Paul Trejo

Well, Ernie, we've already seen some of these "new" files regarding Harry Dean, haven't we? HQ 94-54427 - This 1977 FBI headquarters main file concerning inquiry by Congressman John Rousselot about Harry has already been revealed in part on this very thread. Congressman Rousselot wrote to the FBI demanding to know if Harry was a secret agent of the FBI, and demanded to see all the files that the FBI had about Harry Dean. The FBI told Congressman Rousselot in no uncertain terms that Harry Dean was at no time ever a paid agent of the FBI. Beyond that, they told Rousselot that the FBI would never share any files on private citizens with anybody. So they sent Rousselot away empty handed. The FBI did not bother to ask why Rousselot came to them in such a panic. They just let the matter drop. But the critical question in this regard -- especially given the events of 1965 when Harry Dean first went public with his information about General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall and Congressman John Rousselot regarding the assassination of JFK, must be taken into account by impartial researchers. As for the Chicago 100-38257 file, the main FBI field file on Harry Dean, I am shocked that it was destroyed in May 1990. I note for the record that this was a year before Harry Dean wrote his manuscript, Crosstrails. Regarding the plausibility that the FBI might destroy further records about Harry Dean, Ernie, you are, strangely, the best person to ask here in this regard. What -- step by step -- could Harry Dean do in order to request his personal FBI files in the next few weeks? Even though we sharply disagree on historical matters, Ernie, still I've publicly credited your efforts obtaining the critical FBI records about Harry Dean that we now have, and giving real body to the claims made by Harry Dean since 1965. So, since you know how the FBI operates; what exactly -- step by step -- should Harry Dean write to the FBI in this regard? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, dear readers, my responses to Ernie are numbered: (1) We have plenty of FBI records that acknowledge the FBI receiving information - gladly - from Harry Dean. So Ernie is simply living in denial of the facts, to avoid having to apologize to Harry Dean for calling him a xxxx for several years. (2) Harry Dean never claimed that the FBI opened an official investigation of the JBS, but Ernie continues -- after all these years -- to insinuate that Harry claimed that. Harry's claim, from 1965 until the present time, is that the FBI asked Harry personally about individual members of the JBS, whom they feared might also be involved with Fidel Castro in some illegal manner. Since the FBI knew that Harry Dean was (2.1) a former Secretary of the FPCC; and (2.2) an informer to the FBI regarding the FPCC in Chicago; they asked Harry for this consideration. Harry obliged them. However, after Harry Dean decided to go public with his story in early 1965, the FBI began a series of attacks on Harry Dean that amount to persecution. Ernie Lazar continues to believe the content of those attacks, and blatantly ignores the contrary FBI evidence even though it is published by the FBI themselves. (3) Harry specifically and repeatedly said that he requested not one nickel of any kind whatsoever as payment for his information -- it was entirely a patriotic duty. The FBI even has documents admitting this -- and Ernie has those documents. But Ernie refuses to apologize to Harry Dean. (4) There are still documents withheld by the FBI regaring Harry Dean. We have not yet seen all the FBI documents that are withheld -- and in fact we have not yet seen all the FBI documents that have already been made public! Although it is clear to me that Ernie Lazar should publicly apologize to Harry Dean for calling him a xxxx in public for several years -- it is equally clear that Ernie will hold out until the very last document by the FBI has been published, hoping against hope that he will never need to apologize to save his honor. No, instead, to this very day, despite reviewing contradictory FBI documents on Harry Dean, Ernie Lazar still has the nerve to say: "It is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his 'FBI' association in order to inflate his credentials." Ernie keeps putting off his moral duty to apologize to Harry -- but time marches on. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Again, Ernie,all this shows is that you have so far failed to find FBI documents about Harry Dean -- and instead of admitting that, you claim that "there was no checklist on Harry..." Because Ernie Lazar never found it after years of searching, it can't exist -- what a laugh. We've already seen cases last year in which a mountain of FBI documents suddenly appeared about Harry Dean -- and some of it admits that Harry Dean was a source of information for the Chicago FBI. But you had been claiming for years that 'there was no FBI file on Harry.' And you had no shame in calling Harry Dean a xxxx because of the truths he told from 1965 until this very day. Did you apologize? NEVER. Now your sole focus is trying to navigate through the ocean of this FBI informatoin on Harry to support your old, discredited claims that the FBI was never really interested in Harry as a source. It's like you go around with blinders on. Your bias seems to be obvious to everybody but yourself. I read that PDF you supplied -- the "Informant Checklist.PDF" -- which has nothing to do with Harry Dean (in the same way that many of the recent documents you've shared with this thread have nothing at all to do with Harry Dean. You're reaching, reaching reaching for analogies). Your point is that you, Ernie Lazar, with all your FOIA requests and expenses and years of struggle, should have found the FBI "Informant Checklist" on Harry Dean by now -- and you haven't. Rather than admit that you're fallible, however, you'd rather publish to the world your certainty that it doesn't exist -- it can't exist; otherwise Ernie Lazar could be mistaken! This is obvious for all readers -- yet your only response is that I'm not an expert on FBI procedures as you are. But common sense knows that is no excuse for your continual blundering and your endless bias. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, Ernie, here's some news. There's no way I have time to put together a comprehensive list (in chronological sequence) of everything which I believe constitutes evidence of how the FBI "persecuted" Harry Dean. I have an 8-5 job, and I'm plenty busy with it. In any case, my opinions on specifics are well-known in this thread. All the FBI materials I ever saw about Harry Dean were published in this very thread. I've said that for months now. Also, I've given my opinions about them all, very clearly. You tried to respond to them, but your bias against Harry and myself are the only aspects I remember -- you aren't a careful researcher, you allow your bias to get in the way. Also, I don't care about mere opinions of others -- the FBI on the one hand admitted that they got information from Harry Dean, and then they claimed that Harry Dean was never a source of information. They contradicted themselves about Harry -- and that is proof of "persecution." Also, the FBI's alleged "rap sheet" about Harry Dean, so full of holes as I pointed out, had no other purpose than to discredit Harry Dean after the JFK assassination. This is clearly another proof of "persecution." It's not that I never made those points before -- it's just that you deny them. It's your word against mine -- let the readers decide. Furthermore, you;re talking out of your hat when you claim that "NOBODY believes Harry;'s story." Now, as for my amateur psychology skills, I'd like to try once more to explain your strange, hostile behavior. For YEARS, Ernie, you've been posting over the Internet that Harry Dean was a xxxx, and that you were certain of this because you could find no FBI files at all that mention Harry Dean. Period. Then, after debates with me last year, you suddenly looked places you never looked before, and behold, you actually found A MOTHERLODE of FBI documents that mention Harry Dean! Lots and lots of them -- with more coming out every month, evidently. Now, by all accounts of courtesy and manners, you should have APOLOGIZED to Harry Dean last year when all those FBI documents were found. BUT YOU DIDN'T. Instead, you keep searching for "persecuting" FBI documents that attack Harry, or that accuse him of being a mental case, or that accuse him of being a criminal -- all of which are easily found in this thread if anybody bothers to look. I showed amply that the FBI has some documents that admit Harry was a source of information for them, and other documents that deny that Harry was a source of information for them. That alone proves my case. But YOU, Ernie, try to get our readers only to focus on the NEGATIVE documents, and your words are evidence of a psychological denial of the TRUTH that there are FBI documents that admit that Harry Dean was a source for the FBI. That's the TRUTH and you won't show the decency to APOLOGIZE to Harry Dean for years of calling him a xxxx. You should be ASHAMED to look at your face in the morning, sir. You should BEG FOR HARRY DEAN'S FORGIVENESS! Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

1. Yes, Ernie, you seek applause for the FOIA requests you have submitted and had filled. The thanks you've received so far has evidently not satisfied your starvation for approval. 2. Mark Allen's FOIA requests are also appreciated. Evidently Mark Allen was satisfied with our thanks. 3. In your arrogance, Ernie, you vastly overstate your case about allegedly "very important documents" which allegedly "fill in the blanks" regarding the Confessions of Harry Dean. Your posts on this thread show what you really mean -- you mean that these "very important documents" contradict Harry Dean's account. Yet you haven't proved that. On the contrary, the FBI documents that you've so far been able to show only contradict themselves. In general they support Harry Dean's Confessions, because they prove that Harry Dean was present in the places and at the times he claimed he was. 4. Your statements, Ernie, only show that you don't respect Harry Dean. Not only that, but you have spent MONTHS on this thread, nagging and harping and hounding Harry Dean, just like the FBI used to do in the old days of the Warren Commission fallout. Your persona is therefore like that of J. Edgar Hoover -- you think of yourself as a Junior G-Man, perhaps, and you want to make Hoover proud of you, so you persecute Harry Dean in 2014, just as the FBI persecuted Dean in 1965 and afterward. It's a truly pathetic performance, Ernie. Yet I can see that nothing is going to dissuade you from your fantasy of being a Junior G-Man. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo, MA

Thanks, Douglas, for sharing that recent link for the Oliver Stone interview. I watched JFK again after that interview, and I reviewed my notes, and I continue to have one major question about Oliver Stone's narrative. The most impressive part of the JFK film, to me, is the meeting with Mister X (Fletcher Prouty) played by Donald Sutherland. In the course of the Mister X narrative, we are told about General Y (General Edward Lansdale) who, it is hinted, was the man who called Colonel Max Reich, the unit commander of the 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston the day before the JFK motorcade, with orders to "stand down" instead of going to Dallas to protect JFK. It is also hinted that fired CIA chief, Allen Dulles, was the "benefactor" of General Lansdale. Further, General Lansdale told Colonel Fletcher Prouty to travel to the South Pole, instead of handling security for JFK in Dallas. No matter what other suspects we find in the woodwork of the JFK assassination -- Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, David Ferrie or Carlos Bringuier in New Orleans, or General Walker, Loran Hall or Guy Gabaldon in Dallas and Mexico City -- the problem of General Edward Lansdale keeps haunting me. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Ernie, your insults just keep coming. Your tone is about as sympathetic as a porcupine. But your attacks miss their mark, simply because you misunderstand Harry Dean and his project, and my role in it. Harry Dean is not a researcher -- and neither am I. Harry Dean is an eye-witness who has courageously been trying since 1965 to tell the world what he saw in September 1963, regarding General Walker, the John Birch Society, Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald. The FBI has opposed Harry Dean ever since he chose to go public with his information. The attacks by the FBI started in 1965, and they continue down to this day through the unofficial intermediary of Ernie Lazar. As for me, I'm a computer specialist in SQL databases. I also happen to be a part-time student, and I recently enjoyed some history courses by the famous H.W. Brands, who encouraged me in my research into the personal papers of resigned General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century) here at the Briscoe Center for American History. After two semesters with Professor Brands, I agreed to help Harry Dean write his CONFESSIONS. This is not the work of a professional historian -- and I'm not a professional researcher. I helped Harry Dean write his CONFESSIONS. That's all. For my troubles, I get the prize of Ernie Lazar, hounding me relentlessly, here on the Harry Dean thread of Education Forum. But you should be ashamed, Ernie, to make these sorts of accusations and declamations in public -- you don't know what you're talking about. You admit that you "have never devoted much time to Harry's narrative." But that doesn't prevent you from attacking it, obviously. Furthermore, you accuse me of "making hard or final conclusions." But that's baloney. I've always said that my opinions here amount to a theory or hypothesis. I realize that the information on the JFK assassination is among the most suppressed information the FBI has to offer -- even 50 years after the fact. But that's not my fault -- that's the fault of the FBI. As for FOIA requests, they are expensive and time-consuming. Neither Harry nor I have surplus cash lying around for research. Also, as you yourself are aware, NARA prices are "exorbitant." Harry and I are happy that others are willing to share the results of their FOIA requests -- that is, unless they brag endlessly about them. So, come off it, Ernie. What good does it do you to keep harping on the imperfections of others? Are you that lonely? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Thanks, Ernie, for posting this official index of Part 2 of the Papers from the JFK Assassination Records Collection at the National Archives. This particular Index concentrates on the Church Committee -- the organization that preceded the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations) of 1977. I found it interesting that the Church Committee had not one, but seven official folders with information about our own Harry Dean, in seven different Boxes from three different Reels of data. For those who wish an instant reading, I reproduce those folder descriptions here, and I highlight the name of Harry J. Dean in bold letters for the convenience of the reader. Regards --Paul Trejo PAPERS FROM THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS COLLECTION AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES Part 2: Church Committee Investigation Reel 12 – FBI Background Information on Lee Harvey Oswald 0515 Box 13, Folder 3: [FBI Memorandums and Documents Relating to JFK Assassination]. Major Topics: FBI knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to JFK assassination; James P. Hosty; Sylvia Odio; Oswald travel to Mexico City; FBI response to Warren Commission questions; Harold Weisberg characterization of Warren Commission report as a “whitewash”; James C. Garrison; John A. McCone; Oswald ties to FBI; LBJ statement announcing creation of Warren Commission; mystery of TSBD elevators; FPCC; Oswald arrest in New Orleans; Nicholas Katzenbach; Gerald R. Ford; questions of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. concerning JFK assassination; CIA filing system; Secret Service; Earl Warren; Michael Paine family; Harry J. Dean. Principal Correspondent: Harold Weisberg. Reel 19 – Ralph Schoenman’s Report to Rockefeller Commission 0294 Box 20, Folder 2: [Documents Relating to the Overthrow of Fidel Castro; Miscellaneous Documents on Lee Harvey Oswald]. Major Topics: CIA activities prior to Bay of Pigs; Cuba; Harry J. Dean; Warren Commission; FBI file on Lee Harvey Oswald; Oswald ties to USSR; Marion M. Johnson; Marguerite Oswald; defectors to USSR; Marina Oswald; arrest of Silvia Duran; FBI investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald travel to Mexico City; Gilberto Alvarado; McGeorge Bundy affidavit to Rockefeller Commission; Operation Mongoose; William K. Harvey; David W. Belin; INS report on Marina Oswald. Principal Correspondent: William C. Sullivan. 0768 Box 20, Folder 6: [Church Committee Press Briefings and Document Acquisitions Lists; Documents Relating to Harry J. Dean]. Major Topics: Church Committee press conferences with Philip W. Buchen, Frank Church, and John Tower; Chile; assassination of Rene Schneider; Richard M. Nixon; NSA; Church interviews; Maurice “Maury” Povich; Richard Helms; Edward M. Kennedy; JFK and RFK knowledge of plot to assassinate Fidel Castro; sale of Pershing missiles to Israel; FPCC; Harry J. Dean alleged ties to FBI; FBI disavowal of Dean; Church appearance on Meet the Press; William E. Colby; Bartholomew “Barry” M. Goldwater; lists of Church Committee document acquisitions; Gerald R. Ford opposition to publication of Church Committee report on assassinations. Principal Correspondents: Bill Capps; Harry J. Dean; Gerald R. Ford. 0904 Box 20, Folder 7: [Miscellaneous Documents on JFK Assassination and Cuba]. Major Topics: FBI documents on Warren Commission critics; FBI documents on MLK; list of documents that may be used in Church Committee report; Harry J. Dean; memorandum on CIA reorganization; Operation Mongoose; Cuba; passport data on Gilberto P. Lopez; jurisdiction of Rockefeller Commission concerning CIA involvement in assassinations; Gerald R. Ford and William E. Colby opposition to publication of Church Committee report on assassinations; Walt W. Rostow meeting with Richard M. Bissell Jr.; SGA status report. Principal Correspondents: Michael E. Shaheen Jr.; Paul G. Wallach; Steven Blackhurst; J. Edgar Hoover; Arthur Schlesinger Jr.; Edward G. Lansdale; Benjamin T. Harris; James A. Wilderotter; Philip W. Buchen; Marvin L. Gray Jr.; Gerald R. Ford; William E. Colby; Walt W. Rostow. Reel 22 – Church Committee Index Cards on Lee Harvey Oswald 0288 Box 23, Folder 2: [CIA Documents on AMLASH; Rockefeller Commission Depositions; INS Documents on Marina Oswald]. Major Topics: Interview with Forrest Sorrels; Secret Service; Warren Commission; JFK assassination; TSBD; Zapruder film; Lee Harvey Oswald; Jack Ruby; AMLASH; Cuba; plot to assassinate Fidel Castro; Castro 1965 speech reporting progress in Cuba; biography of Edward G. Lansdale; depositions of Peter Brown and Peter D. Dyke; CIA meeting with Shirley Stetson and John Wilson; Jose Antonio Cabarga threatening phone call concerning JFK assassination; Oswald ties to KGB; Harry J. Dean ties to FBI; FPCC; CIA attempt to counter criticism of Warren Commission 0468 Box 23, Folder 3: [FBI Memorandums Relating to Anti-Castro Activities, Cuba, and Harry J. Dean]. Major Topics: Luis Somoza; Cuban exiles; plot to assassinate Fidel Castro; Miami Herald; Antonio Veciana; CRC; Gus Finger; New York City Anti-Defamation League; Morton M. Rosenthal; Placido Hernandez; Rafael Rodriguez; Edward P. Morgan; Harry J. Dean ties to FBI; FPCC; Daniel Milian and Carlos Rodriguez Quesada plot to assassinate Castro; Sentinels of Liberty; Luis Conte Aguero; Bruce A. Norris; Edward Lombardo; Church Committee weekly report; Jose Miro Cardona; Manuel “Manolo” Ray; Manuel Artime; Manuel Antonio de Varona. Principal Correspondent: Robert James Dwyer. 0603 Box 23, Folder 4: [Memorandums on Cuban Exile Organizations, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Harry J. Dean]. Major Topics: Cuban exile raids on Cuba; Lee Harvey Oswald travel to Mexico City; Jose Miro Cardona; Cuban exile organizations; CRC; Cuban Committee of Liberation; Manuel Antonio de Varona; recommendation not to release Church Committee report on assassinations; Edward P. Morgan; plot to assassinate Fidel Castro; Oswald and Marina Oswald passport information; Harry J. Dean; FPCC; Lee Harvey Oswald return to U.S.; statement of Louis M. Kelley; FBI Washington field office; Marguerite Oswald; Lee Harvey Oswald residence in USSR; FBI report on investigation into JFK assassination; Lee Harvey Oswald murder of J. D. Tippit; TSBD; Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle; Warren Commission use of information received from CIA. Principal Correspondent: Robert James Dwyer. --- END Extract ---

Ernie, Thanks for continuing your research. Best wishes in contacting Mark Allen and obtaining further clarification about the FBI files on Harry Dean. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Paul B., I'd like to add another remark as a follow-up to your excellent question. In 1991, after watching Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, I was disturbed for several months about the claim in that movie that newspapers in the South Pole had claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone killer" of JFK. Fletcher Prouty read this article during the South Pole equivalent of 7pm on 22 November 1963. This was only 6.5 hours after the assassination of JFK -- and in fact at this hour Lee Oswald had only just been charged with the killing of Dallas police office J.D. Tippit. It would be hours before Oswald would be charged with killing JFK -- and already newspapers in the South Pole had a full story about Oswald, about his time in the USSR, with a studio photograph, and alleged that Oswald was the "lone nut" killer. But the most disturbing aspect to me was that this incidentally portrayed J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI in a tremendously bad light. Here's what I mean. Historian David Wrone reported that J. Edgar Hoover was the first person to imagine that Oswald was the "lone nut" killer of JFK. Hoover first imagined this scenario at 3pm on 22 November 1963, only one hour after Oswald was arrested, while Hoover sat in his Washington DC office overlooking the Potomac River -- yet how could that opinion, which hadn't even been announced to the FBI staff yet, become part of a full-bodied newspaper report in New Zealand only four hours later? It was impossible, I worried, that this sort of information could be transmitted so far and so fast. If these times and events are accepted, then the obvious conclusion is that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't really the first person to imagine that Oswald was the "lone nut." On the contrary, the people who leaked the story to the New Zealand newspapers were the real originators of the story, so these people must have hovered above J. Edgar Hoover and dictated to him what he must say. I saw no other explanation for the stipulated facts. It was disturbing to me to imagine that J. Edgar Hoover (whom I knew was not perfect) was playing along with higher-ups, and that he was therefore directly involved in the plot to assassinate JFK. I don't like thinking this about the US government -- but if the New Zealand newspaper printed that Oswald was the "lone nut" killer of JFK before Oswald was even charged with the crime, then I had no choice but to doubt that J. Edgar Hoover was the true source of the "lone nut" theory. Thanks to the Internet, however, I was able to ease my worried mind. The Internet made it possible for anybody to find and read the very same newspaper that Fletcher Prouty read that day. Here's what I found. 1. The name of that New Zealand newspaper is The ChristChurch Star. 2. At exactly 7pm on 22 November 1963 in Dallas, the time zone for New Zealand would be 2pm on 23 November 1963. So the date of the newspaper issue we want is 23 November 1963. 3. For sake of this thread, I'll type in the entire article from The ChristChurch Star: --------------------- Begin article from The ChristChurch Star dated 23 November 1963 ------------------- ARRESTED MAN LIVED IN RUSSIA DALLAS (Texas), November 22. Police have arrested a man employed at the building where a rifle was found after President Kennedy's assassination, British United Press reported. The man reported to be married to a Russian, shot dead a police officer as he was chased into a Dallas cinema. HAD PISTOL The Associated Press of America named the man as Lee H. Oswald, aged 24. Oswald was armed with a pistol when he was finally overpowered. After he was subdued he said: "Well, it's all over now." After being questioned for two hours, Oswald denied any connection with the murder of President Kennedy or the policeman. Reuter said a Secret Service agent had also been shot from the same distance as the President but no details of this shooting were immediately available. Oswald was pulled screaming and yelling from the Texas Theater in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, A.P. said. A large crowd had congregated around the theatre and saw the arrest. Police had to hold the crowds back. Police said Oswald was an employee in the building where the rifle was found following the President's assassination, British United Press reported. Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union in 1959, it was later learned. He returned to the United States last year. He has a Russian wife and a child. While in the Soviet Union he worked in a Minsk factory. He went to the Soviet Union following his discharge from the Marines. While in Russia he apparently became disillusioned with life there. Soviet authorities gave him and his family exit permits to return to America. Oswald was later identified as chairman of a "fair play for Cuba committee." He became the prime suspect in the assassination of the President. SHOT DEAD Oswald had been chased in to the cinema by two policemen. The officers, J. Tippit and M. MacDonald, had received a tip that the President's assassin might have gone into the cinema. Tippit was shot dead as he ran into the cinema British United Press said. MacDonald grappled with the man and they sprawled over theatre seats. He recieved a four-inch lash across the face before he overpowered the man. --------------------- End article from The ChristChurch Star dated 23 November 1963 ------------------- So, there's the article. After reading it carefully, we can easily see that the flaw really rests in Oliver Stone's account of the article. In his movie, JFK, Stone's script suggests that the "lone nut" theory appeared there in New Zealand at 7pm Dallas time, only 6.5 hours after the JFK killing. However, as the reader can plainly see, the "lone nut" theory is entirely absent from the article. Now, I do agree that the timing of the article remains suspicious, and that a military-linked agency is the most likely source to be held responsible for setting up a cover story about Lee Harvey Oswald so quickly after the killing of JFK, and sending it to New Zealand. It remains suspicious that an international newspaper would receive so much detail, even before Oswald was charged with killing JFK. (It reminds me of General Edwin Walker calling the German newspaper, the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, early in the morning after the JFK killing, and telling them that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963.) However, I breathed a sigh of relief, because it lets J. Edgar Hoover off the hook. Don't get me wrong -- I'm no great fan of J. Edgar Hoover -- I think his behavior with regard to the USA Civil Rights movement was deplorable. But I'm relieved to be free of the hard evidence that the Director of the FBI was a pawn in the plot to kill JFK. That is, if the "lone nut" theory had really originated with somebody above his head, then Hoover was a pawn in the plot. I had feared that this New Zealand newspaper might be hard evidence that Hoover was not the originator of the "lone nut" theory -- based on Oliver Stone's claim. However, the actual evidence removed my fear and my doubt. I continue to believe that J. Edgar Hoover's motivation for the "lone nut" theory was to prevent Civil War from breaking out in the USA -- Civil War specifically against the John Birch Society and the Minutemen, and its most prominent leader at the time, General Edwin Walker. I continue to believe all members of LBJ's inner circle, including Hoover, Dulles and Warren, all knew that Edwin Walker was their culprit -- and that the right-wing in the USA was a force to be feared during the Cold War. I believe the "lone nut" theory prevented Civil War in the middle of the Cold War, and therefore prevented World War Three. If my theory is correct, then just as Marguerite Oswald suggested to Harry Dean in 1965, the USA owes a great debt of gratitude to Lee Harvey Oswald for being the lightning rod that absorbed the tremendous shock to the body politic of the USA in November 1963. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Paul B., it's an excellent question. It was this line of inquiry that got me interested in JFK research, back in 1991, after Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, came out into American theaters. In that film, a secretive character named, "Mister X" (played by Donald Sutherland) told Jim Garrison that he would have been responsible for managing security of JFK in Dallas on 22 November 1963, including the supervision of the Secret Service, except that his supierior officer, "General Y," sent him to the South Pole, instead. That was a life-changing scene for me. I realized that the movie, JFK, was presented as a historically accurate film about the career of Jim Garrison; his memoirs as an eye-witness of special sort in New Orleans. "Mister X" explained to Garrison that while at the South Pole, he marveled that before Lee Harvey Oswald was ever charged with the assassination of JFK, that the newspaper at McMurdo Sound station in Antartica published a full biographical feature on Lee Harvey Oswald, including a studio photograph, explaining that he was probably the lone killer of JFK. That was the most stunning perspective and most convincing story I've ever heard - down to this day - to convince me that there was an extensive plot to kill JFK, and that it extended into key positions inside the US Military and Intelligence circles. I still accept that account today, and I admit that it must be accounted for fully in any complete theory of the JFK assassination. Today we know that "Mister X" was none other than Fletcher Prouty, who was a Colonel in the US Air Force, as well as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1963. It was in that capacity that he would have been responsible for the full protection of JFK in 1963 -- and he was devoted to JFK. Today we also know that "General Y" was none other than Edward Lansdale, who was a Major General in the US Air Force and also executive officer in the Office of Strategic Services, where he became the boss of Colonel Prouty. Unless Lansdale had moved Prouty away from his post in November, 1963, it would have been impossible to kill JFK, I'm convinced. I gather from your remarks, Paul B., that we see eye to eye on these factors. So, as I read your question, Paul B., you're asking me how I can still support the theory that resigned Major General Edwin Walker was the leader of the JFK assassination plot, when actually he no longer had any rank in the US Military. On the other hand, General Edward Lansdale still held a high rank in the US Military, and he -- by the eye-witness account of Fletcher Prouty -- certainly manipulated Secret Service personnel to reduce the protection of JFK down to a minimum that day. Is that your question? How can a resigned General outrank a sitting General in a plot like this? If so, then you may be interested to learn that I've thought a lot about that question in recent years. I've gone back and forth on the question. At first glance, it seemed logical to presume that the sitting General would have had more power, more flexibility, and more resources than a resigned General. Further, if I could presume that General Lansdale took the lead role in sabotaging the Secret Service protection of JFK, then I could also use Lansdale to coordinate the other dubious activities, cover-ups and problems regarding the standing down of the 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston, moving JFK's body around, the limousine, the coffins and CIA secrecy. But the larger I built that house of cards, the faster it fell down. First, the CIA didn't need his orders on secrecy. Also, the Pentagon is no use in controlling medical records, or even the local police. That was my problem. Although the sabatage of Secret Service protection was vital to the success of the JFK plot, it was only one small part of the larger picture. General Lansdale could control Fletcher Prouty, the Secret Service and the 112th MIG at 4th Army HQ, but after that he would need support at a local level. It is this local level that is all-important. This is why Jim Garrison could never crack this case. Jim Garrison was terrified about the prospect of getting involved in Dallas. He hoped and prayed that somebody in Dallas would decide to join him, but they never did. Garrison also knew that if he went to interview Jack Ruby rotting away in his Dallas jail cell, that he would receive no better information from Jack Ruby than Ruby had already given to Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1964, as follows: Mr. RUBY. There is an organization here, Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life at this moment to say it...there is a John Birch Society right now in activity, and Edwin Walker is one of the top men of this organization -- take it for what it is worth, Chief Justice Warren...Don't register with you, does it? Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don't understand that. We have reliable information that Jim Garrison spoke about General Walker in his various interviews over the years with the likes of Loran Hall and Gerry Hemming, but he never broached the major Dallas players. Garrison was only one man. His life was in danger as it was. Why didn't anybody in Dallas come forward to help Jim Garrison? Yes, weakening the Secret Service was a major issue in the killing of JFK. So was the standing down of the 112th MIG at 4th Army HQ. But even more insidious in that regard was the behavior of the Dallas Police Department. They controlled the streets that day. They controlled Dealey Plaza. They controlled the suspects. They controlled the evidence! Dallas Chief of Police Jesse Curry immediately pointed to the sixth floor of the TSBD building after the shots rang out -- and yet it took the Dallas Police Department 40 minutes to climb up six floors to look around. That simply isn't reasonable. Besides, there are two problems there: the first is that Jesse Curry was instantly certain that the shots came from the sixth floor of the TSBD to the exclusion of all other sources. Yet how could he be so sure, since the Secret Service men themselves initially reported that the shots came from the grassy knoll. I gather from this that Jesse Curry was a central member of the Dallas plot. The second problem is that Jesse Curry should not have pointed to the TSBD at all, since he should have known that the Dallas Police were not going to be ready so quickly with their set-up of the sixth floor. He should have kept silent -- because it would take the Dallas police a full 40 minutes to stage their charade on the sixth floor, and another 12 minutes to stage their bogus discovery of the rifle(s) found. I remember reading an account of a person filming the sixth floor window from a nearby building after the JFK killing, and he reported that his home movie showed a group of men building a sniper's nest there -- after the shooting! Well, that would certainly explain why it took 52 minutes to locate the rifle -- which was not hidden but simply placed between a stack of boxes, easily seen. So, by immediately pointing to the TSBD building's sixth floor, Jesse Curry actually made a confession -- that's how it seems to me. I conclude that the behavior of the Dallas Police is equally as suspicious as the behavior of the Secret Service, and it required a local handler. Let us say -- simply for the sake of argument -- that the local right-wing leader, General Walker, was (as Jack Ruby claimed) the leader of the local Dallas ground-crew. Then, should I not say that there were two equal leaders equally involved -- both General Edward Lansdale and General Edwin Walker? No, because there is one feature that remains to be accounted for that will decide the matter -- and that is the status of the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. I will choose Edwin Walker as the senior partner in this (alleged) unholy alliance, even above Edward Lansdale, because of their relative proximity to Lee Harvey Oswald. Although we can easily associate Lee Harvey Oswald with Edward Lansdale using the early newspaper article at the South Pole naming Lee Harvey Oswald -- formally -- as the JFK killer, that is not enough. We can just as easily associate Lee Harvey Oswald with Guy Banister (and his ground crew, including Eladio Del Valle, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier, what to speak of his super-financier, Carlos Marcello) as the crew that performed the six-week sheep-dipping job on Lee Harvey Oswald. WIthout that sheep-dipping job, nothing Edward Lansdale could do would be sufficient. But wait, there's more. The later news that came out after the JFK killing, that Lee Harvey Oswald was also the shooter at General Edwin Walker back in April 1963, directly associates Walker with Oswald on a personal basis. Clearly, Edwin Walker lied multiple times to Earl Warren and news reporters, claiming that he never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until after the JFK killing. Because, in his personal papers, Walker often admits that he learned that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter the very week of the April shooting. That is now a matter of documented history. So, based on this proximity of time and motive -- and based on the need to explain the Dallas ground crew -- even over and above the New Orleans ground crew -- I will place resigned Major General Edwin Walker at the top of my suspect list in the JFK killing. This also satisfies the methodology of my theory -- I will not blame the official USA for the killing of JFK without hard evidence. In this way, I can grasp the role of General Edward Lansdale (who was identified by the eye-witness of Colonel Fletcher Prouty) to be an unofficial and rogue role, and subordinate to a larger plot that was older than his involvement. I trust this answers your excellent question, Paul B. Please tell me if I missed any major issues. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Paul B., I'm not certain why you think that I have more information about Harry Dean than you do -- because you've read the eBook that Harry and I published last October, and that brings you up to speed on Harry's entire scenario from his viewpoint. In any case, I appreciate that you'll keep an open mind about Harry Dean. I especially appreciate your courtesy of extending to Harry the benefit of the doubt for any temporary lack of support for Harry's memories. You and I both agree that Harry's memoirs (or "confessions") fit snugly with other JFK research without even trying. By the way, I'm sympathetic to views that attempt to place the Walker/Minutemen scenario inside a larger plot. Harry Dean was mistaken about the central role of the Mormon Church, for example, and I'm pleased to say that he's changed his mind smoothly about this -- i.e. he is still convinced that the Mormons represent a significant force in right-wing and Tea Party politics -- yet without necessarily making them the central motor force of the John Birch Society. The same must be said about Harry's original opinions about Loran Hall and Larry Howard. Harry can only report what he saw -- and about the rest he must speculate like the rest of us. He helped Loran Hall and Larry Howard load their cars and trucks with drugs that were collected from JBS doctors to invest in raids on Cuba. (This was a disturbing moment in USA history, and we do well to remind our children that it happened.) Based on events like that, Harry used to conclude that Loran Hall and Larry Howard were the shooters at Dealey Plaza that day. Based on his conversations with me this year, Harry is willing to concede that these men might have only been part of the support crew for the shooters. How could he conclude otherwise? Harry was not in Dallas that day, so no matter what he saw and heard leading up to 22 November 1963, he has no proof of what happened outside of his field of vision. It is this eye-witness data that is all-important, in my theory. It is very easy to speculate one way or another -- but it is all in the imagination, unless one has eye-witness data to use. The opposition of the FBI to Harry Dean's memoirs is based only on the fact that their official conclusions as dogmatically stated by J. Edgar Hoover on 22 November 1963 are flatly contradicted by Harry Dean's eye-witness account -- no matter how humble it might be. It's believable, and it tarnishes the reputation of the FBI that their Founder and Director would lie to the American people. So, Harry's personal commitment to the truth must be sullied by the FBI at all costs. Either J. Edgar Hoover is lying, or Harry Dean is lying -- and there is no middle term here. Harry, of course, is not the only person to regard J. Edgar Hoover as a xxxx. It is based on fifty years of JFK research that the vast majority of educated researchers conclude that J. Edgar Hoover lied to the USA, and that the FBI continues to spread that lie to this very day. As for the notion that the JFK assassination was an "official" conspiracy against JFK, I still cannot accept it, based on principle. First, you have no eye-witnesses to these doctrines. Secondly, it is based on a political stance about JFK. Instead, although I recognize many of the same players to be involved (by eye-witness and photographic evidence) yet I say their involvement was "unofficial." That's a major difference in our positions. Nobody can deny that the Walker/JBS plot that Harry Dean personally witnessed over the course of many months was impossible without a larger culture of right-wing mania in the USA in 1963. I believe this is what you are observing when you see the same data that I see. Of course the Cuban Exile reactionaries were burning with rage. Of course the Bay of Pigs made the CIA burn with rage. Of course the contractors between those two groups would have plotted to kill JFK dozens of times. Of course the wealthiest members of the JBS (the oil men of Dallas) as well as JBS sympathizers who worked in government (e.g. the Secret Service) and open JBS members in the Dallas police department and on the streets of New Orleans would have eagerly lent their support for any promising JFK plot. Of course the Mafia threw untold millions of dollars into any plot to stop RFK from hammering down upon their heads. And of course the old Nazi forces in Permindex, the KKK and the ANP would have lent their support whenever possible. Yet I think that it is the Walker/JBS story that gives us the proper, street-level perspective that we need. We are more in focus when we focus on the ground-crew, and we open the door to political speculation when we lose that focus. In other words, when trying to put the ground-crew into any "larger picture," one must inevitably lose focus and begin to ramble. I think you can be helpful here, Paul B., by stating your opinion. Which single complaint voiced by Ernie has the most weight? Your opinion matters here. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I appreciate that you attempt to interject some calm and reason into the incessant attacks that Harry Dean and I continue to endure patiently here on Harry's thread. You say that you agree with Ernie on "several counts," and as an illustration you seem to suggest that Harry and I should collect everything we can get from the FBI and CIA sources about Harry Dean, and determine "whether or not they represent a complete picture." Yes, I realize that Ernie keeps repeating that theme -- yet somehow my rational response doesn't seem to be heard above the clamor. I've said that all the FBI information that Harry and I know about has already been presented on this very thread. Already this year Harry and I have seen more FBI and CIA records on Harry than we have ever seen in all our combined time working on this issue. I thought it would be polite to thank Ernie for sharing these, but instead of a simple, "you're welcome," Ernie chooses to insult Harry and demand why Harry himself didn't submit all those FOIA requests over the past several years the way that Ernie did. That's a shameful response, IMHO. Harry does appreciate seeing these FBI and CIA records come out into the open. They are now part and parcel of this thread, and we can now unravel them one by one here in public. This unraveling has already begun. But instead of a calm assessment of the FBI files, we continue to hear harrasment, badgering and insults about Harry Dean from Ernie Lazar -- and I really want to complain about it. Ernie mistakenly doubts my objectivity -- I'm simply willing to give Harry Dean the benefit of the doubt until I see hard evidence of lying -- and Ernie is unwilling to do that. Then Ernie insults me for my reasonable efforts. We can all read the same FBI files, so it's not really a matter of missing information -- it's a matter of interpretation based on orientation. The FBI in the 1960's has been willing to harrass Harry Dean, so Ernie Lazar in 2013 pretends to be super-patriotic and parrots the FBI's attitude of the 1960's. So I think I should I work with an intermediary -- say, yourself, Paul B. I find you to be a reasonable person to speak with. You're respectful and objective. So, please, tell me one material fact that you find in the FBI files already shared on this thread that you believe I haven't carefully and fully addressed. That's the way to proceed, I believe. I'll be grateful to you -- and I think our readers will also be grateful to you, Paul B., if you'll work with me on this touchy problem. Will you do that, Paul B.? Will you work with me, one material fact at a time, about these FBI files regarding Harry Dean? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Harry -- the full text of most of those documents may be reviewed on the Mary Ferrell website. Eventually, I may be able to post here your entire FBI files. The FBI is still evaluating my Public Interest Disclosure justification letter which I submitted along with my FOIA request on you. For the record Harry -- you could have seen ALL of these documents DECADES ago simply by submitting an FOIA request with a notarized affidavit from you authorizing release. Somebody received a great many of your FBI file documents as early as 1985 via an FOIA request!. The CIA documents about you are available from NARA -- I previously posted the link to the NARA webpage which shows the location of your file. With respect to the second paragraph of your message: From all the available evidence, the FBI totally ignored you for many years. The ONLY reason they became involved is because of repeated inquiries which they received from (for example) Los Angeles-area newspaper reporters and television executives who asked the FBI if your story was genuine, i.e. they asked if you were what you claimed to be --- i.e. an "informant" or "undercover" agent or operative for the FBI, or if you were associated with the FBI (at their request) in any way. When J. Edgar Hoover saw the inquiries about your status, he contacted the FBI's Chicago and Los Angeles field offices to find out who you were because FBI HQ had no record of you being any sort of confidential source or informant for the FBI. Obviously, you were NOT listed in the HQ Index which captured data about all of their active and inactive informants and confidential sources. If you had been listed, then Hoover's memos to various field offices would have referenced that fact and probably would have included your symbol number and/or code name or other identifying data. Instead, the only reference is to your FBI number --- i.e. the control number which is assigned by the FBI to people whose fingerprints exist at FBI HQ because of reports from law enforcement agencies who have arrested that person. There is absolutely no documentary evidence at this time to establish that the FBI "hated" your guts. As just stated, they did not even know who you were because as YOU accurately wrote to JFK in June 1961 in your own handwriting the FBI field office in Chicago told you after they completed their background check on you that they were not interested in your further assistance.. With respect to your claims about your "reports" to the Los Angeles field office --- there is currently no documentary evidence to support your story. It is certainly possible that you provided unsolicited information to Los Angeles (just as you did to Chicago) but as the Assistant Director of Los Angeles told a southern California newspaper publisher, you were never an FBI informant nor were you ever asked to do anything for the FBI. When the FBI actually "hated the guts" of someone, their FBI files usually reveal very specific instructions from HQ to field offices to continuously monitor the activities and public statements of such persons. What is particularly striking about the FBI file documents which are available on the Mary Ferrell website is that the FBI had no interest whatsoever in you after they rejected you in Chicago in the summer of 1961 (because of what they discovered about you as a result of their background investigation). When you review the chronological sequence of serials in your HQ, Chicago and Los Angeles files, what becomes very clear is that there were entire years during which no new serials concerning you were produced. In fact, if it were not for the fact that Congressman John Rousselot contacted the Bureau in May 1977 concerning you, there is virtually nothing in FBI files about you from 1967 until 1977. When, in May 1977, the FBI's Legal Counsel wrote a summary memo about you for the Director, the FBI position regarding your status was very clear and very definitive. I now quote from the "synopsis" of that memo. "Review of Bufiles has determined that Harry J. Dean, FBI number 4657880...has previously come to the attention of the FBI in connection with the investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; however, Dean was later cleared of any involvement. Dean was never an informant for the FBI, although he did furnish some information on a voluntary basis at one time during the early 1960's. Dean was later determined to be unreliable and a former mental patient and was advised that his assistance was no longer desired by the FBI in June 1961." ... In the "details" section of that same 1977 memo, the FBI's Legal Counsel observed: "Bufiles further indicate that Dean has, on previous occasions, claimed he was a former undercover man with the FBI. Dean did, at one time, in the early 1960's, furnish some information to the Chicago office concerning the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. However, he was never an informant and was not encouraged in his activities. Information was also developed in June 1961, that he was a former mental patient. At that time he was specifically told by Special Agents that his assistance was no longer desired by the FBI." Interestingly, there is no mention whatsoever in that May 1977 memo of any connection between you and Wesley Grapp nor any reference to your supposed reports to the Los Angeles office about any matters. There are still many tantalizing questions about your story which, someday, I hope I can answer. If I am able to obtain your entire FBI files from my FOIA request I will be happy to post them online here. Ernie, you're simply harrassing Harry Dean with your claims here. You haven't processed all the FBI files to be able to evaluate their relative merits -- yet you give yourself a license to repeat FBI rumors in your efforts toward character assassination. What are trying to do here? The FBI is not perfect -- they have been known for excesses, especially in the early 1960's. For you to resurrect those old FBI excesses and repeat them here in 2013, is inexcusable. You should be ashamed. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, now, let's just see what we have here. Is Ernie Lazar now pretending that there are no more "top secret" files being held by the CIA? Evidently so. Yet anybody who has been following the Mary Ferrell Foundation in past years probably knows about their AARC project to digitize CIA records that have been released under the JFK Records Act in response to various FOIA requests and lawsuits. The Mary Ferrell Foundation has taken a large step forward to digitize more than four hundred thousand pages of formerly secret records. Yes, that's a lot -- but is it everything? The hopeful optimism of Ernie Lazar seems to believe so. While Mary Ferrell's site now shares with the world the thousands of pages of CIA files on Castro, Cuban Exile groups, Oswald's trip to Mexico City -- and even some files on Harry Dean -- are we now to conclude that our work here is done? There are many documents here of interest, of course. We cannot regard these new acquisitions lightly. We have, for example, the files of eminent CIA historian Russell B. Holmes -- although perhaps not all of his files. We also have CIA files from the HSCA, of which we are assured, the general public was not permitted to see until now. This includes Latin American Division work files that the HSCA used to investigate Cuban plots against JFK. This also includes CIA Office of Security files that the HSCA used to investigate the Mafia plots against JFK. Of course, the most stellar of all these new CIA releases is Lee Harvey Oswald's famed 201 File. Yes, this large file is now available, after decades of clamoring. Can we hear Harold Epstein and Jim Garrison cheering from the other world? But we should remain calm -- some of these documents still contain many redactions (blackouts). Records about Operation Mongoose still remain classified. The Mary Ferrell Foundation also promises to release FBI Files as a part of this project -- very soon. Now, let's take a closer look at the specific link that Ernie Lazar provided which displays a link of the Russell B. Holmes papers. This is not the ful cache of four hundred thousand pages, but it is large -- more than fifty-thousand pages can be found within the Russell B. Holmes archive. But wait -- who is Rusell B. Holmes? Well, Holmes was a CIA archivist who personally kept a huge collection of CIA documents on the JFK assassination. He was prolific, so he kept files from the early 1960's into the 1990's. His main focus seems to be on Lee Oswald's Mexico City trip and Oswald's 201 File, as well as on Jim Garrison proceedings. This archive, called the "Russell Holmes Work File," was declassified about 15 years ago. Holmes was an important liaison for public/CIA inquiries into the JFK assassination after 1979. Now, for purposes of this thread, one of the items of interest in this cache is Box 4RH02. It is interesting here because of its first tile, F:034, which is labeled, Harry Dean. It will be very interesting for the future of this thread to see the unraveling of the Russell B. Holmes collection of declassified CIA records about Harry Dean. Will we find anything of great value in them? One thing we can say with certainty -- is that the CIA did indeed keep a file about Harry Dean. Now, in the coming weeks, we can finally see for ourselves at least a part of what the CIA had been keeping secret all these decades. Then we can decide whether Ernie's optimism was well-rewarded or not. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

It's too bad that John Simkin didn't finish his fine job of updating all of his Spartacus entries on Harry Dean this year by removing the fallacies about Harry promulgated by fiction writer W.R. Morris. Morris' fictions have dominated the atmosphere of discourse around Harry Dean for decades. John did update his entry on Harry Dean, yet I'm disappointed that he neglected to also update his Spartacus entry on the John Birch Society in the same way. Simkin's entry in Spartacus about the JBS continues to confuse the discourse about Harry Dean because it repeats fictions and errors from W.R. Morris. It is unfortunate that the important eye-witness testimony courageously provided to the FBI and to the public by Harry Dean starting in 1965, has been corrupted by forces that would drown out Harry's account. W.R. Morris, and his unfortunate publication, The Men Behind the Guns (1975), has done more damage to Harry Dean's account than any other publication. If Mr. Simkin reads this thread, I respectfully request that he complete his task of scrubbing his web site clean of errors related to Harry Dean as derived from W.R. Morris. To be generous as possible to W.R. Morris, I'd say that his false claims that Harry Dean was an FBI agent and a CIA agent were conditioned by a widespread ignorance about how the CIA organized its assets. For example, Frank Sturgis was not a CIA agent, as such; yet he was a part-time, contract "asset" of the CIA during the Cuba crisis. The same can be said of Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, David Ferrie and many others. Most of the CIA "operatives" or "contractors" who are associated with JFK assassination research are, IMHO, really this sort of part-time "asset" -- mercenaries -- who are truly outside the scope of genuine CIA Agents. Yet I feel sure that many of these low-level operatives were also braggarts, and would tell their friends and family that they were CIA agents -- where the word "agent" was not used in its technical, official sense, but in a colloquial sense meaning a "representative" or a "stand-in" or an "errand-boy." The CIA contractors knew their actual role, but their friends and families did not clearly know -- and any news reporters -- like W.R. Morris -- would be only too happy to run with that ball, because it made a sensational story. We have FBI documents confirming that Harry Dean never portrayed himself as an employee of the FBI or CIA -- but we know that W.R. Morris did spread the rumor of that portrayal. I respectfully ask John Simkin to complete his task of removing the errors of W.R. Morris from his Spartacus entry on the JBS. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Harry, over the course of this year we've seen more and more official documents released under the FOIA that confirm subtle details of your account of the JFK assassination. For example, we've seen your letter to JFK written in June, 1961. The letter is a matter of record. Also, we've seen confirmation from the FBI in Los Angeles in the early 1960's that you'd been providing information to the FBI in Chicago since the late 1950's. I'm looking forward to seeing more Classified records about your case released in the year 2017, including those regarding your mid-1965 meeting with the CIA about Cuban spy Francisco Vega. I think that many Americans have forgotten (or never knew about) the tremendous obsession with which the USA worried over Cuba from 1959-1963. The Vietnam War arose like a tiger and put the problem of Cuba in the shade. Americans forgot all about Cuba in 1964 as the Vietnam War began to ramp up, and so it's hard for us to put ourselves in the shoes of those who were obsessed with Cuba. Yet we should try again, because the young Americans obsessed with Cuba in 1959-1963 arguably supplied (besides yourself) the key players of the JFK assassination, including ex-General Edwin Walker, Gabby Gabaldon, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Ed Butler, Clay Shaw, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, David Atlee Phillips, Eladio del Valle, James Jesus Angleton and of course, Lee Harvey Oswald. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Thanks, Paul B., for your discussion. We agree that ex-General Edwin Walker is a key suspect, and that is enough for now. Scott, Newman, Fonzi, McKnight, Morley, Russell -- and even Talbot's fine book on RFK's private search for JFK's killers, did not focus on the Ground-crew -- and I think that is a significant oversight. I'm glad you're willing to consider the possibility that Harry Dean has been basically telling the truth for 48 years. I completely agree with you that Harry's account all by itself cannot be used as a final proof that ex-General Walker was the top of the pyramid of the conspiracy to kill JFK. There are many other problems to resolve. As I said earlier, I strongly doubt that Dulles was one of the conspirators, although I believe he knew more about the JFK plot than anybody outside of the circle. I perceive strong evidence that Angleton, Harvey, Phillips and Landsdale took active roles. I realize that this is a challenge -- to explain how a private citizen like ex-General Walker could out-rank these sitting US government officials. Yet upon reflection, it's not that difficult to imagine -- it would be far more risky for a sitting US government official to lead a conspiracy. It would be less risky for a private citizen to be the leader -- especially one who had previously been a US General. In that case, sympathetic US government officials could lend support here and there as needed. Also, you make a good point -- Harry Dean says that an elite few in the JBS heard about the plot involving Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet no US government official would be so sloppy as to tell anybody in the JBS. Insofar as Harry Dean's account is believable, then it suggests that ex-General Walker felt authorized to tell anybody he wanted to tell. If Walker was a minion of somebody in the US government, he wouldn't have had that freedom. But if he was at the top of the pyramid, Walker would have that freedom. When you say, "Walker might have even originated the plot, but he would have needed the assurances of those in power to continue," I completely agree with you. Walker would never have continued without the assured support of key conspirators who were working within the US government -- even though they knew they were breaking the law when they supported General Walker. It was a conspiracy of private citizens -- that's my point -- not a conspiracy of the US government as such. It has been accepted for decades now that JFK had countless enemies from many quarters, and so the number of volunteers for this conspiracy must have been overflowing. But that's all the more reason to insist upon central coordination. In fact, JFK had so many enemies, how can we be sure which plot against JFK was the successful one? The Mafia? The MIC? The Bay of Pigs crowd? The JBS crowd? Here is how we can know for sure: only the plot that made Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy was the successful one. This is where Harry Dean's memoirs stand front and center. I believe that Walker would rely on the best efforts of Edward Lansdale, James Jesus Angleton and David Atlee Phillips to protect his assets when the chips were down. But those men weren't the entire solution. As for LBJ, nobody would rely on a politician, knowing that he had to respond to vast pressures beyond his control. LBJ could never know the details -- and that is what the recent literature on LBJ proves -- not that he was a conspirator, but that he was among the least informed about the JFK killing. LBJ knew what most rightists knew at the time -- JFK was intensely hated. That's about it. Hoover and Dulles were sitting US officers -- too visible to be involved, even if they wanted to be. Also, the cover-up was guaranteed without LBJ, Hoover or Dulles -- if it came to that, National Security would be the best reason to rely upon anonymity -- either Cuba was going to become Free again, or the South and the radical right would foment a new Civil War -- and the cover-up be damned -- unless there was a cover-up. You're also correct, Paul B., that Walker would never continue without the assurance of support from the Dallas Police force. Yet I believe that there were sufficient Friends of Walker in the DPD, as well as JBS members and Minutemen, to make this a slam dunk. As for the Secret Service and other US government Intelligence operatives, only one or two plotters were needed inside each of these organizations -- to tweak messages going here and there. Who were the shooters, how were they armed and how were they put in position? In my opinion, we have sufficient photographs and film from Dealey Plaza on that day, and sufficiently advanced video technology today, so that we can hope to resolve this problem in our lifetimes. For example, the very tail end of the Zapruder film itself shows somebody behind the bushes and picket fence on the south end of Dealey Plaza. It's only a matter of time before some genius works out a scientific way to identify that person. Finally, I agree with you that David Talbot's book, Brothers (2007), is ground-breaking, because he was the first to talk about RFK's own reflections on the JFK assassination. It is indeed a treasure. Yet even Talbot's book doesn't stretch beyond the known histories of the relationship between JFK, RFK and General Walker. Even with Talbot's able retelling of the Ole Miss riots, he was still unable to connect the dots and dig deeper into Walker as a key suspect. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Paul B., since there is a lull in the action here, I can return to this earlier point of yours. I'm inclined to agree with your hypothesis that a large-scale conspiracy could possibly work without being discovered (for 50 years or so). There is an old saying that Jim Garrison liked to quote from 16th century British writer John Harrington: "Treason never prospers -- why? Because if it prospers none dare call it treason." The same might be said about conspiracy -- if it is successful, then none dare call it conspiracy. However, this is the USA, and free speech will eventually win the day. Also, I agree with you that -- given the postulate of a JFK assassination conspiracy in Dallas -- the preparation for the conspiracy had to be enormous. Fletcher Prouty always impressed me with his observations ever since the movie, JFK, was released, where he was portrayed as "Mister X." I don't accept everything that he claimed, but most of what he says is undeniable, IMHO. I couldn't sleep that night after seeing, JFK, because of one statement by Prouty (Mister X), namely, that he was working for the Pentagon, and he should have been assigned to JFK's protection in Dallas, but instead his superior sent him to the South Pole. While at the South Pole, on the day that JFK was shot, Prouty read the local newspaper there, and on the front page was a carefully constructed bio on Lee Harvey Oswald, complete with studio photo, along with the claim that he was probably the assassin of JFK -- and this was before Lee Harvey Oswald had even been charged with the crime! That sleepless night was the catalyst that started my reading about JFK research. That was 22 years ago. No matter what else I have learned since then, I still accept Fletcher Prouty's account of that day, and it clearly speaks about a massive operation -- one that involved countless people in high places. We now know that Fletcher Prouty's superior (called General Y in the movie) was General Edward Lansdale, one of JFK's most outspoken critics on the right. Although some people would stop right there, and conclude that the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) killed JFK (and indeed that is what Oliver Stone insinuates in his movie), I do not stop there -- I continue to dig deeper. The problem with the MIC theory is that it never digs down to the Ground-crew. Fletcher Prouty calls them "mechanics," and leaves it at that. For Dr. Cyril Wecht, once we conclude that the autopsy was faked, it doesn't matter who the shooters were. I disagree. To truly resolve the JFK mystery, we must identify the Ground-crew, IMHO. In fact, the identity of the Ground-crew will probably reveal, once and for all, the actual successful plotters. I say this because I'm sure there were dozens (if not scores) of plots against JFK. We know that Traficante threw tons of money toward any project to get his Cuban casinos back. We know that Carlos Marcello threw millions into a plot to kill JFK. That was only a drop in the bucket. Did that money actually reach its target? But the Ground-crew will answer that question for us -- the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a member of the Ground-crew (even if only as the patsy) is evidence that one and only one Ground-crew was successful. So we must ask -- which suspects were seen interacting with Lee Harvey Oswald in the months prior to the JFK murder? Jim Garrison took this approach -- but his witnesses kept dying off. Garrison was unwelcome in Dallas, where, IMHO, the main conspirators had operated. Today, in 2013, we are left with only Harry Dean as an eye-witness who is willing to say anything. I can think of five other eye-witnesses who are still living who might know more (or maybe not), and I'll name them here: (i) Larrie Schmidt, who told me he knows nothing more about the JFK murder than anybody else; (ii) John Martin, who refuses to speak with anyone; (iii) Guy Gabaldon, Jr., who has not replied to any of my voice-mails; (iv) Bernie Weissman, who will not respond to my snail mail, but who might have already told everything he knows; and (v) David Robbins, who told me he knows nothing more about it. Harry Dean, on the other hand, is forthcoming with information -- and I'm glad to say we solidly documented his account of the JFK assassination in our new eBook, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK, published last October on Smashwords.com. Anyway -- getting back to your point, Paul B. -- I believe that the conspiracy to kill JFK was massive, and yet I personally believe that: (1) it had to have one central controller; (2) that controller would need the expertise of a US General with special operations training; (3) that General would have resigned and forfeited his pension, to feel free to do something radical; (4) that ex-General would need a personal vendetta against JFK, e.g. if JFK sent him to an insane asylum, or the like; (5) that ex-General would have to live in Dallas, and be totally on top of the scene there; and (6) that ex-General would still have contacts in the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, JBS, Minutemen and other paramilitary and secret organizations. Somebody had to manage the patsy. Somebody had to manage the Ground-crew. Somebody had to organize the Dallas Police moles. That person was the center of the plot. Everybody else in the plot danced around the center. In my theory, the HSCA was correct in its findings -- the FBI, CIA, ONI, Mafia, JBS, Pentagon and Cuban-Exile radicals were uninvolved in the JFK assassination -- as organizations. Rogue elements, however, from each of those organizations -- capable of working within the system and undermining it from within -- these were almost certainly involved in a central plot that was managed out of Dallas. So, I think we agree on some points, Paul B., and yet we are still far apart on the details. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Ernie, I spoke personally with David Robbins from Southern California in 2011. I sought him out because Harry Dean said he might still be alive. In 2011 Robbins was indeed alive and well in Southern California, and I believe he is still alive and well today, because he maintains a web site of a Christian nature, and his web site is still operational and it shows a current photograph of David. David Robbins confirmed with me many aspects of Harry Dean's story -- before I told him that I was working with Harry Dean. Then he cut off our conversations. Yet Harry had shared with me many details about David Robbins' personal history, family life and relationships, and Robbins confirmed them all. For just one example, Robbins was indeed a coordinator of John Birch Society meetings in 1961-1963 for his employer at Fluor Corporation. He did book many speakers for those many meetings, and those speakers included Robert Welch, ex-General Edwin Walker, Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall and Harry Dean himself. Also, Robbins confirmed that he was close to Guy Gabaldon, and often suggested to Gabby that he quit smoking, so that he could live longer to support the JBS cause. Harry told me about that, and David Robbins confirmed that with a chuckle. Also, Robbins confirmed that he was close to Gene Bradley, through his church, and that he and his wife would often visit Bradley's home. (Many remember Bradley as a person of interest to Jim Garrison in 1967.) Robbins explained to me that Gene Bradley had a copy of the Zapruder film that he would show in his home, to try to convince people that JFK's limo driver was the real shooter. Also, Robbins confirmed with me that he was a close, personal friend of Congressman John Rousselot, and they worked closely together in administrative functions for these John Birch Society meetings and book sales. Congressman Rousselot, a Southern California landlord, owned the building in which the John BIrch Society would hold regional headquarter meetings. According to Robbins, he himself was Rousselot's closest companion when Rousselot died. What was odd about our interviews, which occurred over several weeks, was that David Robbins initially confirmed with me that he spoke with ex-General Walker in the context of his various speeches at the Fluor Corporation gatherings, and he was willing to talk with me at length about General Walker. (This was topical because I was writing my first paper on ex-General Walker for Dr. Brands.) However, after I clarified that I was currently in communication with Harry Dean, the talkative David Robbins changed his tone, changed his mind, and said that he could not remember any conversations with Walker, or even if he ever met the man face to face. Robbins refused to talk more about that topic, and began to energetically promote his Christian web site to me. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo P.S. I don't know where you got your notion that David Robbins was allegedly involved with Gabaldon's DACA "and the abortive 1962 Mexico plot," but Harry Dean never claimed that David was involved in any "abortive 1962 Mexico plot." Perhaps you got your notion from W.R. Morris -- even though you've been repeatedly advised to stop using that fantasy fiction.

Good question, Paul B. Yet, I think your premise is hasty, i.e. you presume that the JFK-plotters were happy with the idea of putting LBJ in the White House. In my humble opinion, I don't think that LBJ was anywhere near the top of their agenda. This point was already addressed by both Jim Garrison and Fletcher Prouty, who commented that the bullets that killed JFK were only one car-length away from LBJ. It was also a message to LBJ about who was really in charge. I'm reminded of the debate over Madeleine Brown between myself and Robert Morrow (who kindly advocated my membership on this Forum two years ago). Robert and I agree that the eye-witness account of Madeleine Brown is 100% believable and valuable -- but we don't agree about how to interpret it. She said that LBJ was invited to a meeting of wealthy members of the JBS in Dallas, and that when LBJ emerged from that meeting he told Brown, "After tomorrow, I'll never have to worry about those damn Kennedys again." I accept that witness, and Robert Morrow accepts it. However, like many JFK researchers, Robert takes this to mean that LBJ was a leader in the plot to kill JFK. My view, more in line with Jim Garrison and Fletcher Prouty, is that LBJ was being told what the money boys were going to do, and that he had better tow the line. Both interpretations are possible outcomes of Brown's believable eye-witness story. You can see how this answers your question. The JBS-Walker group, in all their arrogance, would not care two-cents what LBJ thought or did, because he would be totally bought and paid for -- totally under their control -- as far as they were concerned. Also, Paul B., I disagree when you say that "in their wildest dreams they could not have imagined LBJ would bomb Cuba." I think that was very much an open question -- one only needs to examine the Gulf of Tonkin incident to witness what LBJ would dare to do in the international scene. It is true that when LBJ was put into the position of making a decision, he decided that it was in the best interest of the American people to let Cuba remain Communist and to let Fidel Castro live. To this very day, Cuba is Communist and Fidel Castro lives. But that is certainly not, like the JBS stupidly thought, because LBJ was a Communist. LBJ was able to sell his ideas to the Dallas money boys -- and that's all that really mattered. Now - it is quite true that the GROUND-CREW, who acted out of ideology, and only wanted to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro, totally failed to get what they most wanted. Yet you yourself admitted that "the money boys got it all in spades." We cannot forget that Madeleine Brown named H.L. Hunt as a major player in all these JBS affairs. She said, for example, that H.L. Hunt was *personally* handing out "Wanted for Treason: JFK" handbills in the week before the JFK visit. Furthermore, we know from Warren Commission hearings that wealthy John Birch Society members purchased the full-page ad in the Dallas Morning News on 22 November 1963, saying, "Welcome Mister Kennedy: To Dallas". My point is that the "money boys" were getting what they wanted -- and that was their main goal. Finally, on 22 November 1963, the JBS-Walker plotters could have no actual idea what LBJ would do or wouldn't do with regard to Cuba, except that he would do anything to get elected, and if the Voters demanded an invasion of Cuba and Fidel Castro's head on a silver platter, then LBJ would have certainly obliged them. The JBS-Walker plotters made their biggest miscalculation about the American people. We are more orderly and more democratic than they imagined. Instead of reacting like children, we looked to our leaders for decisions based on a careful examination of all the evidence and information. When LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren surveyed the USA on the evening of 22 November 1963, they recognized the possibility of a new Civil War in the USA, if the truth ever came out about the JBS-Walker plot. A Civil War in the middle of a Cold War could easily have led to World War Three. So, in the interest of National Security, they refused to push the Oswald-KGB myth any further -- he was forever a Lone Nut. That was Hoover's instantaneous insight, and LBJ loved it. The 'money boys' would not get Cuba; but they did get other concessions. The GROUND-CREW got nothing. They ran and hid like the moral cowards they always were -- and were hardly seen or heard from again. Ex-General Walker would appear once more as a harried witness in the Warren Commission hearings, and one final time as Earl Warren reversed all his winnings for all his court cases against American newspapers that told the truth about him at Ole Miss in 1962. The rest of the GROUND-CREW scattered like school children playing baseball and breaking a neighbor's window. Loran Hall turned to drug dealing, allegedly. So did Gerry Patrick Hemming, allegedly. Jim Garrison chased a few culprits around the block, but caught nobody. Anybody with information about them could suddenly wind up dead -- stabbed in the back, so to speak. Yet one plotter had the courage to speak out in 1965, and has been speaking out ever since -- and that is our own Harry Dean. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Ernie, as a matter of fact I do apply critical criteria to my own theories, and to the evidence that I accept and reject. For one thing, I use the term "theory" to describe my own beliefs -- I realize that I don't yet have the proofs I need to draw a firm conclusion -- just as my critics don't have the proofs they need, either. For another thing, it took me several years before I decided to look deeper into the account offered by Harry Dean. At first his story appeared to me just like one more story in a large pile of stories. It wasn't until I took two college courses from a well-known historian of the Cold War USA (namely, H.W. Brands) and carefully explored the personal papers of ex-General Edwin A. Walker (which are stored at UT Austin's Briscoe Center for the Study of American History) that it dawned on me that Harry Dean has been telling the truth for 48 years, and has been taking it in the teeth the whole time. Finally, my criteria for deciding which accounts to accept and which to reject with regard to the JFK assassation, are plain and simple. My first criterion is logic -- and by that I mean the law of contradiction. My second criterion is "benefit of the doubt." That is, I will accept every sworn statement by every witness in the Warren Commission and HSCA records, until and unless I catch them in a blatant self-contradiction. By refusing to yield to the temptation of calling this or that witness a "xxxx," I will make every effort to include all witnesses as valid, and attempt to construct a composite portrait by including as many witnesses as possible. (Certainly it is not possible to include every single witness, but I struggle with all my might before I reject anybody.) Furthermore, I am extra-lenient in cases of extreme pressure, e.g. I accept all the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald, and I realize that she at one time insisted that Lee Oswald was innocent, and later said he was guilty, and later said he was only partly guilty. In her first statements of Oswald's innocence, Marina was under extreme pressure by overwhelming American outrage through the mass media, obviously. In her second statements of Oswald's guilt, Marina was under some pressure from the FBI and from the time constraints of the Warren Commission as they presented her with hundreds of photographs and Oswald property artifacts for her immediate explanation. She openly said that 'based on what she was shown' she had to conclude that Lee Oswald was guilty of killing JFK, but even then she suspected that she was not shown everything. In her third statements which concluded that Oswald did not act alone, she spoke later in life, without extraordinary pressures, after having perused many books by many researchers on the topic. In other words, given the context of her life circumstances, the contradictions in her testimony can be explained so that with reason and discernment one can accept her sworn testimony as essentially honest -- and I do. I realize that some JFK researchers completely reject Marina's testimony, as some believe she was part of a KGB plot to kill JFK, and some believe she was bought off by the FBI to say whatever they wanted her to say, and so on. I don't accept those interpretations because they lack substance and empirical evidence. I began with skepticism about Harry Dean's account. Yet Harry, without trying to do so, and without changing his story over 48 years, confirmed many details of facts known about ex-General Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. Also, Harry confirmed many details of facts known about Loran Hall in 1963. This cannot be a coincidence. Harry's many attempts to tell the FBI what he knew, and his eventual frustration with the FBI because they treated him like -- well, like you treat him -- have been amply confirmed by the many FBI records that keep streaming forth about Harry Dean. Yet at the same time, the FBI continues to keep "secret" files about the JFK assassination and about Lee Harvey Oswald. Nobody -- not me and not you -- can draw final conclusions about the JFK murder without seeing those files. I realize that everything can change once those FBI files are finally released and we have the final answer about the JFK assassination. Heck, it might actually turn out that James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales, Fred Crisman, Ed Lansdale, David Christ, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Eladio Del Valle, Anne Goodpasture, George Joannides, Chilo Borja and Jean Rene Souetre were all in Dallas on that day -- I have no proof in my hands -- and neither do you. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

This quotation from Robert Welch, only months after General Edwin A. Walker joined Welch's so-called John Birch Society, adequately proves that Welch was a traitor to the USA, and should have been arrested and tried as a traitor during the Cold War. Eisenhower's failure to silence Welch, and JFK's failure to silence Welch, enabled a grass-roots groundswell in the USA that encouraged the true-believers in Welch's claptrap to successfully assassinate JFK. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Paul, you obviously have no understanding of American law or political values. We do not criminalize political thought in our country--no matter how obnoxious or disgusting. However, if one wanted to scour every statute ever written in an effort to find something to bring Welch to trial, the only plausible possibility would be sedition (not treason) as was attempted during the 1940's during what became known as the Mass Sedition Trial. However, the basis (at that time) for the charge was a conspiracy to undermine the morale of troops during wartime and cause armed revolt. Significantly, even that farce was recognized in time for what it was and charges against the "conspirators" were ultimately dropped. You take everything so literally, Ernie. My exclamation about the veritable treason of Robert Welch and his followers was clearly a cry of anguish, and not a historical treatise. I fully understand the dynamics of the First Amendment in this case -- yet I also know that tolerance of cantankerous speech only encourages it. It is my own right to Free Speech that allows me to call Robert Welch a traitor who should have been hanged -- and to exclaim that ex-General Edwin Walker should have spent the rest of his life in military prison for his leading role in the deadly riots at Ole Miss in 1962. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

I agree with you here, Paul B., and I've been reconsidering some of your arguments about a CIA plot. For one thing, your views coincide with John Newman's, whose views largely coincide with Fletcher Prouty, who was portrayed as "Mister X" (played by Donald Sutherland) in the 1991 Oliver Stone film, JFK. Oliver Stone relied quite a bit on Fletcher Prouty's viewpoint -- and with plenty of good reason, because Prouty had a bird's eye view of Black Ops during his long service at the Pentagon. In Prouty's view, the modus operandi of the CIA was revealed at every turn in the JFK assassination. The professional "mechanics" used for the shooting; the carefully groomed "patsy" to take the blame, and the elimnation of the patsy ASAP after the assassination; this was only the start. The standing down of local troops, the paucity of military presence in Dallas that day, the choice of Dealey Plaza, for its bowl shape, slow traffic, high buildings, grassy knoll and fewer witnesses, and the loss of telephone service in Washington DC at the time of the assassination -- this was uncanny. Yet when he heard that JFK was killed, Prouty was in New Zealand and he immediately read a polished newspaper story about Lee Harvey Oswald, complete with a full bio and a studio photo, before Oswald was even charged with the JFK assassination! All these "coincidences" convinced Fletcher Prouty that a conspiracy involving the CIA was afoot. When it was time to release the movie, JFK, I believe that Fletcher Prouty might have been the summit of insight on the JFK assassination, and so Oliver Stone was in fine company. In the 22 years since that movie came out, however, we've received more information (e.g. facts about how JFK and RFK controlled Operation Mongoose). I'm pleased, for example, that Peter Dale Scott was willing this year to shine a skeptical light on John Newman's claims about the Oswald-Kostikov reports out of Mexico City. This would have been the smoking gun, if Newman was totally correct in his claims. But there is room for doubt in Newman's story. And Fletcher Prouty never tried to identify the GROUND CREW beyond the abstract term, "the mechanics." Peter Dale Scott cast a little doubt on Newman's account (and thus Prouty's) by suggesting that the Oswald-Kostikov reports out of Mexico City might possibly have been based on authentic reports, and not CIA fictions. I note here that Harry Dean's memoirs also place Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, not as a Communist, but as a Fake Communist -- somebody who was working for a conspiratorial cabal that convinced Oswald to pretend to be a Communist in New Orleans and also in Mexico City -- where he would get lots of photographs and government attention. Peter Dale Scott's recent doubts about the CIA control of the Oswald-Kostikov pretense never mention Harry Dean in that regard -- but Scott is able to see that there is not enough hard evidence to make a final conclusion that the CIA invented the Oswald-Kostikov myth. That opens the door to the possibility that Oswald himself (at the urging of his cabal) made a big show and a big fuss about getting into Cuba as a fake FPCC officer, and a card-carrying member of the Communist Party who was willing to "kill JFK" for delaying his entry into Cuba. If so, then Newman was mistaken, and Harry Dean's scenario will bear more weight. Failing to get into Cuba, Lee Harvey Oswald spent some extra time in Mexico. Doing what, exactly? The information is sparse, but we have some possible leads from Harry Dean's memoirs -- he would have been in the company of Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gabby Gabaldon, says Harry Dean. IMHO it's worth the effort to look further in this direction, because Harry Dean attempts to illuminate the GROUND-CREW for us, and even speculates about the "mechanics." Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Sloppy logic, Ernie. Obviously the JBS in 1963 would have no idea that life under LBJ would be even more liberal. So LBJ's term cannot be used as an argument of what that JBS was thinking in 1963. Further, their whipping up hatred for JFK at every turn was the motor that energized the more radical rightists like the Ku Klux Klan, the Minutemen and the mercenaries that ultimately supported ex-General Walker -- a radical leader among the JBS. The JBS-inspired murderers of JFK were dreamers -- they were true-believers -- they were convinced that by killing JFK and blaming a Communist, that America would immediately invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. We cannot ascribe foreknowledge to them about LBJ's term. They probably thought LBJ would have to follow the American people in their demand for Fidel's head. They were wrong -- and they lost their fevered bid for power. The main consequence was that most Americans didn't immediately assume it was Fidel Castro. They waited for the FBI to tell them what happened. When Hoover told them it was a Lone Nut, everybody breathed a sigh of relief -- Fidel Castro, of course, but also the John Birch Society, because many Americans correctly suspected them in late November 1963. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo