Paul Trejo

This is obviously false. Every authentic Presidential assassin in US history has jumped before the crowd to announce why he killed the President, what his politics were, and tried to advance his political cause in this way. Only skulking cowards -- like those in the John BIrch Society that killed JFK (IMHO) -- hid in the bushes and denied any responsibility for what they did. They were hoping that America would invade Cuba on their behalf -- but it took only a few hours for the US government to figure out their stupid plan and undermine them. After that the yellow-stripe down their backs could be seen sinking back into their suburban living rooms, watching television. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

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

The most that can be said with certainty, IMHO, is that the Vietnam War took America's mind off of Cuba -- instantly. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., we shall agree to disagree. Peter Dale Scott leaves the question open, which is proper under the circumstances. One cannot draw a conclusion based on CIA documents that are still classified top secret. The claim that Hoover had a flash of insight on the night of the JFK assassination is not my own, and I'll try to find the source for you. It is plausible since the Lone Nut theory basically blames Marguerite Oswald, the domineering mother, and Hoover had also lived with a domineering mother, so it was familiar territory for him. It also solved all the problems that Hoover perceived that night, i.e. that Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to so many governmental agencies and yet was at the center of the JFK assassination. Further, start with these facts: (1) extremists wanted to risk WW3 to take back Cuba; and (2) no war occurred. You conclude from this that the extremists "were not the actual plotters." That doesn't follow on its own. I can propose that: (3) the extremists were the actual plotters; (4) LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles had to deal with this challenge -- a Communist killed our President; so quit stalling; and (5) they had to think fast, so Hoover came up with the idea of the Lone Nut Oswald to immediately block the challenge. LBJ liked the idea, and Warren and Dulles signed off on it. (Thus, Dulles was not one of the plotters, since he supported Hoover's Lone Nut theory.) What has been top-secret for a half-century is that LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles all knew exactly who the real plotters were -- but they could not blame the real plotters, because this would open the possibility of World War 3. So, they deftly solved the problem with the Lone Nut theory. You say, Paul B., that the motive was not Cuba, but Vietnam. But that is a weak case, IMHO, because you have not proved that JFK would have pulled all US troops out of Vietnam. JFK would say anything to get reelected, as would any politician. LBJ and Nixon also promised to pull all US troops out of Vietnam -- but they didn't. So we have no proof that JFK would have done so, either. No, it wasn't about the money. It was about ideology. IMHO, JFK was killed because the right-wing considered him to be a Communist traitor. The plotters got their articulation from the John Birch Society. In my theory, LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles saved the USA from the right-wing menace in 1963. They are heroes. Yet this also means that Marguerite Oswald was right! Lee Harvey Oswald was also a hero in this regard, because he took the full blame for the right-wing plotters, and in a certain sense, he did more for the USA than any living person of his time. That's my theory. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Peter Dale Scott was more tentative about Newman's theory because of all its holes. You're right that my counter-theory (which is also option #2 proposed by Peter Dale Scott) implies that the real sheep-dippers were willing to risk World War 3, and in fact several political groups in 1963 were willing to risk World War 3, including the radical right and even the great conservative, Barry Goldwater. It sounds mad to us today, but in 1963 the nuclear-bombers were outspoken. As for the Lone-nut theory, the evidence I've read says that J. Edgar Hoover was the man who invented it on the very night of the JFK assassination. It was a spontaneous insight that came to him as he viewed the banks of the Potomac River. LBJ had more confidence in J. Edgar Hoover than in any other person in Washington DC. Long before the Warren Commission even plugged in its first coffee machines, the FBI was leaking the Lone-nut theory to the mass media in a campaign that would peak with the cover of the 10 July 1964 edition of LIFE magazine. Peter Dale Scott articulated it well -- there was clearly a plot in the Oswald-Kostikov myth, as proved by its "level of falsehood." Yet it was not entirely false -- if it had been entirely false, then we could lay it at the feet of James Jesus Angleton and his CIA quislings. Instead, there was some truth in the story -- and that's why we can be sure that it wasn't a CIA plot -- they only reported what they actually saw and heard. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B, first I should point out that Peter Dale Scott did not propose exactly what you're proposing -- he gave us a choice of four possibilities, although he did include your scenario as one of those four possibilities. I can easily criticize this scenario -- let me recap: 1. Angleton invented a Kostikov-Oswald sheepdip for the purpose of exposing it after JFK was killed. 2. Earl Warren agreed to chair the Warren Commission because LBJ showed Warren the Kostikov-Oswald sheepdip evidence and threatened WW3 as an alternative to the Lone-nut theory. This isn't a coherent plan -- it is an attempt to explain various facts in hand, but it is a weak explanation. It claims, in effect, that one CIA chief, James Jesus Angleton knew that if he could sheepdip Lee Harvey Oswald as a KGB agent working with Kostikov, that he could later convince the President's Commission to push for a Lone Nut theory by threatening them with the KGB-Oswald scenario. Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me. The only reasonable justification for such a sheepdip (which, by the way, I deny based on other scenarios that Peter Dale Scott ably proposed) would have been to convince LBJ and the American People to invade Havana, kill Fidel Castro and take over Cuba. When that lie failed to gain immediate credence, they had to come up with another alternative -- and they couldn't tell people about the Oswald-Kostikov sheepdip, because it would give the whole plot away. Now -- that sort of a plot has more of a common sense feeling to it. Yet Peter Dale Scott did not propose that scenario as the ONLY scenario, instead, as I showed yesterday, he offered FOUR scenarios. 1. Oswald really was working with the KGB and it was reported correctly. 2. Oswald was faking a role with the KGB (just as he faked his role with the FPCC) and it was reported as seen and heard. 3. An imposter pretended to be the KGB-Oswald, to justify a US invasion of Cuba, and it was reported as though it was true. 4. Neither Oswald nor an imposter said any such thing, but the entire report was fabricated by the CIA. As Peter Dale Scott brilliantly said -- the more falsehood in the scenario, the more likely it was a CIA conspiracy. But he did not settle on one scenario or another -- he admitted we don't have enough information today, because CIA files are so hard to obtain. He's 100% correct, IMHO. However, instead of opting for (3) or (4) as you seem to do in your post, I instead opt for (2) as the most plausible hypothesis. By coincidence that scenario also stands closest to Harry Dean's memoirs. In Harry Dean's account, Lee Harvey Oswald was being manipulated by various members of the John Birch Society, including General Walker, Gabby Gabaldon, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and John Rousselot. Adding Jim Garrison's findings, we can add Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier to the mix (as well as other players). Marina said that Oswald took all his FPCC street credentials to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico as he expected quick admittance to Cuba. Oswald wasn't smart enough to see the stupidity of such an act. If he really was a Communist (as Peter Dale Scott showed) the Communist Party in the USA would have arranged for his passage ahead of time. Oswald looked like a provocateur, but he was too naive to know it. Oswald clearly faked his FPCC credentials (and the Cuban and Soviet Embassies suspected that too). So it makes sense that he would also fake his Communist Party credentials. If he could not get passage into Cuba to kill Fidel Castro, he would have to play ball with Gabby Gabaldon who was waiting in the wings in Mexico City. Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- Oswald's drivers to Mexico City -- were ready and waiting to take him to meet Gabby. Therefore, the CIA and other officials in Mexico City only reported what they saw and heard. That's how the rumor got started. It was not invented by James Jesus Angleton at all. It was probably invented by the New Orleans, Dallas and Los Angeles sheep-dippers. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Ernie, your nonsense keeps on coming -- all your long-winded posts do is repeat your bias and sloppy methodology. For example, you quoted Simkin's text about Harry Dean, and then you blame Harry Dean for its lack of truth. Yet we've already told you that Simkin's text was never proposed by Harry Dean, instead, it was a series of fictional statements by W.R. Morris, the famous fiction writer who was seeking a Hollywood movie deal. Also, regarding General Singlaub, he was fired -- he did not voluntarily resign. He did not forfeit his pension, as in the cases of voluntary resignation, like Major General Edwin A. Walker. You're not very careful with your research, Ernie. You have a lot of volume -- but quantity is not the same as quality. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., let me offer some alternative views here: 1. If the ultimate sheep-dip was trying to link Oswald with Kostikov (and Peter Dale Scott thinks so, too), then it's a major problem to your theory that the Warren Commission sunk that myth. 2. I think you're mistaken about the shooters being easy to eliminate -- they are inherently dangerous to everyone. 3. I don't think you can point to a gangland murder of a Mafia figure and claim that it was related to the JFK assassination. Roselli -- like Frank Sturgis -- tried to pretend he was working for the CIA when at best he was a gopher for the CIA. I'm sure the CIA thought of him as annoying, but he would never have been given enough information to make him dangerous enough to kill -- I think that stands to reason. He could have blown the whistle on the CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro using Mafia connections, but eventually the CIA chief Helms confessed that anyway. Sam Giancana was shot because he ratted out the Mafia to the FBI -- nothing to do with JFK as far as I can see. 4. I do agree with you that more than one GROUP played a part in the JFK hit. Rogue elements from the CIA probably did play a role -- but not a leading role, IMHO. Also, the Mafia played a role, we know, by throwing money at any JFK plot that came along (e.g. Marcello and Traficante). Also, IMHO, the Dallas Police played a role, necessarily, because they had such a tight grip on the streets of Dallas. Also, the FBI played a role, at the very least after the fact, and in their mishandling of Lee Harvey Oswald before the fact. Also, the right-wing in Dallas played a role -- through the John Birch Society and Minutemen -- not only in the Wanted for Treason handbill and the Welcome to Dallas Mister Kennedy advertisement, but also in the mistreatment of Adlai Stevenson the month beforehand, and the hate-literature campaign and fund-raisers they managed daily. 5. However, nobody played a more important role in the JFK assassination than the GROUND-CREW. That's one place that Peter Dale Scott has not yet examined. Newman has nothing to say about it. Yet when we turn our attention to the GROUND-CREW, we realize that all the other pieces had to be managed to fit inside their agenda. Even though many GROUPS had a part, the GROUND-CREW had the central part, and the most important part by far. This included the making, setting up and delivery of the patsy -- Lee Harvey Oswald. Yes, JFK had many, many enemies, and they are all suspect. Yet when we get down to material details, the field gets smaller - by necessity. That means that all those GROUPS had to be carefully coordinated around a CENTER. Whoever managed the CENTER was the key figure. Now, IMHO, the CENTER was the GROUND-CREW in Dallas. 6. I sincerely doubt that CIA rogues were the top managers -- they were middle managers, IMHO. One would need the boldness and confidence of a trained, experienced US General -- one who had vowed eternal hatred of JFK -- to coordinate all these pieces. It would be impossible, I'm confident,. to turn a sitting US General into a traitor. However, a US General who resigned from the Army and even forfeited his pension, after having been infected by the JBS doctrine that all US Presidents since FDR have been Communist Traitors -- such an ex-General would have the qualifications for this. We have ample evidence that General Walker resigned from the Army in 1959 soon after his contact with Robert Welch, the JBS, and the doctrine that Eisenhower was a Communist Traitor. Ike rejected General Walker's resignation, but Walker again resigned in 1961, and this time JFK accepted Walker's resignation. Despite the fact that Walker resigned, the myth persists down to this day that JFK fired Walker. That wasn't the case. Walker declared his own private war against JFK in 1961, and he came out swinging in 1962 at Ole Miss University, fomenting a race riot where hundreds were wounded and two were killed. JFK sent Walker to an insane asylum for that crime -- and there lay the seeds of the JFK assassination, IMHO. Now, when this ex-General finally got his feet back on the ground, Lee Harvey Oswald was (probably) part of a team that chose to assassinate Walker. Walker found out about Lee Harvey Oswald that very WEEK (according to the personal papers of Walker himself) and he suspected that the Kennedys had sent Oswald to make the hit. Walker was no intellectual -- Robert Welch was his intellectual mentor -- but Walker was shrewd, well-trained, a green-beret-before-there-were-any-green-berets, and he knew military maneuvers like the back of his hand. When he started working on making Lee Harvey Oswald his patsy, way back in April, 1963, the CIA rogues had not yet figured out what they were going to do, but Walker had engaged Guy Banister and David Ferrie and started the ball rolling -- as early as Easter Sunday, 1963. 7. By August, 1963, however, many supporters of the Walker plot were visible, including radicals associated with the Southern California John Birch Society -- radicals like John Rousselot, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gabby Gabaldon. This is when Harry Dean first became aware of the secret cabal seeking to make a patsy out of Lee Harvey Oswald. So, yes, Paul B., I do agree that the evidence exists to suspect CIA rogues and Mafia moneybags and more players into this plot -- but they don't start appearing until AFTER the patsy was selected and the sheep-dip had begun. General Walker was the first person in this particular JFK plot -- Guy Banister was the second man -- David Ferrie was the third. Then people and money kept being funneled into the plot after the patsy had been identified. 8. In early September of 1963 Harry Dean heard General Walker -- personally -- name Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy. Harry's memoirs are the most vital data we have to link Walker with Oswald, because Walker lied under oath to the Warren Commission when he claimed he never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until the day of 22 November 1963. Harry Dean says that Walker lied. We have further evidence today that Walker lied. That is why I raise Harry Dean's memoirs up to first place in JFK research. Knowing that ex-General Walker lied under oath -- this is the fact that will break the JFK case wide open. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Paul B., I have further comments about your intriguing questions. You say I must tie Walker and Oswald to the CIA as well as to the FBI. That will be more difficult because the CIA is generally regarded as international in scope, and therefore subject to additional secrecy -- even more than the FBI. So, while some FBI documents can be obtained, as our thread in the past month as ably showed, CIA documents are harder to obtain. I am grateful that Peter Dale Scott has obtained a few for us, as published in his latest book, Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics (2013). That said, I can only refer to stories told by the principals. The Tattler, for example, and the National Enquirer, many years ago, produced interviews of Loran Hall. Loran Hall was interviewed briefly by the Warren Commission, in the last week of its operation, in connection with allegations by Silvia Odio that she saw Lee Harvey Oswald and two accomplices at her doorstep in September, 1963. In those articles, Loran Hall said words to the effect that he had been offered a lot of money by right-wing extremists in Dallas, if he would kill JFK. In those same articles Loran Hall cited "ex-military" men in Dallas, and others who eagerly wanted a race war in America, so that they could seize power. Loran Hall also claimed that CIA agents that he had personally worked with were also involved with these right-wingers. Now - there's been a confusion within JFK research in the past 50 years, regarding differences between CIA agents, CIA contractors and CIA operatives (flunkies). Harry Dean, said W.R. Morris, was a CIA agent. That was a lie. Frank Sturgis has been called a CIA agent, but in fact he was a private contractor for the CIA. Lee Harvey Oswald has been suspected of being a CIA agent, but at the very most, IMHO, he was a CIA operative working for peanuts. While William Harvey was a CIA agent, it seems that David Morales was an independent contractor. When we comb the literature of JFK research regarding CIA agents (distinct from their contractors and operatives) who were close to the JFK assassination, we tend to come up with three names: James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, H.L. Hunt. To these we might add two more who were former high-level CIA executives, Allen Dulles and Charles Cabell -- both Bay of Pigs flubbers. It seems to me that Allen Dulles hated the idea that JFK fired him as head of the CIA, but let RFK have wide control. It seems to me, also, that Charles Cabell hated the idea even more. As I recall the literature, Allen Dulles and James Jesus Angleton were close friends. That a pathological hatred could have grown amongst those CIA agents who were directly involved with the Bay of Pigs must be given high priority. You also ask whether I believe that Guy Banister was operating "totally on his own," that is, without governmental coordination. IMHO, Guy Banister did not act alone -- but neither did he work with the government. He quit the government and he was working closely with career criminals -- i.e. Carlos Marcello. Marcello was a mafia boss who hated RFK more than anyone. J. Edgar Hoover knew that Carlos Marcello put up a multi-million dollar contract on JFK -- and did nothing about it. Guy Banister also worked with General Walker, I'm convinced, partly because both men were leaders in the JBS and leaders in their local Minutemen organizations, and partly because both men were close friends with Medford Bryan Evans, and partly because of documents and research that will soon be published by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield. Also, it is very clear that Guy Banister worked directly with INCA director, Ed Butler and his DRE friend, Carlos Bringuier, in sheep-dipping Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspapers, police reports, radio and even TV. Now, INCA and DRE were also funded by the CIA. Yet INCA and DRE funding was on the books -- it was legitimate. The JFK assassination was not. IMHO, the CIA agents I named above probably split off from the main body of the CIA and started their own private war on JFK. They found General Walker's project already in progress, and they put their collective shoulders to that wheel. I think Peter Dale Scott has found lots of dirt on these guys -- but he must use logical deduction, because CIA files keeps such "secret" files. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, everybody knows that "secret" information is, by definition, UNKNOWN. That's not saying anything new. Yet you're once again mistaken in the conclusions that you, Ernie, draw from that fact. For example, you conclude that "neither you, or I, or anybody else can make definitive assertions or even credible plausible 'theories' about what data is contained in those alleged 'secret' files." That is simply incorrect. Here are only three definitive assertions that can be made with ease about those secret FBI files: 1. Some of those secrets involve the assassination of JFK 2. Some of those secrets involve Lee Harvey Oswald, even though he has been dead for 50 years 3. Some of those secrets involve a cross-section of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of JFK. So, your logic once again fails to hold, and your rude manners only backfire on you. There are even more definitive assertions that can be made, as logical deductions from those three. Following the model of logical deductions provided by Peter Dale Scott should give you a clue -- but obviously it hasn't yet done so. Nor did I ever claim that the contents of those FBI secret files will certainly and without doubt confirm Harry Dean's memoirs; however, anybody with an open mind (obviously not you) can connect the dots and recognize that: (i) Harry Dean's memoirs also involve the assassination of JFK (ii) Harry Dean's memoirs also involve Lee Harvey Oswald (iii) Harry Dean's memoirs also involve a cross-section of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of JFK. Furthermore, the FBI has already shown -- in documents that you yourself presented -- that the FBI took a hostile attitude with regard to Harry Dean for taking his story public on the Joe Pyne Show on television in early 1965 -- soon after the disappointing results of the Warren Commission (for which the FBI provided the investigation). It is not assured -- but it remains plausible -- that the many FBI files about Harry Dean that we cannot yet find are also filed away in those "secret" files. I'm not 100% certain that they are, but I am surely curious to see for myself. Objective thinkers can try to connect those dots, and then, in a patriotic fashion, demand to know what the FBI prefers to keep secret about men who died 50 years ago -- despite the requests of men who have had powers bestowed upon them by the Constitution of the United States of America. You don't seem to have the normal curiosity of finding out what the FBI secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald might be. At least that's what I see. Perhaps I missed something, Ernie -- perhaps you've made multiple requests to the FBI to see the Lee Harvey Oswald files -- have you? Well, have you? Further, it is a documented fact that Major General Edwin Anderson Walker was the only US General to resign in the 20th century. That is not merely my observation, but confirmed history. Walker was the only US General so hot-headed as to renounce his 30-year pension by resigning (although later in life he begged to have his pension back, and we gave it to him) Further, it is intuitively obvious to the casual observer that your many new findings of FBI material on Harry Dean clearly confirm parts of Harry's memoirs -- without even trying to do that. (You should simply calm down and admit the fact, Ernie, just as you should also apologize to Harry Dean for accusing him of "lying" for saying that he took information to the FBI from 1961 through 1963. Your own FBI records prove that he truly did.) Further, my statements about Robert Welch's, THE POLITICIAN (1959), namely, that he stated within it that President Eisenhower was a Communist Traitor, are verifiably true and correct. Your continuing harping on "FBI filing practices and procedures," Ernie, only confirms the portrait of your activity as "bureaucratic arrogance." Your claim objectivity, but ultimately your attitude tends to defend the FBI Yet the FBI has chosen to march over people Gestapo-style with its secret file cabinets, and that brutal march continues to this very day. IMHO, Ernie, you should attempt to obtain the FBI secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald, and tell us how the FBI replies to somebody like yourself. And if you refuse to do that, then I must continue to wonder why. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Ernie, although your recent findings may come in handy at some future date, they fail to address the debate currently in progress, namely, the status of FBI secrets regarding the JFK assassination. We notice that in your brief sample of files stored inside FBI Room 7321, there was no mention at all of the JFK assassination. Also, a perusal of the PDF file you kindly shared shows zero mention of the JFK assassination, or Oswald's name. Recently you challenged my proposal that the FBI still keeps secrets about Lee Harvey Oswald (even 50 years after the man was killed on national TV). More recently you seem to be praising the FBI for releasing 99.999% of all its formerly "top secret" files to public scrutiny. Can you really be unaware that we are instead interested in the .001% of FBI files that remain locked up that refer to Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination? WE WANT TO SEE THOSE FILES, OR KNOW THE REASON WHY. Thus, while many of us might be impressed that you're able to wrest many historical documents from the FBI -- we remain frustrated that the ones you obtain are of little or no interest to JFK Forum readers in the year 2013. Who cares about Communists on the Mexican border in 1965 anymore? Who cares about Communists who snitched to the FBI in 1959? We don't care about these arcane aspects of US History around here! We only care about the JFK assassination! Your criticisms of Harry Dean -- despite all your errors -- remain relevant on this thread simply because Harry Dean's memoirs about the JFK assassination are currently under discussion. However, the amount and nature of formerly secret FBI files are of little interest on this thread unless those files relate to the JFK assassination. I think that should be clear. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Paul B., another interesting chapter in Peter Dale Scott's new book is chapter 8, which speculates about the reasons why the US government printed so many falsehoods about Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination, and then it took those words back and denied them during the Warren Commission hearings. For example, there were reports from Mexico City that said Lee Harvey Oswald was a "card-carrying member of the Communist Party." This turned out to be false, and the Dallas Police as well as the Warren Commission later rejected this. Also, there were reports that said when Oswald was in the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in September, 1963, he threatened to kill JFK for causing Oswald's delay in getting to Cuba. Yet the Dallas Police and the Warren Commission would reject those reports, too. Peter Dale Scott, with his usual brilliance, noted that the more falsehood in the story, the more it pointed to conspiracy. Simply brilliant. Let's see if I can render his argument here: 1. If those two reports were true, then the US government had foreknowledge of Oswald's intent to kill JFK, but simply failed to use those reports. 2. If those reports were somewhat true, that is, Oswald carried a fake CP card and said he would kill JFK just to provoke notoriety, then that suggests the possibility of a conspiracy involving Oswald with other people. 3. If those reports were mostly false, that is, a fake Oswald carried a CP card and threatened to kill JFK, then we have final proof of a conspiracy to kill JFK and frame Oswald (even if the conspirators were commoners). 4. If those reports were totally false, however -- simple lies made up by the Government agents involved -- this would be strong evidence of a high-level conspiracy to kill JFK and frame Oswald. Peter Dale Scott is truly a high-powered logician. We need more like him. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I took your advice. The lucky thing about working on a college campus is that we have a great library, and this book by Peter Dale Scott, which was published only this year, was available to me. I enjoyed the book very much. Basically, Scott is adding to his previous narrative on Deep Politics (1996) with new information from the recently declassified Edwin Lopez report about Oswald in Mexico City. It is excellent. I won't go into all the glories of this new book, but I'll focus only on one aspect, the one relavent to this thread, namely, Harry Dean's memoirs about the alleged participation of General Edwin Walker in the assassination of JFK. It is in chapter nine that Scott mentions this possibility with some insight, partly through the viewpoint of ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth who produced a report to Warren Commission Assistant Counsel Burt Griffin, naming the Minutemen and General Walker as 'the most likely groups in Dallas to plot to assassinate JFK.' The report of Frank Ellsworth was dropped like a hot potato by the Warren Commission, when it should have been given lots of light. The name of Ellsworth is buried in the Exhibits portion of the volumes -- and actually some of the Exhibits he provided were deleted by the Commission (for example, a 'wanted' poster of Krushchev signed, "The Minutemen", and a DPD cable about rightist extremists in Dallas). Ellsworth was important because he was present when Oswald's rifle was found at the TSBD. Ellsworth was also one of the first federal agents to interview Oswald on the day of the JFK murder. Ellsworth's testimony was similar to that of Jack Ruby's, insofar as Jack Ruby also told Earl Warren that the JBS and General Walker were at the root of the JFK assassination -- and both of their assertions were basically ignored. So, thanks for continuing the latest reading on this hot topic, Paul B. I appreciate the resource. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, It is unacceptable that by 1992 the FBI had released only 98% of all its files. Just 2% of FBI secret files that were still locked up presumably amounted to many thousands of pages. Besids that, by 1998, there were still vital Warren Commission records still withheld -- e.g. the all-important tax returns of Lee Harvey Oswald -- and redactions on vital documents that were curiously labeled, "minor redactions," as if such things exist. We may presume that the FBI has good reasons for keeping secrets about living individuals and witnesses, however, I see no earthly reason for the FBI to continue to keep secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald who was shot dead 50 years ago. This bizarre secrecy weakens the credibility of the FBI and weakens the moral stature of the USA. Insofar as US Senators and Congressmen have requested to see those files, and have been turned down by the FBI, I also consider this secrecy to be a violation of the US Constitution, because the Constitution of the USA gives the US Senate and Congress great powers, but does not give the FBI any powers at all. Perhaps only the arrogance of J. Edgar Hoover, and the bureaucratic arrogance of the FBI can explain this shameful abuse of governmental power. (Those who defend the FBI from criticism are also infected, IMHO, with this bureaucratic arrogance.) Patriotic Americans demand to know the reasons for FBI secrets about Lee Harvey Oswald -- secrets kept not only from private citizens, but also from US Senators and Congressmen. It's un-American. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., your question is appropriate because I think there is credible evidence that James Jesus Angleton was in Dallas, at Dealey Plaza, incognito, on 22 November 1963. As CIA counterintelligence chief, his presence there would signify a major issue in JFK research. Further, David Atlee Phillips, CIA Western Hemisphere chief, admitted to his brother that he was in Dealey Plaza on that day, too. My personal take on it -- guessing through the secrecy -- is that these very high-level CIA men were acting on their own, internal conspiracy. They weren't acting on orders from the JFK appointed CIA chief, John McCone. Their thinking was close to the thinking of the John Birch Society. Angleton was conditioned, IMHO, by his inferiority complex because his mother was a Mexican, and he wanted to prove his All-American pedigree by playing the rabid Anticommunist. (J. Edgar Hoover and General Walker shared a different inferiority complex -- they were homosexuals-in-the-closet, and they also wanted to prove their All-American pedigree by playing the rabid Anticommunist.) Both James Jesus Angleton and David Atlee Phillips were up to their necks in the Bay of Pigs disaster. They were partly to blame for undermining JFK with bad information about the status of Cuba -- and their psychological response was to make JFK into their scape-goat for their own failings in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. In their private conversations over whiskey and cognac they would have attracted CIA rogue fellow-travelers like William Harvey and David Morales, who also lusted for revenge. Harvey had been busted down in position for crossing RFK, and David Morales was just a hothead. (To these we might consider adding rogue CIA agents E. Howard Hunt, because of his deathbed confession, and Cord Meyer, who hated JFK for sleeping with his ex-wife.) If anything, I would suspect these renegade CIA agents (and perhaps their quislings) of starting their own private war against JFK. HOWEVER, as effective as they could be, they would never have gone into Dallas without local allies. The key to Dallas would then be two-fold: (1) the leaders of the extremist right-wing in Dallas; (2) high-ranking government officials on their side. Jim Garrison already suspected the Mayor of Dallas, Earle Cabell, brother of CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell, whom JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs. If Cabell was a conspirator, then I would also suspect police chief Jesse Curry along with some of the most radical rightists in the Dallas Police Force, including and especially Roscoe White (a Minuteman whose son said he was a JFK shooter and also the killer of J.D. Tippit, and shared a THIRD fake photo of Lee Harvey Oswald in a new pose, owned by his father, Roscoe White). Now, one might wonder if these rogue CIA hotheads sought out a person with vast experience in paramilitary operations who was local to Dallas to coordinate all these elements. But that does not go far enough. Harry Dean has no eye-witness information for us about CIA agents in Dallas. Nor does Harry have eye-witness information about Guy Banister, David Ferrie or others that Jim Garrison exposed. But Harry Dean does offer eye-witness information that links General Edwin Walker with Lee Harvey Oswald as early as August, 1963. That is plenty. In my theory, ex-General Edwin Walker did not need the CIA -- he was moving forward with his own plot involving Lee Harvey Oswald. It was only after Walker made substantial progress in the local planning and coordination of Southern elements that the rogue CIA agents named above heard about it, and then went South to lend their support and expertise. At what time they entered the field, we can only guess. We have evidence from Antonia Veciana that David Atlee Phillips (alias Maurice Bishop) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963. This was when Lee Harvey Oswald was being sheep-dipped as a fake FPCC officer in a fake FPCC chapter in New Orleans with zero members aside from himself. So, it appears to me that Walker, Banister, Ferrie, Angelton and Phillips (at the very least) were busy sheep-dipping Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Jim Garrison failed to expose General Walker in his investigations -- but to be fair, Garrison couldn't expose anybody from Dallas in his investigations -- Garrison was effectively locked out of Dallas. (The time for Dallas to come clean would have been 1968, during the Garrison investigations -- but they kept their mouths locked shut, and so Dallas' reputation in the JFK murder and cover-up, now 50 years old, will probably last forever.) So, Paul B., that's my scenario. I have read Newman's Oswald and the CIA, and I wasn't very impressed. Any theory that leaves out General Walker and the John Birch Society (who were directly identified by Jack Ruby to Earl Warren) is not digging deeply enough, IMHO. (Also, Newman didn't dig very deeply into FBI agent James Hosty, but hastily gave Hosty low marks.) So, again, I don't think that the FBI, CIA, ONI or any official agencies as entities were involved in the JFK assassination, although I do believe that rogue elements from these agencies were almost certainly involved. But in my opinion they needed a leader, and the only leader who could have coordinated all the elements in Dallas -- especially the ground-crew and the patsy -- would have been the extremely capable, motivated and officially resigned Major General Edwin Anderson Walker. Whether Oswald shot at Walker or not, we have documented evidence from Walker's own personal papers that Walker believed throughout most of 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of his April shooters. And of course, Harry Dean's memoirs confirm that Walker was aware of Oswald back in the summer of 1963. That's my theory. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Despite my differences with Ernie Lazar, I appreciate the fact that he provided more FBI documents about Harry Dean to this thread than any other participant. The data remain incomplete, so any conclusion is premature at this point, although it's all great food for thought. IMHO, the Harry Dean story identifies a wider JFK conspiracy circle that involves General Edwin Walker -- the only US General to resign in the 20th century, who outspokenly regarded JFK and Adlai Stevenson as Communist traitors. The story of General Walker also involves Southern California characters like Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gabby Gabaldon, and through them, Silvia Odio and Gerry Patrick Hemming (and through him, Frank Sturgis, Eladio Del Valle and eventually the New Orleans team identified by Jim Garrison). Harry Dean's story is an eye-witness account that connects General Edwin Walker (and JBS players in Southern California) with Lee Harvey Oswald. Because the FBI has hidden its files on Lee Harvey Oswald for 50 years, any evidence we can obtain about Lee Harvey Oswald's connections remains of great historical value. How can the FBI justify keeping its files on Lee Harvey Oswald so secret for 50 years after the man was shot dead? How can the FBI justify preventing Senators and Congressmen from seeing those files? I refer especially to Senator Richard Schweiker of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and his request to see those files in 1977, and the FBI denial of his request. The FBI also denied other members of Congress access to its secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald, including Congressmen Henry Gonzalez, Thomas Downing, L.R. Preyer, Louis Stokes, Robert Edgar,Samuel Devine, Stewart McKinney, Charles Thone and Chris Dodd. What part of the US Constitution gives the FBI Director such power over the US Senate and House of Representatives? IMHO, this is a question involving the US Constitution. Jim Garrison might have lost the scent of the assassins, but his heart was in the right place -- he did not like the idea of the FBI telling the American People that they can't be trusted with records about their own history. IMHO, Harry Dean is in the same camp as Jim Garrison -- a patriotic protester against such FBI arrogance. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Sorry, Ernie, but you're mistaken yet again. Actually, you've supplied plenty of documents from the FBI that confirm parts of Harry's story. The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed work for Fidel Castro, the 26th of July Movement and the FPCC. The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about all this activity. The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed write to JFK himself about this scenario in 1961. The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed interact with the John Birch Society (JBS) in Southern California from 1961-1963. The FBI documents that you yourself produced confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about his activities with suspicious *individuals* of the JBS. The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed enrage the FBI by going public on the Joe Pyne show in early 1965, attempting to alert the world to what he saw regarding Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination. Further, that two-page letter in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS which the FBI claims Harry Dean wrote to J. Edgar Hoover, and which Harry himself disputes, cannot be used until you prove that Harry is mistaken about it, which you have so far failed to do. Hint: your emotionally hostile attitude toward Harry is not very helpful in this regard. Further, if you don't believe that the FBI has "secret" files, then you're living in a dream world. Further, you don't speak for anybody else on this thread except yourself, Ernie. I don't see anybody here speaking up for your emotional outbursts. I suspect several Forum members avoid this thread because you try to overwhelm your debaters with volume and emotion, and you lack the social graces for consistently polite conversation. (Perhaps it is because of my commitment to exceptionalism that I'm willing to look beyond your rude manners to thank you for providing all these FBI documents that paradoxically weaken your case.) As for selling the eBook that Harry and I published last month, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK, which is available on Smashbooks, you're right that we've sold very few copies. Aside from family and friends, only a handful of Forum members have purchased it. Yet perhaps that is because the world is not yet aware of it. We have only told our family and friends and the members of this Forum and are only now developing an advertising strategy. After all, Smashwords is a relatively new branch of Amazon.com. So, we haven't given up hope. The good news for Harry is that when people ask him about his story, he can quickly give them all the details he has ever shared, by directing people to his eBook. Finally, Ernie, although I'm sure that lots of people have stopped reading this thread because your posts are hostile, long and repetitive, I'm willing to entertain your nonsense a little while longer because I think you can ultimately be useful for this thread and for JFK research. Your expertise in FBI documents gives you an advantage in addressing a burning question on this Forum -- namely -- why is it that the FBI continues to keep secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald, fifty years after he was shot on national television? Why do you suppose that is, Ernie? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo, MA

Ernie, you are completely biased and struggling with some animus somewhere in your past. My points are based on facts that you block out of your mind. Occasionally I might use a metaphor, or figure of speech, and this to you is LYING, WARPED, ASININE and a dozen other insulting terms. You over-react in your trademark emotional outbursts, and you imagine you've made an argument. But you haven't. You're simply negating and negative. You've conflated skepticism with logic, Ernie. Now, while there may be some overlap in the two methods, they remain entirely distinct. One of these days you might want to say what you actually stand for, so that you can take a break from smashing others down. Nonetheless -- you claim that I'm "nothing but a shill for Harry" Dean, and you remain completley mistaken today as you have been all year long. Too bad, Ernie. Your many talents and potentials are clearly underused. In any case -- despite our many differences, I extend to you and to all of the readers of this thread -- H A P P Y T H A N K S G I V I N G !! Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, When you claim that Walker never attempted to indoctrinate his troops in Gemany with Robert Welch's published position that Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST, you are merely relying on the official charges that the court brought to Walker. Those charges do not mention Eisenhower, but say that Walker told his troops that Harry Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt were "Communist influenced." Walker was a JBS fanatic, but he wasn't so foolish to think that he could openly call a sitting President a COMMUNIST and avoid harsh military consequences. Yet it stands to reason that Walker would share his new opinions with select individuals. Knowing that General Walker submitted his resignation in 1959 after exposure to Robert Welch's BLACK BOOK which targeted Eisenhower as a COMMUNIST (a resignation which Eisenhower rejected) and then to imagine that Walker simply kept this to himself -- that stretches credibilty more than anything I've suggested. You are copping out, Ernie, when you admit on the one hand that Robert Welch, founder and leader of the JBS, published his opinion in 1959 that Ike was Red, and then on the other hand you feebly add that "several JBS National Council members" disagreed with Welch on that point. Big deal. The cat was out of the bag. Also, you cop out when you admit that Robert Welch wrote his opinion in 1959 that Ike was Red, but that the JBS published a different edition in 1963. Every objective reader sees through your attempts to squirm out of this. The detail that you provided only works against your case, Ernie. It shows that I do know what I'm talking about with regard to the JBS and to General Walker. On the contrary, you need to shift and squirm to make your points today. You CAN connect the dots if you want to, Ernie, but you simply REFUSE to do so. That's now clear for everybody to see. In any case, getting back to the theme of this thread about Harry Dean's memoirs, it is vital to remember that Harry Dean is the final living witness (to the best of my knowledge) who can link General Edwin Walker with Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination. This is what remains valuable about Harry Dean's memoirs -- no matter how many attacks are leveled against Harry by the FBI or their quislings. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, you are not only prone to blind spots in your reasoning, but to emotional outbursts. It is very difficult to calm you down for a rational conversation, but I'll keep trying -- miracles can happen. You misrepresent my position over and over again, and evidently wonder why I just brush it off my shoulder like so many leaves. You really must learn to calm down. Now, as for Walker resigning from the Army during 1959, when Eisenhower was President, we have his documented evidence. Yet you approach this historical fact with surprising naivete. You don't bother to ask WHY a Major General of the US Army, a war hero of WW2, would be the first and only US General to resign in the 20th century. This is a historical curiosity of the first order, and you show no sense of curiosity toward it at all. Your emotions blind you to the basics. General Edwin Walker, war-hero of both WW2 and the Korean War -- the Commander who took Pork Chop Hill -- was rewarded for his heroism in 1957 when President Eisenhower entrusted him with the command over the federal troops sent to Little Rock, Arkansas, to racially integrate the high school there. General Walker did a fine job -- officially. Internally, Walker squawked like a mad hen. The radical (racist) right went to work on General Walker the moment he got into Little Rock, and John Birch Societey went to work on him as soon as they could. By the end of 1959, Edwin Walker joined the John Birch Society and became the first and only US General to resign in the 20th century. If you can't connect those dots, Ernie, then there's something wrong with your sense of logic. In his resignation letter to President Eisenhower, General Walker cited "a fifth column conspiracy," and he was too cowardly to expand upon that for his Commander in Chief. (I don't say that this great war hero was always a coward -- but that he became one after being infected by the JBS.) But a "fifth column conspiracy" means a foreign conspiracy. Why and how would a "foreign conspiracy" lead a US General to resign his post? Anybody who knows JBS literature Ernie (and I'm sure you do) knows that in 1959 the JBS published Robert Welch's Black Book, and in that book are direct accusations that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST and guilty of TREASON. Do the math. That book came out in mid-1959. General Walker resigned in late 1959. If you can't connect those dots, Ernie, then there's something seriously wrong with your sense of logic. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I continue to maintain that Harry Dean is a reliable source of information. His details of time, place and personnel continue to ring true in continuing research. Nothing you have said in the past two years has convinced me otherwise -- and I have an open mind. More to the point, many of the things you've said have confirmed parts of Harry's story. You've supplied more FBI files on Harry Dean than I've ever seen before -- and their overall effect (despite a few minor bumps) is to confirm Harry's story. Now, you ask a reasonable question -- if, for the sake of argument, I entirely set aside Harry's story -- what would become of my theory that places General Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society (JBS) immediately next to the plot against JFK that involved Lee Harvey Oswald? The answer is extremely clear -- perhaps you didn't know this -- but before I ever encountered Harry Dean, I already amassed lots of information about the John Birch Society and General Edwin Walker that placed them close to Lee Harvey Oswald and an assassination plot in Dallas in 1963. Where did this information come from? Well, it started with the Warren Commission. General Walker's name appears more than 500 times in those volumes. It is difficult to find anyone today who recalls that General Walker was a suspect among clear-thinking Americans in 1963 and 1964. But he was. The connections are clear, but General Walker already proved that he could lie under oath when he lied before a Mississippi Grand Jury in January, 1963, and told them that he was at the Ole Miss riots in September, 1962, in order to bring calm to the rioters. After the Grand Jury believed him and acquitted him of all charges, he went out and sued all the American newspapers who printed the truth about him -- that he actually started those riots. Well, Walker won a few court cases and amassed $3 million in judgments -- but they appealed to the Supreme Court and in 1967 the Supreme Court reversed all those decisions -- Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren knew that General Walker lied under oath (not only to the Grand Jury in 1963, but also to the Warren Commission in 1964). General Walker tried to resign from the Army in 1959, the year that he joined the JBS, because the JBS taught him that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST. (Ike rejected Walker's resignation.) Like the semi-literate person that he was, General Edwin Walker actually believed the JBS lie, and he went around poisoning the 10,000 troops under his command with that same lie. The JBS (as you admitted) injects poison into the bloodstream of America. It was even more influential in 1963 than it is today. I also agree that there is no further point in discussing your clear biases regarding FBI files. Every objective reader accepts that there really is pertinent data within the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald. Otherwise, why keep them secret 50 years after Oswald was shot dead? I also agree that we have sharp differences about how to process data. You rely on mediocre philosophers like Karl Popper. I use logic as it is in-itself, based on the law of contradiction. Also, you take the word of the FBI, no matter how tortured the logic. I also think we should cease the "'Tis" and "'Taint" banter of the past month, and let the readers here have a break. We can at least agree to disagree -- you say I'm biased and I say you're biased. Yet I'm also astounded that you lack the curiosity of inquiring about the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald. It simply astounds me that you evade the question and do not wish to see what the evidence truly shows. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Ernie, your arrogance is sometimes intolerable, yet I'm willing to overlook your attitude because I believe your life work might one day become useful around here. Those locked-up FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald are among the shining cultural icons of 20th century America. With all your experience in obtaining FBI records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) you might actually become among the first to obtain those records. SInce you cannot be ignorant of the fact that the majority of readers on this thread (and in the JFK Forum generally) have remain focused upon the locked-up FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald for 49 years, why not take an interest in Lee Harvey Oswald? Actually, this is a question I'm sure many of us on this thread already have -- you're a virtual expert on the FBI -- and yet you have no interest in the FBI's secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald? How is that even possible? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

WHAT?? You may have submitted more FOIA requests to the FBI than anybody else in America, and yet you never once inquired about Lee Harvey Oswald?? Also, you never intend to make an FOIA request to the FBI about Lee Harvey Oswald?? Do you have no sense of curiosity at all, Ernie? Is all your flailing about the FOIA and FBI procedure merely idle, academic interest? The most important possession that the FBI holds today -- in the eyes of most readers of this Forum, and perhaps most historians of the US Cold War period -- is their secret cache of files on Lee Harvey Oswald. How could any objective person remain disinterested in those files? Not only is the FBI hiding something BIG here, I must now suspect that Ernie Lazar is withholding something. Get with the program, Ernie. Submit an FOIA request to the FBI about Lee Harvey Oswald, and let us know what they tell you. That would redeem your grandstanding around here in the eyes of many. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, THE PARDON: Fifty years later we can look back and say that being fooled by the Communists is no crime -- but in the heat of the moment, near the peak of the Cold War, especially after Eisenhower's pronouncements charging Fidel Castro's helpers with being "unregistered agents of a foreign government," the average layman -- including myself -- would have thought that it was an act next to treason. Thus, Harry Dean's request for a pardon from JFK was rational under the circumstances. So, Ernie, you split hairs and use semantics to try to discredit Harry Dean as a reliable witness -- and the FBI obviously tried this as well. Harry Dean was not wanted for any crime, as you admit, so therefore the 'Pardon' that Harry asked from JFK had to be related to the heated politics of the Cold War. It was not a formal request for a formal pardon, obviously. We need to remember that Harry Dean has always been Conservative; a nationalist at heart. He blocked out accusations in 1958-1960 when Fidel Castro and his movement were accused of Communism. Therefore, when Harry caught the FPCC (which drafted him) in the act of selling Communist literature, Harry was speechless. That's when he decided, on his own, to go to the FBI and offer information. Harry's information about the FPCC was accepted -- this is his claim, and we have seen FBI documents that confirm that Harry gave them information about Fidel Castro and the FPCC. Still, you continue your old campaign of attempting to discredit Harry Dean's eye-witness account. What motive would the FBI have for discrediting Harry Dean's eye-witness account? The answer is clear -- it is the exact same motive that the FBI had for discrediting the eye-witness account of Silvia Odio. Both Harry Dean and Silvia Odio provided eye-witness information about Lee Harvey Oswald during September 1963. Now, it is widely known that the FBI has sealed its records on Lee Harvey Oswald, and even after fifty years refuses to allow the public to see them. There is the motive for the character assassination against Harry Dean that we've seen for 48 years (since Harry decided to go public with his information). BILL KELLY'S DOCUMENT: In the absence of further information we cannot conclude which document is genuine and which is a forgery -- although we can say with certainty that Harry Dean wrote one and only one letter to J. Edgar Hoover. One must be a forgery. The redacted version that Bill Kelly (and Harry Dean) have shown contains words that do not appear in the allegedly FULL version of the document that the FBI re-typed ALL IN CAPS. Unless there is more information presented, it remains plausible that the FULL version that you supplied from the FBI is a forgery. What would be the purpose of such a forgery? It was intended to harmonize with that RAP SHEET on Harry Dean which the FBI also mocked-up. Together, as a pair, these documents intend to claim that Harry Dean took information to the FBI -- and that the FBI did not want that information -- indeed, the FBI turned away that information and told Harry Dean to go away. The portrait given by the combination RAP SHEET and the disputed FBI version of Harry's letter to Hoover is that Harry Dean is an insane criminal who merely bothers the FBI and brings them rubbish that they never asked for and never wanted. It is a character assassination similar to the one the FBI performed on Silvia Odio, in which they claimed that her report of Lee Harvey Oswald at her home in September, 1963, was the result of a "mental condition." FORGED FBI DOCUMENTS: You claim, Ernie, that you require factual evidence, not speculation or rumors, and yet you are quick to seize upon the disputed FBI memo in order to draw conclusions about Harry Dean. So, once again, you've contradicted yourself. HOOVER LEGACY: Well, Ernie, congratulations on being the 1st person to discover the number of live FBI informants inside the Communist Party. Also, congratulations for revealing the existence of two FBI files unknown by historians, which total about 1,000,000 pages. Nevertheless, your actions proved my case -- that historians will eventually find everything, repeat everything that has been written down. Still, those findings are basically irrelevant to the JFK assassination, which is the main topic under discussion here. My question to you, an expert in FOIA requests, is this: how well have you done in requests about Lee Harvey Oswald? "SECRET" LHO FILES: Ernie, are you now claiming that the FBI has no secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald? The reason you never want to hear about this argument again is because you have no logical answer for it. All your work has yielded you zero results in obtaining the main prize in the eyes of this Forum -- the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I think it's obvious from Harry's memoirs that he was asking JFK for a pardon because he was fooled into supporting the Communists on behalf of Fidel Castro. The axe had already come down during the Eisenhower administration, when Castro's sympathizers were obliged to "register as agents of a foreign government." This astounded Harry -- he had believed he was fighting on the correct side. After he was drafted into the FPCC because of his honorary admission into Castro's 26th of July Movement, that was when Harry realized that he was in a political hotbed that involved Communists who were promoting literature from Moscow. His hair practically stood up. That was when he chose to go to the FBI -- Eisenhower was still in power. Things did not resolve easily for Harry, according to his memoirs. Instead of a way out, the FBI asked Harry to dig himself deeper inside and feed them information. The more Harry did this, the more the FBI took it for granted, and demanded more. Eventually Harry got himself tangled in a quasi-double-agent role of spying for the FPCC and telling the FBI everything that was happening. It was unbearable -- Harry then quit the entire hassle in one day. It was on that day that Harry wrote to JFK and asked for a pardon. Harry didn't want to be involved anymore -- he had done his part and more than his part -- but nothing was ever enough. (So Harry was played, not paid for his information.) Harry left his FBI contacts in a hurry -- and they weren't happy. That explains to me why Harry reached over Hoover's head and asked the POTUS for a break. In his own experience, it made sense to Harry and was worth a try. Wrong, Ernie. I asked Bill Kelly twice on this thread, to please name his source for his copy of Harry Dean's 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover. I presume that Bill Kelly is kindly retracing his records and steps from years ago -- and that might take a lot of time -- so I'm patient and I don't push my way around in this thread like a bull in a china shop. I can patiently wait for Bill Kelly's reply. Oh, really, Ernie? Are you sure? Because it doesn't seem like it. Oh, I was getting around to that, Ernie. You continually overlook the nuance of Legacy. J. Edgar Hoover knew that he had an American legacy to live up to, and that all of his files would one day be opened up to historians of future generations. Every FBI agent knows this as well. Nothing, repeat nothing, is EXCLUSIVELY INTERNAL, except for a temporary period. Everything, repeat everything, will eventually be funneled into the great pool of History. When it comes to lies, cover-ups, shameful decisions, gross errors, blatant excesses and other human foibles, I expect FBI agents to behave like most human beings -- and try to hide the evidence. Nothing shows this more plainly than the JFK assassination cover-up, within which the FBI stands front-and-center. You should know this better than most, Ernie, since you reportedly have hundreds of thousands of FBI records in your possession as the result of a record number of FOIA requests. Yet in all your requests -- with all your familiarity -- you still can't get your hands on the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald -- even after fifty years! Fifty years! Oswald is long gone -- and yet his FBI files are still locked up tight as a steel drum! The FBI is hiding something BIG -- and everybody knows it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo