HARRY J. DEAN

[Ernie Lazar]

Bill: I can send you a complete copy or you can also download each of its 4 sections here:

http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/mafiamon.htm

Ernie, Can I still take you up on this offer? I'd like to read it. Can't you just scan it and email it to me?

Thanks, BK

[Greg Parker]

Frankly, Greg, I am weary of your holier-than-thou arrogant disdain and misrepresentation of what I believe.

What did I say that was incorrect, Ernie?

I said you believe it is completely appropriate for the bureau to investigate the Left Wing more than the Right based on tips from informants etc.

Here is why I said that:

You said: "The reason why the Bureau opened more actual formal investigations of left-wing groups is because (1) the Bureau had more specific information concerning known or suspected Communist Party members who were attempting to infiltrate and use such groups--especially legitimate mass organizations (such as civil rights groups or labor unions) and (2) there was not much factual evidence that right-wing groups (despite their often crazy ideas) advocated, or encouraged, or condoned or promoted illegal activities---particularly violence. The major exception being, of course, KKK-groups."

I have already demonstrated the falsehood of the second premise (firstly through the Dallas Police report stating the Indignant White Citizen’s Council members allegedly taken in after the assassination for protective custody, had a history of violence and secondly through the Stevenson incident which was orchestrated by Birchers)

Here’s a reality checks for you on the first premise: You have called Hoover, when it suited your argument, a noted “anti-communist” (which he undoubtedly was), but at times when you are arguing other issues, you quote Hoover as stating "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."

In short, the communists were bumblers, incapable of putting a dent in National Security, yet every rumor and tidbit of information, regardless of the sources, was followed through vigorously. On the other hand, the FBI claimed groups like the WCC could not be investigated without the highest standards of proof that they had, or were about to, break the law. And even then it had to be done discretely so as not to embarrass themselves or the community leaders involved in those groups.

Yes, Hoover was Anti-Communist. Ever hear anyone call him anti-Right Wing? Of course not! They were “Patriots”, after all!

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

One of your problems, Ernie, is that you are constitutionally incapable of recognising self-serving statements made by the FBI.

You might like to review the following information:

(1) A recent doctoral dissertation by Samuel Brenner about the development of the extreme right in our country...Notice the acknowledgements page (page v) where Sam refers to his use of material he got from me

http://www.samuelbre...issertation.htm

(2) Dr. John Drabble is one of our nation's foremost scholars on the Bureau's COINTELPRO program involving White Hate Groups. He is also a friend of mine. He has written numerous articles (and he is working on a book) which reveals FBI illegal and improper activities. He, too, has cited me as his source for data in several of his articles. http://cointelprowhi...e.blogspot.com/

(3) Numerous other authors, researchers, and representatives of the news media have cited documents or information which they obtained from me in their own writings or reports about the extreme right in our country: the most recent examples being Alex Zaitchik's salon.com articles (and book) about Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow's reports on MSNBC with respect to the JBS.

Is this now reduced to a contest to see who has been cited the most?

You would lose, Ernie but I could care less about going there. The relevance to anything except personal ego, is marginal.

So I have TWO WORDS for you: The first begins with F and the second with Y.

Ha! The boy finally dredges up some passion! Well done!

Edited June 25, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Ernie Lazar]

Frankly, Greg, I am weary of your holier-than-thou arrogant disdain and misrepresentation of what I believe.

MY REPLIES ARE IN BLUE FONT

What did I say that was incorrect, Ernie?

I said you believe it is completely appropriate for the bureau to investigate the Left Wing more than the Right based on tips from informants etc.

Here is why I said that:

You said: "The reason why the Bureau opened more actual formal investigations of left-wing groups is because (1) the Bureau had more specific information concerning known or suspected Communist Party members who were attempting to infiltrate and use such groups--especially legitimate mass organizations (such as civil rights groups or labor unions) and (2) there was not much factual evidence that right-wing groups (despite their often crazy ideas) advocated, or encouraged, or condoned or promoted illegal activities---particularly violence. The major exception being, of course, KKK-groups."

I have already demonstrated the falsehood of the second premise (firstly through the Dallas Police report stating the Indignant White Citizen’s Council members allegedly taken in after the assassination for protective custody, had a history of violence and secondly through the Stevenson incident which was orchestrated by Birchers)

No, Greg, you have not "demonstrated the falsehood" of the second "premise".

Once again, you are picking ONE incident and elevating it to a generalization about Bureau practices. Furthermore, you keep ignoring the single most important factor: JURISDICTION.

The FBI had no jurisdiction to investigate or become involved in matters which are the responsibility of local police departments.

Former FBI Special Agent (and JBS endorser) Dan Smoot made your exact same defective argument in a July 1963 issue of his newsletter when he complained about the alleged difference in handling crimes of violence involving whites and African Americans. Smoot claimed that "Negro violence against whites is a routine matter beneath the notice of federal authorities" and he gave what he considered "examples" of 7 incidents in various locations around the country in June 1963.

The only variable which Smoot focused upon was race -- because he was claiming that the FBI did not investigate crimes by African Americans against whites but "civil rights for Negroes, in the eyes of politicians hungry for votes, means that harming a Negro is a national disaster which requires federal action even when such action violates the Constitution".

The reason why the FBI was involved in some of the incidents which Smoot discussed (but not others) was because of section 241, Title 18 of the U.S. Code, i.e. Conspiracy Against The Rights Of Citizens. What Smoot totally ignored was the fact that no federal statute had been violated in several of the incidents he used as examples of alleged FBI disinterest in the crimes he mentioned and this is how he constructed his bogus argument that the Feds were remiss by not barging into situations where they had no jurisdictional right to be!

Nevertheless, if and when local/state law enforcement entities requested Bureau assistance, they usually got it. And, FYI, there are Bureau documents which discuss the Stevenson incident and the persons involved (Robert E. Hatfield and Cora Fredrickson).

Here’s a reality checks for you on the first premise: You have called Hoover, when it suited your argument, a noted “anti-communist” (which he undoubtedly was),...

"When it suited [my] argument" ????

What the hell does that mean? Do you know anyone on this planet, left-wing or right-wing that denied the fact that he was anti-communist?

but at times when you are arguing other issues, you quote Hoover as stating "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."

In short, the communists were bumblers, incapable of putting a dent in National Security, yet every rumor and tidbit of information, regardless of the sources, was followed through vigorously. On the other hand, the FBI claimed groups like the WCC could not be investigated without the highest standards of proof that they had, or were about to, break the law. And even then it had to be done discretely so as not to embarrass themselves or the community leaders involved in those groups.

ANOTHER STRAW MAN ARGUMENT BY YOU!

He definitely DID NOT say or believe that Communists were "bumblers, incapable of putting a dent in National Security"

Nor are you correct about "every rumor or tidbit of information regardless of the sources". That, again, is YOUR fabrication.

Nor did the Bureau state that the WCC "could not be investigated without the highest standards of proof" -- ANOTHER FABRICATION BY YOU! -- which is easily falsifiable if you had any contact with actual WCC files.

I'm sorry Greg---but honest discussion with you is impossible. You twist EVERYTHING to conform to your bias and pre-determined conclusions..

Yes, Hoover was Anti-Communist. Ever hear anyone call him anti-Right Wing? Of course not! They were “Patriots”, after all!

What the hell is the point of this comment by you? And, yes, there are a huge number of editorial writers and columnists who explicitly characterized Hoover as anti extreme right. In fact, almost universally, the commentary about his April 1961 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin comments were interpreted to mean that Hoover had taken a shot against extreme right groups like the JBS.

Furthermore, there are these Hoover comments:

(1) His Warren Commission testimony

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol5/page101.php

Significantly, Hoover ignored the specific question he was asked and, instead, he used the inquiry as an opportunity to characterize Robert Welch and the JBS as "extremist" without mentioning their names:

"Mr. Hoover: I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies."

"Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man."

(2) Faith To Be Free, 12/7/61 Hoover Criss Award speech, page 7:

“Let us be for America all the way; but, at the same time, let us not be taken in by those who promote hysteria by the distortion and misrepresentation of the true facts whether they be the proponents of chauvinism of the extreme right or pseudo liberalism of the extreme left.”

(3) 10/9/62 J. Edgar Hoover speech, “An American’s Challenge” at National Convention of American Legion, Las Vegas Nevada, page 12:

“However, communism remains an intense subversive threat. Our Nation’s efforts to deal effectively with this menace are not enhanced by those of the extreme right who tend to affix the communist label without intelligent analysis, or by those of the extreme left who endeavor to minimize the real danger of communism.”

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

One of your problems, Ernie, is that you are constitutionally incapable of recognising self-serving statements made by the FBI.

Greg, of all the stupid and maliciously false statements you have made this one is the worst. Because of my research there are numerous books, articles, and doctoral dissertations by authors which reveal FBI mendacity because I shared material in my collection with those authors. It is quite apparent, however, what YOU mean by "self-serving statements made by the FBI". You mean ANYTHING which does not conform to your conclusions.

You might like to review the following information:

(1) A recent doctoral dissertation by Samuel Brenner about the development of the extreme right in our country...Notice the acknowledgements page (page v) where Sam refers to his use of material he got from me

http://www.samuelbre...issertation.htm

(2) Dr. John Drabble is one of our nation's foremost scholars on the Bureau's COINTELPRO program involving White Hate Groups. He is also a friend of mine. He has written numerous articles (and he is working on a book) which reveals FBI illegal and improper activities. He, too, has cited me as his source for data in several of his articles. http://cointelprowhi...e.blogspot.com/

(3) Numerous other authors, researchers, and representatives of the news media have cited documents or information which they obtained from me in their own writings or reports about the extreme right in our country: the most recent examples being Alex Zaitchik's salon.com articles (and book) about Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow's reports on MSNBC with respect to the JBS.

Is this now reduced to a contest to see who has been cited the most?

No--I was just trying to demonstrate the falsity of your premise. However, as usual, you chose to misrepresent my point so you could construct yet another straw man argument to divert attention from your own defective conclusions and your defective reasoning ability.

You would lose, Ernie but I could care less about going there. The relevance to anything except personal ego, is marginal.

I would "lose"? You think so?

Please share with us a list of the historians and scholars who have utilized material they got from you -- i.e. material which you discovered that was not previously available.

Please list a few books or articles which cite you as a source for documentation not available from any other source.

So I have TWO WORDS for you: The first begins with F and the second with Y.

Ha! The boy finally dredges up some passion! Well done!

[William Kelly]

Bill: I can send you a complete copy or you can also download each of its 4 sections here:

http://foia.fbi.gov/...ex/mafiamon.htm

Ernie, Can I still take you up on this offer? I'd like to read it. Can't you just scan it and email it to me?

Thanks, BK

Thanks Ernie,

The on line version is okay, though it would be nice if the FBI would spend some more tax payer's money on ink toner so when the release the records to the American public who really own them, they can read them.

As for this doc, apparently prepared by William Sullivan (look what happened to him), it goes into the early history of the Mafia in Sicily and Italy, and beginnings in the USA, but fails to note the role of Lucky Luciano in Operation Lucky, the invasion of Sicily, and no mention at all of the 1929 meeting of the mobsters in Atlantic City when they formed the Syndicate and the Commission.

While they take note of the fact that the Mafia went out of there way to bribe law enforcement and judges, there's no mention of JEHover meeting with Frank Costello in NYC, or how the FBI allowed the Mafia and Syndicate to function unhindered by prosecution even after they were publicly exposed.

An ordinary person reading history books could know more than what's in that document.

BK

[Michael Hogan]

Thanks Ernie,

The on line version is okay, though it would be nice if the FBI would spend some more tax payer's money on ink toner so when the release the records to the American public who really own them, they can read them.

As for this doc, apparently prepared by William Sullivan (look what happened to him), it goes into the early history of the Mafia in Sicily and Italy, and beginnings in the USA, but fails to note the role of Lucky Luciano in Operation Lucky, the invasion of Sicily, and no mention at all of the 1929 meeting of the mobsters in Atlantic City when they formed the Syndicate and the Commission.

While they take note of the fact that the Mafia went out of there way to bribe law enforcement and judges, there's no mention of JEHover meeting with Frank Costello in NYC, or how the FBI allowed the Mafia and Syndicate to function unhindered by prosecution even after they were publicly exposed.

An ordinary person reading history books could know more than what's in that document.

BK

Apparently the monograph was "based on a memo from W C Sullivan to Mr. A H Belmont dated July 9, 1958 re captioned matter."

I would be surprised if Sullivan had any more than that to do with its preparation. Maybe Ernie has a copy of that memo.

The monograph was written like a mediocre term paper. Other than a few minor incidents related by confidential informants,

most of the narrative (particularly section II) was sourced by a few court cases, the Kefauver Hearings, newspaper articles

(notably the New York Times) and books, all of which were in the public domain.

As far as meetings of "Sicilian-Italian hoodlums" from 1929 to 1951, "the evidence relating to these meetings or the purpose

thereof, is scarce and fragmentary." The monograph mentioned only one: Marco Reginelli, who was "reported to be the head of

the Mafia in Southern New Jersey," meeting Charlie Fischetti (a remnant from the Capone gang) at an Atlantic City hotel in 1946.

Essentially, that was the only meeting mentioned during those years. Your neck of the woods, Bill.

Other meetings after 1952 "reportedly" and "allegedly" took place. Nothing very definite. Of course in 1957 there was Apalachin.

The monograph gave nine possible "theories" for that meeting.

Maybe Apalachin was the catalyst that ultimately led to the preparation of this monograph.

Forum member Scott Deitche surely knows a lot about this stuff.

[William Kelly]

Thanks Ernie,

The on line version is okay, though it would be nice if the FBI would spend some more tax payer's money on ink toner so when the release the records to the American public who really own them, they can read them.

As for this doc, apparently prepared by William Sullivan (look what happened to him), it goes into the early history of the Mafia in Sicily and Italy, and beginnings in the USA, but fails to note the role of Lucky Luciano in Operation Lucky, the invasion of Sicily, and no mention at all of the 1929 meeting of the mobsters in Atlantic City when they formed the Syndicate and the Commission.

While they take note of the fact that the Mafia went out of there way to bribe law enforcement and judges, there's no mention of JEHover meeting with Frank Costello in NYC, or how the FBI allowed the Mafia and Syndicate to function unhindered by prosecution even after they were publicly exposed.

An ordinary person reading history books could know more than what's in that document.

BK

Apparently the monograph was "based on a memo from W C Sullivan to Mr. A H Belmont dated July 9, 1958 re captioned matter."

I would be surprised if Sullivan had any more than that to do with its preparation. Maybe Ernie has a copy of that memo.

The monograph was written like a mediocre term paper. Other than a few minor incidents related by confidential informants,

most of the narrative (particularly section II) was sourced by a few court cases, the Kefauver Hearings, newspaper articles

(notably the New York Times) and books, all of which were in the public domain.

As far as meetings of "Sicilian-Italian hoodlums" from 1929 to 1951, "the evidence relating to these meetings or the purpose

thereof, is scarce and fragmentary." The monograph mentioned only one: Marco Reginelli, who was "reported to be the head of

the Mafia in Southern New Jersey," meeting Charlie Fischetti (a remnant from the Capone gang) at an Atlantic City hotel in 1946.

Essentially, that was the only meeting mentioned during those years. Your neck of the woods, Bill.

Other meetings after 1952 "reportedly" and "allegedly" took place. Nothing very definite. Of course in 1957 there was Apalachin.

The monograph gave nine possible "theories" for that meeting.

Maybe Apalachin was the catalyst that ultimately led to the preparation of this monograph.

Forum member Scott Deitche surely knows a lot about this stuff.

Hi Michael, and indeed it is my neck of the Woods. It really is hard to believe that they would mention Reginelli, the Philadelphia mob boss who preceeded Angelo Bruno (a member of the Commission) as the boss of the Philadelphia mob (not only Mafia), who ran the area under his turf from an hotel in Camden, New Jersey. Regenilli sold the 500 Club in Atlantic City to Skinny D'Amato, had a celebrated funeral of many thousands of people, and is burried in a masolium at Calvary Cemetery near my father, a Camden law enforcement officer. Regenilli and Bruno were the last of the old style, benevant dictators. John Martino was a bookie in Atlantic City under both Regenilli and Bruno before he moved to Florida and Havana to work for Trafficante

Fischetti is the guy who introduced Sinatra to the mob, and worked the casinos. They were all big gambers.

Yes again with Scott, whose book on Trafficante mentions a low level Tampa police report that says Trafficante was acknowledged as the Syndicate's boss of Tampa and Havana at the 1929 meeting in Atlantic City. I hope Scott will join us again soon to discuss these things, especially since HBO will call attention to it with the upcoming Boardwalk Empire series, a sort of Sopranos prequil.

There are also a lot of mob documents released under the JFK Act and available at Mary Ferrell, including the complete FBI file on Bruno and other Commission members.

BK

Edited June 26, 2010 by William Kelly

[Greg Parker]

No, Greg, you have not "demonstrated the falsehood" of the second "premise".

Once again, you are picking ONE incident and elevating it to a generalization about Bureau practices. Furthermore, you keep ignoring the single most important factor: JURISDICTION.

The FBI had no jurisdiction to investigate or become involved in matters which are the responsibility of local police departments.

Yes Ernie, but that did not stop them inserting themselves immediately into the assassination of JFK or the murder of JD Tippit.It was not until Oswald was murdered that the FBI had a pretext for involvement: Oswald’s murder was apparently a breach of his civil rights. But in any case, jurisdiction is not the issue here.

The premise was encapsulated in this remark by you: “there was not much factual evidence that right-wing groups (despite their often crazy ideas) advocated, or encouraged, or condoned or promoted illegal activities---particularly violence; the major exception being, of course, KKK-groups." You said nothing about “jurisdiction”, only that “there was not much factual evidence” suggesting right-wing groups did the type of things that routinely got the left wing attention from the feds. You named those things as advocating, promoting, condoning or encouraging illegal activities.

So yes, I did demonstrate the falsehood of that.

By the way, neither Hatfield nor Fredrickson were charged over what they did to Stevenson because he refused to have charges pressed. He shouldn’t have needed to.

And how about Fulton Lewis, Jr. who advocated the lynching of Earl Warren (see TIME, Nov 24, 1961). This was a more extreme view than the JBS who just wanted Warren impeached. Was Lewis prosecuted for advocating and encouraging the murder of a federal official? No. The fact is that Hoover USED HIM AS A MOUTH-PIECE via leaked documents. So how can you claim Hoover’s statements were not self-serving when it came to politics? On the one hand, he criticized the JBS as “lunatic” and “extreme” while in bed with Fulton who was even more extreme!

He definitely DID NOT say or believe that Communists were "bumblers, incapable of putting a dent in National Security"

Yet he was adamant they had made no impression in their efforts to subvert. What is that, if not “bumbling”?

Nor are you correct about "every rumor or tidbit of information regardless of the sources". That, again, is YOUR fabrication.

You’re right Ernie. I exaggerated to underline a point. But where it was NO exaggeration was when the subject of the gossip happened to be a Hoover enemy….

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

Furthermore, there are these Hoover comments:

(1) His Warren Commission testimony

http://www.jfk-assas...ol5/page101.php

Significantly, Hoover ignored the specific question he was asked and,

You are misreading the testimony. Hoover was directly responding to what was put to him.

Hoover had been asked about a book on the assassination by an alleged communist. He was then asked to comment on a book on the same subject from someone on the opposite political pole.

Here is what precedes your quote from the testimony:

Representative Boggs.

Now, on the other side of the fence----

Mr. Dulles.

May I add one other thing just to interrupt. I wish you would add to your list a book called "The Red Roses of Dallas" by a man named Gun. He is a more reliable correspondent.

Mr. Hoover.

He is a Philadelphia correspondent.

Mr. Dulles.

He has been living in this country since 1946. I have met him over here. Let's see, he was at Dallas at the time. He was then reporting, I think, for the Italian newspaper Epoca.

Mr. Hoover.

That is not the same one.

Mr. Dulles.

He might have been lying. This book is full of lies. But I think it is a book that ought to be added, too, and I will see that a copy is sent to the Bureau.

Mr. Hoover.

I would appreciate that.

Representative Boggs.

On the other side of the spectrum some professor out at the University of Illinois wrote a piece in which he alleged the President was a Communist agent, President Kennedy, and Buchanan's allegations are that the extreme right assassinated the President and this fellow's allegations are that the Communists assassinated the President. Would you care to comment? Have you read that piece?

instead, he used the inquiry as an opportunity to characterize Robert Welch and the JBS as "extremist" without mentioning their names:

"Mr. Hoover: I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies." Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man."

So your interpretation that Hoover ignored a question and went off on a tangent specifically to have a rant about the JBS is off base.

Again – Hoover’s comments here are self-serving, and that holds true whether or not Hoover was being entirely honest. What probably betrays his true feelings is that he makes a point of claiming the Left labeled everyone who disagreed with them as Fascists. Yet the Right made the charge that anyone not an ultra conservative was a “pinko”, or “un-American” or “unpatriotic”. Those charges were far more prevalent – yet he only makes a point of bringing up the Fascist charge, which to me indicates he was comfortable with the “pinko” label being applied… er… liberally.

Incidentally, Hoover’s charge that such extremists would not deal with facts is ironic considering the sheer number of facts ignored or contorted by the FBI in the investigation of the assassination.

3) 10/9/62 J. Edgar Hoover speech, “An American’s Challenge” at National Convention of American Legion, Las Vegas Nevada, page 12:

“However, communism remains an intense subversive threat. Our Nation’s efforts to deal effectively with this menace are not enhanced by those of the extreme right who tend to affix the communist label without intelligent analysis, or by those of the extreme left who endeavor to minimize the real danger of communism.”

The Legion? That fun group who modeled its thinking on Mussolini? Who were involved in a plot to take control of the White House by force? I thought Hoover was against such extremists?

Is this now reduced to a contest to see who has been cited the most?

No--I was just trying to demonstrate the falsity of your premise. However, as usual, you chose to misrepresent my point so you could construct yet another straw man argument to divert attention from your own defective conclusions and your defective reasoning ability.What premise was that?

I would "lose"? You think so?

Yes.

Please share with us a list of the historians and scholars who have utilized material they got from you -- i.e. material which you discovered that was not previously available.

I told you, I’m not going there. It is childish, to say the least.

Please list a few books or articles which cite you as a source for documentation not available from any other source.

You have obtained an impressive amount of FBI files and you deserve kudos for sharing them with, for all I know, anyone and everyone who asks. But you are stretching a point suggesting that your files are not available anywhere else. Clearly, anyone can obtain them through FOIA.

Your failure to comment on the FBI document shoing they used a Bircher in a Cointelpro op against the New Left is noted.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Ernie Lazar]

No, Greg, you have not "demonstrated the falsehood" of the second "premise".

Once again, you are picking ONE incident and elevating it to a generalization about Bureau practices. Furthermore, you keep ignoring the single most important factor: JURISDICTION.

The FBI had no jurisdiction to investigate or become involved in matters which are the responsibility of local police departments.

Yes Ernie, but that did not stop them inserting themselves immediately into the assassination of JFK or the murder of JD Tippit.It was not until Oswald was murdered that the FBI had a pretext for involvement: Oswald’s murder was apparently a breach of his civil rights. But in any case, jurisdiction is not the issue here.

You don't think the assassination of a President (and all events pertaining thereto) legitimately fall under FBI jurisdiction?

The premise was encapsulated in this remark by you: “there was not much factual evidence that right-wing groups (despite their often crazy ideas) advocated, or encouraged, or condoned or promoted illegal activities---particularly violence; the major exception being, of course, KKK-groups." You said nothing about “jurisdiction”, only that “there was not much factual evidence” suggesting right-wing groups did the type of things that routinely got the left wing attention from the feds. You named those things as advocating, promoting, condoning or encouraging illegal activities.

So yes, I did demonstrate the falsehood of that.

Jurisdiction is the required predicate for FBI involvement -- I didn't think it was required to mention the obvious.

By the way, neither Hatfield nor Fredrickson were charged over what they did to Stevenson because he refused to have charges pressed. He shouldn’t have needed to.

FALSE! Hatfield went on trial 5-21-64 and was convicted. He was fined $200. [see NYT, 5-22-64, p17 "Texan Convicted of Spitting During Stevenson Protest"]. He subsequently resigned from the JBS after a bitter quarrel with Robert Welch. In a letter to Welch he referred to the “Jewish-UN campaign to put me behind bars."

Cora Fredrickson was not charged (at Stevenson's request) because (1) she apologized and (2) she claimed someone pushed her hand. There probably was no possibility of convicting her so why bother charging her?

With respect to your "he shouldn't have needed to" comment -- unlike yourself, most Americans are not mean-spirited and always seeking opportunities to use our legal system to punish their perceived political opponents.

What this example illustrates is that we cannot rely upon you for factual statements even if the facts are readily available through cursory research and even if you present your comments as unqualified certitudes.

And how about Fulton Lewis, Jr. who advocated the lynching of Earl Warren (see TIME, Nov 24, 1961). This was a more extreme view than the JBS who just wanted Warren impeached. Was Lewis prosecuted for advocating and encouraging the murder of a federal official? No. The fact is that Hoover USED HIM AS A MOUTH-PIECE via leaked documents. So how can you claim Hoover’s statements were not self-serving when it came to politics? On the one hand, he criticized the JBS as “lunatic” and “extreme” while in bed with Fulton who was even more extreme!

Hyperbolic comments by political pundits who are expressing anger (not serious intent) are not what I had in mind. What is your ultimate point? You want the FBI to open investigations of millions of Americans because of their political views if/when they express them in certain kinds of language?

Incidentally, Fulton Lewis Jr. was not "more extreme" than the JBS. In fact, he distanced himself from comments made by Welch/JBS as noted in a February 1962 editorial comment in National Review magazine. Incidentally, in what ways do you think he functioned as a "mouthpiece" for Hoover?

He definitely DID NOT say or believe that Communists were "bumblers, incapable of putting a dent in National Security"

Yet he was adamant they had made no impression in their efforts to subvert. What is that, if not “bumbling”?

Totally wrong. Scores of FBI files made it clear just what "impression" they had. I note for the record that your routine debate tactic is to always use vague or ambiguous generalities. What constitutes an "impression"?

Nor are you correct about "every rumor or tidbit of information regardless of the sources". That, again, is YOUR fabrication.

You’re right Ernie. I exaggerated to underline a point. But where it was NO exaggeration was when the subject of the gossip happened to be a Hoover enemy….

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

Furthermore, there are these Hoover comments:

(1) His Warren Commission testimony

http://www.jfk-assas...ol5/page101.php

Significantly, Hoover ignored the specific question he was asked and,

You are misreading the testimony. Hoover was directly responding to what was put to him.

Hoover had been asked about a book on the assassination by an alleged communist. He was then asked to comment on a book on the same subject from someone on the opposite political pole.

Here is what precedes your quote from the testimony:

Representative Boggs.

Now, on the other side of the fence----

Mr. Dulles.

May I add one other thing just to interrupt. I wish you would add to your list a book called "The Red Roses of Dallas" by a man named Gun. He is a more reliable correspondent.

Mr. Hoover.

He is a Philadelphia correspondent.

Mr. Dulles.

He has been living in this country since 1946. I have met him over here. Let's see, he was at Dallas at the time. He was then reporting, I think, for the Italian newspaper Epoca.

Mr. Hoover.

That is not the same one.

Mr. Dulles.

He might have been lying. This book is full of lies. But I think it is a book that ought to be added, too, and I will see that a copy is sent to the Bureau.

Mr. Hoover.

I would appreciate that.

Representative Boggs.

On the other side of the spectrum some professor out at the University of Illinois wrote a piece in which he alleged the President was a Communist agent, President Kennedy, and Buchanan's allegations are that the extreme right assassinated the President and this fellow's allegations are that the Communists assassinated the President. Would you care to comment? Have you read that piece?

instead, he used the inquiry as an opportunity to characterize Robert Welch and the JBS as "extremist" without mentioning their names:

"Mr. Hoover: I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies." Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man."

So your interpretation that Hoover ignored a question and went off on a tangent specifically to have a rant about the JBS is off base.

My point was that Hoover was testifying about the JFK assassination and he was asked a specific question about one specific article concerning the assassination written by Revilo Oliver but instead of answering the question (about that specific article), he chose to make a general denunciation of the entire JBS world-view and to characterize the JBS viewpoint as right wing "extremist".

Hoover mentions the JBS views about Chief Justice Warren and Eisenhower -- neither of which were related to JFK's assassination and neither of which are discussed in the Oliver article. He obviously wanted to make a larger point about extremist rhetoric -- just as he did in numerous other articles and speeches and in replies to thousands of individuals who wrote letters to the Bureau..

Again – Hoover’s comments here are self-serving, and that holds true whether or not Hoover was being entirely honest. What probably betrays his true feelings is that he makes a point of claiming the Left labeled everyone who disagreed with them as Fascists. Yet the Right made the charge that anyone not an ultra conservative was a “pinko”, or “un-American” or “unpatriotic”. Those charges were far more prevalent – yet he only makes a point of bringing up the Fascist charge, which to me indicates he was comfortable with the “pinko” label being applied… er… liberally.

Have you reviewed Hoover's handwritten comments on FBI memos? He routinely describes Birchers and other extreme rightists in very derogatory terms.

Incidentally, Hoover’s charge that such extremists would not deal with facts is ironic considering the sheer number of facts ignored or contorted by the FBI in the investigation of the assassination.

3) 10/9/62 J. Edgar Hoover speech, “An American’s Challenge” at National Convention of American Legion, Las Vegas Nevada, page 12:

“However, communism remains an intense subversive threat. Our Nation’s efforts to deal effectively with this menace are not enhanced by those of the extreme right who tend to affix the communist label without intelligent analysis, or by those of the extreme left who endeavor to minimize the real danger of communism.”

The Legion? That fun group who modeled its thinking on Mussolini? Who were involved in a plot to take control of the White House by force? I thought Hoover was against such extremists?

Oh please stop.

Is this now reduced to a contest to see who has been cited the most?

No--I was just trying to demonstrate the falsity of your premise. However, as usual, you chose to misrepresent my point so you could construct yet another straw man argument to divert attention from your own defective conclusions and your defective reasoning ability.What premise was that?

I would "lose"? You think so?

Yes.

Please share with us a list of the historians and scholars who have utilized material they got from you -- i.e. material which you discovered that was not previously available.

I told you, I’m not going there. It is childish, to say the least.

Please list a few books or articles which cite you as a source for documentation not available from any other source.

You have obtained an impressive amount of FBI files and you deserve kudos for sharing them with, for all I know, anyone and everyone who asks. But you are stretching a point suggesting that your files are not available anywhere else. Clearly, anyone can obtain them through FOIA.

Sorry, Greg, this is yet another example of how you arrive at conclusions without having a factual basis for them. Many of the files I acquired during the 1980's and 1990's have now been destroyed which means I am the only person who has them. In addition, many other files have been transferred to NARA and the duplication costs at NARA (75 cents per page) means that only the wealthiest individuals could afford to obtain them. For example, the HQ main file on the JBS (12,000 pages) is now at NARA, so unless you can afford to pay $9000, you won't be obtaining a copy anytime soon.

Your failure to comment on the FBI document shoing they used a Bircher in a Cointelpro op against the New Left is noted.

The FBI used anyone they thought would be helpful. Rev. Delmar Dennis was a JBS member (before and after he was an FBI informant).

Edited June 26, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[Michael Hogan]

You don't think the assassination of a President (and all events pertaining thereto) legitimately fall under FBI jurisdiction?

From the Bureau's website:

A national tragedy produced another expansion of FBI jurisdiction. When President Kennedy was assassinated,

the crime was a local homicide; no federal law addressed the murder of a President. Nevertheless, President

Lyndon B Johnson tasked the Bureau with conducting the investigation. Congress then passed a new law to

ensure that any such act in the future would be a federal crime.

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/postwar.htm

[Ernie Lazar]

Any "conspiracy" across state lines could legitimately trigger FBI involvement -- even if the murder itself was not a federal crime. Even back in the 1950's the Bureau investigated conspiracies involving, for example, bombings of churches/synagogues and inciting violence.

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect any lawyer could easily make a case for FBI involvement based upon seditious conspiracy statutes which existed at the time of JFK's assassination -- particularly since the U.S. was at war in 1963.

18 USC Sec. 2384

-STATUTE-

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to

overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the

United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force

the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the

execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize,

take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the

authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

-SOURCE-

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, Sec.

1, 70 Stat. 623;)

Nobody seriously maintains that the murder of our President should leave our primary national investigative agency totally clueless and out of the matter altogether. No local Police Dept would have access to the kind of intelligence which would make it possible to find probable suspects. Furthermore, if involvement by any foreign government was suspected, do you think any President would want to base his judgments and future actions exclusively upon what a local Police Dept might hypothesize?

You don't think the assassination of a President (and all events pertaining thereto) legitimately fall under FBI jurisdiction?

From the Bureau's website:

A national tragedy produced another expansion of FBI jurisdiction. When President Kennedy was assassinated,

the crime was a local homicide; no federal law addressed the murder of a President. Nevertheless, President

Lyndon B Johnson tasked the Bureau with conducting the investigation. Congress then passed a new law to

ensure that any such act in the future would be a federal crime.

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/postwar.htm

Edited June 26, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[Michael Hogan]

All I know is that Hoover ruled out conspiracy before it was humanly possible to do so and that the FBI....well never mind.

I saw the words you wrote and I saw what the FBI wrote in their "history."

Maybe you should take a little more care in how you word things, Ernie.

Any "conspiracy" across state lines could legitimately trigger FBI involvement -- even if the murder itself was not a federal crime. Even back in the 1950's the Bureau investigated conspiracies involving, for example, bombings of churches/synagogues and inciting violence.

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect any lawyer could easily make a case for FBI involvement based upon seditious conspiracy statutes which existed at the time of JFK's assassination -- particularly since the U.S. was at war in 1963.

-STATUTE-

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to

overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the

United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force

the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the

execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize,

take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the

authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

-SOURCE-

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, Sec.

1, 70 Stat. 623;)

Nobody seriously maintains that the murder of our President should leave our primary national investigative agency totally clueless and out of the matter altogether. No local Police Dept would have access to the kind of intelligence which would make it possible to find probable suspects. Furthermore, if involvement by any foreign government was suspected, do you think any President would want to base his judgments and future actions exclusively upon what a local Police Dept might hypothesize?

You don't think the assassination of a President (and all events pertaining thereto) legitimately fall under FBI jurisdiction?

From the Bureau's website:

A national tragedy produced another expansion of FBI jurisdiction. When President Kennedy was assassinated,

the crime was a local homicide; no federal law addressed the murder of a President. Nevertheless, President

Lyndon B Johnson tasked the Bureau with conducting the investigation. Congress then passed a new law to

ensure that any such act in the future would be a federal crime.

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/postwar.htm

[Ernie Lazar]

Hoover "ruled out conspiracy"? What makes you believe that?

More care about how I word things? Why? Do you think it would make any difference whatsoever?

One of the lessons I have learned from debating political extremists (left and right) for more than 40 years, is that they are incapable of "wording things carefully". Instead, they use imprecise, vague, ambiguous generalities which are insusceptible to normal rules of evidence or logic.

Another thing I have learned is the truth of what Karl Popper described in his writings: highly ideological individuals SELECT only that evidence which conforms to what they already believe. Thus, they ALWAYS have "confirmations" for their viewpoints. But what they cannot deal with are the contradictions which serve to falsify their beliefs, which is why they ALWAYS try to ignore, de-value, or dismiss contradictory evidence -- often through sarcasm or broad exaggerated generalities.

In addition, I have learned that when debating highly ideological people, ultimately the bottom-line becomes epistemological, i.e. how do we go about deciding what is and is not truthful, accurate, and factual? And how do we then use such data to form reasonable, prudent arguments?

Invariably, for example, when I debate Birchers -- I often spend large chunks of time simply trying to agree on word definitions. I once had a debate which took several days because someone objected to my use of the term "prosperous" to describe the American people during the 20th century. I then quoted extensive statistical data regarding dramatic increases (from 1900-1960) in average income, home ownership, percentage of people who moved into the middle class, and other factors -- but all to no avail. The reason why no statistical data was acceptable was because my critics were totally unwilling to acknowledge that Americans were a prosperous people. Consequently, any factual data used to dispute their premise was unacceptable.

I have the same problem with Birchers when I quote extensively from comments made by senior JBS officials wherein they effusively and unconditionally praise J. Edgar Hoover as our nation's most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of information about internal security related matters. HOWEVER, if I then quote something Hoover said which falsifies a JBS premise/conclusion -- THEN, all of a sudden, Hoover's statements are worthless!

Which leads to an obvious conclusion: highly ideological people create self-sealing arguments which are incapable of being falsified.

All I know is that Hoover ruled out conspiracy before it was humanly possible to do so and that the FBI....well never mind.

I saw the words you wrote and I saw what the FBI wrote in their "history."

Maybe you should take a little more care in how you word things, Ernie.

Any "conspiracy" across state lines could legitimately trigger FBI involvement -- even if the murder itself was not a federal crime. Even back in the 1950's the Bureau investigated conspiracies involving, for example, bombings of churches/synagogues and inciting violence.

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect any lawyer could easily make a case for FBI involvement based upon seditious conspiracy statutes which existed at the time of JFK's assassination -- particularly since the U.S. was at war in 1963.

-STATUTE-

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to

overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the

United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force

the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the

execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize,

take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the

authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

-SOURCE-

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, Sec.

1, 70 Stat. 623;)

Nobody seriously maintains that the murder of our President should leave our primary national investigative agency totally clueless and out of the matter altogether. No local Police Dept would have access to the kind of intelligence which would make it possible to find probable suspects. Furthermore, if involvement by any foreign government was suspected, do you think any President would want to base his judgments and future actions exclusively upon what a local Police Dept might hypothesize?

You don't think the assassination of a President (and all events pertaining thereto) legitimately fall under FBI jurisdiction?

From the Bureau's website:

A national tragedy produced another expansion of FBI jurisdiction. When President Kennedy was assassinated,

the crime was a local homicide; no federal law addressed the murder of a President. Nevertheless, President

Lyndon B Johnson tasked the Bureau with conducting the investigation. Congress then passed a new law to

ensure that any such act in the future would be a federal crime.

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/postwar.htm

[John Dolva]

Popper is an interesting one. I once passed a thesis of a Popper user to demolish Marxist Dialectics to someone well versed in the topic. The response to his quite reasonable ''analysis'' was a tirade of expletives and veiled insults covering some two pages.

As I understand it, Popper is a kind of replacement for Hegelian Dialectics as an alternative to Dilaetical Materialism a la Marx. IOW palatable to elements. Yet he does seem to do that very thing which he rails against.

[Michael Hogan]

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about or what point or points you are trying to make.

I read your statement and the Bureau's words and they were diametrically opposed. I posted both

without comment. It's that simple.

You can write ten paragraphs, or fifty, or a thousand and it won't change that.

Joining this Forum eventually convinced me of the futility of protracted discussions with anyone that

thinks that they know it all. Popper's words could easily apply to some of the things you write.

As far as Hoover and conspiracy, it's like I told you. Never mind.

Hoover "ruled out conspiracy"? What makes you believe that?

More care about how I word things? Why? Do you think it would make any difference whatsoever?

One of the lessons I have learned from debating political extremists (left and right) for more than 40 years, is that they are incapable of "wording things carefully". Instead, they use imprecise, vague, ambiguous generalities which are insusceptible to normal rules of evidence or logic.

Another thing I have learned is the truth of what Karl Popper described in his writings: highly ideological individuals SELECT only that evidence which conforms to what they already believe. Thus, they ALWAYS have "confirmations" for their viewpoints. But what they cannot deal with are the contradictions which serve to falsify their beliefs, which is why they ALWAYS try to ignore, de-value, or dismiss contradictory evidence -- often through sarcasm or broad exaggerated generalities.

In addition, I have learned that when debating highly ideological people, ultimately the bottom-line becomes epistemological, i.e. how do we go about deciding what is and is not truthful, accurate, and factual? And how do we then use such data to form reasonable, prudent arguments?

Invariably, for example, when I debate Birchers -- I often spend large chunks of time simply trying to agree on word definitions. I once had a debate which took several days because someone objected to my use of the term "prosperous" to describe the American people during the 20th century. I then quoted extensive statistical data regarding dramatic increases (from 1900-1960) in average income, home ownership, percentage of people who moved into the middle class, and other factors -- but all to no avail. The reason why no statistical data was acceptable was because my critics were totally unwilling to acknowledge that Americans were a prosperous people. Consequently, any factual data used to dispute their premise was unacceptable.

I have the same problem with Birchers when I quote extensively from comments made by senior JBS officials wherein they effusively and unconditionally praise J. Edgar Hoover as our nation's most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of information about internal security related matters. HOWEVER, if I then quote something Hoover said which falsifies a JBS premise/conclusion -- THEN, all of a sudden, Hoover's statements are worthless!

Which leads to an obvious conclusion: highly ideological people create self-sealing arguments which are incapable of being falsified.

All I know is that Hoover ruled out conspiracy before it was humanly possible to do so and that the FBI....well never mind.

I saw the words you wrote and I saw what the FBI wrote in their "history."

Maybe you should take a little more care in how you word things, Ernie.

Any "conspiracy" across state lines could legitimately trigger FBI involvement -- even if the murder itself was not a federal crime. Even back in the 1950's the Bureau investigated conspiracies involving, for example, bombings of churches/synagogues and inciting violence.

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect any lawyer could easily make a case for FBI involvement based upon seditious conspiracy statutes which existed at the time of JFK's assassination -- particularly since the U.S. was at war in 1963.

-STATUTE-

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to

overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the

United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force

the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the

execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize,

take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the

authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

-SOURCE-

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, Sec.

1, 70 Stat. 623;)

Nobody seriously maintains that the murder of our President should leave our primary national investigative agency totally clueless and out of the matter altogether. No local Police Dept would have access to the kind of intelligence which would make it possible to find probable suspects. Furthermore, if involvement by any foreign government was suspected, do you think any President would want to base his judgments and future actions exclusively upon what a local Police Dept might hypothesize?

You don't think the assassination of a President (and all events pertaining thereto) legitimately fall under FBI jurisdiction?

From the Bureau's website:

A national tragedy produced another expansion of FBI jurisdiction. When President Kennedy was assassinated,

the crime was a local homicide; no federal law addressed the murder of a President. Nevertheless, President

Lyndon B Johnson tasked the Bureau with conducting the investigation. Congress then passed a new law to

ensure that any such act in the future would be a federal crime.

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/postwar.htm

[Ernie Lazar]

Michael: I was addressing your comment concerning being more "careful" about wording I use in this forum. I suggested that it would make no difference whatsoever how "careful" my wording is because my critics would not accept any contradictory evidence. That is pretty straightforward and easy to understand isn't it?

I then brought up Karl Popper's analysis because it pertains to what I was attempting to explain. Highly ideological people artfully select only that evidence which they think can be used to support their arguments but they contemptuously dismiss or will not even consider contradictory evidence -- EVEN WHEN it originates from sources they normally support/admire/believe.

I think you should consider one more aspect: literal words versus intended meaning. Yes, the information you provided is literally correct i.e. murder of a President was not literally a federal crime at the time of the JFK assassination. But as I am sure even you can agree, there are many different federal laws which can apply to a crime. You may recall, for example, that Al Capone was convicted not for his many violent crimes -- but for income tax evasion. Similarly, the murderers of 3 civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964 were not convicted for murder, but for violations of civil rights statutes.

If you want to dispute someone for literal words that are complete FALSEHOODS -- then I suggest you challenge Greg Parker for his utterly false claims that

(1) the FBI never investigated the White Citizens Councils movement and

(2) Robert Hatfield was never charged for his assault on Adlai Stevenson and

(3) I am some sort of "apologist" for the FBI who believes every "self-serving" statement made by FBI officials

(4) In addition, I was very "careful" with my wording in one of my earliest messages here when I stated that the FBI never conducted an "official investigation" of the JBS --- but that didn't prevent Greg Parker from responding to my message by claiming that I said that the JBS had never been investigated; nor did it prevent Greg from claiming that I said the WCC had never been investigated when, in reality, up to that point I never even mentioned WCC (only he did) -- so that is another example of how "careful" wording is totally ignored when critics want to trash an opponent.

Lastly: I certainly do not think I "know it all" -- but, by the same token, I do have a unique insight into some matters because of extensive research I have done. I cannot pretend that I have not seen the documents and files I have seen just because it upsets some people that my conclusions are different from theirs.

And, finally, Karl Popper's observations do not apply to me because I always respond to contradictory evidence -- in detail--as I have done repeatedly in this thread.

You may not like my assertions or my conclusions, but, nevertheless, if you review my debate with Greg Parker you will notice that I have used THOUSANDS of words (and I have provided DOZENS of quotations from FBI documents) to substantiate my point of view.

Furthermore, ONLY I have been willing to address the fundamental dispute which started this debate, i.e. what constitutes an FBI "investigation". Greg continues to refuse to discuss this critical element.

It is self-evident that whenever one wants to discuss ANY controversial or disputed matter, definition of terms is absolutely required so that everyone understands the basis for any disagreements. Greg refuses to define his terms (for obvious reasons!). Suppose you and I want to discuss Marxism or communism or creationism or Christian reconstructionism or neo-conservatism in the U.S. How could we possibly do so without first agreeing upon what those terms mean? Particularly, if a term is used in different contexts or a term changes over time or if there are shaded meanings intended to cover different situations or even hide specific practices normally covered by the commonly understood meaning of such a term?

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about or what point or points you are trying to make.

I read your statement and the Bureau's words and they were diametrically opposed. I posted both

without comment. It's that simple.

You can write ten paragraphs, or fifty, or a thousand and it won't change that.

Joining this Forum eventually convinced me of the futility of protracted discussions with anyone that

thinks that they know it all. Popper's words could easily apply to some of the things you write.

As far as Hoover and conspiracy, it's like I told you. Never mind.

Hoover "ruled out conspiracy"? What makes you believe that?

More care about how I word things? Why? Do you think it would make any difference whatsoever?

One of the lessons I have learned from debating political extremists (left and right) for more than 40 years, is that they are incapable of "wording things carefully". Instead, they use imprecise, vague, ambiguous generalities which are insusceptible to normal rules of evidence or logic.

Another thing I have learned is the truth of what Karl Popper described in his writings: highly ideological individuals SELECT only that evidence which conforms to what they already believe. Thus, they ALWAYS have "confirmations" for their viewpoints. But what they cannot deal with are the contradictions which serve to falsify their beliefs, which is why they ALWAYS try to ignore, de-value, or dismiss contradictory evidence -- often through sarcasm or broad exaggerated generalities.

In addition, I have learned that when debating highly ideological people, ultimately the bottom-line becomes epistemological, i.e. how do we go about deciding what is and is not truthful, accurate, and factual? And how do we then use such data to form reasonable, prudent arguments?

Invariably, for example, when I debate Birchers -- I often spend large chunks of time simply trying to agree on word definitions. I once had a debate which took several days because someone objected to my use of the term "prosperous" to describe the American people during the 20th century. I then quoted extensive statistical data regarding dramatic increases (from 1900-1960) in average income, home ownership, percentage of people who moved into the middle class, and other factors -- but all to no avail. The reason why no statistical data was acceptable was because my critics were totally unwilling to acknowledge that Americans were a prosperous people. Consequently, any factual data used to dispute their premise was unacceptable.

I have the same problem with Birchers when I quote extensively from comments made by senior JBS officials wherein they effusively and unconditionally praise J. Edgar Hoover as our nation's most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of information about internal security related matters. HOWEVER, if I then quote something Hoover said which falsifies a JBS premise/conclusion -- THEN, all of a sudden, Hoover's statements are worthless!

Which leads to an obvious conclusion: highly ideological people create self-sealing arguments which are incapable of being falsified.

All I know is that Hoover ruled out conspiracy before it was humanly possible to do so and that the FBI....well never mind.

I saw the words you wrote and I saw what the FBI wrote in their "history."

Maybe you should take a little more care in how you word things, Ernie.

Any "conspiracy" across state lines could legitimately trigger FBI involvement -- even if the murder itself was not a federal crime. Even back in the 1950's the Bureau investigated conspiracies involving, for example, bombings of churches/synagogues and inciting violence.

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect any lawyer could easily make a case for FBI involvement based upon seditious conspiracy statutes which existed at the time of JFK's assassination -- particularly since the U.S. was at war in 1963.

-STATUTE-

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to

overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the

United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force

the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the

execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize,

take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the

authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

-SOURCE-

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, Sec.

1, 70 Stat. 623;)

Nobody seriously maintains that the murder of our President should leave our primary national investigative agency totally clueless and out of the matter altogether. No local Police Dept would have access to the kind of intelligence which would make it possible to find probable suspects. Furthermore, if involvement by any foreign government was suspected, do you think any President would want to base his judgments and future actions exclusively upon what a local Police Dept might hypothesize?

You don't think the assassination of a President (and all events pertaining thereto) legitimately fall under FBI jurisdiction?

From the Bureau's website:

A national tragedy produced another expansion of FBI jurisdiction. When President Kennedy was assassinated,

the crime was a local homicide; no federal law addressed the murder of a President. Nevertheless, President

Lyndon B Johnson tasked the Bureau with conducting the investigation. Congress then passed a new law to

ensure that any such act in the future would be a federal crime.

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/postwar.htm

Edited June 26, 2010 by Ernie Lazar