HARRY J. DEAN

[John Dolva]

Thank you, Michael. One can but try.

[William Kelly]

Greg: I let this comment by you in message #107 pass without appropriate comment:

"On that note, see the attached documument which shows a JBS member helping the FBI out in a COINTELPRO operation against the New Left."

(1) First, the document you scanned refers to a person who "reportedly" was a "supporter" of the JBS. You then changed "supporter" to "JBS member" in your message to me. [incidentally, we have no way of knowing the quality of the information characterized as "reportedly" in the memo you scanned -- which you inflated into a definite conclusion and which you further inflated from supporter to member.]

(2) Second, the field office was requesting permission from HQ to use this person to distribute some leaflets. But you don't tell us what reply was sent by HQ.

(3) Third, you declare from your data fragments that this "shows a JBS member helping the FBI out in a COINTELPRO operation against the New Left". But what this actually "shows" is how you take two bits of information and combine them with your assumptions to produce a result.

Let me give you a better example from an actual COINTELPRO file:

In December 1964, SAC Little Rock contacted HQ to request permission to send a letter to JBS HQ as though it was coming from someone who was interested in joining the JBS in Pine Bluff, Arkansas but this fictitious person expressed concern about the type of "riffraff that is leading your chapter in Pine Bluff…The leader of the chapter in Pine Bluff, Billy R. Von Tungelin, 2512 North Lane, is one of the most avid KKK members in Pine Bluff. Bill is more interested in the KKK and using the JBS for the benefit of the KKK. As a result, most of the men in the Pine Bluff chapter of the JBS are KKK members and the KKK members completely operate the JBS chapter.” See HQ file 157-9-25, serial #17, 12/18/64

SAC Little Rock received permission from HQ to send the letter which was intended to use the JBS to dissolve one of its chapters which actually was a KKK-front.

When you say "...Bill is more interested in the KKK and using the JBS for the benefit of the KKK..." you are not talking about me, right? I am not interested in the KKK at all.

BK

[William Kelly]

Greg: I let this comment by you in message #107 pass without appropriate comment:

"On that note, see the attached documument which shows a JBS member helping the FBI out in a COINTELPRO operation against the New Left."

(1) First, the document you scanned refers to a person who "reportedly" was a "supporter" of the JBS. You then changed "supporter" to "JBS member" in your message to me. [incidentally, we have no way of knowing the quality of the information characterized as "reportedly" in the memo you scanned -- which you inflated into a definite conclusion and which you further inflated from supporter to member.]

(2) Second, the field office was requesting permission from HQ to use this person to distribute some leaflets. But you don't tell us what reply was sent by HQ.

(3) Third, you declare from your data fragments that this "shows a JBS member helping the FBI out in a COINTELPRO operation against the New Left". But what this actually "shows" is how you take two bits of information and combine them with your assumptions to produce a result.

Let me give you a better example from an actual COINTELPRO file:

In December 1964, SAC Little Rock contacted HQ to request permission to send a letter to JBS HQ as though it was coming from someone who was interested in joining the JBS in Pine Bluff, Arkansas but this fictitious person expressed concern about the type of "riffraff that is leading your chapter in Pine Bluff…The leader of the chapter in Pine Bluff, Billy R. Von Tungelin, 2512 North Lane, is one of the most avid KKK members in Pine Bluff. Bill is more interested in the KKK and using the JBS for the benefit of the KKK. As a result, most of the men in the Pine Bluff chapter of the JBS are KKK members and the KKK members completely operate the JBS chapter.” See HQ file 157-9-25, serial #17, 12/18/64

SAC Little Rock received permission from HQ to send the letter which was intended to use the JBS to dissolve one of its chapters which actually was a KKK-front.

When you say "Bill is more interested in the KKK..." you are not talking about me, right?

I am not interested in the KKK at all.

BK

[Ernie Lazar]

The reference to "Bill" is to the person identified in the proposed fake letter i.e. a local Klan member, Billy R. Van Tungelin.

Greg: I let this comment by you in message #107 pass without appropriate comment:

"On that note, see the attached documument which shows a JBS member helping the FBI out in a COINTELPRO operation against the New Left."

(1) First, the document you scanned refers to a person who "reportedly" was a "supporter" of the JBS. You then changed "supporter" to "JBS member" in your message to me. [incidentally, we have no way of knowing the quality of the information characterized as "reportedly" in the memo you scanned -- which you inflated into a definite conclusion and which you further inflated from supporter to member.]

(2) Second, the field office was requesting permission from HQ to use this person to distribute some leaflets. But you don't tell us what reply was sent by HQ.

(3) Third, you declare from your data fragments that this "shows a JBS member helping the FBI out in a COINTELPRO operation against the New Left". But what this actually "shows" is how you take two bits of information and combine them with your assumptions to produce a result.

Let me give you a better example from an actual COINTELPRO file:

In December 1964, SAC Little Rock contacted HQ to request permission to send a letter to JBS HQ as though it was coming from someone who was interested in joining the JBS in Pine Bluff, Arkansas but this fictitious person expressed concern about the type of "riffraff that is leading your chapter in Pine Bluff…The leader of the chapter in Pine Bluff, Billy R. Von Tungelin, 2512 North Lane, is one of the most avid KKK members in Pine Bluff. Bill is more interested in the KKK and using the JBS for the benefit of the KKK. As a result, most of the men in the Pine Bluff chapter of the JBS are KKK members and the KKK members completely operate the JBS chapter.” See HQ file 157-9-25, serial #17, 12/18/64

SAC Little Rock received permission from HQ to send the letter which was intended to use the JBS to dissolve one of its chapters which actually was a KKK-front.

When you say "...Bill is more interested in the KKK and using the JBS for the benefit of the KKK..." you are not talking about me, right? I am not interested in the KKK at all.

