REVIEW of two JFK ebooks

[Mark Knight]

It seems to me that this thread has gotten badly off track - given that it is a very serious thread involving someone who has presented himself and been presented as a conspiracy witness

I really think it needs to refocus and I also think Paul has an obligation to at least acknowledge the issue revealed by the first post on the thread.

I agree. Paul's absence on this thread is quite conspicuous.

[Paul Brancato]

I also think Dean's absence after his initial post, in which he made a 'wow' accusation with no substance to back it up, no detail, troubling. I have argued with Paul so many times, and found his need to repeat his theory ad infinitum very disturbing. But right now I think Harry Dean owes us a detailed explanation as to why he has leveled those charges. What exactly are the charges Harry? You have an audience here that will give you a fair hearing.

[Paul Trejo]

We really do need to hear from Paul on this; the remarks posted in the review either either undermine what Paul has been posting or, as an alternative, reflect on Harry as a source....of course its not the first time we have seen books dealing with purported witnesses being repudiated but its something that does raise crediblity issues.

Well, Larry, I thought this was already well-settled, when Harry Dean broke with me sharply last year, when he reverted back to his theory that the Mormon Church killed JFK.

That was one of the keynotes of Harry's book/manuscript, "Crosstrails".

Before I accepted Harry Dean's request to write his story in 2013, I told him -- face to face -- that I would only do that on the condition that I would omit the nonsense that the Mormon Church killed JFK.

I told Harry Dean that his story was very interesting to my theory (which was already several years in the making) that Ex-General Edwin Walker was the leader of the JFK Kill-Team.

Harry Dean provides an eye-witness account of a John Birch Society meeting in which Edwin Walker announced the selection of a Patsy, namely Lee OSWALD, an Officer of the Communist FPCC in New Orleans.

Harry Dean also traces the activities of Loran Hall and Larry Howard in that same circle of right-wing fanatics in Southern California. I find this extremely interesting and believable -- and even crucial for solving the JFK murder.

However, Harry Dean was also of the opinion that the Mormon Church was controlling events behind the scenes -- and I saw utterly no evidence for that political opinion. I told him I would remove that opinion from any book I would write. HARRY AGREED TO THAT STIPULATION AT THE TIME.

Since late 2013, when we published our eBook, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK, we were enthusiastic that we might obtain a wide hearing.

Well, we didn't. We've sold maybe 22 copies of our eBook in 1.5 years. Very disappointing. Still, I had high hopes that after Jeff Caufield's 400-page book on Edwin Walker and JFK is finally published, that we would see soaring sales.

Caufield's book has been at the publishers for over a year, and is still not ready for publication. So, the project that Harry and I shared has floundered.

However, last year, Harry surprised me when he published on this FORUM that he still believes that the Mormon Church supervised the murder of JFK, and that he didn't have sufficient input into our eBook. I was stunned.

Well -- failure can do that to people. So, I just dropped the whole topic. There is no way I'm going to go over the deep end and suspect the Mormon Church for the murder of JFK. I don't even want to be vaguely associated with such nonsense.

What was Harry Dean's evidence? Well, he joined the Mormon Church after he moved to Los Angeles in 1961, and in their company he learned that many of them hated JFK, and many of them were members of the John Birch Society and the Minutemen. That was his perception.

Since he became embroiled in their theology and theocracy, it clearly influenced his interpretation of the events he witnessed inside the John Birch Society.

Well, from a distance, most of us can see that association is not necessarily causation. So what if Ezra Taft Benson was an avid supporter of Robert Welch? I pointed out to Harry Dean that subsequent Presidents of the Mormon Church sharply distanced themselves from the John Birch Society.

That seemed to work for awhile -- until it didn't.

Finally -- I never said that our eBook "replaced" Harry's manuscript of "Crosstrails." That is a separate book and stands on its own.

My point was that I covered what I thought was relevant to the case against Edwin Walker, and I put it into that perspective -- and I left the Mormon Church out of it.

I understand that Harry Dean is disappointed in the failure of our eBook. Maybe he thinks he can get further support for his political views, and his notion that the Mormon Church is trying to take over the USA down to this very day. I don't know -- and frankly, I don't care.

I stand by the eBook that we wrote together over several months in 2013, when we worked closely both face to face, but especially over Email, in which I still have a paper trail of hundreds of pages of work, questions, answers, and so forth.

"Harry Dean's Confessions" still stands today -- although only a few people have read it. (To be fair, the book was perused by 180 people, though purchased by only 22.)

So, that's my side of the story.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 21, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks for making that clear Paul, it seems to me everyone can make their own judgements about Harry as a source and your inclusion of him in your theory so I have nothing particular to say. I think it is good to have your

comments on the thread.

[Paul Trejo]

Thanks for making that clear Paul, it seems to me everyone can make their own judgements about Harry as a source and your inclusion of him in your theory so I have nothing particular to say. I think it is good to have your comments on the thread.

Thanks, Larry. I would add this -- just because I disagree with a person's political conclusions, is no reason for me to dismiss their EYE-WITNESS testimony.

I may disagree with their EVALUATION of what they saw, but WHAT they saw can be critically important.

Take, for example, Fletcher Prouty. I disagree with his evaluation of General Edward Lansdale there among the three tramps. However, I don't dismiss his EYE-WITNESS testimony that the person in that photograph was REALLY Edward Lansdale.

Prouty knew Lansdale for years, at close quarters, in the same working office. His EYE-WITNESS testimony is therefore very valuable, even though I totally reject his personal EVALUATION of the photograph in question.

It's the same with Harry Dean. Just because I disagree with PART of what he says -- that is no reason for me to disagree with ALL of what he says. I'm not so one-sided.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo