HARRY J. DEAN

[William Kelly]

I've read Turner but not Noyes. Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, are not falsifiable -- which means they really are not "theories" at all since every genuine theory must have the potential for being falsified.

In fact, I have a challenge for you.

Every conspiracy theorist that I have confronted in my lifetime insists that they have superior and unique analytical skills (i.e. they unearth data and connect dots which escapes 99.9% of the rest of humanity).

So my challenge to you is this:

(1) Choose ANY theory which YOU think is totally mistaken.

(2) Contact the author(s) of that theory (or a sampling of the most devout adherents of the theory)

(3) Present to the authors/adherents your best factual evidence which you think refutes their theory

(4) Then come back and let us know how many times you are successful in getting the authors/adherents to agree with you that their theory is gravely mistaken

(5) Repeat that process several times with several different conspiracy theories

(6) If the end result is that nobody is willing to discard their theory by admitting it was false to begin with -- then what does that tell you about the very nature of conspiracy theories?

Okay, I chose the John Birch Society Theory, and googled JBS and got Ernie Lazar.

So we're back.

Unlike most Conspiracy Theorits who tend to run in packs, Ernie is a Lone Wolf.

And Ernie, can you tell us who it was who tipped you off about Harry Dean?

Thanks,

BK

Nope -- I attempted to join the Forum for two years but I constantly received a message stating that no new registrations were accepted so I contacted John Simkin to inquire when registrations would be open and he added me. I detect more than just "suspicion" on your part. I detect hostility because you are uncomfortable with critics or skeptics or persons who present data which contradicts something you prefer to believe.

You keep copying the info about Grinnan/Surrey as if it has some significance to what I have posted in this thread when, obviously, it does not. Simply repeating the same info over and over doesn't address the points I have raised here. Try focusing on what I have written instead of your talking points.

Hey, Ernie, You detect right. Okay, I'll read your stuff and see if there's anything there, but like you said, we all have our own interests, and you don't care about FPCC et al, and are focused strictly on JBS, which I had little interest in until now, though my friends Bill Turner and Peter Noyes have investigated and written extensively about them, and Harry points out a few direct connections to Dealey Plaza.

Have you read Turner and Noyes on JBS?

Since I didn't think JBS significant I didn't pay much attention to them, so there's nothing about them that I prefer to believe, other than they aren't responsible for putting the Dealey Plaza Operation together, though they might have been swimming in the same pool.

I automatically put a red flag next to anything anyone says is of no signifance, and now have files on Grinnan and Surrey, thanks. (Gary Mack just emailed me to say Larry Ronco has no signifance or connection to the assassination so he's got a flag now too).

And what about the guy who owned the Barbeque joint where Tippit moonlighted? Does him being a JBS member have anything to do with it?

BK

I thought it a little suspicious that you show up here shortly after Harry posted:

Jack Ruby {LHO assassin} testified to Chief Justice Warren... "there is an organization here Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life to say it, there is a John Birch Society {JBS} a very powerful organization right now in activity, and {General} Edwin Walker is one of the top men in this organization..."

The black bordered ad " Welcome Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas" was a creation of the John Birch Society through JBS Schmidt and Grinnan, who maintained they were acting "solely as individuals" Grinnan, was a Dallas independent oil operator and John Birch Society coordinator in the Dallas area.

The WANTED FOR TREASON ad handbill, Robert A. Surrey was eventually identified by FBI as the author. Surrey a 38 year old printing salesman employed by Johnson Printing Co. in Dallas,Tex has been closely associated with General Walker for several years in his political and business activities.

Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit at the time of the JFK assassination was working weekends in a Dallas restaurant owned by a member of The John Birch Society

Check out Jack Ruby's testimony to Warren and Rep. {later US. President} Gerald Ford

Is that what sparked you to join the forum?

[Ernie Lazar]

I don't understand your comment. I have no "theory" about the JBS. Everything I have ever written and posted on-line is merely a summary of what is contained in FBI files -- my personal opinions or analysis is irrelevant because I let the documents speak for themselves.

ALL genuine research starts with a neutral question.

The question that I started with in 1980 when I began making FOIA requests was this one:

"What did J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI think about Robert Welch, the Birch Society, and the assertions they made?"

Everything I have written and posted on-line is my attempt to answer that question.

With respect to how I learned about Harry Dean -- the answer is that several people who read my on-line reports sent me emails and asked me what I thought about HIS "theory" concerning JBS involvement in the assassination of JFK. They then told me that Dean was an "FBI informant" within the JBS -- which I knew was false -- so I started reading what Dean has posted online.

I've read Turner but not Noyes. Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, are not falsifiable -- which means they really are not "theories" at all since every genuine theory must have the potential for being falsified.

In fact, I have a challenge for you.

Every conspiracy theorist that I have confronted in my lifetime insists that they have superior and unique analytical skills (i.e. they unearth data and connect dots which escapes 99.9% of the rest of humanity).

So my challenge to you is this:

(1) Choose ANY theory which YOU think is totally mistaken.

(2) Contact the author(s) of that theory (or a sampling of the most devout adherents of the theory)

(3) Present to the authors/adherents your best factual evidence which you think refutes their theory

(4) Then come back and let us know how many times you are successful in getting the authors/adherents to agree with you that their theory is gravely mistaken

(5) Repeat that process several times with several different conspiracy theories

(6) If the end result is that nobody is willing to discard their theory by admitting it was false to begin with -- then what does that tell you about the very nature of conspiracy theories?

Okay, I chose the John Birch Society Theory, and googled JBS and got Ernie Lazar.

So we're back.

Unlike most Conspiracy Theorits who tend to run in packs, Ernie is a Lone Wolf.

And Ernie, can you tell us who it was who tipped you off about Harry Dean?

Thanks,

BK

Nope -- I attempted to join the Forum for two years but I constantly received a message stating that no new registrations were accepted so I contacted John Simkin to inquire when registrations would be open and he added me. I detect more than just "suspicion" on your part. I detect hostility because you are uncomfortable with critics or skeptics or persons who present data which contradicts something you prefer to believe.

You keep copying the info about Grinnan/Surrey as if it has some significance to what I have posted in this thread when, obviously, it does not. Simply repeating the same info over and over doesn't address the points I have raised here. Try focusing on what I have written instead of your talking points.

Hey, Ernie, You detect right. Okay, I'll read your stuff and see if there's anything there, but like you said, we all have our own interests, and you don't care about FPCC et al, and are focused strictly on JBS, which I had little interest in until now, though my friends Bill Turner and Peter Noyes have investigated and written extensively about them, and Harry points out a few direct connections to Dealey Plaza.

Have you read Turner and Noyes on JBS?

Since I didn't think JBS significant I didn't pay much attention to them, so there's nothing about them that I prefer to believe, other than they aren't responsible for putting the Dealey Plaza Operation together, though they might have been swimming in the same pool.

I automatically put a red flag next to anything anyone says is of no signifance, and now have files on Grinnan and Surrey, thanks. (Gary Mack just emailed me to say Larry Ronco has no signifance or connection to the assassination so he's got a flag now too).

And what about the guy who owned the Barbeque joint where Tippit moonlighted? Does him being a JBS member have anything to do with it?

BK

I thought it a little suspicious that you show up here shortly after Harry posted:

Jack Ruby {LHO assassin} testified to Chief Justice Warren... "there is an organization here Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life to say it, there is a John Birch Society {JBS} a very powerful organization right now in activity, and {General} Edwin Walker is one of the top men in this organization..."

The black bordered ad " Welcome Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas" was a creation of the John Birch Society through JBS Schmidt and Grinnan, who maintained they were acting "solely as individuals" Grinnan, was a Dallas independent oil operator and John Birch Society coordinator in the Dallas area.

The WANTED FOR TREASON ad handbill, Robert A. Surrey was eventually identified by FBI as the author. Surrey a 38 year old printing salesman employed by Johnson Printing Co. in Dallas,Tex has been closely associated with General Walker for several years in his political and business activities.

Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit at the time of the JFK assassination was working weekends in a Dallas restaurant owned by a member of The John Birch Society

Check out Jack Ruby's testimony to Warren and Rep. {later US. President} Gerald Ford

Is that what sparked you to join the forum?

Edited June 12, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[Greg Parker]

GREG:

I will try to answer all your questions, comments, and concerns. But first, I do not understand why you consider my previous comments to betoken “intellectual snottiness”. I have taken your comments seriously and I have tried to specifically address your comments and questions.

Ernie, you have not, as we will see, even been honest, let alone earnest.

But I note for the record that there is a major difference between you and I. Apparently, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) – you have NOT reviewed actual FBI files – i.e. the primary source evidence? -- correct?

This is a perfect example of your snottiness. Did I not provide a quote from my review of the first 100 pages of the Goldwater FBI file (which itself was part of a series reviewing the whole file)? As for other FBI files, those who know me here, know how wrong that comment is.

So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources. And if you find two secondary sources that seem to agree with one another – then THAT is what you consider compelling factual truth – correct?

Uh - huh. Let's see what you admit further down...

Now with respect to your specific comments. I bold type your comments; my replies are in blue font.

Did any FBI Special Agents ever violate Bureau rules?

Of course and, in fact, my on-line report concerning Dan Smoot documents in great detail what led to Smoot’s censure and being placed on probation and being transferred to a small insignificant field office. [During his relatively brief FBI career, Smoot was censured 3 times.]

That was not my question , Ernie. This was it: So no one to your knowledge deliberately flouted procedure? Is that it? I asked because you keep harping about the horrible fate of those with poor grammar, while I have been discussing the deliberate flouting of regs involving informants.

Of course there may have been individuals who “deliberately flouted [bureau] procedure” but with respect to deliberately flouting “regs involving informants” – I would have to address the specific evidence for each specific case you want to present. It certainly was not a widespread practice---if that is what you are getting at.

Even critics noted the insanity of Hoover's cultural Wonderland? And they are scholars? Amazing. Now I can see why you are so impressed with them. Their powers of perception are unmatched; their gallantry in reporting, beyond epic. I mean, where do we go from here, now that we have reached the pinnacle of critics being well... er...critical!

I don’t know what your purpose is in attempting to discredit, wholesale, all of our nation’s most knowledgeable scholars about FBI history. Everything which you think you know about Bureau improprieties was discovered largely as a result of their research. Scholars like Dr. Athan Theoharis have devoted their entire careers to unearthing factual data about the FBI as an institution. Theoharis has forgotten more about the FBI than you will ever know.

Oh I wasn't discrediting them, Ernie. I do note you snipped what I had replied to, so let's reinsert it:

But the fact remains that Bureau Agents were accountable to their superiors for even the smallest infractions of Bureau policies---including, as previously mentioned, grammatical mistakes in their reports or failure to follow Bureau policies. Even the scholars who are among the Bureau’s most severe critics have reported in great detail on this culture within the FBI.

My response was just taking the piss out of you. In essence, you said "even critics were critical". No big deal. I just found your wording amusing.

Swearingen book and “verifying accuracy” of material

The famous philosopher, Karl Popper, pointed out that one can always “prove” something if one looks only for “confirmations” because in the universe of available data, there are ALWAYS “confirmations”.

And the historian, David Iredale pointed out "Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." This would be particularly true of intelligence agency files from the likes of the CIA, KGB, MI5, FBI etc

I have never heard of David Iredale. What “history” has he written about?

No problem Glad to. As soon as you tell me what “history” Popper” wrote about.

What has been his exposure to FBI files/documents?

First what was Popper’s again?

Broad generalizations can’t really help us deal with specific matters we are discussing here.

Your comprehension is slipping yet again. I stated what SPECIFICALLY my quote could be applied to. Your quote was the one given as a generalization.

Memoirs are primary sources, too, Ernie. I realise you might not like that notion, but maybe one day, you'll get over your intellectual snottiness.

Memoirs are subjective and often self-serving.

Can I have a citation from a relevant authority on this assertion, please.

The Kennedy assassination btw, is replete with FBI files that are self-serving.

Many times they are written to excuse or defend or divert attention from behavior which would reflect unfavorably upon the author. They are primary sources only in the sense that they reveal the thoughts of the person writing them.

Okay. Progress. You’re admitting you were wrong when you said the memoires I quoted from were secondary sources (“So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources.”)

Were you mistaken, bluffing or lying, Ernie? Inquiring minds need to know!

The fact is, I have presented two authors independently saying that the FBI had a quota for informants, the difficulties in meeting that quota, and ways in which they met it i.e. inventing informants. If you want, I can also point you too a New York Magazine article from 1975 which again verifies the informant quota for agents and the difficulty in meeting it. Whilst it does not mention faking informants to meet the quota, the article does deal with the corruption of the Chicago office.

Greg: This is very difficult to discuss as an abstraction – and, in any event, I’m not sure how it pertains to our original discussion.

Periodically, field offices were instructed by HQ to increase their informant coverage in certain groups as a result of specific events --- but that does not obviate the fact that informants were subject to certain protocols which were spelled out in the Bureau’s Manual of Instructions.

And being subject to such protocols is no guarantee the protocols were always followed. You seem to live in a twilight zone where the very existence of a rule ensures it is always followed.

I think I understand where we are headed here. It is what I describe as “Argument By Anomaly”, i.e. find a few exceptions to a general practice and then pretend that the exceptions were the general practice or, at a minimum, use the exceptions to de-value, dismiss, or ignore more voluminous and more compelling factual evidence.

And once again you're stating what you wish I said instead of what I have actually said. I have no problem believing or accepting what the memoires state about faked informants was the exception and not the rule. My purpose was to suggest, since such anomalies did exist, then perhaps the subject of this thread also fits within those anomalous spaces.

Greg – the problem we have here is that you want this to be a philosophical discussion.

Yet, so far, you are the only one to quote a philosopher. Go figure. If you think what I wrote above is a philosophical argument, I’m afraid there is little purpose in wasting further time.

I prefer we deal with specific cases. But the problem is that you have no first-hand knowledge of FBI files – and specifically with FBI informant files – correct?

Not correct, but it yet again demonstrates your snottiness.

So how do we address that?

Your snottiness? I fear it may be too ingrained. You should have had it knocked out of you in kindergarten.

As previously mentioned, anybody can search internet and find a universe of data which will always provide “confirmations” for anything whatsoever that one wants to believe. This puts me at a great disadvantage because you can always come up with something which contradicts a statement I make -- and then I have to continually refute your "evidence" but you are not required to present any primary source evidence of your own because you have never reviewed the actual FBI files we are discussing.

Let’s just get something straight here. You are not the Master; I am not the Pupil. Obtaining 500,000 – or even 5,000,000 FBI files does not automatically endow you with expertize in reviewing them. Though you may possess some expertiize, I have seen little sign of it here. You are too busy lecturing others about what you percieve their shortcomings to be. Bad form, old boy. Bad form.

So, Greg, what do you prefer that I believe? ---> The primary source documents and FBI files (both HQ and field office) in my possession or your speculations?

Your comprehension needs some work. I was not speculating. I gave a direct quote from an FBI document. Here it is again: however the membership of this organization is not known to this office, DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS You have shown that there was some investigative work done on Citizen's Councils in the 1950s. What I quoted was written in 1963 - which is the period under discussion here.

Greg: I note for the record that you did not answer my questions. In order to answer you intelligently, please define your terms:

Excuse me, I did answer your question as far as I could since it was predicated on the incorrect notion that I was speculating.

(1) What do YOU think constitutes an “active investigation”? Please give us the specific elements which you believe comprises an "active investigation"

Again, I am not playing pupil to your master. If you don’t know, I may help you out if you ask properly.

(2) What type of information exists in an “investigative file” that does NOT exist in other types of FBI files?

As above.

(3) Why do you want to limit the discussion to one particular year – 1963?

The subject of this thread alleges he was an FBI informant inside JBS during what - ? 61 -64 period? The real question is why you brought up investigations during the ‘50s which were not relevant.

I thought we were discussing your original comment in message #11 that the Bureau never investigated the White Citizens Councils movement?

Yes. The period I was indicating was defined by you in the subject of the thread. Sorry if that confuses you.

Your original comment never limited the discussion to one particular year. You then introduced a single document which you state exists in the FBI file on Goldwater and apparently you want everyone to accept that one document as definitive – even though you have never seen any of the 400+ FBI HQ files or the hundreds of field office files on the White Citizens Councils movement – correct? (It just occurred to me that I could, if you like, introduce the idea that it is YOU that is accepting "at face value" whatever documentation you think will advance your argument.)

If you are alleging the FBI document I quoted from does not mean what it says, just spit it out.

You are again refering to the 1950s. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the quote I provided, that is your call, but you really need to take it up with the FBI --- or better still, just provide examples from 1963 which shows it to be a lie concocted by the FBI author of the document.

Greg, one does not have to “lie” in order to recognize that there are different instructions at different periods of time or unique instructions which apply to specific locations for some period of time. I am troubled by the way you attempt to use evidence. I think the problem here (once again) is that you have never seen any FBI file and, more importantly, you have never bothered to provide us with YOUR definition of what constitutes an “investigation”.

And I can find your definition where exactly in thread?

Until you answer that question – we cannot proceed to discuss this matter intelligently. And, again, I wonder if you are proposing that we "accept at face value" every document you introduce simply because you think it advances your argument?

No. We can’t discuss it intelligently until you learn to read and stop putting up straw arguments.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Ernie Lazar]

GREG:

I usually do not bother to answer critics, like yourself, who accuse me of dishonesty – but I will make one final attempt to bring us back to a civil and productive discussion. I use bold type/italics on your comments and my comments appear underneath yours in BLUE FONT.

I will try to answer all your questions, comments, and concerns. But first, I do not understand why you consider my previous comments to betoken “intellectual snottiness”. I have taken your comments seriously and I have tried to specifically address your comments and questions.

Ernie, you have not, as we will see, even been honest, let alone earnest.

But I note for the record that there is a major difference between you and I. Apparently, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) – you have NOT reviewed actual FBI files – i.e. the primary source evidence? -- correct?

This is a perfect example of your snottiness. Did I not provide a quote from my review of the first 100 pages of the Goldwater FBI file (which itself was part of a series reviewing the whole file)? As for other FBI files, those who know me here, know how wrong that comment is.

Greg: you never indicated that you reviewed any file. You simply quoted what you claimed was ONE document appearing in the Goldwater file. However, my inquiry was specifically referring to whether or not you have reviewed the files pertaining to the WHITE CITIZENS COUNCILS movement. So, it is not “snottiness” – it is simply an inquiry to determine the nature and extent of your knowledge. Apparently, you do not like to be challenged –and that is what you consider “snottiness”

So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources. And if you find two secondary sources that seem to agree with one another – then THAT is what you consider compelling factual truth – correct?

Uh - huh. Let's see what you admit further down...

Now with respect to your specific comments. I bold type your comments; my replies are in blue font.

Did any FBI Special Agents ever violate Bureau rules?

Of course and, in fact, my on-line report concerning Dan Smoot documents in great detail what led to Smoot’s censure and being placed on probation and being transferred to a small insignificant field office. [During his relatively brief FBI career, Smoot was censured 3 times.]

That was not my question , Ernie. This was it: So no one to your knowledge deliberately flouted procedure? Is that it? I asked because you keep harping about the horrible fate of those with poor grammar, while I have been discussing the deliberate flouting of regs involving informants.

Of course there may have been individuals who “deliberately flouted [bureau] procedure” but with respect to deliberately flouting “regs involving informants” – I would have to address the specific evidence for each specific case you want to present. It certainly was not a widespread practice---if that is what you are getting at.

Even critics noted the insanity of Hoover's cultural Wonderland? And they are scholars? Amazing. Now I can see why you are so impressed with them. Their powers of perception are unmatched; their gallantry in reporting, beyond epic. I mean, where do we go from here, now that we have reached the pinnacle of critics being well... er...critical!

I don’t know what your purpose is in attempting to discredit, wholesale, all of our nation’s most knowledgeable scholars about FBI history. Everything which you think you know about Bureau improprieties was discovered largely as a result of their research. Scholars like Dr. Athan Theoharis have devoted their entire careers to unearthing factual data about the FBI as an institution. Theoharis has forgotten more about the FBI than you will ever know.

Oh I wasn't discrediting them, Ernie. I do note you snipped what I had replied to, so let's reinsert it:

But the fact remains that Bureau Agents were accountable to their superiors for even the smallest infractions of Bureau policies---including, as previously mentioned, grammatical mistakes in their reports or failure to follow Bureau policies. Even the scholars who are among the Bureau’s most severe critics have reported in great detail on this culture within the FBI.

My response was just taking the piss out of you. In essence, you said "even critics were critical". No big deal. I just found your wording amusing.

You seem to have missed my point (again). There are many scholars who have devoted considerable time and resources to researching FBI history – particularly by acquiring first-time-released files and documents and interviewing numerous FBI officials. You denigrated, through sarcasm, my respect for their research. I then responded to your sarcasm. My larger point was that those scholars do not agree with your interpretations as reflected in your comments in this thread.

Swearingen book and “verifying accuracy” of material

The famous philosopher, Karl Popper, pointed out that one can always “prove” something if one looks only for “confirmations” because in the universe of available data, there are ALWAYS “confirmations”.

And the historian, David Iredale pointed out "Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." This would be particularly true of intelligence agency files from the likes of the CIA, KGB, MI5, FBI etc

I have never heard of David Iredale. What “history” has he written about?

No problem Glad to. As soon as you tell me what “history” Popper” wrote about.

What has been his exposure to FBI files/documents?

First what was Popper’s again?

Not sure what you are asking me here. Are you asking me to identify who Popper is? If so, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Broad generalizations can’t really help us deal with specific matters we are discussing here.

Your comprehension is slipping yet again. I stated what SPECIFICALLY my quote could be applied to. Your quote was the one given as a generalization.

No, Greg, your quote was a generalization made by someone (Iredale) about whom I know nothing whatsoever. If, for example, he has had no exposure to FBI history or files, then what is the relevance of his comment? One could make the exact same comment about everything in life – i.e. our initial contacts with people or information may not be trustworthy or there may be “prejudice” which colors our perceptions.

Memoirs are primary sources, too, Ernie. I realise you might not like that notion, but maybe one day, you'll get over your intellectual snottiness.

Memoirs are subjective and often self-serving.

Can I have a citation from a relevant authority on this assertion, please.

There is no “authority” – it is just common sense. Memoirs are not normally documented – they are simply subjective personal recollections. Often, assertions are made which cannot be verified because the parties discussed in the memoir are deceased (and cannot be asked pertinent questions) or the incidents mentioned are incapable of being proven or disproven. Consequently, they are among the most unreliable sources available. They have usefulness primarily as a starting point for further research--not an ending point from which reliable conclusions can be drawn.

The Kennedy assassination btw, is replete with FBI files that are self-serving.

Many times they are written to excuse or defend or divert attention from behavior which would reflect unfavorably upon the author. They are primary sources only in the sense that they reveal the thoughts of the person writing them.

Okay. Progress. You’re admitting you were wrong when you said the memoires I quoted from were secondary sources (“So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources.”)

Were you mistaken, bluffing or lying, Ernie? Inquiring minds need to know!

No, Greg, I made no such "admission". The only source you specifically identified was the Swearingen memoir. A serious researcher has no way to determine if what Swearingen has written in his book is accurate and truthful – although, interestingly, he makes a comment which could be interpreted as undermining a major component of your previous argument and supporting my statement about protocols regarding informants.

He mentions FBI Supervisor Joseph M. Culkin and he then observes: “I could not tell Joe Culkin that Rockne had two bogus informants because Culkin would pass the buck and tell the SAC of the office, Richard D. Auerbach and Rockne would be in trouble for falsifying government documents. I would then be in trouble for informing on a fellow agent.”

When you cite Swearingen as a reliable source of information about FBI practices, we are left with the obvious question concerning how you went about verifying his assertions? Did you contact him to ask questions? Did you contact anyone he mentions in his book to inquire if Swearingen’s recollections were accurate or if there might be alternative interpretations? Have you compared Swearingen’s memoir to other FBI Special Agent memoirs or the research done by scholars into FBI practices?

The fact is, I have presented two authors independently saying that the FBI had a quota for informants, the difficulties in meeting that quota, and ways in which they met it i.e. inventing informants. If you want, I can also point you too a New York Magazine article from 1975 which again verifies the informant quota for agents and the difficulty in meeting it. Whilst it does not mention faking informants to meet the quota, the article does deal with the corruption of the Chicago office.

Greg: This is very difficult to discuss as an abstraction – and, in any event, I’m not sure how it pertains to our original discussion.

Periodically, field offices were instructed by HQ to increase their informant coverage in certain groups as a result of specific events --- but that does not obviate the fact that informants were subject to certain protocols which were spelled out in the Bureau’s Manual of Instructions.

And being subject to such protocols is no guarantee the protocols were always followed. You seem to live in a twilight zone where the very existence of a rule ensures it is always followed.

No—I have already acknowledged the obvious: in any large organization there are people who do not follow established rules and procedures—and who look for short-cuts. The operative question here, however, is what happens to people who violate such rules and procedures? That is why I mentioned my report concerning FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot. I provide specific evidence for your correct observation that the existence of a rule does not mean it is always followed.

I think I understand where we are headed here. It is what I describe as “Argument By Anomaly”, i.e. find a few exceptions to a general practice and then pretend that the exceptions were the general practice or, at a minimum, use the exceptions to de-value, dismiss, or ignore more voluminous and more compelling factual evidence.

And once again you're stating what you wish I said instead of what I have actually said. I have no problem believing or accepting what the memoires state about faked informants was the exception and not the rule. My purpose was to suggest, since such anomalies did exist, then perhaps the subject of this thread also fits within those anomalous spaces.

OK fine – then we can agree upon this. Maybe we just had a mis-communication about this matter because your original statement (see below) was so absolutist.

Greg – the problem we have here is that you want this to be a philosophical discussion.

Yet, so far, you are the only one to quote a philosopher. Go figure. If you think what I wrote above is a philosophical argument, I’m afraid there is little purpose in wasting further time.

A philosophical discussion does not require quoting a philosopher. My point is that it is much easier to deal in specific details rather than broad generalizations or abstractions.

I prefer we deal with specific cases. But the problem is that you have no first-hand knowledge of FBI files – and specifically with FBI informant files – correct?

Not correct, but it yet again demonstrates your snottiness.

It is not “snottiness” Greg. You simply have not identified what files you have obtained and reviewed whereas I have. I will repeat mine again:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/foia

In particular, we have been addressing your statement concerning White Citizens Councils not being investigated by the FBI. You have never once indicated that you have seen any FBI file on any of the White Citizens Councils. Nor did you identify any informant files you have reviewed, whereas, again, I have done so.

So how do we address that?

Your snottiness? I fear it may be too ingrained. You should have had it knocked out of you in kindergarten.

As previously mentioned, anybody can search internet and find a universe of data which will always provide “confirmations” for anything whatsoever that one wants to believe. This puts me at a great disadvantage because you can always come up with something which contradicts a statement I make -- and then I have to continually refute your "evidence" but you are not required to present any primary source evidence of your own because you have never reviewed the actual FBI files we are discussing.

Let’s just get something straight here. You are not the Master; I am not the Pupil. Obtaining 500,000 – or even 5,000,000 FBI files does not automatically endow you with expertize in reviewing them. Though you may possess some expertiize, I have seen little sign of it here. You are too busy lecturing others about what you percieve their shortcomings to be. Bad form, old boy. Bad form.

I’m sorry if I have offended you by giving you some specific details about the nature and extent of my research and what I have acquired. I can understand, however, why you don't want to provide comparable details.

So, Greg, what do you prefer that I believe? ---> The primary source documents and FBI files (both HQ and field office) in my possession or your speculations?

Your comprehension needs some work. I was not speculating. I gave a direct quote from an FBI document. Here it is again: however the membership of this organization is not known to this office, DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS You have shown that there was some investigative work done on Citizen's Councils in the 1950s. What I quoted was written in 1963 - which is the period under discussion here.

Greg: I note for the record that you did not answer my questions. In order to answer you intelligently, please define your terms:

Excuse me, I did answer your question as far as I could since it was predicated on the incorrect notion that I was speculating.

No—you totally ignored my questions – and you continue to do so with ever-increasing hostility.

(1) What do YOU think constitutes an “active investigation”? Please give us the specific elements which you believe comprises an "active investigation"

Again, I am not playing pupil to your master. If you don’t know, I may help you out if you ask properly.

Your “snottiness” is beginning to show. Obviously, any discussion or debate must begin by mutual understanding of terms of reference. Your unwillingness to answer a basic question reveals more about you than me.

(2) What type of information exists in an “investigative file” that does NOT exist in other types of FBI files?

As above.

(3) Why do you want to limit the discussion to one particular year – 1963?

The subject of this thread alleges he was an FBI informant inside JBS during what - ? 61 -64 period? The real question is why you brought up investigations during the ‘50s which were not relevant.

Huh? I did not bring up any investigations during the 1950’s except in answer to your falsehood that the Bureau never investigated White Citizens Councils. And, just for clarity, those investigations continued into the 1960’s.

I thought we were discussing your original comment in message #11 that the Bureau never investigated the White Citizens Councils movement?

Yes. The period I was indicating was defined by you in the subject of the thread. Sorry if that confuses you.

Huh again! The subject of this thread is Harry Dean. YOU introduced White Citizens Councils, not me.

Your original comment never limited the discussion to one particular year. You then introduced a single document which you state exists in the FBI file on Goldwater and apparently you want everyone to accept that one document as definitive – even though you have never seen any of the 400+ FBI HQ files or the hundreds of field office files on the White Citizens Councils movement – correct? (It just occurred to me that I could, if you like, introduce the idea that it is YOU that is accepting "at face value" whatever documentation you think will advance your argument.)

If you are alleging the FBI document I quoted from does not mean what it says, just spit it out.

Your comprehension needs some improvement. As I previously stated, one document does not make a case--particularly when the subject matter covers 2 or 3 decades and involves 12-15 field offices.

You are again refering to the 1950s. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the quote I provided, that is your call, but you really need to take it up with the FBI --- or better still, just provide examples from 1963 which shows it to be a lie concocted by the FBI author of the document.

Greg, one does not have to “lie” in order to recognize that there are different instructions at different periods of time or unique instructions which apply to specific locations for some period of time. I am troubled by the way you attempt to use evidence. I think the problem here (once again) is that you have never seen any FBI file and, more importantly, you have never bothered to provide us with YOUR definition of what constitutes an “investigation”.

And I can find your definition where exactly in thread?

Since you are the one who stated that no investigations were made of White Citizens Councils – I suggest that you explain your comment. Let me quote from your message #11 again – in case you forgot:

Ernie, you are absolutely correct that the FBI did not investigate groups like the JBS and White Citizen's Council (amazingly even when they had cause to).

You are also absolutely wrong in believing that the FBI adhered to policies and procedures in handling informants. Read FBI secrets: an agents exposé by Lesley Swearington.

Incidentally, notice the unconditional nature of your comment concerning FBI adherence to policies and procedures. Instead of declaring the obvious, i.e. there are examples of violations, you instead declared with absolute certitude that it is "absolutely wrong" to "believe that the FBI adhered to policies and procedures in handling informants". This all-or-nothing approach to evidence is quite revealing re: your mindset.

Until you answer that question – we cannot proceed to discuss this matter intelligently. And, again, I wonder if you are proposing that we "accept at face value" every document you introduce simply because you think it advances your argument?

No. We can’t discuss it intelligently until you learn to read and stop putting up straw arguments.

Your weasel words do not divert us from the fact that you will not answer the obvious question which would quickly and easily resolve our dispute

[Ernie Lazar]

Greg: I wanted to address this one portion of your message separately from all other topics because I think it is quite revealing regarding your attitude and misunderstanding.

Let’s just get something straight here. You are not the Master; I am not the Pupil. Obtaining 500,000 – or even 5,000,000 FBI files does not automatically endow you with expertize in reviewing them. Though you may possess some expertiize, I have seen little sign of it here. You are too busy lecturing others about what you percieve their shortcomings to be. Bad form, old boy. Bad form.

(1) First, this website is called "Education Forum". By definition, "education" refers to a gradual process of acquiring knowledge.

(2) Facts and truth normally can come from any source -- even from arrogant persons like yourself who are hyper-sensitive to any perceived slight or "correction".

(3) Typically, "acquiring knowledge" is based upon careful examination of factual evidence as well as becoming familiar with the research done by persons who have specialized in a particular field of knowledge or in specific subject matters.

(4) People who attempt to de-value or dismiss accumulated knowledge usually want to dumb-down the discussion to their level of understanding -- or make it conform to their personal viewpoints rather than engage in a genuine search for facts and truth.

(5) Obviously, someone who is more knowledgeable about a particular subject is going to "correct" errors of fact or judgment made by less knowledgeable individuals. That is simply a fact of life.

Example: I have no knowledge concerning sports. Consequently, if someone in this forum specialized in the history of some baseball or football team -- I would EXPECT them to correct any mistaken comment I made and I certainly would not resent their superior understanding of that subject matter.

(6) However, unlike sports history -- the history of the FBI, its practices, procedures, and the substantive content of its investigations is not common knowledge nor is such material readily available.

For example: most libraries do not have microfilm copies of FBI files so that interested parties can research them. And if someone wants to pursue an FOIA request to obtain specific FBI files, it can be a VERY expensive proposition. [More and more FBI files are being transferred to NARA which makes them totally cost-prohibitive because NARA charges 75 cents per page for reproduction costs!]

Some college/university libraries have purchased the microfilm of some major FBI files through Scholarly Resources Inc.. See for example some available subjects here:

http://www.gale.cengage.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=000&titleCode=SR567&cf=n&type=4&id=G0006

However, almost always only the FBI HQ files have been microfilmed and many of them have major redactions.

(7) Consequently, having a knowledgeable discussion about FBI files (or practices) is difficult because the overwhelming majority of people who want to discuss them usually are relying upon exaggerated or superficial media reports, OR internet articles by persons/groups with some ax to grind, OR parties who have no in-depth familiarity with the subject matter.

(8) Lastly, correcting obvious errors is not (as you claim) "bad form". It is a fundamental part of the educational process by which we all learn from each other. You may resent me for discussing or revealing your errors--but it does not change the fact that you are mistaken about materially important matters.

You are however, correct, in one respect: You are neither Master or Pupil. Your arrogance precludes either.

(9) One final observation concerning the difference between you and I:

When I confront information which seems to contradict what I believe, I normally ask questions for two purposes:

(-a-) to make sure I understand the point being made - and perhaps request further substantiation

(-b-) to determine if I need to revise my own conclusions

In this respect, I bring your attention again to your message #11 and my subsequent replies:

(-a-) you made a definitive statement

(-b-) I stated that you were mistaken

(-c-) I then provided you with extensive quotations from a senior FBI official which would help you understand (if you were genuinely curious) what the underlying problem was and is regarding your declaration.

I copy the pertinent comments again below and I italicize and bold the wording which you need to understand in order to arrive at a correct conclusion about what would permit or trigger an FBI investigation.

The Bureau's use of that term was quite elastic in order to give field offices freedom of action when appropriate (as outlined in various Bureau SAC Letters and Manuals). Thus, one has to be familiar with all the relevant instructions -- and not just with individual memos, at one point in time, or with respect to one particular matter.

Notice, in the second paragraph below, the prospective nature of what would permit an "investigation" to commence -- i.e. the hypothetical possibility of some future activity or developments even though the current status of the organizations under scrutiny did not justify across-the-board official investigations.

This general policy description (what is described below as "investigative background") is repeated in many FBI memos -- not only with respect to White Citizens Councils -- but also with respect to many other organization(s) or person(s) who came under review by the Bureau. Another term used was "preliminary inquiry".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On May 16, 1955, Alan Belmont (Assistant Director in charge of the Bureau’s Domestic Intelligence Division) wrote a memo captioned “Citizens Councils and States’ Rights Movement – Internal Security – X”. In his memo, Belmont acknowledged that with respect to the Associations of Citizens Councils of Mississippi:

“The Internal Security Division of the Department by letter 12-10-54 suggested an investigation of this organization…. Investigation has been conducted and reports submitted to the Department.. The Criminal Division of the Department has made several requests for investigation of possible civil rights violations in connection with the Association of Citizens Councils. These possible violations concern alleged attempts to prevent Negroes from voting and refusal by employees of the Federal Home Administration to make loans to Negroes affiliated with the NAACP. The NAACP was quick to secure affidavits in the latter cases and furnish them to the White House.”

Belmont then summarizes the policy of the FBI:

“Current Bureau policy is that we do not investigate groups that advocate or employ legal means to achieve their objectives; however, where advisable the field is authorized to investigate organizations established for purpose of combating or advocating affirmative action against racial minorities. Such groups activities may result in civil rights violations and in cases such as these organizations it is believed desirable that determination of those involved be made and any activities of the organization be followed. This investigative background will be most useful in the event civil rights violations should occur in the future in connection with their activities. By letter dated 3-22-55, twelve southern offices were informed of the rapid spread of these groups and were instructed to be alert for the formation of such organizations in their territory. These offices were instructed that upon receipt of such information to advise the Bureau immediately by letter setting forth pertinent data concerning the organization and officers thereof. No investigation was to be conducted without prior Bureau authority.”

Belmont then observed:

“The Supreme Court has not yet handed down any date on which integration is to take place. At that time it is probable that these organizations will become more active and that extra-legal steps will be taken to prevent integration. Therefore, it is believed that we should have information concerning these groups and the individuals connected therewith prior to any incidents which may take place. In view of the above, the field has been following the activities of these organizations to determine whether others are being denied their rights under U.S. constitution and reports have been furnished Department for consideration under Executive Order 10450.”

Edited June 14, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[William Kelly]

The Origin of the "LBJ Killed JFK" Psyop: Bircher James Evetts Haley 9th July 2008

Who killed Kennedy? In a word, "Minutemen," neo-fascists from the ultra-con Birch Society (funded early on by Nazi veterans of WW II in Germany, often linked to Nelson Bunker Hunt and others with known ties to the Kennedy murder), Young Americans for Freedom (YAF, a front for incoming Nazi spies from Munich) and Aryan-Nations/Liberty Lobby, all with Nixon, Pentagon and federal agency ties.

"To think it was Nazis, all along." Jack Ruby

The "LBJ killed JFK" cover story began with James Evetts Haley a Bircher the first to connect Johnson to organized crime in Texas and the Kennedy assassination, with particular reference to Billie Sol Estes whose attorney was Douglas Caddy, an official of YAF. Subsequent writers have expanded on Haley's smears, most recently and notably Barr McClellan (former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan's papa).

Note that Haley had a history of libel. From Wikipedia:

Critic of LBJ and FDR

A sharp critic of U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, Haley, who was a member of the John Birch Society penned, A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power. The bestseller exposes Johnson's relationship with swindler Billie Sol Estes of Pecos. Haley pointed out that the three men who could have provided evidence in court against Estes George Krutilek, Harold Orr, and Howard Pratt all died mysteriously of carbon monoxide poisoning from car engines. Haley's admirers claimed in 1964 that the book was outsold in Texas only by the Holy Bible. Haley's fellow conservative, Phyllis Schlafly, then of Alton, Illinois, and now of St. Louis, self-published the best-selling A Choice, Not an Echo to bolster the Goldwater campaign, with emphasis on what she saw as the destructive legacy of the Republican "Eastern Establishment" formerly headed by New York Governors Thomas E. Dewey and Nelson A. Rockefeller.

In 1936, in a meeting at the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas, Haley organized a short-lived third party, the "Jeffersonian Democrats of Texas", to offer opposition to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal within Texas. In 1964, Haley returned to his previous Republican affiliation to endorse then U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater of Arizona, who was challenging President Johnson but fared poorly in Texas.

Haley also claimed that Johnson had a motive for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy: "Johnson wanted power and with all his knowledge of political strategy and his proven control of Congress, he could see wider horizons of power as Vice-President than as Senate Majority Leader. In effect, by presiding over the Senate, he could now conceive himself as virtually filling both high and important positions and he was not far from wrong. Finally, as Victor Lasky pointed out, Johnson had nursed a lifetime dream to be President. As Majority leader he never could have made it. But as Vice-President fate could always intervene."

Houston Harte, a newspaper publisher in San Angelo, who supported LBJ, said that his friend Haley had gone to the extreme in writing A Texan Looks at Lyndon. "Haley can no longer be considered a serious historian," Harte claimed.

Historical works

In 1929, Haley published The XIT Ranch of Texas and the Early Days of the Llano Estacado. Accused of libel in a dozen lawsuits, Haley was compelled in 1931 to withdraw the book from circulation and to pay the plaintiffs $17,500 to settle all pending claims. He defended his work in which he had exposed "outlaws" and even made a trip into Mexico to authenticate a particular point in question …

http://en.wikipedia....J._Evetts_Haley

From "The Early Days of the John Birch Society," Psychic Dictatorship in the USA II (2008), by Alex Constantine

…. President John Kennedy responded to Birch Society criticism of his adminsitration in an address delivered at a fund-raising dinner hosted by the Democratic Party at the Hollywood Paladium on November 18, 1961. "In recent months, I have spoken many times about how difficult and dangerous a period it is through which we move. I would like to take this opportunity to say a word about the American spirit in this time of trial. In the most critical periods of our nation's history, there have been those on the fringes of our society who have sought to escape their own responsibility by finding a simple solution, an appealing slogan or a convenient scapegoat." Political extremists, Kennedy said, sought the easy explanation for every national crisis and ignored political complexities. A downturn in the economy "could be explained by the presence of too many immigrants." Wars were orchestrated by "international bankers." China ended trade relations with the world not as a result of internal conflicts, but due to "treason in high places." With their rhetoric, "these fanatics have achieved a temporary success among those who lack the will or the vision to face unpleasant facts or unresolved problems." …

(thanks b.)

Edited June 15, 2010 by William Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

....I have no "theory" about the JBS. Everything I have ever written and posted on-line is merely a summary of what is contained in FBI files -- my personal opinions or analysis is irrelevant because I let the documents speak for themselves.

ALL genuine research starts with a neutral question.

The question that I started with in 1980 when I began making FOIA requests was this one:

"What did J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI think about Robert Welch, the Birch Society, and the assertions they made?"

Everything I have written and posted on-line is my attempt to answer that question.

Ernie, obviously you have spent a lot of time, effort and thought in your attempts to answer that question.

When did you answer that question to your own satisfaction? Or is it an ongoing process still?

Are there any limitations, inherent or otherwise, in those released documents that keep you from finding out everything you want to know?

Have you been frustrated by redactions, unreleased files, or denied requests?

Have you met or spoken to James Lesar? Do you have any thoughts on the Morley vs CIA ruling?

Has your research raised any important questions that you have yet to have answered?

Why was that one particular question so important to you, to the exclusion of others?

Thanks.

[Ernie Lazar]

Michael, in answer to your questions:

1. It is still an ongoing process in the sense that I still acquire FBI files which reveal FBI judgments about specific assertions made by the JBS (and the extreme right in general). There are still subjects I am researching but I have pretty much exhausted the overall Bureau judgment concerning the Birch Society itself. Since discussing the JBS necessarily involves discussing scores of subjects which they have published material about -- I could easily spend the rest of my lifetime researching FBI files for relevant material. For example: I am awaiting processing of a large FBI file concerning tax-exempt foundations and there are many individuals who were, at one time, JBS members that I have not yet pursued either because they are still living or because I cannot find proof of death in order to request their file.

2. LIMITATIONS/FRUSTRATIONS: -- Oh yes!

(a) In some cases, interesting files have been destroyed or they have been transferred to NARA. I cannot afford to pursue files which are now at NARA because of their outrageous duplication costs (75 cents per page) so those files will forever be off-limits to me.

( Also the FBI has recently instituted a new policy which will make it much more difficult for serious researchers to pursue their research. In the past, the Bureau would release as much as 5500 pages on ONE CD which cost a requester $15. However, now, they intend to process requests in 500-page increments which means that what they call medium or large track requests could easily cost several hundred or several thousand dollars.

© Another limitation is not always being able to find death records for persons connected to the subject matters being requested -- which means files can sometimes be heavily redacted.

(d) Even with death records, the Bureau has no consistent policy regarding redactions of public records and public source documents. For example, they sometimes will type a memo which refers to officers of a corporation which they quote verbatim from the incorporation documents (which are public records) but they redact the names. Even more frustrating, they often will type the entire text of a newspaper article into a FBI memo (and they identify the paper, the date, the page, the author, and the title of the article) but then they redact the names of persons mentioned in the article even though they already are in the public domain and can be discovered just by requesting the microfilm of that issue of the paper.

(e) The only "denied" file I can think of (off hand) was my request for the National Lawyers Guild because of successful litigation by the NLG which prevents release of their file.

(f) Not sure if this falls into your category but one limitation/frustration is simply trying to discover all of the various files created by the Bureau which address the subject matters that interest me. For example: By accident, I stumbled across a file which consists of Bureau Supervisor reviews of books/publications which they thought had relevance to their responsibilities. Those reviews provide fascinating insights into all sorts of subjects and they often reveal investigative file numbers (HQ and field) which I otherwise would never have known about.

3. JAMES LESAR: I know about him but have never spoken to or met him. However, I frequently exchange emails with many other individuals who are major FOIA researchers -- including several attorneys who specialize in FOIA lawsuits.

4. WHY MY QUESTION WAS SO IMPORTANT?

(a) Because I discovered very early that scholars and researchers had almost totally ignored FBI files pertaining to the right-wing in our country so it was a researcher's wet dream -- almost totally virgin territory. In fact, when I first started, the Bureau told me that I was the only person to request the subjects I was pursuing -- about 70-80% of the time. And the remaining 20-30% did not result in anybody writing anything about what they had discovered.

( Because for 40+ years, Birchers and their soulmates have effusively praised the FBI and especially J. Edgar Hoover as our nation's most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of indisputable factual data pertaining to internal security matters as well as about what constituted legitimate and effective anti-communist activities.

© I originally anticipated that I would discover that the Bureau AGREED WITH Robert Welch and the JBS more often than not -- and I thought I would write a report summarizing the extent of that agreement. So imagine my utter shock when I discovered the precise opposite!

5. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Yes-- there are many. For example, even though I have the entire Security Index/Detention of Communists file, which includes all of the instructions sent to field offices concerning criteria for listings -- I still don't fully comprehend their policies and, in particular, how it morphed into the Reserve Index and ADEX Index and other indexes. But that has always been sort of a secondary interest for me so I probably won't ever answer all my questions.

Hope that answers your questions.

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

....I have no "theory" about the JBS. Everything I have ever written and posted on-line is merely a summary of what is contained in FBI files -- my personal opinions or analysis is irrelevant because I let the documents speak for themselves.

ALL genuine research starts with a neutral question.

The question that I started with in 1980 when I began making FOIA requests was this one:

"What did J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI think about Robert Welch, the Birch Society, and the assertions they made?"

Everything I have written and posted on-line is my attempt to answer that question.

Ernie, obviously you have spent a lot of time, effort and thought in your attempts to answer that question.

When did you answer that question to your own satisfaction? Or is it an ongoing process still?

Are there any limitations, inherent or otherwise, in those released documents that keep you from finding out everything you want to know?

Have you been frustrated by redactions, unreleased files, or denied requests?

Have you met or spoken to James Lesar? Do you have any thoughts on the Morley vs CIA ruling?

Has your research raised any important questions that you have yet to have answered?

Why was that one particular question so important to you, to the exclusion of others?

Thanks.

[John Dolva]

Ernie, could you comment on a couple of matters, please?

Keeping the Reagan ''ruckus'' referred to earlier in mind. What could be the purpose of FBI appearing to diverge from the JBS >IF< they employed similar tactics? Often their cointelpro disruptions sought to create rifts where they otherwise would be none, ie inflammatory material to opposing parties each masquerading as a document supporting or attacking opposing positions.

Also, have you come across the rather comical MAD BUFILES part of which appears to express an opinion that Gen Walker and his Lawyer Brig Gen Watts of Watts, Looney, etc of Oklaahoma were just that, looney, and at the same time fabricating stuff on MLK with an aim to drive him to suicide a few weeks before he was to receive the Nobel Peace prize, with Hoover considering him the most dangerous ''negro'' in the US?

Do the FBI ''hide'' files by keeping cases ''open'' thus ensuring that documentation is not available, or even not listed as existing as a consequence?

[Ernie Lazar]

John:

FBI vs JBS: Not sure I understand your question. What "similar tactics" are you referring to? The Bureau's COINTELPRO programs were directed at groups involved in violent activities (such as Klans) or groups populated by people whom the Bureau considered to be security concerns because of their infiltration by Communist or New Left activists whom the Bureau thought were inciting or facilitating violence. Neither situation applied to the JBS.

As we now all know, several major figures involved in the civil rights movement (including MLK Jr) were on the Bureau's Security Index or Reserve Index. Of particular concern to the Bureau, in MLK Jr.'s case was his association with a concealed Communist Party member, Stanley Levison. By contrast, there was no one associated with the JBS who was on the Bureau's Security Index or Reserve Index.

EDWIN WALKER: Apart from my FBI files, I also have acquired considerable private correspondence between Robert Welch and his National Council members. Robert Welch advised his National Council members that Walker was associating with, and taking advice from, some very unsavory characters. At one point, Walker was offered (and he seriously considered) becoming Grand Dragon of a KKK unit in Texas.

In the 11/15/65 issue of Conde McGinley's racist and anti-semitic newspaper, Common Sense, Walker wrote:

“I’ll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action.”

In a 10/8/62 memo to all National Council members, Welch stated that Walker began taking advice from J. Evetts Haley and Medford Evans and Welch observed: "Not only does that advice seem to many of us to leave much to be desired in the matter of soundness; but much more recently Walker has also been listening to advice from another source and refusing to pay attention to those who have tried to caution him about this source, and it is one which we do not trust at all, even as to good intentions." Welch described the potential for "very serious embarrassment to conservatives and the conservative cause in general if Walker continues to listen to that advice." This probably is a reference to Walker's involvement with the anti-semitic crowd that owned American Mercury magazine [first, Russell Maguire and then Gerald Winrod's organization, Defenders of the Christian Faith and later Willis Carto's Legion for the Survival of Freedom.]

Some of Walker's admirers reported that during his 1962 campaign for Governor of Texas that his public statements were sometimes incoherent. There is one FBI memo on which J. Edgar Hoover handwrote a comment about Walker something to the effect "he's a nut case".

Ernie, could you comment on a couple of matters, please?

Keeping the Reagan ''ruckus'' referred to earlier in mind. What could be the purpose of FBI appearing to diverge from the JBS >IF< they employed similar tactics? Often their cointelpro disruptions sought to create rifts where they otherwise would be none, ie inflammatory material to opposing parties each masquerading as a document supporting or attacking opposing positions.

Also, have you come across the rather comical MAD BUFILES part of which appears to express an opinion that Gen Walker and his Lawyer Brig Gen Watts of Watts, Looney, etc of Oklaahoma were just that, looney, and at the same time fabricating stuff on MLK with an aim to drive him to suicide a few weeks before he was to receive the Nobel Peace prize, with Hoover considering him the most dangerous ''negro'' in the US?

Do the FBI ''hide'' files by keeping cases ''open'' thus ensuring that documentation is not available, or even not listed as existing as a consequence?

Edited June 16, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Ernie:

I'm referring to the offer by the JBS to support Reagan either by blowing his trumpet or attacking him. I understood that that was the incident at the time referred to as the Ruckus.

This reminds me of the FBI disruptive activities re the SDS for example, or COINT.SWP, COINT..CPUSA, etc which we have already agreed significantly targeted the left. Obviously this is because the Right tended to have the same anti communist agenda and were prob given some leeway. However this attacking both sides to create division through anonymous FBI created correspondence and news releases seems SOP. (the attempt on King was against a recognised non-violent activist who was effective. This effectiveness was what made him dangerous, imo, in Hoovers mind, finding a reason beyond that such as communist association is just a cover (I think), a smokescreeen). Similarly Civil Rights was the major entry of left thinking into the US at the time. It was what shocked the world most and brought condemnation from all over, so it threatened the US, and so, its agencies act.

In the ref. link I posted is the ''Impeach Earl Warren'' JBS campaign. This was a campaign that figures in the matters in discussion.

''EDWIN WALKER: Apart from my FBI files, I also have acquired considerable private correspondence between Robert Welch and his National Council members. Robert Welch advised his National Council members that Walker was associating with, and taking advice from, some very unsavory characters. At one point, Walker was offered (and he seriously considered) becoming Grand Dragon of a KKK unit in Texas.

In the 11/15/65 issue of Conde McGinley's racist and anti-semitic newspaper, Common Sense, Walker wrote:

"I'll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action."

In a 10/8/62 memo to all National Council members, Welch stated that Walker began taking advice from J. Evetts Haley and Medford Evans and Welch observed: "Not only does that advice seem to many of us to leave much to be desired in the matter of soundness; but much more recently Walker has also been listening to advice from another source and refusing to pay attention to those who have tried to caution him about this source, and it is one which we do not trust at all, even as to good intentions." Welch described the potential for "very serious embarrassment to conservatives and the conservative cause in general if Walker continues to listen to that advice." This probably is a reference to Walker's involvement with the anti-semitic crowd that owned American Mercury magazine [first, Russell Maguire and then Gerald Winrod's organization, Defenders of the Christian Faith and later Willis Carto's Legion for the Survival of Freedom.]

Some of Walker's admirers reported that during his 1962 campaign for Governor of Texas that his public statements were sometimes incoherent. There is one FBI memo on which J. Edgar Hoover handwrote a comment about Walker something to the effect "he's a nut case".''

Very interesting. (I hope Jim and others chime in)

I guess this is where the thought re JBS(Reagan) FBI(Coint.) activities seem to dovetail.

A kind of plausible deniability perhaps.

I realise you are not into speculation, but I mention it to see if you have anything that indicates they acted with the same kind of MO.

I also smell a touch of Amoss' leaderless resistance in the JBS literature. Possibly, like the KKK, they were layered in a hierarchical structure, one section for good well meaning folk and a series of steps to the hard core militia.

_____________________

(''Do the FBI ''hide'' files by keeping cases ''open'' thus ensuring that documentation is not available, or even not listed as existing as a consequence?'')

Edited June 16, 2010 by John Dolva

[Ernie Lazar]

The Reagan support "quote" was attributed to John Rousselot, the JBS Public Relations Director. It really didn't have much significance since most Birchers were already pre-disposed toward supporting Reagan because of his conservative views and his position regarding the campus demonstrations at UC-Berkeley and his support for the agenda of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. In any event, in later years, leaders of the JBS (including John McManus, the current President of the JBS and its former PR Director) savaged Reagan as a "phony conservative" who like Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, both Presidents Bush, etc. were captives of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The "leeway" you mention with respect to anti-communist groups was not because such groups were anti-communist. It was because groups like the JBS were not involved in promoting or inciting violent activities. For example: Birchers never marched in demonstrations, they never occupied or bombed public buildings or interfered with public speakers, they never spit on or threw rocks at law enforcement officers, they never participated in or condoned or "justified" riots, etc.

The FBI never publicly engaged in any sort of "attack" on the JBS or similar groups -- although it is clear from Hoover's Warren Commission testimony (and from some of his speeches) that he considered the views presented by Robert Welch to represent an irrational right-wing extremist point of view.

In fact, Hoover demolished the entire premise upon which the Birch Society was founded. In a 1961 speech and in subsequent remarks he made this observation:

"The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent, and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator."

Hoover and senior FBI officials did NOT consider MLK Jr to be a "non-violent" activist. They thought he encouraged civil disobedience which, inevitably, led to violent incidents. The person whom Hoover and the Bureau thought should replace MLK Jr as the leader of the civil rights movement was NAACP Executive Director, Roy Wilkins. The Bureau had VERY cordial relations with both Wilkins and his predecessor, Walter White.

Obviously, the NAACP accomplished a great deal through its lobbying activities and its legal challenges to Jim Crow laws. You are mistaken about Hoover's interpretation of MLK Jr. It was not some sort of "a cover". There were several Communist Party members who were close associates of MLK Jr and the Bureau had transcripts of conversations between King and them. By contrast, Walter White and Roy Wilkins and most NAACP officials were very aggressive about preventing CPUSA members from infiltrating or using the NAACP. Hoover thought (with justification) that MLK Jr was entirely willing to accept counsel from known Communists. Incidentally, I assume you know this but I will mention it anyway: MLK Jr believed in Marxist economic doctrines. Even his father acknowledged that. This, too, was a major difference between MLK Jr and the officials of other civil rights organizations.

I don't understand your final comment about FBI files so I can't comment on it.

----------

Ernie:

I'm referring to the offer by the JBS to support Reagan either by blowing his trumpet or attacking him. I understood that that was the incident at the time referred to as the Ruckus.

This reminds me of the FBI disruptive activities re the SDS for example, or COINT.SWP, COINT..CPUSA, etc which we have already agreed significantly targeted the left. Obviously this is because the Right tended to have the same anti communist agenda and were prob given some leeway. However this attacking both sides to create division through anonymous FBI created correspondence and news releases seems SOP. (the attempt on King was against a recognised non-violent activist who was effective. This effectiveness was what made him dangerous, imo, in Hoovers mind, finding a reason beyond that such as communist association is just a cover (I think), a smokescreeen). Similarly Civil Rights was the major entry of left thinking into the US at the time. It was what shocked the world most and brought condemnation from all over, so it threatened the US, and so, its agencies act.

In the ref. link I posted is the ''Impeach Earl Warren'' JBS campaign. This was a campaign that figures in the matters in discussion.

''EDWIN WALKER: Apart from my FBI files, I also have acquired considerable private correspondence between Robert Welch and his National Council members. Robert Welch advised his National Council members that Walker was associating with, and taking advice from, some very unsavory characters. At one point, Walker was offered (and he seriously considered) becoming Grand Dragon of a KKK unit in Texas.

In the 11/15/65 issue of Conde McGinley's racist and anti-semitic newspaper, Common Sense, Walker wrote:

"I'll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action."

In a 10/8/62 memo to all National Council members, Welch stated that Walker began taking advice from J. Evetts Haley and Medford Evans and Welch observed: "Not only does that advice seem to many of us to leave much to be desired in the matter of soundness; but much more recently Walker has also been listening to advice from another source and refusing to pay attention to those who have tried to caution him about this source, and it is one which we do not trust at all, even as to good intentions." Welch described the potential for "very serious embarrassment to conservatives and the conservative cause in general if Walker continues to listen to that advice." This probably is a reference to Walker's involvement with the anti-semitic crowd that owned American Mercury magazine [first, Russell Maguire and then Gerald Winrod's organization, Defenders of the Christian Faith and later Willis Carto's Legion for the Survival of Freedom.]

Some of Walker's admirers reported that during his 1962 campaign for Governor of Texas that his public statements were sometimes incoherent. There is one FBI memo on which J. Edgar Hoover handwrote a comment about Walker something to the effect "he's a nut case".''

Very interesting. (I hope Jim and others chime in)

I guess this is where the thought re JBS(Reagan) FBI(Coint.) activities seem to dovetail.

A kind of plausible deniability perhaps.

I realise you are not into speculation, but I mention it to see if you have anything that indicates they acted with the same kind of MO.

I also smell a touch of Amoss' leaderless resistance in the JBS literature. Possibly, like the KKK, they were layered in a hierarchical structure, one section for good well meaning folk and a series of steps to the hard core militia.

_____________________

(''Do the FBI ''hide'' files by keeping cases ''open'' thus ensuring that documentation is not available, or even not listed as existing as a consequence?'')

Edited June 16, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Ernie. There are a number of matters there I'd challenge or dipute, but I do come from a socialist viewpoint and inevitably my views will be tainted by that.

re the FBI disclosure Q. It's my understanding that ''open'', or active, police files in the US (or some states thereof) are not available to FOIAs, or can readily be deemed to be so. IOW they can be said to not exist.

The question is whether the FBI has a similar SOP re ''open'' files, or ones they consider to be so.

[Greg Parker]

GREG:

I usually do not bother to answer critics, like yourself, who accuse me of dishonesty – but I will make one final attempt to bring us back to a civil and productive discussion.

One final attempt? I haven’t seen the first yet, Ernie. This is what you said to me in our initial exchange “obviously, your knowledge about this matter is not credible.” You made that statement without even bothering to ask about my source material. And you have the gall to call me arrogant?

And I never accused you of dishonesty. I asked if you were mistaken, bluffing or lying.

I will try to answer all your questions, comments, and concerns. But first, I do not understand why you consider my previous comments to betoken “intellectual snottiness”. I have taken your comments seriously and I have tried to specifically address your comments and questions.

Ernie, you have not, as we will see, even been honest, let alone earnest.

But I note for the record that there is a major difference between you and I. Apparently, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) – you have NOT reviewed actual FBI files – i.e. the primary source evidence? -- correct?

This is a perfect example of your snottiness. Did I not provide a quote from my review of the first 100 pages of the Goldwater FBI file (which itself was part of a series reviewing the whole file)? As for other FBI files, those who know me here, know how wrong that comment is.

Greg: you never indicated that you reviewed any file. You simply quoted what you claimed was ONE document appearing in the Goldwater file.

Initially, yes, that is true. But in post # 27, I said; "From a post I made to another forum around 9 years ago summarizing the first 100 pages in the file."

I then quoted from what I wrote in that other forum. As for it being just one document, what is your point?

However, my inquiry was specifically referring to whether or not you have reviewed the files pertaining to the WHITE CITIZENS COUNCILS movement.

What inquiry? Please point specifically to where you have asked me whether or not I have reviewed FBI files pertaining to the WCC.

I have looked and I’m damned if I can see that question put to me anywhere. So my question again to you is, are you mistaken, are you bluffing, or are you lying?

So, it is not “snottiness” – it is simply an inquiry to determine the nature and extent of your knowledge. Apparently, you do not like to be challenged –and that is what you consider “snottiness”

It is snottiness when no such question has been put. If you can be “mistaken” about what you have said (not to mention what I have said!) in this very thread, how can anything you claim about your reviews of FBI files be trusted?

So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources. And if you find two secondary sources that seem to agree with one another – then THAT is what you consider compelling factual truth – correct?

Uh - huh. Let's see what you admit further down...

Now with respect to your specific comments. I bold type your comments; my replies are in blue font.

Did any FBI Special Agents ever violate Bureau rules?

Of course and, in fact, my on-line report concerning Dan Smoot documents in great detail what led to Smoot’s censure and being placed on probation and being transferred to a small insignificant field office. [During his relatively brief FBI career, Smoot was censured 3 times.]

That was not my question , Ernie. This was it: So no one to your knowledge deliberately flouted procedure? Is that it? I asked because you keep harping about the horrible fate of those with poor grammar, while I have been discussing the deliberate flouting of regs involving informants.

Of course there may have been individuals who “deliberately flouted [bureau] procedure” but with respect to deliberately flouting “regs involving informants” – I would have to address the specific evidence for each specific case you want to present. It certainly was not a widespread practice---if that is what you are getting at.

Even critics noted the insanity of Hoover's cultural Wonderland? And they are scholars? Amazing. Now I can see why you are so impressed with them. Their powers of perception are unmatched; their gallantry in reporting, beyond epic. I mean, where do we go from here, now that we have reached the pinnacle of critics being well... er...critical!

I don’t know what your purpose is in attempting to discredit, wholesale, all of our nation’s most knowledgeable scholars about FBI history. Everything which you think you know about Bureau improprieties was discovered largely as a result of their research. Scholars like Dr. Athan Theoharis have devoted their entire careers to unearthing factual data about the FBI as an institution. Theoharis has forgotten more about the FBI than you will ever know.

Oh I wasn't discrediting them, Ernie. I do note you snipped what I had replied to, so let's reinsert it:

But the fact remains that Bureau Agents were accountable to their superiors for even the smallest infractions of Bureau policies---including, as previously mentioned, grammatical mistakes in their reports or failure to follow Bureau policies. Even the scholars who are among the Bureau’s most severe critics have reported in great detail on this culture within the FBI.

My response was just taking the piss out of you. In essence, you said "even critics were critical". No big deal. I just found your wording amusing.

You seem to have missed my point (again). There are many scholars who have devoted considerable time and resources to researching FBI history – particularly by acquiring first-time-released files and documents and interviewing numerous FBI officials. You denigrated, through sarcasm, my respect for their research. I then responded to your sarcasm.

Nope. Wrong again. I denigrated your use of language. What you were actually talking about was immaterial to my sarcasm.

My larger point was that those scholars do not agree with your interpretations as reflected in your comments in this thread.

Interpretations of what? The FBI report I quoted from the Goldwater file? I would be more than happy to look at those scholarly interpretations of that document. In fact, I would be more than interested in seeing in what other way “DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS” can be interpreted.

Swearingen book and “verifying accuracy” of material

The famous philosopher, Karl Popper, pointed out that one can always “prove” something if one looks only for “confirmations” because in the universe of available data, there are ALWAYS “confirmations”.

And the historian, David Iredale pointed out "Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." This would be particularly true of intelligence agency files from the likes of the CIA, KGB, MI5, FBI etc

I have never heard of David Iredale. What “history” has he written about?

No problem Glad to. As soon as you tell me what “history” Popper” wrote about.

What has been his exposure to FBI files/documents?

First what was Popper’s again?

Not sure what you are asking me here. Are you asking me to identify who Popper is? If so, see:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Karl_Popper

Thanks, but I know who Popper is. You wanted to know what exposure Iredale has had to FBI files and what “history” he has written about. I think it behooves you to first show those things in regard to Poppin since you chose to quote him in the context of our discussion on FBI files. I’m sure that won’t be any problem for you since you claim you did not introduce this philosopher to turn this into a philosophical discussion.

Broad generalizations can’t really help us deal with specific matters we are discussing here.

Your comprehension is slipping yet again. I stated what SPECIFICALLY my quote could be applied to. Your quote was the one given as a generalization.

No, Greg, your quote was a generalization made by someone (Iredale) about whom I know nothing whatsoever. If, for example, he has had no exposure to FBI history or files, then what is the relevance of his comment? One could make the exact same comment about everything in life – i.e. our initial contacts with people or information may not be trustworthy or there may be “prejudice” which colors our perceptions.

Iredale was speaking about historical research. It was not a generalization. Popper on the other hand, was not speaking specificlly about historical research.

Memoirs are primary sources, too, Ernie. I realise you might not like that notion, but maybe one day, you'll get over your intellectual snottiness.

Memoirs are subjective and often self-serving.

Can I have a citation from a relevant authority on this assertion, please.

There is no “authority” – it is just common sense. Memoirs are not normally documented – they are simply subjective personal recollections. Often, assertions are made which cannot be verified because the parties discussed in the memoir are deceased (and cannot be asked pertinent questions) or the incidents mentioned are incapable of being proven or disproven. Consequently, they are among the most unreliable sources available. They have usefulness primarily as a starting point for further research--not an ending point from which reliable conclusions can be drawn.

After calling the sources I quoted “secondary” sources before having to admit they are in fact exactly what I said they were – PRIMARY sources, you are now looking for another escape hatch with the use of broad generalizations.

The Kennedy assassination btw, is replete with FBI files that are self-serving.

Many times they are written to excuse or defend or divert attention from behavior which would reflect unfavorably upon the author. They are primary sources only in the sense that they reveal the thoughts of the person writing them.

Okay. Progress. You’re admitting you were wrong when you said the memoires I quoted from were secondary sources (“So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources.”)

Were you mistaken, bluffing or lying, Ernie? Inquiring minds need to know!

No, Greg, I made no such "admission". The only source you specifically identified was the Swearingen memoir. A serious researcher has no way to determine if what Swearingen has written in his book is accurate and truthful – although, interestingly, he makes a comment which could be interpreted as undermining a major component of your previous argument and supporting my statement about protocols regarding informants.

He mentions FBI Supervisor Joseph M. Culkin and he then observes: “I could not tell Joe Culkin that Rockne had two bogus informants because Culkin would pass the buck and tell the SAC of the office, Richard D. Auerbach and Rockne would be in trouble for falsifying government documents. I would then be in trouble for informing on a fellow agent.”

When you cite Swearingen as a reliable source of information about FBI practices, we are left with the obvious question concerning how you went about verifying his assertions? Did you contact him to ask questions? Did you contact anyone he mentions in his book to inquire if Swearingen’s recollections were accurate or if there might be alternative interpretations? Have you compared Swearingen’s memoir to other FBI Special Agent memoirs or the research done by scholars into FBI practices?

I looked at other memoirs and news stories and you called it “searching for confirmation”, leading into your philosophical byway via Popper.

As for what you did or did not admit... in the one post, you referred to memoirs initially as secondary sources. Bythe end of the post, you begrudgingly admitted they are in fact primary sources. You can deny you did that all you want, but it is there for all to see.

The fact is, I have presented two authors independently saying that the FBI had a quota for informants, the difficulties in meeting that quota, and ways in which they met it i.e. inventing informants. If you want, I can also point you too a New York Magazine article from 1975 which again verifies the informant quota for agents and the difficulty in meeting it. Whilst it does not mention faking informants to meet the quota, the article does deal with the corruption of the Chicago office.

Greg: This is very difficult to discuss as an abstraction – and, in any event, I’m not sure how it pertains to our original discussion.

Periodically, field offices were instructed by HQ to increase their informant coverage in certain groups as a result of specific events --- but that does not obviate the fact that informants were subject to certain protocols which were spelled out in the Bureau’s Manual of Instructions.

And being subject to such protocols is no guarantee the protocols were always followed. You seem to live in a twilight zone where the very existence of a rule ensures it is always followed.

No—I have already acknowledged the obvious: in any large organization there are people who do not follow established rules and procedures—and who look for short-cuts. The operative question here, however, is what happens to people who violate such rules and procedures? That is why I mentioned my report concerning FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot. I provide specific evidence for your correct observation that the existence of a rule does not mean it is always followed.

Why are you so hung up about what happens when agents get caught breaking procedure?

The only material fact is that some did – regardless of whether they got caught and what happened by way of punishment.

I think I understand where we are headed here. It is what I describe as “Argument By Anomaly”, i.e. find a few exceptions to a general practice and then pretend that the exceptions were the general practice or, at a minimum, use the exceptions to de-value, dismiss, or ignore more voluminous and more compelling factual evidence.

And once again you're stating what you wish I said instead of what I have actually said. I have no problem believing or accepting what the memoires state about faked informants was the exception and not the rule. My purpose was to suggest, since such anomalies did exist, then perhaps the subject of this thread also fits within those anomalous spaces.

OK fine – then we can agree upon this. Maybe we just had a mis-communication about this matter because your original statement (see below) was so absolutist.

I’ll grant that I could have worded it to better reflect what I meant (that is, I should have said “You are absolutely wrong if you believe the entire FBI always adhered to policies and etc...” In my own defense, it never occurred to me you would take it as literally meaning NONE of them followed policy… nevertheless, I'll accept your point.

Greg – the problem we have here is that you want this to be a philosophical discussion.

Yet, so far, you are the only one to quote a philosopher. Go figure. If you think what I wrote above is a philosophical argument, I’m afraid there is little purpose in wasting further time.

A philosophical discussion does not require quoting a philosopher. My point is that it is much easier to deal in specific details rather than broad generalizations or abstractions.

You have used generalizations throughout this latest response.

I prefer we deal with specific cases. But the problem is that you have no first-hand knowledge of FBI files – and specifically with FBI informant files – correct?

Not correct, but it yet again demonstrates your snottiness.

It is not “snottiness” Greg. You simply have not identified what files you have obtained and reviewed whereas I have. I will repeat mine again:

Oh but I did – the Goldwater file. I also indicated I have read countless FBI documents pertaining to the assassinations of the ‘60s.

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/foia

In particular, we have been addressing your statement concerning White Citizens Councils not being investigated by the FBI. You have never once indicated that you have seen any FBI file on any of the White Citizens Councils. Nor did you identify any informant files you have reviewed, whereas, again, I have done so.

Once again, Ernie, it wasn’t my statement. I was quoting the FBI.

So how do we address that?

Your snottiness? I fear it may be too ingrained. You should have had it knocked out of you in kindergarten.

As previously mentioned, anybody can search internet and find a universe of data which will always provide “confirmations” for anything whatsoever that one wants to believe. This puts me at a great disadvantage because you can always come up with something which contradicts a statement I make -- and then I have to continually refute your "evidence" but you are not required to present any primary source evidence of your own because you have never reviewed the actual FBI files we are discussing.

Let’s just get something straight here. You are not the Master; I am not the Pupil. Obtaining 500,000 – or even 5,000,000 FBI files does not automatically endow you with expertize in reviewing them. Though you may possess some expertiize, I have seen little sign of it here. You are too busy lecturing others about what you percieve their shortcomings to be. Bad form, old boy. Bad form.

I’m sorry if I have offended you by giving you some specific details about the nature and extent of my research and what I have acquired. I can understand, however, why you don't want to provide comparable details.

Tush and nonsense. I’ll take quality over quantity any day.

Here’s a question for you: are you aware of any cases in which a person has publically outed themselves as an FBI informant, only to have the FBI falsely deny the claim? And where I say "falsely" I mean where the claim, at some point, has been verified through FBI files?

So, Greg, what do you prefer that I believe? ---> The primary source documents and FBI files (both HQ and field office) in my possession or your speculations?

Your comprehension needs some work. I was not speculating. I gave a direct quote from an FBI document. Here it is again: however the membership of this organization is not known to this office, DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS You have shown that there was some investigative work done on Citizen's Councils in the 1950s. What I quoted was written in 1963 - which is the period under discussion here.

Greg: I note for the record that you did not answer my questions. In order to answer you intelligently, please define your terms:

Excuse me, I did answer your question as far as I could since it was predicated on the incorrect notion that I was speculating.

No—you totally ignored my questions – and you continue to do so with ever-increasing hostility.

Not true, Ernie.

(1) What do YOU think constitutes an “active investigation”? Please give us the specific elements which you believe comprises an "active investigation"

Again, I am not playing pupil to your master. If you don’t know, I may help you out if you ask properly.

Your “snottiness” is beginning to show. Obviously, any discussion or debate must begin by mutual understanding of terms of reference. Your unwillingness to answer a basic question reveals more about you than me.

Your question is based on the false notion that I have been speculating. It’s a “when did you stop beating your wife” kind of deal.

(2) What type of information exists in an “investigative file” that does NOT exist in other types of FBI files?

As above.

(3) Why do you want to limit the discussion to one particular year – 1963?

The subject of this thread alleges he was an FBI informant inside JBS during what - ? 61 -64 period? The real question is why you brought up investigations during the ‘50s which were not relevant.

Huh? I did not bring up any investigations during the 1950’s except in answer to your falsehood that the Bureau never investigated White Citizens Councils. And, just for clarity, those investigations continued into the 1960’s.

If they continued into mid ’63, then that would make the statement in the Goldwater file I quoted untrue. Having reviewed the entire file, the WCC was certainly not investigated in relation to the bombing threats connected to racial matters the FBI was ostensibly so concerned about, despite what appears to have been probable cause to do so.

I thought we were discussing your original comment in message #11 that the Bureau never investigated the White Citizens Councils movement?

Yes. The period I was indicating was defined by you in the subject of the thread. Sorry if that confuses you.

Huh again! The subject of this thread is Harry Dean. YOU introduced White Citizens Councils, not me.

Yes, I did, but only more or less as an aside. It was you who defined the timeframe for any discussion in the thread by making it about Harry’s claims to have been an FBI informant. Harry’s claims for that do not go back to the ‘50s.

Your original comment never limited the discussion to one particular year. You then introduced a single document which you state exists in the FBI file on Goldwater and apparently you want everyone to accept that one document as definitive – even though you have never seen any of the 400+ FBI HQ files or the hundreds of field office files on the White Citizens Councils movement – correct? (It just occurred to me that I could, if you like, introduce the idea that it is YOU that is accepting "at face value" whatever documentation you think will advance your argument.)

If you are alleging the FBI document I quoted from does not mean what it says, just spit it out.

Your comprehension needs some improvement. As I previously stated, one document does not make a case--particularly when the subject matter covers 2 or 3 decades and involves 12-15 field offices.

I spent 11 years interpreting government policy and legislation. I know how to read documents. And it matters not that I am talking about a single document. It only matters what that document states – and the quoted wording is unambiguous.

You are again refering to the 1950s. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the quote I provided, that is your call, but you really need to take it up with the FBI --- or better still, just provide examples from 1963 which shows it to be a lie concocted by the FBI author of the document.

Greg, one does not have to “lie” in order to recognize that there are different instructions at different periods of time or unique instructions which apply to specific locations for some period of time. I am troubled by the way you attempt to use evidence. I think the problem here (once again) is that you have never seen any FBI file and, more importantly, you have never bothered to provide us with YOUR definition of what constitutes an “investigation”.

And I can find your definition where exactly in the thread?

Since you are the one who stated that no investigations were made of White Citizens Councils – I suggest that you explain your comment. Let me quote from your message #11 again – in case you forgot:

Ernie, you are absolutely correct that the FBI did not investigate groups like the JBS and White Citizen's Council (amazingly even when they had cause to).

You are also absolutely wrong in believing that the FBI adhered to policies and procedures in handling informants. Read FBI secrets: an agents exposé by Lesley Swearington.

Incidentally, notice the unconditional nature of your comment concerning FBI adherence to policies and procedures. Instead of declaring the obvious, i.e. there are examples of violations, you instead declared with absolute certitude that it is "absolutely wrong" to "believe that the FBI adhered to policies and procedures in handling informants". This all-or-nothing approach to evidence is quite revealing re: your mindset.

Addressed earlier.

Until you answer that question – we cannot proceed to discuss this matter intelligently. And, again, I wonder if you are proposing that we "accept at face value" every document you introduce simply because you think it advances your argument?

No. We can’t discuss it intelligently until you learn to read and stop putting up straw arguments.

Your weasel words do not divert us from the fact that you will not answer the obvious question which would quickly and easily resolve our dispute

You want my definition of what constitutes an “investigation” despite not having provided your own. Your question is in any case, just more of your snottishness. Even if I had no clue, do you think I could not quickly find out? That alone renders your question as one designed for reasons other than resolving anything. Sorry. Not playing that game. The bottom line is that the wording of what I quoted mentions nothing about being a policy only for a specific city, county or state. "Bureau regulations" can only mean regs applying accross the board - "prohibit" is self-explanatary. So what do "Bureau regs" "prohibit"? Active investigation of the WCC. The prohibition in this case meant they did not even have a list of members (or claimed not to) so that the name given in relation to the bomb threats could be checked against such a list (recall that the person making the threats claimed to be a member). Reinforcing this prohibition is the fact that the WCC comes under no further scrutiny in the matter.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

The "leeway" you mention with respect to anti-communist groups was not because such groups were anti-communist. It was because groups like the JBS were not involved in promoting or inciting violent activities. For example: Birchers never marched in demonstrations, they never occupied or bombed public buildings or interfered with public speakers, they never spit on or threw rocks at law enforcement officers, they never participated in or condoned or "justified" riots, etc.

Just so we're clear, Ernie, when you say the JBS "never" did any of the above, are you saying it was their official policy, therefore they could not have done those things; or are you saying by dent of the type of personality type drawn to the JBS, it just never happened?

Mr. LIEBELER - Are you a member or have you ever attended any meetings of the John Birch Society?

Mr. PAINE - I am not a member. I have been to one or, I guess chiefly one meeting of theirs.

Mr. LIEBELER - Where was that?

Mr. PAINE - That was in Dallas?

Mr. LIEBELER - When?

Mr. PAINE - That was the night Stevenson spoke in Dallas.

The CHAIRMAN - When?

Mr. PAINE - The night Stevenson spoke in Dallas, U.N. Day.

Representative FORD - Was that 1963?

Mr. PAINE - Yes,

Mr. LIEBELER - Would you tell us the circumstances of your attendance at that meeting and what happened?

Mr. PAINE -

I had been seeking to go to a Birch meeting for some time, and then I was invited on this night so I went. It was an introductory meeting.

Mr. DULLES - On the 9th of November?

Mr. PAINE - It was November something, I don't know what, a Wednesday or Thursday night.

Mr. LIEBELER - For the record I think the record should indicate that Mr. Stevenson was in Dallas on or about October 24, 1963. Who invited you to this meeting?

Mr. PAINE - I had tried once before to go to a meeting which didn't occur. There happens to be a member of our choir, a paid soloist who is a John Birch advocate so I have been applying--so I have been telling her, that I wanted to go. I suppose, I don't remember for certain but I suppose she was the one who told me where and when.

Mr. LIEBELER -

Did this meeting have anything to do with the activity that occurred at Mr. Stevenson's meeting in Dallas?

Mr. PAINE -

No. You see they were taking place at the same time. It was rather sparsely attended, most of them were down spitting on Stevenson

.

Mr. LIEBELER - The Birch meeting which you were down to was sparsely attended?

Mr. PAINE - Yes.

see also:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/the-stevenson-incident-and-the-assassination-t51.htm