Paul Trejo

Again, Ernie, you are merely repeating your own faulty premises. You seem to lack a faculty of questioning your own premises. Your arguments and conclusions here are nothing new -- they merely repeat your old claims based on your prejudices: (1) that the disputed FBI letter is 'true and correct;' and (2) that you can decipher the heavily redacted letter that Harry Dean sent to J. Edgar Hoover -- lthough it appears to have 50% redaction. What stuff. So, Ernie, please prove that the disputed FBI letter is true and correct, or stop harping on it. Also, please prove that you can decipher the meaning of Harry's redacted letter to Hoover, or stop harping on it. Those are your pivotal, logical recourses. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Once again, Ernie, you are mistaken in every point of another long post. I have time only to address the most important points: Your key mistake, Ernie, is your opening premise, that the same attitude of seeking forgiveness is present in both the disputed letter to Hoover from Harry, and in the letter to JFK from Harry. That's wrong. First, Harry asked JFK for a pardon, because JFK was President of the USA. Hoover was in no such position, so Harry Dean never asked Hoover for a pardon. Thus your premise is faulty. Secondly, you continue to presume – despite authoritative first-hand witness – that the disputed FBI letter is ‘true and correct.’ You refuse to set it aside, but continue to harp on it as though it contains clues. Yet logic demands that until you can prove that the disputed FBI letter is genuine, you cannot use it to obtain clues. You claim to use logic in your arguments, Ernie, but you have blind spots that you continually overlook. I will add here that in his letter to JFK, Harry Dean DID NOT WRITE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Your long posts, Ernie, which contain so much repetition, merely harp on your biased premises. You don’t want to countenance any suggestion that the FBI might have forged a document to discredit a witness. Yet the hatchet job that the FBI made of the Silvia Odio case is ample proof that the FBI has always been capable of underhanded methods. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, your insults continue to be out of place, yet you seem to be oblivious to your lack of manners, and so you may deserve our pity. In any case, here is additional detail regarding your faulty logic in your post above: ERNIE WROTE: “There is absolutely NOTHING in the alleged "forged" version which reflects adversely upon Harry.” Incorrect. The allegedly forged version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover portrays an ATTITUDE that does not belong to Harry, namely, an attitude of seeking Hoover's forgiveness for past actions. ERNIE WROTE: “There is no information in the alleged "forged" version which adds to, or subtracts from, Harry's story as it is told in the new Dean/Trejo eBook.” Incorrect. Harry’s memoirs suggest no ATTITUDE of seeking Hoover's forgiveness. ERNIE WROTE: “There is no information in the alleged "forged" version which would cause anybody to suspect Harry's veracity -- when the text is compared to the other versions we are discussing.” Incorrect. Insofar as criminality is subtly implied, then Harry’s veracity is also questioned. ERNIE WROTE: “There is no advantage or benefit for the FBI, there is no disadvantage or adverse consequence to Harry.” Incorrect. The FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover presumes an advantage and benefit for the FBI by painting Harry Dean as an unreliable witness. This puts Harry Dean at a disadvantage by the method of character assassination. ERNIE WROTE: “The ENTIRE purpose of forgeries is to deceive...intended to harm the reputation and character of the person discussed in the forgery. But no such qualities exist in Harry's letter -- no matter which version you believe is genuine!” Incorrect. First, you continue to refer to the FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover as "Harry's letter," which shows your massive bias. Then, you blind yourself to the digs and jabs at Harry's character there. There are major differences between the letters, and you haven't scratched the surface. Your bias against Harry Dean amounts to a blind spot in your vision, Ernie. Your lack of objectivity is probably obvious to everybody on this thread except yourself. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, your one-sided analysis of Harry Dean's letter (and alleged letter) to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963 leaves out one very important fact, namely, that Harry Dean has already told this Forum that the letter supplied by the FBI (two pages in ALL CAPS) is NOT the one that he wrote to J. Edgar Hoover. Yet you're still treating it as though it was. Also, you keep grasping at straws, for example, you argue: "Look again at Kelly’s redacted version. Does it seem logical to you that this 3-paragraph redacted version contains sufficient detail to favorably impact a decision by the head of our nation’s primary internal security agency?" The self-contradiction in that question is obvious -- we can't make a logical conclusion on material that has been redacted, because we don't know the CONTENT of the information that has been redacted! Therefore, all your speculations above are pointless -- except, of course, for your final question: "WHY BOTHER fabricating a letter which does NOT advance any purpose or objective?" A more objective approach to the problem would recognize that you've already answered the question, as follows. The letter that you wish to pin on Harry Dean contains text that you describe as follows: "At this point in the HQ file letter, Harry goes into personal background information about his previous 'mistakes' and he praises the FBI agents in Chicago whom he says he 'dealt with' – and he then expresses his 'hope of being cleared'." You're digging for dirt about Harry Dean in an FBI document that the FBI claims was written by Harry Dean, but that Harry Dean never wrote, according to Harry Dean himself. That's the central logical flaw in all your work above. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Bill, I think this letter has a high importance in the current context. Do you remember your source for this version of the letter? If your source is Harry's Crosstrails manuscript, that entails one set of premises. If your source is an FBI FOIA request, that entails a different set of premises. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

...Also, still waiting to learn from you if the letter you wrote to the Director of the Joe Pyne program which Paul typed into this thread is your letter or do you claim that is also a forgery? Ernie, your Either/Or method of thinking distorts the question. There are more possibilities than the two you offered to Harry Dean. It is possible that Harry Dean wrote the letter, and that the FBI faithfully re-typed it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. It is possible that Harry Dean wrote such a letter, and that the FBI later changed a few words when they re-typed it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. It is also possible that Harry Dean wrote such a letter, and the FBI added and deleted paragraphs liberally, when they re-typed it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Your question to Harry Dean left out the mystery of the CAPITAL LETTERS. Did Harry Dean write in that way? We saw a different FBI document allegedly by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover, written on 19 November 1963, and it is also written IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Harry flatly denies that he wrote that letter. The letter he wrote to Hoover on that date was about a half-page long (as shown by Bill Kelly on this thread) while the letter the FBI proposed to show (IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS) required two pages to complete. These are nuances that you're evading that address the open question about whether Harry Dean tended to write to the FBI using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

That continues to be my position, too, Harry. Americans can expect to see a major shift in JFK research in 2017 when the FBI finally releases its files on Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, I believe American culture will change noticeably. Many of the books published about the JFK assassination today continue to be defenses of the Lone Nut theory -- and this completely contradicts the findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA, 1979, which is the latest and most official conclusion of the US government, anyway), or else they propose wild speculations about LBJ or Nixon or Bush -- based on the same sort of innuendo and lack of eye-witness guesswork that condemned Lee Harvey Oswald. We are only two days away from the anniversary date of the 50th anniversay of the JFK assassination, Harry. You and I gave it out best shot to tell your eye-witness account about Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination on Smashwords at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/367550 However, we didn't even sell enough copies to buy a single airplane ticket to Dallas for the JFK convention. Oh, well, we tried. After our exercise this year, I now appreciate the sort of suppression that you've lived under for 48 years, trying to break your ties with the FBI (which some people consider the American Gestapo), who are experts in disinformation, character assassination, illegal phone and wire-tapping, and other shameful practices that embarrass this great nation. All I can say is that we tried. The event in Dallas in two more days promises to be a sell-out event. We can bet that Mark Lane will be there, along with Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Lamar Waldron, Anthony Summers, David Lifton, James DiEugenio -- and on the opposing side, perhaps Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and Bill O'Reilly. Because coverage is likely to be heavy, we'll probably be able to catch highlights on Youtube. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

John, any allusion to Hegelian dialectics should grasp its basics. It is proposed as a formal system of logic. I'm a student of formal logic of the kind proposed by Bertrand Russell.and developed by others such as Quine, C. Lewis, Goedel, Kripke, D. Lewis and Priest, in varieties such as normal modal logic, intuitionist logic and first degree entailment. Hegelian dialectics is approached in a formal field known as fuzzy logic -- which has its own rules, axioms and paradoxes. It isn't related to Marxism, although non-experts tend to presume that it is. Scholars know that Marx rejected Hegel's dialectics, and said he would "turn Hegel on his head." Marx was against everything that Hegel stood for, including private property, Christianity and the Free Republic. So, there's no "magic thinking" in Hegelian dialectics -- as least as far as scholars are concerned. It's really a matter of nuances -- of avoiding the simple-minded method of Either/Or thinking that leads to extremism. It is true that my background in Hegelian dialectics makes all the works of Marx (translated into English) seem simple as pie, and I can tell at a glance that Lee Harvey Oswald was not really a Marxist (and that Ernie Lazar is an amateur when it comes to Marxist theory), It is equally true that Marxism strikes me as muddle-headed nonsense, and any Communist experiment is always doomed to failure (e.g. the USSR). The pathos of the 20th century is that the reasonable opposition to Communism grew so feverish that it spawned such monsters as Adolf Hitler and other fascists, and gave them a voice in the technological age. You and I did agree that the radical right-wing is the likely the root of the JFK assassination. I don't think we had much more to talk about though, so this dig about magical thinking is puzzling. Did you want to start up another conversation with me? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, whatever your opinions, there is no excuse for this sort of insult. Sincerely, --Paul

And if they don't "become available" (i.e. none are found), then won't your explanation be that the files were tampered with and/or purged? Incidentally, it is important for everyone to remember that (as Paul has admitted) Harry Dean was not writing "a history" of the events which he claims took place. Instead, the Dean/Trejo eBook is a memoir. Like ALL memoirs, the events discussed are merely subjective personal recollections. There are no footnotes, no bibliographic references, no specific paper trail which can be followed to verify anything contained in the eBook. A relevant observation about memoirs comes from Gore Vidal: “A memoir is how one remembers one’s own life, while an autobiography is history, requiring research, dates, facts double-checked” —from Palimpsest by Gore Vidal (Penguin, 1996). There are sections of "Harry's" eBook memoir which, stylistically, sound entirely like the words and thoughts of Paul Trejo (not Harry). Lastly, the final pages of the eBook which propose the "reasons" why the Warren Commission supposedly "covered-up" the real culprits and "allow[ed] the guilty individuals to walk free" is so preposterous that no serious student of 1960's history could possibly believe what is presented. I am referring to this section: "If most Americans in 1964 had learned that the John Birch Society, the Minutemen and other right-wing radicals had killed JFK, they most likely would have attacked the Birchers and the Minutemen with violence. The Minutemen would then defend themselves with their ample stockpiles of armaments. An American Civil War would have started in the middle of the global Cold War, and then things would really have spun out of control. Obviously the USSR would have been tempted to support the liberal forces, and then millions of Americans would have responded by joining the Birchers and Minutemen to oppose the USSR, thus igniting World War III. At that point, nuclear war would have become a reality." First of all, the overwhelming majority of Minutemen and JBS members never publicly declared themselves as members -- so one wonders how any such mob action could take place, i.e. how an outraged American citizenry would choose their targets? Second, the FBI had a program designed to track all persons known or suspected to represent a threat to our national security during time of national emergency. Those individuals would be apprehended by the thousands (just as occurred during World War II). Based upon public polling during the 1960's, it is clear that the vast majority of Americans had a very low opinion of the JBS -- just like most Americans currently totally reject white supremacists and neo-nazis and various religious cults along with radical left groups. ANY outbreak of violence would have been suppressed by overwhelming governmental force (National Guard if necessary). Strict curfews would have been enforced -- as often happens when there have been natural disasters (like Katrina) or civil disturbances (such as race riots during the 1960's). At its peak, the Minutemen counted about 2800 people as "members" -- although some of those people were listed as members simply because they had made literature requests to MM leader Robert DePugh. No group of 2800 people spread across the entire U.S. could threaten the combined law enforcement resources of state and federal government. There would be no "civil war" because Americans are not forgiving of people who engage in violence. Anything that happened would be treated for what it was -- i.e. criminal acts by a small group of malcontents. Ernie, I don't know why you're so heavy-handed and so eager to smash down the personal eye-witness of Harry Dean. If I were to make a guess based on impressions, I'd say that you're dramatizing being an FBI Agent; taking over where SAC James Hosty left off. You also seem to be beating a drum for the FBI, and in this Forum that suggests that you accept what J. Edgar Hoover wrote as read. Yet Hoover was flawed in several ways. His attacks on Martin Luther King cannot be justified. His treatment of Lee Harvey Oswald must be corrected by history in order for justice to prevail. Harry Dean is perhaps our last living witness of the excesses of J. Edgar Hoover in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I think that his story has historical merit -- although a single part-time writer such as myself is no match for the bureaucratic mountain that confronts such a mammoth task. My co-authorship of Harry Dean's eBook amounts to a finger pointing at the moon. We started in April of this year to gather this information together, and we gave it out best shot. I'm convinced it's the best statement of Harry Dean's case yet written. (It's a hundred times better than the treatment given by W.R. Morris.) But Ernie, your attacks on Harry Dean appear to be official -- as if you're working for the FBI. Are you, Ernie? Are you working for the FBI? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, You want more direct quotations, Ernie? OK, here goes. About one month ago you challenged my story about Harry Dean in a thread about Billy James Hargis. Here is the URL. http://thislandpress.com/11/02/2012/the-strange-love-of-dr-billy-james-hargis/?read=complete In that thread you said, and I quote: "I have copies of annual Inspection Reports which were made of the Los Angeles field office...Once again, significantly, there is NOTHING in those Inspection Reports which mention any informant(s) inside the Birch Society or which even suggest that the Los Angeles field office was interested in infiltrating the JBS. I also have the personnel file of the SAC of the Los Angeles field office...There is NOTHING in the SAC personnel file about Dean or ANY informant inside the JBS! The utter, total, complete absence of ANY documentation is what proves, beyond dispute, that Dean is lying." You also added, and I quote" "Those of us who have spent decades obtaining FBI files -- particularly FBI informant files -- know that there are many different ways to find data about the FBI's informants...Significantly, there is NOTHING in ANY FBI file which supports Dean's claims. NOTHING!" So, in this recent post you publicly accused Harry Dean of lying. Yet even in the short space of the month since that post, you have found more information about Harry Dean from the FBI. Yet you continue to minimize the new evidence, instead of admitting you were mistaken, and instead of apologizing to Harry Dean for your unkind words. Puh-leeze. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, here is the main weakness in your FOIA request as you have described it to the Forum: This particular FOIA request is a "Public Interest Disclosure" [PID] which applies to files of a person who is living who refuses to submit an affidavit granting permission for the public to see their FBI records. Now, by definition, you must somehow explain to the FBI how the "public interest" should compel the FBI to grant you access to files that are currently closed to you -- because the alleged 'public interest' outweighs the personal privacy of Harry Dean. Do you really suppose you can make that case, Ernie? Do you really think that the FBI would give you access to files by overriding the privacy rights of an American citizen, just because you want to see them? What possible justification can somebody present in the "public interest" to see the FBI files on Harry Dean? I realize that other people have been able to make that case -- Jim Garrison for example, or a Senate Subcommittee -- somebody who claims to speak for the public interest. But how do you, Ernie Lazar, speak for the public interest? It seems obvious that you don't speak for the public interest at all -- you speak only for your own private interest. So, how can your private interest override the private interest of Harry Dean? On what grounds? You have produced no grounds in your "full disclosure" memo to the Forum, and therefore your case is WEAK and stumbling. I hereby predict that the FBI will soundly deny your request, being generally reasonable (with rare exceptions, as in the case of JFK assassination). Please let us know the moment that the FBI responds to your FOIA request, Ernie. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Ernie, you actually had an opportunity here to be gentle and polite to Harry Dean and ask him politely for an affidavit, instead of coming out like a Stormtrooper in 1939. I predict that the FBI will reject your FOIA request because your justification is weak. (It truly is). As for your notion that the FBI may have transferred "all Dean-related files to NARA," that is wishful thinking on your part. You want to block out of your mind the very real possibility that some of Harry Dean's files have become combined with Lee Harvey Oswald's files, and therefore are classified as Top Secret. Go ahead and dream on. The whole world will know in 2017. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, way back in June, 2010, you came onto this thread and this was your conclusion: "It is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his FBI association in order to inflate his credentials." Do you still stand by that flimsy claim today, or are you willing to admit you were wrong? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Actually, Ernie, this document is alluded to in the eBook that Harry and I published four weeks ago at Smashwords.com (namely, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK). I do appreciate that you confirmed for everybody that Harry Dean's story is accurate and can be documented quite well. Also, I appreciate that you explained to us what "Inv RA" means. Yet you're quite mistaken in your hopes that this is part of a "smear" campaign against Harry Dean. On the contrary. This is a legitimate OSI report showing that Air Force Intelligence was interested in Harry Dean. (So, Harry is far from the certified criminal merely annoying the FBI as you've implied.) Harry explains this OSI interest in the context of his Cuba/FPCC/Castro days. Harry, like many Americans, including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, even Jack Ruby, David Ferrie and E. Howard Hunt, were involved in supporting Castro in 1959. All of these people eventually came to realize that they had been fooled by Castro's movement, and that they were suddenly surrounded by Communists. Harry, who chose to remain in the FPCC and funnel information to the FBI, was investigated for that very fact -- in other words -- why was he stil a Secretary of the FPCC in 1961? It was a matter of National Security, of course, and yet we have ample evidence that Harry was reporting his activities to the FBI, and not serving the Communist cause -- as one might immediately expect. Contrast this with Lee Harvey Oswald, who was a fake officer in a fake FPCC organization in New Orleans. It was documented - even by a Senate Subcommittee - that Harry Dean was a Secretary of the FPCC, and actually, Harry wanted very much to testify before that Committee to help them bring down the FPCC. Events failed to work out that way because US Agencies share information poorly, so there was a lot of confusion about Harry's role. This confusion persists today, Ernie, and you're part of it. As for Harry's alleged alias as Robert Baker, I do recall in my notes that Harry told me he'd used various aliases for various tasks because he was operating underground with armed militants, and he sometimes needed to remain undercover. (Loran Hall and Larry Howard, for example, used aliases in their work against Fidel Castro as well). So, calm down, Ernie. Once again the FBI data you provided makes a stronger case for Harry Dean and a weaker case for the critics. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, Once again, by the numbers: (3) You rely too much on DECLASSIFIED FBI files to make your point. You don't give enough weight to the fact that there remain CLASSIFIED FBI files that are now fifty years old. Let's get down to brass tacks here -- what about the FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald? You can pile up thousands of DECLASSIFIED FBI folders before me, and I won't be impressed at all -- the only thing that will impress me is showing me FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald that remain CLASSIFIED after half a century. If you can do that, I'm prepared to admit that I was wrong and you were right. But you can't. The actual relevance of the many FBI documents about Harry Dean is that some of them will certainly involve Lee Harvey Oswald. You don't know what the FBI has about Lee Harvey Oswald, Ernie, so why do you casuallly imply that all your FOIA requests have given you enough information to draw a conclusion here? Nobody can see all those files, so nobody can see all the empirical evidence, and so nobody can draw a conclusion. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, many FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald were obtained before the JFK assassination. Those are also CLASSIFIED by the FBI. So the time frame is less relevant -- the topic is most relevant. (8) So, yes, Ernie, I will acknowledge hard, non-contradictory proof when I see it. It's simply that you can't deliver it -- and you won't admit it. Lastly -- here's what I mean when I say that the FBI evidence about Harry Dean is contradictory; actually, Bill Kelly first suggested this: it's contradictory for the FBI to claim on the one hand that Harry Dean was told that he was not wanted as an informant (because of his past record), and yet on the other hand we have lots of FBI files showing that Harry Dean's information was accepted and recorded. That should make alarms go off for every reader. You may be the only one who fails to see the profound significance of that. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, (1) You shouldn't call someone a xxxx on the EF, according to John Simkin’s latest directive on that. I actually believe you're a likeable guy, but that you simply don't recognize just how emotional you appear. (2) Insofar as Hoover and the FBI officially rejected claims made by partisans that the Civil Rights movement was “Communist-inspired, -controlled or -dominated", we strive in vain to understand why J. Edgar Hoover spent years persecuting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for his leading role in that same Civil Rights movement! Hoover's persecution of MLK is well-documented, so there is no use in denying it. (3) Insofar as you admit that the FBI has “mechanisms” to keep files separate from the NORMAL system, I don’t see why you don’t take the next step and honestly admit that you have no clue in the world what those “mechanisms” might be. Or do you suppose they are as simple as marking a folder, ‘Top Secret?’ In fact, I’m the guy who’s interested in a principled and frank discussion with those who dispute my theory, while you seem to be the guy who emotionally explodes whenever somebody disagrees with you. Yes, you know more about the FBI than anybody I ever met – but I don't know that many people. Yet lacking the full body of FBI information, you still behave as though you can draw sharp conclusions. You don't mind putting other people down, clearly, but if somebody puts you down you explode. You can’t have it both ways. (4) As for my work with Harry Dean, we started back in April of this year, attempting to publish in October, in time for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination party in Dallas. In those few months I had only enough time to interview Harry. That's why I didn’t present Harry’s memoirs as a historical document, but as the more popular style of a ‘Confessions’ document. Clearly, lots more work should be done for Harry Dean, but I'm only one guy. As I’ve often said here, I appreciate your posting these FBI documents, because I hadn’t seen most of them, and they tend to corroborate Harry Dean’s story in unexpected ways. Although you keep attacking Harry’s account based on some of these documents, your reading is biased and one-sided; you’re not being objective. So it will take more time to obtain an objective reading for the public. (5) thru (7) You call me pig-headed, and claim that I ‘never had the common sense’ to do this or that, and you apparently don’t see that you’re insulting somebody in public. Well, if that’s the way you want to play the game, Ernie, that’s your choice. Yet if you’d calm down, and edit your work before you post it to the EF, your posts would most likely be shorter and more polite – and therefore more useful to everybody. (8) Ernie, you’ve done a lot of good work by obtaining FBI documents using FOIA requests, and you deserve credit for that. Yet my position in defense of Harry Dean is reasonable – I only demand to see hard (non-contradictory) proof of any claims made against his integrity or his eye-witness. You cast aspersions on Harry’s story, but your evidence is self-contradictory. These FBI documents so far support my case better than they support your case. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Bill, this document is becoming increasingly important in these discussions. Do you recall your source for your copy of this document? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I’ll answer by numbers: 1. Your logic is flawed by one-sidedness. Most FBI documents are reliable, while some are not. In your hero-worship of the FBI, either one must accept it all, or accept none of it, and you offer no middle term. Thus your logic is flawed. 2. I don't operate by adapting a given FBI document to my theory – it is a matter of adapting all documents to LOGIC and REASON. If an FBI document fails to conform to REASON, then it is suspect, no matter if J. Edgar Hoover himself wrote it. The criterion of LOGIC and REASON is the simple criterion of Self-contradiction. If the FBI contradicts itself, then ON THAT POINT, they have shown a weakness. Very clear. 3. It is absurd to ask me to provide proof that the FBI has kept secrets from the public, since by definition FBI secrets are secret. I have no more access to FBI secrets than you do. I cannot make any determination about them, except that they EXIST. Now, Ernie, if you deny that the FBI has any secret files at all, then you are out of step with common sense. That’s all anyone can say. 4. Again, I was unaware of most of these FBI documents about Harry Dean until you presented them here on this Forum, Ernie. I have thanked you for sharing, and I continue to thank you for sharing. These are historical documents that will prove to be valuable in resolving the lingering mysteries of the JFK assassination 50 years ago. If you want further recognition for your tireless efforts in the mastery of FBI materials – mastery that rivals only FBI agents themselves -- I’m sure you will receive it in the future from others as well. 5. To answer your first direct question – no, I’ve never contacted anybody who has as extensive a knowledge of FBI filing practices as you, Ernie. 6. As for your next direct question – no, I’ve never contacted anybody with such expertise whether they know of any example of how FBI secrets are maintained. 7. As for your next direct question – no, I’ve never interviewed an FBI agent to ask about how FBI secrets are maintained, however, if I had, I am certain that no FBI agent would ever tell me if he or she knew. 8. As for your next direct question, yes, I have passed my theory by a professor of Cold War History, and he advised me to seek a publisher. I have a large body of facts at my disposal, and a large body of unfilled FOIA requests to NARA for film relating to resigned General Edwin Walker. The US government continues to keep secrets about General Walker and the assassination of JFK. That much is certain. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Harry, please hang in there as your case is being disputed once again. Now, Ernie is not alone in wondering whether the letter he posted -- allegedly by you to the Joe Pyne Show director -- was really your letter. Ernie posted a PDF of that file, but not everybody has easy access to large PDF documents. So, I'm typing the entire letter into this thread so that all EF readers can see that text. After you review this text, Harry, please tell the Forum whether you are the author of this letter, dated 10 December 1964. ------------------ BEGIN ALLEGED LETTER FROM HARRY DEAN TO JOE PYNE SHOW ---------------------- 18109 ATINA DR. LA PUENTE CALIF. DEC, 10 1964 THE DIRECTOR THE JOE PYNE SHOW CHANNEL 11 KTTV HOLLYWOOD 28 CALIF. DEAR SIR, HERE ARE SOME DETAILS OF MY ASSOCIATIONS AS MENTIONED THIS DAY VIA OUR PHONE CONVERSATION. ASSISTED CASTRO CUBANS IN CHICAGO ILINOIS, WITH MONEY, ARMS, LATE 1957. SAME AGAIN IN 1958. GAINED MANY FRIENDS IN 26th OF JULY MOVEMENT IN U.S. FOR SUCH ASSISTANCE. WAS FULLY FOR THE CAUSE OF DEFEATING BATISTA AFTER HEARING THE HORRORS OF HIS REGIME AS DESCRIBED BY HIS PEOPLE. 1959 MORE HELP IN MONEY, SYMPATHY. JOINED IN MEETING OF 26th. MET CUBAN COUNCIL IN CHICAGO. BECAME GOOD FRIENDS. WAS ASKED TO WRITE CASTRO'S CHIEF DIRECTOR DR. JUAN A. ORTA HAVANA. DID SO. RECEIVED LETTER RETURN. MORE INSPIRED TO HELP REVOLUCION. 1960 MORE ACTIVITY IN SAME AREA. PRESS ACCUSED US OF COMMUNIST TIES. THOUGHT OBVIOUSLY WRONG. 26th ASKED ME TO VISIT CUBA. I DID SO IN JUNE 1960, GOT RED CARPET TREATMENT MUCH SURPRISED. VISITED ABOUT COUNTRY. MET SEVERAL TOP CATS IN REVOLUTIONARY GOV. HAD LENGHTY MEETING WITH SAME. RETURNED TO CHICAGO WITH LETTER FROM ORTA TO COUNCIL IN CHICAGO. SOON RECRUITED INTO FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE BEGINNING TO ORGANIZE IN CHICAGO. ELECTED SECRETARY AT SECOND MEETING BECAUSE I WAS SUCH A LOUD SUPPORTER OF CASTRO. ASSIGNED PROPAGANDA WORK, FOUND BOOKS IN FAIR PLAY LITERATURE I WAS TO DROP IN VARIOUS PLACES AND MAIL OUT, NAMED, "COMMUNISM IN AMERICA!" MUCH DISILLUSIONED, REPORTED TO 26th [ABOUT] COMMUNISTS IN OUR MOVEMENT. THOSE FRIENDS OF LONG STANDING SAID IS OK. EVERYONE NEEDED TO HELP REVOLUCION. WAS COMPLETELY SHOCKED. ASKED FEDERAL BUREAU RE: SOME OF THESE PEOPLE. THEY ASK IF I WOULD PASS INFO TO THEM. AFTER DISCUSSION, WAS HAPPY TO DO SO WHERE FPCC WAS CONCERNED. THEN FOUND MANY CUBAN FRIENDS LIKED AND TOOK ORDERS FROM LOCAL COMMUNISTS. I TURNED AGAINST THEM BUT STAYED ON INSIDE TO GAIN INFO ON ALL ACTIVITIES, WAS SUCCESSFUL, AS LATER HEARINGS SHOW BY US SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE OF 1961 JUNE. IN MANY DEMONSTRATIONS SOME BLOODY A6 PEOPLE OBJECTED BUT MANY JOINED FPCC. MET MOST OF THE LEADERS OF FPCC FRONT FROM ALL OVER NATION: GIBSON, WILLIAMS, TABER AND OTHERS. AS TRUSTED FRIEND OF THE REVOLUCION TOLD 26th THE TRACTORS WERE METALURGICALLY DEFECTIVE, CASTRO DROPPED DEAL. IN 1961 WAS SENT TO JOIN ANTI-CASTRO ORG IN CHICAGO TO GAIN INFO FOR 26th OF JULY MOVEMENT RE: PRE-INVASION PLANS. MOVED TO DETROIT. JOINED NEWLY FORMING FPCC. GOT LOWDOWN ON THEM. GAVE TO FED. MOST FPCC PEOPLE HAD BEEN TO SEE CASTRO THEN STARTED FRONTS WHEN RETURNED TO U.S. WAS MADE OFFICIAL MEMBER OF THE 26th WITH CARD AS REWARD FOR ALL EFFORTS AS TRUSTED FRIEND OF REVOLUCION, ETC. MANY MORE DETAILS. ABOVE NOT IN ORDER AS TO TIME OF EVENTS. FBI SAID, "BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER INFORMANT JOB SEEN." WAS GREAT REWARD TO ME TO WORK AGAINST ENEMIES OF MY AMERICA. HAVE MANY DOCUMENTS TO VERIFY, ENCLOSED STATEMENTS. VERY SINCERELY HARRY DEAN ------------------ END ALLEGED LETTER FROM HARRY DEAN TO JOE PYNE SHOW ------------------------- I do notice, Harry, that the content of this letter is substantially like the information in Section 2 of our eBook, "Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK." Please let us know if you were the one who actually wrote this letter. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, you're mistaken -- you really do rely on the honesty of the FBI. You take what they write as GIVEN and you go from there. Your critical faculties are suspended when you recite their memoranda. As for my argument that the FBI treatment of the JFK assassination is an EXCEPTION, it is a logical, rational argument that you continually evade. You call it an "escape hatch" only because you have no logical reply. This is a viable argument -- and you know it's correct. The FBI continues to keep Lee Harvey Oswald files hidden from the public view, even though he's been DEAD for 50 years, and poses no threat to anybody. The FBI is clearly hiding something, and your faith in them amounts to "relying on their honesty." Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, you should really work harder on your personal charm. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, the document that Harry Dean published in Crosstrails in 1990 was REDACTED. It was not the full letter. I don't know where Harry got it, just as I don't know where Bill Kelly got his copy. I only know that they have exactly the same CONTENT and exactly the same REDACTIONS. I realize that you want to be more careful at this point, Ernie, because the very fact that the FBI appears to have THREE different versions of the same letter may be as puzzling to you as it is to the rest of us. As for myself, I realize that I am relying entirely on the honesty of Harry Dean -- he tells me that the letter he published in 1990 is the original letter (except for the REDACTIONS) and I believe him. Taking that as my premise, I must conclude -- obviously -- that the FBI version which is typed in all CAPS with 500 extra words is a forgery. There is no other conclusion that ordinary common sense can make, given my premise. Now, do I believe that the FBI was, in your words, "so incredibly inept and stupid that they would manufacture two letters which could easily be proven to be fraudulent"? Well, I wouldn't use those words, but I do believe that the FBI was not above bending the law if it served J. Edgar Hoover somehow. Experts in the law know best how to bend it. If (and only if) the FBI forged this 750 word memo in the name of Harry Dean, then they must have believed: (1) they were doing the right thing; (2) they could get away with it; (3) most people would just take them at their word since they were the FBI; and (4) even if Harry produced the original letter, the FBI would deny it and call Harry a xxxx, a crook, a madman, and so on, and the public would believe the FBI and not Harry. I don't believe that the FBI has ever admitted to telling a lie, Ernie. Yet I continue to believe that the FBI are no better or worse than ordinary people -- so they would lie to protect their own. Again, Ernie, normal FBI procedures are also in doubt here, because the JFK assassination is a special case, and the classified nature of all JFK threads were treated specially. So you cannot continue to appeal to ordinary FBI procedure here. We must keep digging and hope that the FBI (or somebody) slips up so that we can finally discern the truth. In other words, the only solution is to obtain more FBI records on Harry Dean, and subject them to detailed scrutiny. So far, the FBI isn't looking as good as its fan club would like. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I know that many people on EF have a copy of Harry Dean's self-published 1990 manuscript, Crosstrails, so they were able to follow my comparison more closely than others. The fact that others don't have a copy should not delay my comparison for those who do. A solution to offer Harry's personal documents online to the public must, of course, be presented to Harry and approved by Harry. (1) Still, I'll make an effort to describe what Harry published. It is a Xerox copy of a single page (or perhaps I should say a half-page) letter to J. Edgar Hoover. It is dated 19 November 1963, and it is signed by Harry Dean. J. Edgar Hoover's address is at the top left, while Harry's address is in the top right. The letter is typed in sentence case, which is to be distinguished from upper case, which means ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, which is the style that the FBI used in its version of this same letter. Furthermore, about 1/3 of this letter is "redacted," which is FBI lingo for "blacked out" or "censored" or "classified." In FBI memos we commonly see, this is usually done for the names of individuals or personal places or personal numbers that retain privacy rights. (2) The reason that I refer to the memo supplied by Bill Kelly in post #153 of this thread is because the memo Bill supplied contains exactly the same content as the memo that Harry Dean published in his 1990 Crosstrails. As I understand it, Bill Kelly obtained a copy of Harry Dean's memo -- I don't know his source; perhaps it was the FBI -- and he kindly typed in the entire memo for EF readers. (Bill, would you kindly tell us the source of the letter that you typed in post #153 for the Forum?) Thanks to Bill and to you, Ernie, every EF reader has access to the CONTENT of all three memo versions that have been published. They are, to the very best of my knowledge today: (I) the original, 250 word memo that Harry himself typed on 19 November 1963 to J. Edgar Hoover; (ii) the suspect, 750 word memo typed by the FBI entirely in upper case; and (iii) the shorter, half-page excerpt of that 750 word memo, also presented by the FBI, with several ellipses in it. Bear in mind that I still haven't drawn a final conclusion about all this -- yet my current thinking is that the FBI is lying, scheming, plotting and FORGING documents to make Harry Dean look bad. I'm looking forward to new information and insights as they may become available from readers who are courteous, considerate and fair-minded. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, the case is far from closed. I found a ton of discrepancies comparing the FBI memo that you shared with the letter of the same date that Harry Dean published publicly in 1990 (which is the same as the FBI memo that Bill Kelly shared with us last week in post #253). There is only one letter that Harry Dean sent to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963, and there are so many differences that they cannot both be the real letter. Let's take a good look. Point 1: The original memo by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover was written in sentence case, that is, it was not all UPPER CASE or CAPITAL LETTERS. This is a MAJOR difference. Therefore, the first item to notice is that this memo that Ernie Lazar kindly provided to us from the Mary Ferrell website was typed by the FBI and not by Harry Dean. Point 2: Harry Dean's memo as published in his CROSSTRAILS manuscript/book on page 31 of chapter 2, is heavily redacted using a heavy black marker. So I will only be able to (i) compare the words we can read; and (ii) estimate a word count for the words that we cannot read. Point 3: I compared the word count of words we can read in both. In the FBI memo we can read ~750 words. In Harry Dean's published memo, we can read ~175 words. That's a very wide margin, but we should now count, by approximation, the blacked-out words. Point 4: To count words that are entirely blacked out, I estimated ten words per line (the average number of words in a line that we can fully read in Harry's letter) and approximately 5.5 inches per line. I measured approximately 40 inches of blanked out words, giving an approximate count of ~75 blacked out words. That is not precise, but given the circumstances, one is unlikely to find a hugely different count by some other measurement. Point 5: Adding 175 readable words to 75 blanked-out words will total 250 words in Harry Dean's original memo to J. Edgar Hoover. Here is a MAJOR difference: the FBI proposes that Harry Dean wrote a memo of about 750 words, and Harry Dean claims that he wrote a memo of about 250 words. This immediately suggests that somebody is lying. It is now possible that the FBI added 500 words to Harry's original memo, MINIMUM. I say MINIMUM, because I don't yet know how much of Harry's original memo the FBI actually left intact. Point 6: In the text that follows I will trace the 25 lines of Harry Dean's version of his memo. FIRST LINE: The FBI version has three words and a number before the number, 1960. Harry Dean's version has one word before the number, 1960. SECOND LINE: The FBI version follows the words, "FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE" with "AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME." Harry Dean's version omits that second clause. THIRD LINE: Harry's version has the phrase, "local Chicago office of the Bureau." The FBI version lacks that phrase. FOURTH LINE: Harry's version has the phrase, "present assignments." The FBI version lacks that phrase. FIFTH LINE: Harry's version of the 5th line is entirely blacked out. SIXTH LINE: Harry's version of the 6th line uses the phrase, "has this information." The FBI version lacks that phrase. SEVENTH LINE: Harry's version of the 7th line uses the phrase, "undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago". The FBI version lacks anything like that phrase. EIGHTH LINE: Harry's version of the 8th line reads, "done in June 1961 because Eastland's Committee was issuing", while the FBI version lacks anything like that text. NINTH LINE: Harry's version of the 9th line reads, "subpoenas to hold hearings on the Fair Play for", while the FBI version lacks anything like that text. TENTH LINE: Harry's version of the 10th line reads, "Cuba Communists and the 26th of July Movement [REDACTED]." The FBI version lacks anything like that text. ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH LINES: Harry's 11th and 12th lines are almost entirely blacked out - except for the phrase "moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time", while the FBI version lacks any strings matching that text. THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH LINES: Harry's 13th and 14th lines begin with three inches of blanked-out text, and then reads, "I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports". However, the FBI version lacks any four sequential words from that phrase. FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH LINES: Harry's 15th and 16th lines contain the phrase, "making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] limiting my effectiveness". However, the FBI version lacks any three sequential words from that phrase. SEVENTEENTH THROUGH NINETEENTH LINES: Harry's 17th, 18th and 19th lines read almost in full, "name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee's report no. 96465 part 2 pages 84 & 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level". Finally we have a partial match with the FBI document. In this case the FBI semi-matching lines read as follows: "THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT NO. 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE)." We can see that 18 words match in the same sequence, yet another 18 words clearly fail to match. Insofar as this is an alteration of Harry's original memo, it should cause alarms to go off. TWENTIETH THROUGH TWENTY-SECOND LINES: Harry's 20th, 21st and 22nd lines are partly redacted, but read, "[REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure, live to regret this fact." Again we have a partial match with the FBI document. In this case the FBI semi-matching lines read as follows: "BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD." Again, we can see that 11 words match in sequence, but another 16 words fail to match. Again, one may argue that the FBI has altered Harry's text. TWENTY-THIRD THROUGH TWENTY-FIFTH LINES: Harry's 23rd, 24th and 25th lines are almost entirely blanked-out, except for this phrase, "that you will see to this urgent matter." For the first time we have a very close match as the FBI document reads, "IT IS MY PRAYER THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS. Point 7: Of course, we cannot comment on the blanked-out lines of Harry's memo, except to say that there are only about 75 words blanked out, and the FBI has at least 500 additional words to account for. In conclusion, given that Harry Dean is telling the truth, then the FBI has clearly forged this document that Ernie Lazar presents as a "case closed." This is what I meant when I said last week (when Bill Kelley shared Harry Dean's original memo with the Forum) that there is a "divergence" early in the memo that does not seem to return. In my results tonight, I find that fewer than 50 words match in sequence between the two memos. That is, the FBI must account for about 700 words that they present as Harry Dean's writing, which Harry Dean today denies is his writing. It therefore appears to me that the FBI has conducted a well-orchestrated smear campaign against Harry Dean regarding Harry Dean's claims about the JFK assassination. The FBI has not only accused Harry Dean of being "certified insane" and "committed" with a criminal record (i.e. all together that means 'criminally insane,' which is folly to anybody who knows Harry Dean), but they have evidently, by Harry Dean's claim this week -- put up to 700 words into Harry Dean's mouth, in order to influence gullible readers to regard Harry's witness as a "case closed." Regards, --Paul Trejo