t listen very well. Even the FBI needs independent confirmation now and then. (10) Ernie Lazar challenges me, Paul Trejo: ”THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO SEE ANYTHING APPEARING IN FBI FILES? OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IN THEM IS CREDIBLE TO YOU...” Again, this is mere rhetoric. FBI files can be extremely useful documents to point the way to the truth, and I accept many of them. Yet FBI Agents are not perfect. Sometimes some independent confirmation should be demanded. Only a sycophant would insist on accepting the FBI’s word for every little thing. (11) Ernie Lazar charges that if I demand independent confirmation from this or that FBI claim about Harry Dean, that, “consequently, they cannot be considered (as you just wrote) ‘proof’ of anything! Nor can anything in FBI documents be considered ‘facts’." Again, this is mere playing with words – mere rhetoric. I reserve the right to use rational judgment before just accepting whatever the FBI says -- even in the privacy of their own offices. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

I also agree that Ernie Lazar has something positive to offer this thread -- what Larry, John and Gary have all agreed, namely, Ernie's expertise about FBI files and procedures. Now, if Ernie could just stop pushing like a madman that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent, then we could all breathe easier here, I believe. Also, Ernie seems to me to place a lot of credence in the FBI statements -- and doesn't seem to tolerate much doubt about FBI claims. Have you noticed this, Larry, John or Gary? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

These selected quotes of Ernie Lazar are from post #604. I numbered them above so that I can answer them by the numbers (which is far more courteous to the reader, IMHO). 1. It is only “very” clear to YOU, Ernie, that Harry described himself as an "agent of the FBI". That is because you accept the FBI claims without challenging the FBI. 2. You say that “several FBI memos reflect that Harry personally acknowledged to FBI Special Agents” that he referred to himself as an FBI Agent, and that Harry later apologized. But I challenge their story because it seems to cover their behind at a time when Harry told them he was going public. I demand independent confirmation before I believe the FBI on the topic of the JFK assassination. 3. You ask how I can claim that the FBI made “hostile reports” about Harry Dean since I haven’t seen all the FBI serials yet. But I reply that the ones we have are already hostile, starting with those mentioned above. Until I see independent confirmation, I feel justified in treating those reports as hostile reports. 4. You imply that the FBI could have been far more hostile to Harry Dean if they wanted to – for example, by publicizing their alleged ‘rap sheet’ on Harry Dean, which I have shown is full of holes. It is just as likely that the FBI was afraid of publicizing a fraud – knowing they could be sued and that would have been bad PR – something Hoover dreaded. Only if I see independent confirmation of the FBI will I change my mind. 5. You say that the FBI told Senator George Murphy that Harry Dean was warned “several times” for claiming to be an FBI agent. You also say this was “confidential,” but that can be interpreted as the FBI spreading its hostile fiction about Harry Dean, and keeping a lid on it, because any publicized libel could result in bad PR. Nor did the FBI need to share their fraudulent “rap sheet” with Senator Murphy – in fact that would have seemed like overkill and given away their hand. So, until I see independent confirmation of the FBI fiction that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent, I will continue to treat that claim as a hostile report. 6. You say that the FBI letter to Senator Murphy also claims that Harry "continued to make such claims to a newspaper and television station and was again contacted” on the dates 6/7/61, 12/2/63, 1/5/65 and 1/6/65, “and admonished emphatically to desist from his claims". Says who? Says the FBI. What confirmation do they offer? None. Senator Murphy was friendly to the FBI, so he didn’t challenge them, presumably. I respect the FBI, too, except on the topic of the JFK assassination. 7. You say I deny the difference between unsolicited information, routine questions “versus becoming a genuine FBI informant,” and that’s simply incorrect. Harry Dean told me he never accepted money from the FBI except informally, for minor expenses (e.g. gas). So I’m certain that Harry Dean was never a formal, paid informant of the FBI. Harry told me that he offered the FBI information, they asked him questions, and he answered their questions; period. Also, the very existence of 60+ FBI serials containing hundreds of pages about Harry Dean from Los Angeles alone proves that they exchanged communications! So, without even seeing the contents of these FBI serials, I will stand up and affirm today that Harry Dean told me the truth! 8. You said, Ernie: “nobody that I know of has ever made the accusations” that Paul Trejo is making about FBI documentary evidence, FBI files or SAC interviews. But you also admitted to Paul Brancato that you are not very familiar with JFK research literature! If you knew JFK research literature, you would never make such a weak statement! 9. You say, Ernie, that I question the veracity of the FBI based on “NOTHING but Harry's word!” That is simply incorrect. Again, if you knew JFK research literature, you would never say anything so weak. For just one of many examples, I will cite a retired FBI Agent who even today accuses the FBI of lying about the JFK assassination for the past 50 years. His name is Don Adams; his web site is www.adamsjfk.com and he is the FBI Agent who investigated and questioned Joseph Milteer. Most JFK researchers know immediately who he is, so I won’t go into his story here, but will quote Don Adams here and now: “The vast majority of men and women in the FBI are dedicated to their country and to the work they are doing…That is what I believe makes the FBI the greatest law enforcement agency in the business...[However]; when the Director of the FBI – in this case, J. Edgar Hoover – takes an attitude that is contrary to a good and solid investigative direction, then the people who work under him are compelled to follow his direction. That direction may detour those men and women from what they know to be the proper direction and away from the investigative procedure they should follow…It is my belief that this is what happened in the [JFK] assassination investigation.” (Don Adams, former FBI Agent, 2010) That is only the tip of the iceberg, Ernie, but since you are new to JFK research, you might be forgiven for claiming that I rely on NOTHING but Harry’s word when I doubt the FBI! 10. You say, Ernie, that I provide nothing to refute the fact that the FBI denies Harry was ever a formal informant or source. That is a poor way of putting it. Actually, I don’t seek to refute that fact at all. Harry told me his relationship with the FBI was informal. All these fictions that Harry claimed to be an FBI Agent, or an Official and paid Informer always come from the FBI and W.R. Morris, as far as I can see. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove their fiction, but on YOU to prove it with independent confirmation. Evidently the FBI invented this to discredit Harry – and this what I call a hostile report. YOU believe the FBI claim, Ernie, not me. So I have nothing to refute here. It’s an FBI and W.R. Morris fiction, pure and simple – and the exact date it started still remains to be determined. 11. You keep spreading the rumor, Ernie, that “Harry claims that he was an FBI informant for several years,” in the sense that he was a paid, Official Informant. But Harry never told me that in our interviews, nor have I ever seen that in writing outside FBI hostile reports and the lies of W.R. Morris. I predict you will one day retract your many YEARS of claiming this – one day soon. You also claim that “IF that was true, then his FBI files should be MUCH larger than the ones we know about,” and that is simply irrelevant. Each FBI informant (official or unofficial) is unique, so it is nonsense to compare the size of their files, as if quantity is more important than quality. In my opinion, 60+ serials and hundreds of pages is plenty to demonstrate that there was indeed communication between the FBI and Harry Dean between 1960-1967. So, have a look at them before broadcasting the fiction spread by W.R. Morris, OK? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Dear Pat Speer, I write to you as Moderator, so that you might contact John Simkin for Harry Dean and me. We have tried to contact Mr. Simkin without success regarding the Spartacus web pages that speak about Harry Dean. They are inaccurate, and they portray Harry Dean in a poor light -- Harry told me that he objects to them. Although some effort was made last year to correct the errors, several errors still remain. There are three Spartacus web pages that spread the disinformation that about Harry Dean. They are: http://www.spartacus...investBirch.htm http://www.spartacus...uk/JFKdeanH.htm These three Spartacus web pages print variations on the following false text: ----------------------Begin Spartacus web page --------------------------- Harry Dean was an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1962 he infiltrated the John Birch Society. He later reported that leading members of the society, including John Rousselot and Edwin Walker, hired two gunman, Eladio del Valle and Loran Hall, to kill President John F. Kennedy. ----------------------End Spartacus web page --------------------------- This information about Harry Dean is untrue, and Harry Dean has been claiming it is untrue for nearly 40 years. Harry never even heard of Eladio del Valle until these lies about him were published by W.R. Morris in 1975 in the made-for-fiction writing, The Men Behind the Guns. Although W.R. Morris claimed that Harry Dean was his co-author, that was a deliberate deception. Harry Dean broke off relations with W.R. Morris before the publication of that book, precisely because W.R. Morris would not stop making up fiction and putting Harry Dean's name on it, no matter how many times Harry Dean told W.R. Morris to stop doing that. Unfortunately, the stories by W.R. Morris have formed a "Harry Dean Legend" that is hard to reverse -- but Harry Dean has been trying to reverse it for decades. Harry wrote his own manuscript, Crosstrails, in 1990, which sets the record straight. It has sold very few copies. Please ask John Simkin (whom I presume is responsible for these pages) to act to correct this incorrect data. Harry Dean is still alive, and can still be asked directly for the precise nature of his claims -- we don't need to guess. In case John Simkin wants some text that Harry would approve, please forward this: ----------------------- BEGIN PROPOSED SPARTACUS TEXT In 1965 Harry J. Dean went on The Joe Pyne Show (Los Angeles, KTTV) to make public the reports that he shared with the FBI before and after the JFK assassination about a plot that apparently originated within the Southern California John Birch Society. JBS members Ex-General Edwin Walker, Congressman John Rousselot, war-hero Gabby Gabaldon, and militant mercenaries Loran Hall and Larry Howard included Harry Dean in their September 1963 plot to assassinate JFK, and to blame Lee Harvey Oswald for the killing. In that Joe Pyne program, Harry Dean told Marguerite Oswald that he believed her son was innocent of killing JFK. Harry Dean still sticks to that story today, despite continual opposition. In 1975 W.R. Morris took Harry's story and made a fiction of it, pretending Harry was an FBI and a CIA undercover agent, and introducing the figure of Eladio del Valle. This fiction (The Men Behind the Guns, 1975) is still circulated widely as the Harry Dean story, although it remains pure fiction. ------------------- END PROPOSED SPARTACUS TEXT W.R. Morris went around the USA for years lying about Harry Dean, and claiming that he spoke for Harry Dean. W.R. Morris even hired an actor to pretend to be Harry Dean, to spew his disinformation wider and wider. Please don't allow the Spartacus site to continue this defamation of Harry Dean. Best regards, --Paul Trejo, MA