BK

[Greg Parker]

Greg: I let this comment by you in message #107 pass without appropriate comment:

"On that note, see the attached documument which shows a JBS member helping the FBI out in a COINTELPRO operation against the New Left."

(1) First, the document you scanned refers to a person who "reportedly" was a "supporter" of the JBS. You then changed "supporter" to "JBS member" in your message to me. [incidentally, we have no way of knowing the quality of the information characterized as "reportedly" in the memo you scanned -- which you inflated into a definite conclusion and which you further inflated from supporter to member.]

(2) Second, the field office was requesting permission from HQ to use this person to distribute some leaflets. But you don't tell us what reply was sent by HQ.

(3) Third, you declare from your data fragments that this "shows a JBS member helping the FBI out in a COINTELPRO operation against the New Left". But what this actually "shows" is how you take two bits of information and combine them with your assumptions to produce a result.

Let me give you a better example from an actual COINTELPRO file:

In December 1964, SAC Little Rock contacted HQ to request permission to send a letter to JBS HQ as though it was coming from someone who was interested in joining the JBS in Pine Bluff, Arkansas but this fictitious person expressed concern about the type of "riffraff that is leading your chapter in Pine Bluff…The leader of the chapter in Pine Bluff, Billy R. Von Tungelin, 2512 North Lane, is one of the most avid KKK members in Pine Bluff. Bill is more interested in the KKK and using the JBS for the benefit of the KKK. As a result, most of the men in the Pine Bluff chapter of the JBS are KKK members and the KKK members completely operate the JBS chapter.” See HQ file 157-9-25, serial #17, 12/18/64

SAC Little Rock received permission from HQ to send the letter which was intended to use the JBS to dissolve one of its chapters which actually was a KKK-front.

Ernie,

I have a few things to reply to you about but have lacked the time necessary to do so in the manner deserved. This however, I can address quickly. What your reply is an example of is your pedantry.

It matters not a whit if the person was a member, or just supporter of, the JBS. It is the ideas that they stand for which is the defining factor.

As for your comment on seeking permission - the Field Office would not be requesting such permission unless it believed it would be granted. The other point you raise is that the document only states the person is "reportedly" a supporter. All that indicates is that they did not know it from first hand knowledge; but probably through an informant, or wire tap etc. Their own description of the person however, certainly fits the Bircher profile, so whatever the source, it was no doubt accurate.

To put this in further persective, if this had been a "reported" supporter of say the CPUSA, I doubt very much that you'd be making the same argument.

[David Andrews]

Deleted for humanity's sake.

Edited July 4, 2010 by David Andrews

[Greg Parker]

David,

I have been tagged here in the past, and have happily put my hand up to that. But Ernie hasn't got what it takes to tag me. He is just a Hoover apologist who obviously has some empathy with Edgar's officiousness, pedantry and anal retentiveness.

Funny you should invoke Noli Me Tangere. In the early '90s, I wrote a humor column called Lancing Noli Me Tangere (based on its less well known meaning of "cancerous boil") for an in-house newsletter. Within that, I had a segment where I consulted world renowned chicken giblet reader, Madam McGurkenfarkle. Since you've reminded me of her, I decided to track her down. I found her in semi-retirement slinging gins in a Singapore flop and, after locating a no longer used set of giblets at a cock fight, once again took her counsel. Unfortunately she has taken to speaking in riddles.

Dirt for its own sake

Covered by phony security

Holds the key to what lies inside

the Association of the Blessed Tree

[Ernie Lazar]

Once again, Greg, you could not be more mistaken in your comments because, apparently, you have never reviewed actual FBI COINTELPRO files. I have dozens of them -- mostly pertaining to "Disruption of White Hate Groups" but I also have numerous such files pertaining to the CPUSA. On many occasions a field office would propose some COINTELPRO activity and HQ then denied permission.

Dr. John Drabble's doctoral dissertation was written about the FBI's COINTELPRO-White Hate Groups program and he discusses this in detail in his dissertation as well as in his articles which have been published in academic journals.

You are also wrong about the significance of the word "reportedly".

What that means in BureauSpeak is that they are relying upon UNEVALUATED raw data. Often that means somebody's personal opinion or speculation or bias -- but not hard or fact-based evidence.

For example: there is the famous memo where someone contacted the Bureau to speculate that John Wayne and Ronald Reagan might be members of a Beverly Hills chapter of the John Birch Society. That person's speculations would be characterized in an FBI memo as "reportedly". In reality, however, neither Wayne or Reagan was a JBS member.

There is also the example I previously discussed concerning several informants who "reported" a KKK "insurrection plot" involving Gen. Edwin A. Walker -- and the Bureau quickly determined that was false. [see HQ file 157-2138)

There is another famous example. It was alleged that Communist Chinese troops were in Mexico and poised to invade the United States. There are several FBI files which were opened to pursue this (See for example: Los Angeles 105-11625 and San Diego 105-4353). I will spare you all the details except to note that the Bureau spent considerable time and effort tracking down how this rumor originated and it was based upon what one person "reportedly" thought he saw during his vacation in Mexico.

Lastly, another famous example which resulted in a CBS News documentary plus entries into the Congressional Record by the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate. I am referring to "Operation Water Moccasin" which began with "reports" appearing in a Georgia newspaper and then escalated into a national controversy. For more details see:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hocOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=Operation+Water+Moccasin&source=bl&ots=A_4b96Ureb&sig=137Bb9jWOqLsuLJXmk412seu6A4&hl=en&ei=NDEvTMj6Bo3tngfV19CQBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Operation%20Water%20Moccasin&f=false

Lastly, you also could not be more mistaken with respect to your proposed analogy regarding what I would say if this pertained to someone identified as "reportedly" being a CPUSA member or supporter.

Greg, you are incredibly malicious in your statements about what I believe. I have spent my lifetime (and tens of thousands of dollars) disproving false allegations and insinuations about the purported "affiliations" of people who "reportedly" have been linked to the CPUSA.

There is a limit to my willingness to tolerate your absolute lies and libels about me. You just reached that limit. I will not respond further to your canards. You should be ashamed of yourself and what you think passes for rational discussion.

Greg: I let this comment by you in message #107 pass without appropriate comment:

"On that note, see the attached documument which shows a JBS member helping the FBI out in a COINTELPRO operation against the New Left."

(1) First, the document you scanned refers to a person who "reportedly" was a "supporter" of the JBS. You then changed "supporter" to "JBS member" in your message to me. [incidentally, we have no way of knowing the quality of the information characterized as "reportedly" in the memo you scanned -- which you inflated into a definite conclusion and which you further inflated from supporter to member.]

(2) Second, the field office was requesting permission from HQ to use this person to distribute some leaflets. But you don't tell us what reply was sent by HQ.

(3) Third, you declare from your data fragments that this "shows a JBS member helping the FBI out in a COINTELPRO operation against the New Left". But what this actually "shows" is how you take two bits of information and combine them with your assumptions to produce a result.

Let me give you a better example from an actual COINTELPRO file:

In December 1964, SAC Little Rock contacted HQ to request permission to send a letter to JBS HQ as though it was coming from someone who was interested in joining the JBS in Pine Bluff, Arkansas but this fictitious person expressed concern about the type of "riffraff that is leading your chapter in Pine Bluff…The leader of the chapter in Pine Bluff, Billy R. Von Tungelin, 2512 North Lane, is one of the most avid KKK members in Pine Bluff. Bill is more interested in the KKK and using the JBS for the benefit of the KKK. As a result, most of the men in the Pine Bluff chapter of the JBS are KKK members and the KKK members completely operate the JBS chapter.” See HQ file 157-9-25, serial #17, 12/18/64

SAC Little Rock received permission from HQ to send the letter which was intended to use the JBS to dissolve one of its chapters which actually was a KKK-front.

Ernie,

I have a few things to reply to you about but have lacked the time necessary to do so in the manner deserved. This however, I can address quickly. What your reply is an example of is your pedantry.

It matters not a whit if the person was a member, or just supporter of, the JBS. It is the ideas that they stand for which is the defining factor.

As for your comment on seeking permission - the Field Office would not be requesting such permission unless it believed it would be granted. The other point you raise is that the document only states the person is "reportedly" a supporter. All that indicates is that they did not know it from first hand knowledge; but probably through an informant, or wire tap etc. Their own description of the person however, certainly fits the Bircher profile, so whatever the source, it was no doubt accurate.

To put this in further persective, if this had been a "reported" supporter of say the CPUSA, I doubt very much that you'd be making the same argument.

[David Andrews]

Deleted for continuity's sake.

Edited July 5, 2010 by David Andrews

[Greg Parker]

David,

I have been tagged here in the past, and have happily put my hand up to that. But Ernie hasn't got what it takes to tag me. He is just a Hoover apologist who obviously has some empathy with Edgar's officiousness, pedantry and anal retentiveness.

Funny you should invoke Noli Me Tangere. In the early '90s, I wrote a humor column called Lancing Noli Me Tangere (based on its less well known meaning of "cancerous boil") for an in-house newsletter. Within that, I had a segment where I consulted world renowned chicken giblet reader, Madam McGurkenfarkle. Since you've reminded me of her, I decided to track her down. I found her in semi-retirement slinging gins in a Singapore flop and, after locating a no longer used set of giblets at a cock fight, once again took her counsel. Unfortunately she has taken to speaking in riddles.

Dirt for its own sake

Covered by phony security

Holds the key to what lies inside

the Association of the Blessed Tree

You dropped a "Noli" tag on me a couple months ago, which I kept in my LBJ-like vengeance coffers of memory (if that's actuallt syntax).

David,

I had to go back and check what you are talking about, and found this exchange:

David Andrews, on Apr 11 2010, 01:44 PM, said:

Clint Hill,

What are you up to?

Don't you know

What you saw

So close?

[my rresponse]

Mr David Andrews

lancing noli metangiere

is soft torture. CHill

-------------------------------

I don't know exactly how you took it, but I was paying a compliment. Regardless of what you think of me as a person or as a researcher, I'm a fan of your posts here.

What I meant by the above:

David Andrews,

[with what you have said] you are lancing the cancerous boil [of the assassination]

It is soft torture [a needed surgical operation]

CHill [= Clint Hill. Also a play on chill out. "Chill out" because the powers that be would rather see you sleeping or at least looking the other way]

Think I'll mosey on outside and eat me some worms now....

Edited July 3, 2010 by Greg Parker

[William Kelly]

I always thought there were a lot of similarities between what Harry Dean was doing and what Lee Harvey Oswald was doing back in 1963, especially in relation to their FPFF activities, the way they were engrossed with Cuba and communism and the governmnet files accumulated on what they were doing.

But I find almost identical language being used by Ernie in regards to Harry Dean and in the FBI's response to Dallas DA Henry Wade's assertion that Oswald was an FBI informant, and that he himself, Wade was an FBI agent who ran informants of which there were no records.

Does anybody else see a similarity in these denials or is it just me? - BK

In Warren Commission Volume XVII Current Section: CE 835 - Letter from the FBI to the Commission enclosing affidavit of J . Edgar Hoover, dated February 6, 1964.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1134&relPageId=840

Re: Wade allegation that Oswald an FBI informant and he previously supervised FBI informants with no records or receipts.

In his first post Ernie wrote:

A while back I was asked for information concerning Harry Dean who claims that he infiltrated the John Birch Society from 1962-1964 and that he was an informant for the FBI.

During my research into FBI HQ and field office files pertaining to the John Birch Society I received an FBI document which pertains to an inquiry about a column by James Horwitz on page 2 of the 3/16/77 issue of the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley News.

The Horwitz column reported upon an "exclusive interview" with Harry Dean during which Dean repeated his claims about his alleged association with the FBI as an undercover operative or informant from 1960-1965 (notice that in this interview, Dean changed the years to include 1965).

The Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI's Los Angeles field office (Robert E. Gebhardt) saw a copy of the Horwitz column because of an inquiry which he received about it. Gebhardt responded to the inquiry about Dean's assertions and he forwarded a copy of his 4/1/77 reply to James K. Coffin, the Publisher of the Las Virgenes Independent Valley News.

You may obtain a copy of the column, the inquiry, and the reply by requesting Los Angeles FBI field office file #100-59001, serial #1258.

Here is the pertinent excerpt:

"In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has never been an informant of this Bureau, and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society. I am bringing the above information your attention. You might consider furnishing this information to the readers of your column."

Since I have obtained the entire FBI HQ file on the John Birch Society (12,000 pages), as well as almost all of the FBI field office files on the JBS -- it seems very odd that there is no mention whatsoever of anybody who "infiltrated" the JBS at the request of the FBI.

More significantly, there is the matter of standard Bureau procedure regarding ALL prospective informants:

1. Standard Bureau procedure regarding field office interest in using informants of any kind was that the field office had to submit a detailed investigative report about the proposed informant.

2. In addition, the informant was placed in probationary status until it could be determined whether or not the informant was providing useful and reliable information. Field offices prepared periodic summaries of the information which every informant provided.

3. Furthermore, any expenses incurred by informants (such as travel, purchasing literature, attending conferences etc) were itemized and requests for reimbursement were routinely submitted to HQ for approval (or rejection).

4. Any other monies paid to an informant also had to be explicitly approved by HQ.

5. Any verbal reports by informants were converted into typewritten memoranda summarizing what information they provided. Those written reports were placed into the files of the subjects they discussed (along with cross-referenced copies in other pertinent files).

6. I might also add that standard Bureau procedure regarding its informants was to provide a factual summary of their status. For example, here is the summary which the Bureau routinely sent out when people inquired about Julia Brown, an FBI informant within the Communist Party who subsequently became a Birch Society member and paid speaker under the auspices of its American Opinion Speakers Bureau:

"Concerning Mrs. Julia Brown, she furnished information on subversive activities to the FBI on a confidential basis from 1951 to 1960. Although she was not an employee of this Bureau, she was compensated for her services. Her current views are strictly her own and do not represent the FBI in any way." [HQ 62-104401-2499, 4/24/65]. THERE IS NO COMPARABLE STATEMENT REGARDING HARRY J DEAN!

Given everything I have mentioned above, I would bring everyone's attention to the following facts:

1. There is no record of any kind whatsoever in any FBI HQ or field office file that Harry Dean ever was even considered as an informant much less accepted as one.

2. No official investigation of the JBS was ever opened by the FBI. There was a preliminary inquiry during 1959 and 1960 -- but once it was established that the JBS was an anti-communist organization which did not advocate or participate in criminal or subversive activities, there was no reason to "infiltrate" it.

3. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever concerning payments made to any "informant" within the JBS for expenses of any kind.

4. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever reflecting continuing periodic reports (verbal or written) by a specific "informant" whom the FBI authorized to "infiltrate" the JBS

Since I have acquired numerous FBI files on actual informants it authorized to infiltrate both legitimate and subversive organizations -- and I am, therefore, intimately familiar with the type of data contained in such files -- it is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his "FBI" association in order to inflate his credentials.

Furthermore, Harry Dean is on record stating that former FBI Special Agents Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen were "members" of the Birch Society. But that is a total falsehood. Neither Smoot or Skousen joined the JBS. They did, however, support the JBS and both spoke at JBS functions or wrote for JBS publications.

Edited July 4, 2010 by William Kelly

[David Andrews]

Obviously a tempest in a teapot. I deleted. Good luck.

Edited July 5, 2010 by David Andrews

[William Kelly]

Norman Lee Elkins

Warren Commission Hearings Volume XVII

Current Section: CE 836 - Letter from the FBI to the Commission, dated March 31, 1964, furnishing criteria employed in determining what ...

http://www.maryferre...4&relPageId=847

"Our Dallas office notified Secret Service on October 30, 1963, concerning an individual who had allegedly stated that if President Kennedy made a trip to Texas a 'reception' was planned for him. We also furnished the Secret Service background information and a photograph of this individual, Norman Lee Elkins….'

SS Report confirms that Norman Lee Elkins is a member of JBS, was present at Stevenson incident and photos of him were given to security at Dallas Trade Mart.

http://www.maryferre...4&relPageId=565

Edited July 4, 2010 by William Kelly

[Greg Parker]

Once again, Greg, you could not be more mistaken in your comments because, apparently, you have never reviewed actual FBI COINTELPRO files. I have dozens of them --

I'm afraid we can't move forward with this discussion Ernie, until you give your definition of "reviewed". On the quantity front, I happily cede to you that your piles are larger than my piles.

mostly pertaining to "Disruption of White Hate Groups" but I also have numerous such files pertaining to the CPUSA. On many occasions a field office would propose some COINTELPRO activity and HQ then denied permission.

How does that negate my contention that such requests would not be made unless under the belief that they might be granted?

Dr. John Drabble's doctoral dissertation was written about the FBI's COINTELPRO-White Hate Groups program and he discusses this in detail in his dissertation as well as in his articles which have been published in academic journals.

No doubt Dr Drabble did a great job on his dissertation.

You are also wrong about the significance of the word "reportedly".

What that means in BureauSpeak is that they are relying upon UNEVALUATED raw data. Often that means somebody's personal opinion or speculation or bias -- but not hard or fact-based evidence.

Well, let's go back to what I said: I said in regard to the word "reportedly" that it indicated the information came "probably through an informant, or wire tap etc" The term "informants" includes anyone who gives information, which would include personal opinion, hearsay, speculation and rumor. Same goes for wire taps. Anything captured on a tap is UNEVALUATED RAW DATA until if and when it CAN be evaluated/verified. And you note the "etc" I ended with? Did you also note that I said the FBI description of the person fit the profile of a Bircher? I believe the information the FBI did know as fact supported what was told them regarding JBS support. It's not rocket science.

For example: there is the famous memo where someone contacted the Bureau to speculate that John Wayne and Ronald Reagan might be members of a Beverly Hills chapter of the John Birch Society. That person's speculations would be characterized in an FBI memo as "reportedly". In reality, however, neither Wayne or Reagan was a JBS member.

There you go, taking one example of erroneous speculation and blowing it up to be representative of all speculation.

There is also the example I previously discussed concerning several informants who "reported" a KKK "insurrection plot" involving Gen. Edwin A. Walker -- and the Bureau quickly determined that was false. [see HQ file 157-2138)

Of course they did. They also quickly determined that Oswald acted alone.

There is another famous example. It was alleged that Communist Chinese troops were in Mexico and poised to invade the United States. There are several FBI files which were opened to pursue this (See for example: Los Angeles 105-11625 and San Diego 105-4353). I will spare you all the details except to note that the Bureau spent considerable time and effort tracking down how this rumor originated and it was based upon what one person "reportedly" thought he saw during his vacation in Mexico.

FWIW, Walker believed it.

The Bureau excelled at going to extraordinary lengths to debunk obviously insane rumors and speculations. But as you noted and as I supported with another example, give them something to chase down that was some chance of being correct (a KKK insurrection plot or a conspiracy beyond Oswald) and they would debunk it in record time - if it did not fit the Hoover agenda.

Lastly, another famous example which resulted in a CBS News documentary plus entries into the Congressional Record by the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate. I am referring to "Operation Water Moccasin" which began with "reports" appearing in a Georgia newspaper and then escalated into a national controversy. For more details see:

I know about this, but thanks all the same.

Lastly, you also could not be more mistaken with respect to your proposed analogy regarding what I would say if this pertained to someone identified as "reportedly" being a CPUSA member or supporter.

How so? You give no indication you have the slightest idea how stupid the FBI agenda looks to someone not born and raised in the US. You are too close to it, Ernie, and the propaganda you have absorbed in your life time is all too evident. I am reminded of the Fox News claim that it is fair and balanced - and scared by the sheer numbers who appear to accept that as true.

Let me put it to you straight. You - like your hero, Hoover, believe that the Left was a far bigger danger to national security than the right. The reasoning for this is clearly due to Capitalism being a natural pathway to Corporatism and that's okay because that was the path chosen by your forebears. Communism was at the other end of the spectrum, and rightly or wrongly, liberalism was seen by some as akin to Socialism and therefore a natural pathway to Communism - so to stop Communism, you had to cut it off at its (perceived) roots (Liberalism). In short, dirty tricks against non-violent liberal groups was a-ok. But not against groups on the right just because they claimed to be non-violent - despite any contrary evidence. They were to be left alone because they were Patriots and anti-Communists (which sometimes meant anyone to the left of Ghengis Khan).

Greg, you are incredibly malicious in your statements about what I believe.

And you are incredibly arrogant in stating what others do and do not know, while continually reminding them of the 12,000 pages of documents you have accumulated, as if quantity imbued you with perceptiveness.

Your arrogance peeked in your bragging about the number of times you have been cited by others, but as I pointed out at the time, all you can lay claim to is acting as an archivist.

You queried before why I said that. Well, here is the WIKI definition.

An archivist is a professional who assesses, collects, organizes, preserves, maintains control over, and provides access to information determined to have long-term value. The information maintained by an archivist can be any form of media (photographs, video or sound recordings, letters, documents, electronic records, etc.). As Richard Pearce-Moses wrote, "Archivists keep records that have enduring value as reliable memories of the past, and they help people find and understand the information they need in those records." ^[1]

I have spent my lifetime (and tens of thousands of dollars) disproving false allegations and insinuations about the purported "affiliations" of people who "reportedly" have been linked to the CPUSA.

Really? Can you point to where I can read all that research?

There is a limit to my willingness to tolerate your absolute lies and libels about me. You just reached that limit. I will not respond further to your canards. You should be ashamed of yourself and what you think passes for rational discussion.

Iit's not the first time you've said you wouldn't respond any more...

As for lies. Let's see... who was it that falsely claimed that memoirs were not primary evidence? That's right, Ernie. It was you.

And I've lost count of the number of times I have had to go and retrieve quotes to show you what you claim you never said, or to give the correct quote for what I had said instead of your "interpretation" of it.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Ernie Lazar]

timestamp='1278248355' post='196628']

Once again, Greg, you could not be more mistaken in your comments because, apparently, you have never reviewed actual FBI COINTELPRO files. I have dozens of them --

MY REPLIES ARE IN BLUE FONT

I'm afraid we can't move forward with this discussion Ernie, until you give your definition of "reviewed". On the quantity front, I happily cede to you that your piles are larger than my piles.

Greg -- it was not a trick question or comment. I use the standard everyday meaning of the word "review" i.e. examine, study, scrutinize actual COINTELPRO files -- not excerpts, not single documents, but entire files.

For example, the FBI main COINTELPRO file on White Hate Groups is 157-9 (with numerous subsidiary HQ files for each field office); or the FBI HQ main COINTELPRO file on CPUSA is 100-3-104 (with numerous subsidiary HQ files for each field office).

In addition to such HQ main files, many field offices opened their own COINTELPRO files. For example, with respect to CPUSA, perhaps the two most significant field office files are:

Los Angeles 100-54554

New York City 100-129802

And with respect to White Hate Groups, the most relevant field office COINTELPRO files are:

Atlanta 157-826

Baltimore 157-865

Birmingham 157-835

Charlotte 157-281

Chicago 157-382

Cincinnati 157-643

Cleveland 157-513

Dallas 157-689

Jackson 157-640

Jacksonville 157-863

Knoxville 157-301

Little Rock 157-291

Los Angeles 157-1448

Memphis 157-576

Miami 157-1114

Mobile 157-582

New Orleans 157-2836

NYC 157-1259

Philadelphia 157-1663

Pittsburgh 157-511

Richmond 157-846

Tampa 157-1559

Washington DC 157-770

mostly pertaining to "Disruption of White Hate Groups" but I also have numerous such files pertaining to the CPUSA. On many occasions a field office would propose some COINTELPRO activity and HQ then denied permission.

How does that negate my contention that such requests would not be made unless under the belief that they might be granted?

Your original comment was not qualified as "might be granted".

Your original comment was "the Field Office would not be requesting such permission unless it believed it would be granted."

"Might" expresses a conditional possibility;

"Would" betokens certainty.

The originating memo from HQ to all field offices regarding its COINTELPRO programs included the following declaration:

“No counterintelligence action under this program may be initiated by the field without specific prior Bureau authorization."

Dr. John Drabble's doctoral dissertation was written about the FBI's COINTELPRO-White Hate Groups program and he discusses this in detail in his dissertation as well as in his articles which have been published in academic journals.

No doubt Dr Drabble did a great job on his dissertation.

You are also wrong about the significance of the word "reportedly".

What that means in BureauSpeak is that they are relying upon UNEVALUATED raw data. Often that means somebody's personal opinion or speculation or bias -- but not hard or fact-based evidence.

Well, let's go back to what I said: I said in regard to the word "reportedly" that it indicated the information came "probably through an informant, or wire tap etc" The term "informants" includes anyone who gives information, which would include personal opinion, hearsay, speculation and rumor. Same goes for wire taps. Anything captured on a tap is UNEVALUATED RAW DATA until if and when it CAN be evaluated/verified. And you note the "etc" I ended with? Did you also note that I said the FBI description of the person fit the profile of a Bircher? I believe the information the FBI did know as fact supported what was told them regarding JBS support. It's not rocket science.

Sorry, Greg, your use of the term "informants" vastly exceeds the scope of how the Bureau used that term.

Furthermore, informant information was routinely evaluated and, typically, memos sent to HQ would indicate what degree of reliability each informant had. Memos would characterize informants as being "of unknown reliability" or a specific percentage of reliability would be indicated.

For example: I previously mentioned Rev. Delmar Dennis whose information was determined by the Bureau to be "98% accurate".

By contrast, when the Bureau used the term "reportedly" -- it did NOT normally use that term to refer to information it obtained from an informant. Informant information would be characterized in the memo as to accuracy/reliability whereas NON-informant information was not so characterized -- which is why they used the term "reportedly".

Furthermore, your "fit the profile of a Bircher" comment is quite disingenuous because whether or not someone genuinely "fit the profile" is dependent entirely upon the quality of the understanding made by the original source of the information.

Many people use lowest-common-denominator reasoning and, consequently, they attributed to "Birchers", ideas or positions which were not uniquely applicable to Birchers or which were not even genuinely "Bircher" ideas, positions, or values.

Many letters received by the Bureau from concerned citizens regarding the JBS -- wanted to know if the JBS might actually be a "Communist-front" organization. In the minds of some people, the JBS "fit the profile" of a Communist organization!

Other letter-writers insisted that the JBS was a nazi organization or as one recent comment on-line put it: "JBS=KKK".

Eustace Mullins claimed that the JBS was created by the Rockefeller family! Al Canwell insisted that Robert Welch was "an international socialist"!

Your "fit the profile" comment is a totally worthless paradigm. What is even worse, the original document you posted used an even more ambiguous and imprecise term, i.e. JBS "supporter".

Suppose (like me) you oppose our involvement in Afghanistan. Since the JBS also opposes our involvement in Afghanistan, does that make you and me a "JBS supporter"??? Would you and I "fit the profile" of JBS "supporters"?

For example: there is the famous memo where someone contacted the Bureau to speculate that John Wayne and Ronald Reagan might be members of a Beverly Hills chapter of the John Birch Society. That person's speculations would be characterized in an FBI memo as "reportedly". In reality, however, neither Wayne or Reagan was a JBS member.

There you go, taking one example of erroneous speculation and blowing it up to be representative of all speculation.

Not merely "one example" Greg. One of the most famous and eggregious examples which made its way into numerous books and articles written about both Reagan and Wayne! Even to THIS DAY you can read comments on-line by people who claim that Reagan and John Wayne were JBS members! In fact, the Wikipedia article on the JBS used to list both of them under the category "leaders and notable members" until they realized their error!

There is also the example I previously discussed concerning several informants who "reported" a KKK "insurrection plot" involving Gen. Edwin A. Walker -- and the Bureau quickly determined that was false. [see HQ file 157-2138)

Of course they did. They also quickly determined that Oswald acted alone.

What do you mean by your dismissive comment, "of course they did"? There were several major files opened (HQ and field office) to track down this rumor because the Bureau considered its original sources to be credible reliable informants!

There is another famous example. It was alleged that Communist Chinese troops were in Mexico and poised to invade the United States. There are several FBI files which were opened to pursue this (See for example: Los Angeles 105-11625 and San Diego 105-4353). I will spare you all the details except to note that the Bureau spent considerable time and effort tracking down how this rumor originated and it was based upon what one person "reportedly" thought he saw during his vacation in Mexico.

FWIW, Walker believed it.

The Bureau excelled at going to extraordinary lengths to debunk obviously insane rumors and speculations. But as you noted and as I supported with another example, give them something to chase down that was some chance of being correct (a KKK insurrection plot or a conspiracy beyond Oswald) and they would debunk it in record time - if it did not fit the Hoover agenda.

Too absurd to comment upon.

Lastly, another famous example which resulted in a CBS News documentary plus entries into the Congressional Record by the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate. I am referring to "Operation Water Moccasin" which began with "reports" appearing in a Georgia newspaper and then escalated into a national controversy. For more details see:

I know about this, but thanks all the same.

Lastly, you also could not be more mistaken with respect to your proposed analogy regarding what I would say if this pertained to someone identified as "reportedly" being a CPUSA member or supporter.

How so? You give no indication you have the slightest idea how stupid the FBI agenda looks to someone not born and raised in the US. You are too close to it, Ernie, and the propaganda you have absorbed in your life time is all too evident. I am reminded of the Fox News claim that it is fair and balanced - and scared by the sheer numbers who appear to accept that as true.

Of course you exempt yourself from any such deficiencies. You have never "absorbed" any propaganda. You are uniquely gifted. You unearth data and connect dots which escape 99.9% of the rest of humanity. Why don't we just publish a book by you and remove from our libraries all other interpretations of our history?

Let me put it to you straight. You - like your hero, Hoover, believe that the Left was a far bigger danger to national security than the right.

Another deliberate LIE by you.

Hoover is NOT my hero nor do I believe now (or have I ever believed) that the Left was a far bigger danger to national security than the right. Why do you suppose I have spent 40+ years refuting JBS (and comparable extreme right) conspiracy theories?

Why do you suppose the JBS despises me and they block me from entering comments on their website? Why do you suppose a prominent JBS official (Jim Capo) wrote the following about me in reply to a comment I posted just before they blocked me?

"Please don't waste your time with Ernie...He has been trolling Birch sites and references in the news for years. He will probably be blocked from this forum again shortly. Here are just some of the red flags in his latest con job:

1. No links to source data. No reprints of material gained from FOIA requests that would have brought these titillating FBI files into his hands. (Charges that are only in Ernie's or his handler's imagination cannot be refuted.)

2. "Birchite", as in Trotskyite, is a term coined by and used by the communists and their collaborators to describe the John Birch Society. It would be rather shocking for the penultimate anti-communist in the FBI to simply parrot this communist slur. But, maybe Hoover was a secret communist too, and the praise given to him by the JBS was just part the diabolical plot to mislead good Americans.

Final word: When Ernie can show us what he has done to stop the advance of tyranny in this country, or tell us what group out there is doing a better job fighting it, then we'll consider paying attention to him. Until then, he will retain his status as a certified xxxxx."

The reasoning for this is clearly due to Capitalism being a natural pathway to Corporatism and that's okay because that was the path chosen by your forebears. Communism was at the other end of the spectrum, and rightly or wrongly, liberalism was seen by some as akin to Socialism and therefore a natural pathway to Communism - so to stop Communism, you had to cut it off at its (perceived) roots (Liberalism). In short, dirty tricks against non-violent liberal groups was a-ok. But not against groups on the right just because they claimed to be non-violent - despite any contrary evidence. They were to be left alone because they were Patriots and anti-Communists (which sometimes meant anyone to the left of Ghengis Khan).

Greg, you are incredibly malicious in your statements about what I believe.

And you are incredibly arrogant in stating what others do and do not know, while continually reminding them of the 12,000 pages of documents you have accumulated, as if quantity imbued you with perceptiveness.

Your arrogance peeked in your bragging about the number of times you have been cited by others, but as I pointed out at the time, all you can lay claim to is acting as an archivist.

I was not "bragging". I was giving you some factual basis to make a decision about whether or not your comments about me were accurate or fair. But since you rarely are interested in facts I can certainly understand why you not only dismiss what I presented -- but you also deliberately mischaracterize it as well.

You queried before why I said that. Well, here is the WIKI definition.

An archivist is a professional who assesses, collects, organizes, preserves, maintains control over, and provides access to information determined to have long-term value. The information maintained by an archivist can be any form of media (photographs, video or sound recordings, letters, documents, electronic records, etc.). As Richard Pearce-Moses wrote, "Archivists keep records that have enduring value as reliable memories of the past, and they help people find and understand the information they need in those records." ^[1]

I have spent my lifetime (and tens of thousands of dollars) disproving false allegations and insinuations about the purported "affiliations" of people who "reportedly" have been linked to the CPUSA.

Really? Can you point to where I can read all that research?

You can see links to all my reports at: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/home

You will notice that I demolish extreme right accusations about alleged:

* communist infiltration/control/domination of our civil rights movement (and I devote considerable space to refuting claims made about A. Phillip Randolph, and the NAACP and its leaders, and Highlander Folk School)

* communist infiltration of our clergy/religious institutions (particularly with respect to the National Council of Churches)

* the number of "communists" and "communist sympathizers" in the U.S. according to Robert Welch/the JBS

I devote an entire chapter of my report to the falsehoods spread by Robert Welch/the JBS and similar sources about Dr. Harry A. Overstreet.

I have repeatedly posted messages on-line which refute extreme right libels about the American Civil Liberties Union.

I have compiled a report which reveals the life-long bigotry of Eustace Mullins and his affiliations with numerous neo-nazi, racist, and anti-semitic individuals and organizations. For my efforts, I received this attention from a pro-nazi bigot, on a webpage entitled "Ernie Lazar Exposed" http://jewonstormfront.blogspot.com/

I posted a report to refute the claims made by Rush Limbaugh and Michele Malkin concerning the purported "left wing" ideological impulses of James W. Von Brunn (the guy who murdered the guard at the Holocaust Museum).

There is a limit to my willingness to tolerate your absolute lies and libels about me. You just reached that limit. I will not respond further to your canards. You should be ashamed of yourself and what you think passes for rational discussion.

Iit's not the first time you've said you wouldn't respond any more...

As for lies. Let's see... who was it that falsely claimed that memoirs were not primary evidence? That's right, Ernie. It was you.

Greg, you keep harping on this. The point I was making is that not all information we confront is of equal value. Memoirs are not primary source evidence in the sense that they should be considered reliable fact-based reports. They are highly subjective and often self-serving personal recollections. This entire controversy came about because of your use of the Swearingen memoir. My point remains that there is no way for anybody to confirm or evaluate his personal recollections. Memoirs are primary sources ONLY in the sense that they provide a starting point for further research. They are not an ending point for making reliable fact-based conclusions. No historian or serious scholar would rely exclusively upon someone's memoir to construct a serious history. That you do not understand this reveals more about you than me!

And I've lost count of the number of times I have had to go and retrieve quotes to show you what you claim you never said, or to give the correct quote for what I had said instead of your "interpretation" of it.

No, Greg, you've "lost count" of the number of times you have deliberately misrepresented what I have written or the number of times your weasel-words, semantic quibbles, and idiosyncratic definitions or non-definitions have sought to camouflage your intellectual dishonesty.

For example: your post-facto conversion of "would" to "might" discussed above, or your deliberate misquote from the scanned FBI memo where you changed a possible JBS "supporter" into an actual JBS "member", or your attempt to pretend that I am some sort of "archivist" despite the fact that numerous authors, scholars and researchers have relied upon and cited my research and reports; then there is the matter of your refusal to specify what you think constitutes an FBI "investigation" while you simultaneously make absolute declarations about what was and was not "investigated"; there is also your claim that I stated the FBI never investigated WCC when I never even introduced the subject and my actual judgment is the precise opposite; and then your assertion that I stated there was no FBI investigation of the JBS when my position is exactly opposite of that too -- and the list goes on and on.

Lastly, one more point concerning primary sources:

Normally, primary sources are considered to be contemporaneous with the events they discuss. For example: documents, photos, recordings which exist at the time of the events under scrutiny.

The reason why primary sources are considered more compelling (and reliable) evidence for historical purposes than secondary or other sources is because primary sources usually reveal thoughts, behavior, events and motivations in real-time---BEFORE actors/participants/witnesses have a chance to revise post-facto what happened. In addition (and this is critically important), primary sources can usually be checked for accuracy and truthfulness against other primary sources.

You may recall that I previously stated that all genuine research starts with a neutral question. For example: if our neutral question is: "What caused (and whom is responsible for) the current BP oil spill disaster"? -- we obviously would want to see as much contemporaneous primary source evidence as possible --- and not rely predominantly upon memoirs written months, years, or decades later.

We would want to examine relevant internal BP and MMS documents, interview or review statements made by the key participants at BP, and their partner companies, the Coast Guard, MMS, etc., examine procedural manuals and disaster plans in existence just prior to the event, see videotape, listen to audio recordings (if any), etc.

A memoir can be considered a primary source ONLY because it gives somebody's subjective personal recollections (often in anecdotal form) -- usually after considerable time has elapsed from the original events.

Furthermore, memoirs rarely have footnotes to provide substantiation for whatever claims are made. In addition, memoirs often claim to be "quoting" what some key actor said or they present a story about what allegedly happened but there is no way to independently verify the "conversation" or the purported behavior because it is not uncommon for person(s) being "quoted" in the memoir to be deceased or, if alive, to categorically deny the substance of what the memoir claims.

Let us consider, for example, the subject which began this thread. In effect, Harry Dean's messages in Education Forum amount to a memoir -- i.e. his personal recollections of events that originally occurred 40+ years ago.

According to Greg -- we should consider Harry Dean's recollections to be "primary source" evidence.

However, I have presented evidence that Harry's claims about himself are not factually true. I based my conclusion upon several different types of primary source evidence i.e. contemporaneous FBI documents which reveal no reference whatsoever to Harry. In addition, I approached this matter from another perspective. I pointed out the type of information which exists in genuine FBI informant files and, in fact, I even scanned and posted two documents pertaining to a genuine FBI informant (Delmar Dennis) around the time Harry claims he also was an FBI informant -- to illustrate the standard format utilized by FBI field offices and FBI HQ when they utilized an informant.

There is nothing exceptional about my selection of the Delmar Dennis example. I could have used dozens of comparable examples (from the 1940's through the 1960's) from FBI informant files I have obtained. All of them use the same general memo format as was utilized for Dennis and all of them provide essentially the same type of background information about the informant. One person in this thread has written that I have "convinced" him that Harry was never (as Harry claims) an FBI informant.

So we have a choice: we can rely upon Harry Dean's memoir or we can rely upon primary source documentation which falsifies what Harry claims not only about his purported relationship with the FBI but also about the type of information which the FBI sought concerning the JBS--particularly during the time period which Harry claims he was "informing" on the JBS.

Similarly, no amount of Greg's invective or sarcasm or semantic quibbles or misrepresentations and libels about me and my beliefs can divert us from the following facts:

1. Greg's messages reveal considerable ignorance about the subjects he has discussed in this thread. Often, Greg creates cartoon caricatures/villains which he wants to rail against.

2. Because of Greg's animus toward the FBI as an institution, he always prefers the worst possible interpretation of all data. Instead of carefully examining actual FBI files -- Greg prefers to select individual memos which conform to his pre-determined conclusions and often those memos exist in files which are NOT even the main file of the subject under discussion.

3. Because of Greg's animus toward me, he deliberately misrepresents my beliefs because he prefers to demonize anybody who challenges what he believes.

4. Lastly, because of Greg's penchant for misrepresenting what his perceived villains actually thought or did (and their motives) --- ultimately Greg's analysis and arguments are reduced to absurdity.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Ernie Lazar