Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book!


Recommended Posts

Paul T and Jon

It is not my aim to speak further on these subjects, just wanted to

have Lazar's answer. It can be said that all official reports resulted

'after' I intentionally broke off all associations in 1965, both with FBI

pro- and anti-Castro dealings. Several such FBI reports,as shown via Lazar

are twisted, even untrue, which are expected and understood before my decision

to resign and publicly expose many facts, done for personal and safety reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Very nice Ernie. You spent a lot of time on this. Thanks so much for making it available to us.

BTW, I should acknowledge, in Joan Brady's fine new book on the Hiss/Chambers case, she acknowledges Ernie as being one of the most prolific and expert users of the FOIA in America.

Never knew that I was mentioned by her. However, I have received emails from Chambers' grandson and others who have used files which are now on Internet Archive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Dean,

Please tell your intelligence recruitment and training.

That is, tell about how you were recruited to do intelligence work. And how, when, and by whom you were trained to do such work. And also, if I may, who (without naming names necessarily) instructed and handled you.

Thanks.

Hold on one second, Jon. Who said that Harry Dean was recruited to do Intelligence work?

Evidently you're unaware of the TRUTH about Harry Dean, which Harry has been trying to bring out for YEARS.

Harry Dean was a VOLUNTEER of information to the FBI. He was never *recruited* or offered MONEY for his Information.

Harry Dean is a PATRIOT who got involved with the 26th of July Movement with his eyes open -- but when it was taken over by the FPCC, and Harry saw how many COMMUNISTS were inside that group, Harry VOLUNTEERED to go to the FBI to tell them what he knew.

The FBI accepted Harry's information at first -- for months. This includes the time that Harry went to Cuba to obtain recognition for his 26th of July membership. The FBI wanted to know what happened there in Cuba. According to Harry, there was a member of the CIA present at that briefing. That's perfectly logical.

Yet Harry NEVER claimed to be an Agent or a Paid Informant of the FBI or CIA at any time. Ever.

There was a FICTION WRITER named W.R. MORRIS who wrote shameless fiction stating that Harry Dean was both an FBI and a CIA Agent. That was written without Harry Dean's permission.

I want to ensure that you know that.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

As usual, Paul misrepresents the facts.

1. RECRUITMENT

In Harry's 11/21/75 affidavit, he wrote about himself that:

"I was recruited by U.S. National Security Intelligence by their uniquely convincing tactics that assure patriotic service from the right person, in the right place, at the right time."

In his 1990 self-published memoir Harry wrote:

"I was recruited by U.S. Intelligence by their uniquely convincing tactics.... { to avoid being indicted as an unregistered agent of a foriegn (sic) government}."

2. FBI "ACCEPTED" HARRY'S INFORMATION

What Paul "forgets" to mention is that the FBI routinely "accepted" information from EVERYBODY -- even people whom the Bureau then described as "mental cases".

3. "Yet Harry NEVER claimed to be an Agent or a Paid Informant of the FBI or CIA at any time. Ever."

In a 1966 advertising flyer captioned "I Confess" by Harry (see below) soliciting subscriptions to his "twice monthly" publication, Harry falsely described himself in this flyer as "an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation"

Harry also has referred to his FBI relationship as "my spy position" and he also described his connections to "internal security" and he then boasted about:

"My assignments were increased to include some anti-Castro groups and individuals in the U.S. as some of them were being led by pro-Castro agents."

Obviously, everybody understands how terms like "my assignments" are perceived and understood by ordinary people when somebody discusses their purported connections to our intelligence agencies.

And PAUL TREJO himself clearly understood the full meaning and ramifications of Harry's self-description when Paul posted the following comment here on April 24, 2012:

"By 1962, Harry Dean had successfully completed a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on Fidel Castro in Cuba. Now, in 1963, Harry Dean was on a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on the John Birch Society in Southern California."

Nobody has ever described Harry as a "paid informant" -- that is a straw-man argument and blatant misdirection by Paul. It is equivalent to when Robert Welch vehemently protested that his critics were lying when they supposedly claimed that Welch described President Eisenhower as a "card-carrying Communist" -- which nobody had done.

But Welch invented that because (like Paul) he wanted to manipulate readers into believing a falsehood about what actually had been said and written by Welch.

1966%20flyer%20by%20Harry.JPG?height=400

My objections have ALWAYS BEEN very explicit. I will summarize them again for you here.

1. Harry was NOT an FBI "informant"

2. Harry was NOT an FBI "political spy"

3. Harry was NOT an FBI "street informant"

4. Harry was NOT an FBI "undercover agent" (whether "official" or "unofficial" -- whatever the hell that means TO YOU

5. Harry was NOT an FBI "undercover operative" (whether "official" or "unofficial "-- whatever the hell that means TO YOU

6. Harry was NOT an FBI "official paid informant" nor a "paid informant"

7. Harry was NOT a "private investigator" (whether "official" or "unofficial" -- whatever the hell that means TO YOU)

8. Harry did NOT "investigate" anything for the FBI (whether "officially" or "unofficially" -- whatever the hell that means TO YOU)

9. Harry was NOT an FBI "double agent" (YOUR description in November 2012)

10. In 1962, Harry was NOT (as he wrote in 2006) "involved with the Bureau in gathering political and subversive intelligence information."

11. Harry was NOT "a former U.S. intelligence informant" (as he described himself in November 2007)

12. Harry was NOT a "U.S. intelligence...infiltration operative/informant" (as he described himself in September 2011)

13. Harry was NOT "operating underground for the FBI, spying on the JBS in Southern California" (your description in March 2012)

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul T and Jon

It is not my aim to speak further on these subjects, just wanted to

have Lazar's answer. It can be said that all official reports resulted

'after' I intentionally broke off all associations in 1965, both with FBI

pro- and anti-Castro dealings. Several such FBI reports,as shown via Lazar

are twisted, even untrue, which are expected and understood before my decision

to resign and publicly expose many facts, done for personal and safety reasons.

In one word: BULLxxxx!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, since readers here want to talk about Harry Dean, and since the actual theme of this thread is Jeff Caufield's new book: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), then I think we should review what Jeff Caufield says about Harry Dean.

To do that, I'll skip over Chapters 17 and 18, and go right ahead to Chapter 19, Insiders and Informants.

We begin with an error on the part of Jeff Caufield, who writes:

The story of Harry Dean...bean with a UPI story written by W.R. Morris on November 26, 1966, that reported that Marguerite Oswald told him that a former FBI man had put yellow chrysanthemums on her son's grave on November 26, 1966. (Caufield, 2015, p. 590)

This is an error because we have FBI documents that describe the first clash of Harry Dean in the mass media, which was in the Joe Pyne Show on radio/TV in January 1965. The FBI warned Harry Dean not to talk to the media. The FBI also strongly advised the producers of the Joe Pyne Show that Harry Dean was a "unbelievable" and to avoid putting him on the air.

The Joe Pyne Show producers put Harry Dean on the air, anyway.

The context is the month -- January 1965. Actually, Harry Dean wanted to get on the Joe Pyne Show before that moment, but this was the first scheduling opportunity that the show had open. Harry Dean had waited all of 1964 for the Warren Commission to tell the truth as he knew it -- and had reported it to the FBI (he adamantly insists) that General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder, and he had first-hand knowledge of this.

When the WC Report was published, and stuck by its "Lone Nut" theory that it had leaked to the press all year long, Harry Dean was heartbroken, and chose to go out alone -- despite all odds.

So, although Jeff Caufield knows Harry Dean personally, I believe that Jeff Caufield simply forgot this very important first eruption of Harry Dean onto the public stage. I consider it to be all-important.

On the contrary -- for Jeff Caufield to give W.R. Morris credit for Harry's first media appearance is a negative, because W.R. Morris then attempted to co-opt Harry Dean's story from that point on -- and ensured that disinformation about Harry Dean was spread for two solid decades.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, since readers here want to talk about Harry Dean, and since the actual theme of this thread is Jeff Caufield's new book: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), then I think we should review what Jeff Caufield says about Harry Dean.

To do that, I'll skip over Chapters 17 and 18, and go right ahead to Chapter 19, Insiders and Informants.

We begin with an error on the part of Jeff Caufield, who writes:

The story of Harry Dean...bean with a UPI story written by W.R. Morris on November 26, 1966, that reported that Marguerite Oswald told him that a former FBI man had but yellow chrysanthemums on her son's grave on November 26, 1966. (Caufield, 2015, p. 590)

This is an error because we have FBI documents that describe the first clash of Harry Dean in the mass media, which was in the Joe Pyne Show on radio/TV in January 1965. The FBI warned Harry Dean not to talk to the media. The FBI also strongly advised the producers of the Joe Pyne Show that Harry Dean was a "unbelievable" and to avoid putting him on the air.

The Joe Pyne Show producers put Harry Dean on the air, anyway.

The context is the month -- January 1965. Actually, Harry Dean wanted to get on the Joe Pyne Show before that moment, but this was the first scheduling opportunity that the show had open. Harry Dean had waited all of 1964 for the Warren Commission to tell the truth as he knew it -- and had reported it to the FBI (he adamantly insists) that General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK

murder, and he had first-hand knowledge of this.

When the WC Report was published, and stuck by its "Lone Nut" theory that it had leaked to the press all year long, Harry Dean was heartbroken, and chose to go out alone -- despite all odds.

So, although Jeff Caufield knows Harry Dean personally, I believe that Jeff Caufield simply forgot this very important first eruption of Harry Dean onto the public stage. I consider it to be all-important.

On the contrary -- for Jeff Caufield to give W.R. Morris credit for Harry's first media appearance is a negative, because W.R. Morris then attempted to co-opt Harry Dean's story from that point on -- and ensured that disinformation about Harry Dean was spread for two solid decades.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Keep in mind that there are NO documents of any kind which support Paul's contention that "The FBI warned Harry Dean not to talk to the media."

Instead, there ARE many documents which report inquiries that were received by the FBI-Los Angeles field office which asked the FBI to either confirm or deny Harry's story. The FBI's standard reply was to point out that Harry was never an FBI informant or "undercover agent" nor was he ever asked to do anything on behalf of the FBI.

Nevertheless, southern California newspapers and other media representatives published stories about Harry or asked him to appear on their TV interview programs.

So what consequences did Harry face from the FBI for supposedly ignoring those alleged "FBI warnings"? Nothing whatsoever. And Harry continued to be interviewed and he continued to use every possible avenue to promote himself and his narrative.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that there are NO documents of any kind which support Paul's contention that "The FBI warned Harry Dean not to talk to the media."

Instead, there ARE many documents which report inquiries that were received by the FBI-Los Angeles field office which asked the FBI to either confirm or deny Harry's story. The FBI's standard reply was to point out that Harry was never an FBI informant or "undercover agent" nor was he ever asked to do anything on behalf of the FBI.

Nevertheless, southern California newspapers and other media representatives published stories about Harry or asked him to appear on their TV interview programs.

So what consequences did Harry face from the FBI for supposedly ignoring those alleged "FBI warnings"? Nothing whatsoever. And Harry continued to be interviewed and he continued to use every possible avenue to promote himself and his narrative.

Ernie deliberately neglects to mention that there are FBI documents that support my contention that the FBI strongly advised the Joe Pyne Show producers to drop Harry Dean from their program -- advice which the Joe Pyne Show producers courageously rejected.

The FBI has played dirty pool with Harry Dean since January 1965 -- and they never stopped. This is what Harry Dean maintains, and I accept this believable aspect of his account. Yet it's no surprise that an FBI expert like Ernie Lazar would take the side of the FBI in this dispute.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that there are NO documents of any kind which support Paul's contention that "The FBI warned Harry Dean not to talk to the media."

Instead, there ARE many documents which report inquiries that were received by the FBI-Los Angeles field office which asked the FBI to either confirm or deny Harry's story. The FBI's standard reply was to point out that Harry was never an FBI informant or "undercover agent" nor was he ever asked to do anything on behalf of the FBI.

Nevertheless, southern California newspapers and other media representatives published stories about Harry or asked him to appear on their TV interview programs.

So what consequences did Harry face from the FBI for supposedly ignoring those alleged "FBI warnings"? Nothing whatsoever. And Harry continued to be interviewed and he continued to use every possible avenue to promote himself and his narrative.

Ernie deliberately neglects to mention that there are FBI documents that support my contention that the FBI strongly advised the Joe Pyne Show producers to drop Harry Dean from their program -- advice which the Joe Pyne Show producers courageously rejected.

The FBI has played dirty pool with Harry Dean since January 1965 -- and they never stopped. This is what Harry Dean maintains, and I accept this believable aspect of his account. Yet it's no surprise that an FBI expert like Ernie Lazar would take the side of the FBI in every dispute -- but hey, what can we expect?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

QUOTE the statements made by the FBI to Joe Pyne program employees so we can all evaluate your contention regarding how "strongly" the FBI "advised" them.

You also deliberately neglect to specify the context -- i.e. that Harry was using every conceivable opportunity and linguistic device to portray himself and his background FALSELY.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with me "siding" with the FBI. It has everything to do with ACCURATELY describing what actually happened and the reasons.

Suppose, for example, that Paul Trejo created a FALSE description of himself and he was attempting to get media outlets (newspapers, magazines, radio programs, TV programs, etc) to interview him so that Paul could present his false persona to a large audience in order to capitalize upon all that free publicity for his own benefit.

Would it then be "dirty pool" if somebody came along and pointed out that Paul's self-promotion was based upon total falsehoods?

And would it be "taking sides" simply to reveal the truth about the matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE the statements made by the FBI to Joe Pyne program employees so we can all evaluate your contention regarding how "strongly" the FBI "advised" them.

You also deliberately neglect to specify the context -- i.e. that Harry was using every conceivable opportunity and linguistic device to portray himself and his background FALSELY.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with me "siding" with the FBI. It has everything to do with ACCURATELY describing what actually happened and the reasons.

Suppose, for example, that Paul Trejo created a FALSE description of himself and he was attempting to get media outlets (newspapers, magazines, radio programs, TV programs, etc) to interview him so that Paul could present his false persona to a large audience in order to capitalize upon all that free publicity for his own benefit.

Would it then be "dirty pool" if somebody came along and pointed out that Paul's self-promotion was based upon total falsehoods?

And would it be "taking sides" simply to reveal the truth about the matter?

Well, Ernie, you know very well what FBI documents I refer to -- and you know that I can quote them anytime I want -- and I will do so in my own good time. You know this because you have seen them yourself.

You deliberately neglect the fact that the ONLY source you have for your outrageous claim that "Harry was using every conceivable opportunity and linguistic device to portray himself and his background FALSELY," is the FBI itself.

Isn't that correct, Ernie?

As I have said -- you will always take the side of the FBI against Harry Dean -- isn't that right, Ernie? The FBI has accused Harry Dean of portraying himself FALSELY, and so you jump on their bandwagon.

Yet actually this began when Harry Dean first came out on the Joe Pyne Show in January 1965. Isn't that right, Ernie?

Harry Dean told me that he was a FREE VOLUNTEER of information to the FBI since 1960, and they accepted his information for months. In fact, there are FBI records that confirm this, and you have seen those too, haven't you, Ernie?

But after Harry Dean went public on the Joe Pyne Show, suddenly fiction writer W.R. Morris came out of the woodwork and tried to take control of Harry Dean's story, and began to print EVERYWHERE that Harry Dean claimed to be both an FBI agent and a CIA agent.

That is the same as claiming that Harry Dean was a "mental case," and that is very obvious. Yet we also know that the FBI also accused Silvia Odio of being a "mental case," too. Because she said (like Harry Dean said) that LHO had accomplices (namely, Loran Hall and Larry Howard, in the service of General Walker).

Clearly, W.R. Morris began smearing Harry Dean starting in 1966 (as Jeff Caufield dates it) and never stopped well into the 1980's.

The FBI was probably -- IMHO -- behind this smear campaign featuring W.R. Morris -- who made quite a bit of money using Harry Dean's name, without Harry Dean's permission.

You know very well which FBI documents refer to that Joe Pyne Show, Ernie, since you're very familiar with FBI documents.

I'll soon post their word-for-word contents right here on this thread.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE the statements made by the FBI to Joe Pyne program employees so we can all evaluate your contention regarding how "strongly" the FBI "advised" them.

You also deliberately neglect to specify the context -- i.e. that Harry was using every conceivable opportunity and linguistic device to portray himself and his background FALSELY.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with me "siding" with the FBI. It has everything to do with ACCURATELY describing what actually happened and the reasons.

Suppose, for example, that Paul Trejo created a FALSE description of himself and he was attempting to get media outlets (newspapers, magazines, radio programs, TV programs, etc) to interview him so that Paul could present his false persona to a large audience in order to capitalize upon all that free publicity for his own benefit.

Would it then be "dirty pool" if somebody came along and pointed out that Paul's self-promotion was based upon total falsehoods?

And would it be "taking sides" simply to reveal the truth about the matter?

Well, Ernie, you know very well what FBI documents I refer to -- and you know that I can quote them anytime I want -- and I will do so in my own good time. You know this because you have seen them yourself.

You deliberately neglect the fact that the ONLY source you have for your outrageous claim that "Harry was using every conceivable opportunity and linguistic device to portray himself and his background FALSELY," is the FBI itself.

Isn't that correct, Ernie?

As I have said -- you will always take the side of the FBI against Harry Dean -- isn't that right, Ernie? The FBI has accused Harry Dean of portraying himself FALSELY, and so you jump on their bandwagon.

Yet actually this began when Harry Dean first came out on the Joe Pyne Show in January 1965. Isn't that right, Ernie?

Harry Dean told me that he was a FREE VOLUNTEER of information to the FBI since 1960, and they accepted his information for months. In fact, there are FBI records that confirm this, and you have seen those too, haven't you, Ernie?

But after Harry Dean went public on the Joe Pyne Show, suddenly fiction writer W.R. Morris came out of the woodwork and tried to take control of Harry Dean's story, and began to print EVERYWHERE that Harry Dean claimed to be both an FBI agent and a CIA agent.

That is the same as claiming that Harry Dean was a "mental case," and that is very obvious. Yet we also know that the FBI also accused Silvia Odio of being a "mental case," too. Because she said (like Harry Dean said) that LHO had accomplices (namely, Loran Hall and Larry Howard, in the service of General Walker).

Clearly, W.R. Morris began smearing Harry Dean starting in 1966 (as Jeff Caufield dates it) and never stopped well into the 1980's.

The FBI was probably -- IMHO -- behind this smear campaign featuring W.R. Morris -- who made quite a bit of money using Harry Dean's name, without Harry Dean's permission.

You know very well which FBI documents refer to that Joe Pyne Show, Ernie, since you're very familiar with FBI documents.

I'll soon post their word-for-word contents right here on this thread.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- let's first address the larger insinuation which you always bring up in one form or another. Let's settle this once and for all --OK?

(1) From the very beginning of our discussion concerning Harry Dean (in 2012), you have used every opportunity to suggest, hint, or emphatically declare that there are very strong legitimate reasons to conclude that any FBI documents that mention or discuss Harry are suspect.

Both you (and Harry) have gone even further. You have stated or hinted that FBI documents which prove the accuracy of Harry's story are being suppressed because they contain "Top Secret" information -- even though NOBODY can find any trace of such documents or the files they supposedly exist in.

(2) Now -- in 2010, and 2011, and 2012, and 2013 and up until March 2014 we had no independent method to compare what you said or what Harry said or what Bill Kelly said or what I said or what anybody else said about Harry's alleged contacts with the FBI to contemporaneous documentary evidence.

(3) In other words we had no way to compare our comments to whatever existed re: the FBI and Harry in original primary source documents because:

  • Harry claimed virtually all of his documentary evidence no longer existed
  • We did not have transcripts or summaries of Harry's statements during TV interviews or during newspaper interviews
  • We did not have copies of Harry's letters to the FBI office in Los Angeles
  • We did not have a copy of Harry's letter to President John F. Kennedy
  • We did not have a copy of Harry's letter to J. Edgar Hoover
  • We did not have copies of Harry's FBI files (Chicago, HQ, and Los Angeles) because both Harry and yourself REFUSED to submit FOIA requests for Harry's FBI files -- even when you and Harry cooperated on what you planned to publish as your new eBook -- in which you planned to resurrect and greatly expand upon Harry's 50-year old narrative.

(4) So, in effect, we all were speculating except for the fact that I had already received many FBI files about subject matters which Harry discussed and I reported that no corroborating documents existed in those files.

(5) THEN, I became aware of FBI documents about Harry which appeared on the Mary Ferrell website AND in March 2014 I obtained from NARA a copy of Harry's FBI-Los Angeles field file and in October 2014, I obtained from NARA a copy of Harry's FBI-HQ main file.

So, for the very first time, we were able to see exactly what Harry wrote to President Kennedy and what he wrote to J. Edgar Hoover and what he wrote to Sen. George Murphy AND we were able to see exactly what letters Harry wrote to the Los Angeles field office AND we were able to see comments made by ordinary citizens who had contemporaneous direct personal contact with Harry AND were were able to see contemporaneous documents which summarized contacts which the the FBI office in Los Angeles had with Harry (by phone, by mail, and in person) AND we were able to see contemporanous documents which summarized inquiries which the FBI-Los Angeles received about Harry from various people who had contact with Harry.

(6) BOTTOM-LINE

-a- In EVERY instance where FBI HQ or FBI-Los Angeles prepared a summary memo regarding what Harry said or wrote -- we now know (with absolute certainty) that the FBI memos are spot-on accurate and truthful.

We know that because we can compare (for example) what Harry wrote to JFK or to Hoover or to Los Angeles field -- to the statements made in the FBI memos--including quotations and paraphrases they used to summarize Harry's comments.

-b- In EVERY instance where FBI-Los Angeles was contacted by a news organization or a TV program producer, we know (with certainty) that the FBI summary memos regarding those contacts were accurate and truthful (and most importantly circumspect).

We know that because we can see how those contacts were handled by virtue of the contemporaneous notes which report what transpired.

In particular -- we can see that the FBI-Los Angeles field office was essentially PASSIVE and reticient to say anything about Harry.

ONLY WHEN pressed for information concerning whether or not Harry's statements about himself were accurate did the FBI respond with a brief statement to the effect that Harry was never an informant and had never been authorized to do anything on behalf of the FBI.

Period. End of story.

  • There was no vendetta against Harry by the FBI -- no matter how many times you try to pretend he was "persecuted" by the FBI.
  • The FBI only became involved when they were contacted by somebody who wanted to know if Harry's self-descriptions were correct.
  • Your incessant attempts to make us believe that FBI documents about Harry are NOT accurate or truthful or in context simply are fictional libels.

With respect to this comment by you:

You deliberately neglect the fact that the ONLY source you have for your outrageous claim that "Harry was using every conceivable opportunity and linguistic device to portray himself and his background FALSELY," is the FBI itself.

We can only use the contemporaneous documentary evidence which exists from many different sources (not just the FBI's opinions).

We have Harry's OWN WORDS and even YOUR comments which I have quoted

We have letters written by people who asked the FBI to confirm whether or not Harry's self-description was accurate.

We have neighbors of Harry who wrote letters to the FBI containing derogatory references about Harry's personality and demeanor.

We have the impressions which both ordinary people and professional reporters expressed to the FBI about Harry

I will address your other comments in a separate message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE the statements made by the FBI to Joe Pyne program employees so we can all evaluate your contention regarding how "strongly" the FBI "advised" them.

You also deliberately neglect to specify the context -- i.e. that Harry was using every conceivable opportunity and linguistic device to portray himself and his background FALSELY.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with me "siding" with the FBI. It has everything to do with ACCURATELY describing what actually happened and the reasons.

Suppose, for example, that Paul Trejo created a FALSE description of himself and he was attempting to get media outlets (newspapers, magazines, radio programs, TV programs, etc) to interview him so that Paul could present his false persona to a large audience in order to capitalize upon all that free publicity for his own benefit.

Would it then be "dirty pool" if somebody came along and pointed out that Paul's self-promotion was based upon total falsehoods?

And would it be "taking sides" simply to reveal the truth about the matter?

Well, Ernie, you know very well what FBI documents I refer to -- and you know that I can quote them anytime I want -- and I will do so in my own good time. You know this because you have seen them yourself.

You deliberately neglect the fact that the ONLY source you have for your outrageous claim that "Harry was using every conceivable opportunity and linguistic device to portray himself and his background FALSELY," is the FBI itself.

Isn't that correct, Ernie?

As I have said -- you will always take the side of the FBI against Harry Dean -- isn't that right, Ernie? The FBI has accused Harry Dean of portraying himself FALSELY, and so you jump on their bandwagon.

Yet actually this began when Harry Dean first came out on the Joe Pyne Show in January 1965. Isn't that right, Ernie?

Harry Dean told me that he was a FREE VOLUNTEER of information to the FBI since 1960, and they accepted his information for months. In fact, there are FBI records that confirm this, and you have seen those too, haven't you, Ernie?

But after Harry Dean went public on the Joe Pyne Show, suddenly fiction writer W.R. Morris came out of the woodwork and tried to take control of Harry Dean's story, and began to print EVERYWHERE that Harry Dean claimed to be both an FBI agent and a CIA agent.

That is the same as claiming that Harry Dean was a "mental case," and that is very obvious. Yet we also know that the FBI also accused Silvia Odio of being a "mental case," too. Because she said (like Harry Dean said) that LHO had accomplices (namely, Loran Hall and Larry Howard, in the service of General Walker).

Clearly, W.R. Morris began smearing Harry Dean starting in 1966 (as Jeff Caufield dates it) and never stopped well into the 1980's.

The FBI was probably -- IMHO -- behind this smear campaign featuring W.R. Morris -- who made quite a bit of money using Harry Dean's name, without Harry Dean's permission.

You know very well which FBI documents refer to that Joe Pyne Show, Ernie, since you're very familiar with FBI documents.

I'll soon post their word-for-word contents right here on this thread.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Part 2 of my reply -- My comments appear underneath yours in BLUE FONT

As I have said -- you will always take the side of the FBI against Harry Dean -- isn't that right, Ernie? The FBI has accused Harry Dean of portraying himself FALSELY, and so you jump on their bandwagon.

No, Paul, that is NOT "right". Please re-read my original June 2010 message. I went through a lot of reasons why I do not believe Harry's story based upon MY research -- not taking the side of the FBI. And most importantly, as you very well know, I have used HARRY'S OWN STATEMENTS here on EF and on the Mary Ferrell website and elsewhere.

In addition, it is stunning that you make such an accusation of bias when you consider that YOU have stated repeatedly that you consider yourself to be Harry's friend and ally and #1 defender and you always give him "the benefit of the doubt". We have seen repeatedly how YOUR bias has resulted in YOU making absurdly false assumptions and conclusions. EXAMPLE: Just yesterday in reply to Mr. Tidd, you wrote about Harry that:

"He was never *recruited* or offered MONEY for his Information."

I then quoted verbatim two different statements BY HARRY (from 1975 and again in 1990) where he explicitly stated that he WAS "recruited".

BY DEFINITION -- to "recruit" somebody means "to persuade someone to join you in some activity or to help you" AND "to secure the services of"

I could have quoted other statements BY HARRY in which he declared that he was "requested" by our "intelligence agencies" to perform functions for them -- which is the same thing as saying he was "recruited".

For example, in July 2005, in reply to questions posed to Harry by John Simkin, Harry stated that he was "advising the Bureau as requested" regarding various individuals and groups.

This is yet another example of YOUR omnipresent bias which prevents YOU from admitting the obvious truth. So you always engage in deliberate mis-direction by accusing other people (including me) of YOUR OWN worst qualities and mistakes!

Yet actually this began when Harry Dean first came out on the Joe Pyne Show in January 1965. Isn't that right, Ernie?

What is the object of your phrase "this began..."? You mean when did Harry first begin falsely describing himself?

If that IS what you meant -- then, no, Paul, the problem began LONG before the Joe Pyne incident.

For example, there was Harry's April 1963 contact with Paul Stroebel of the West Covina CA Tribune when Harry gave Strobel the impression that he worked as "counterspy for the FBI in Chicago" and of course there is Harry's own description of himself in his 11-19-63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover in which he described himself as "an undercover agent" working for the FBI in Chicago. And there are other examples.

Lastly, there is nothing particularly significant about the Joe Pyne incident so I don't know why you think it is uniquely important.

Harry Dean told me that he was a FREE VOLUNTEER of information to the FBI since 1960, and they accepted his information for months. In fact, there are FBI records that confirm this, and you have seen those too, haven't you, Ernie?

Yes---just like any other American citizen (or anybody else for that matter), Harry was totally free to contact his local FBI office or FBI-HQ in Washington DC and report anything he chose to report -- and he could do that for whatever reasons he had in his own mind.

But YOU continually attempt to make this much more important or significant than it was.

What you (and Harry) continually refuse to acknowledge is this:

AT NO TIME during the 1960's and 1970's did Harry EVER clearly tell people (particularly media contacts) that his relationship with the FBI (or his relationship to "intelligence agencies") was that he "volunteered information".
INSTEAD, he has used every conceivable linguistic and public relations device to convey the impression (successfully) that he was ASKED BY, RECRUITED BY, AUTHORIZED BY, AND GIVEN ASSIGNMENTS BY (or "mission"---YOUR word) "U.S. intelligence agencies" over a period of 5 years!
The reason why Harry consciously and deliberately left all this murky and ambiguous and open to subjective interpretation is because he wanted as much free publicity as possible which inflated and exaggerated his background so that his personal opinions and "recollections" would be given more gravity so that he could capitalize upon the normal gullibility of people who see or hear words like "undercover agent" or "undercover operative", or "political spy" or "street agent" or "infiltration operative" and comparable terminology!

But after Harry Dean went public on the Joe Pyne Show, suddenly fiction writer W.R. Morris came out of the woodwork and tried to take control of Harry Dean's story, and began to print EVERYWHERE that Harry Dean claimed to be both an FBI agent and a CIA agent.

Nobody cares what Morris wrote. All that is necessary is to review what HARRY has said and written about himself over a VERY long period of time AND the contemporaneous impression he created about himself AND subsequently when he spoke to authors like Dick Russell or TV program interviewers like Tom Snyder!

The transcript of the Tom Snyder interview of Harry (when Harry was known as "Mr. X") reflects that Snyder asked Harry this question:

SNYDER: "You were an agent of the FBI infiltrating into the John Birch Society, and there, you learned of the plans to assassinate John F. Kennedy?"
HARRY: "That's right"
In a subsequent question, Snyder asked Harry a question which began with this premise about Harry's relationship with the FBI: "...that you as an employee of the government of the United States of America..." and Harry accepted that premise without correcting Snyder's description.

That is the same as claiming that Harry Dean was a "mental case," and that is very obvious. Yet we also know that the FBI also accused Silvia Odio of being a "mental case," too. Because she said (like Harry Dean said) that LHO had accomplices (namely, Loran Hall and Larry Howard, in the service of General Walker).

As previously pointed out -- there is a difference between using name-calling with no basis in fact versus knowing that somebody was actually committed to a mental institution AND was "certified insane" for some period of time as confirmed by law enforcement officials. In addition, there are comments made by Harry's wife as reported by a neighbor of Harry which raise questions about his mental stability.

Clearly, W.R. Morris began smearing Harry Dean starting in 1966 (as Jeff Caufield dates it) and never stopped well into the 1980's.

Nobody cares about Morris because his information is not what we are debating.

The FBI was probably -- IMHO -- behind this smear campaign featuring W.R. Morris -- who made quite a bit of money using Harry Dean's name, without Harry Dean's permission.

Another absurdity. Again -- just focus upon what Harry has said and written

You know very well which FBI documents refer to that Joe Pyne Show, Ernie, since you're very familiar with FBI documents.

I'll soon post their word-for-word contents right here on this thread.

Cool---Just remember that this entire episode began because HARRY wrote a letter to the Director of the Joe Pyne Program. In other words, the FBI had no connection of any kind to this incident UNTIL Harry decided that HE wanted more publicity for himself!

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we see in the words of Ernie Lazar here are echoes of the FBI, which has treated Harry Dean unfairly for a half-century. That's all.

The fact that LHO had accomplices in the Radical RIght has been a fact that the FBI has tried to hide for a half-century. That's the reason.

The evidence is mounting, and Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) is the best new book on the JFK Conspiracy to come out in the 21st century.

There are only two books that compare to it in the 21st century, namely: The Lopez-Hardway Report (2003), and State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014). With these three books, the CT reader has come up-to-date. Without them, the CT reader is still in the dark ages of the 20th century with regard to the JFK murder.

We have heard ad nauseum what the FBI says about Harry Dean from Ernie Lazar. Let's listen to Jeff Caufield for a change -- after all -- this thread is about Jeff Caufields new book.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we see in the words of Ernie Lazar here are echoes of the FBI, which has treated Harry Dean unfairly for a half-century. That's all.

The fact that LHO had accomplices in the Radical RIght has been a fact that the FBI has tried to hide for a half-century. That's the reason.

The evidence is mounting, and Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) is the best new book on the JFK Conspiracy to come out in the 21st century.

There are only two books that compare to it in the 21st century, namely: The Lopez-Hardway Report (2003), and State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014). With these three books, the CT reader has come up-to-date. Without them, the CT reader is still in the dark ages of the 20th century with regard to the JFK murder.

We have heard ad nauseum what the FBI says about Harry Dean from Ernie Lazar. Let's listen to Jeff Caufield for a change -- after all -- this thread is about Jeff Caufields new book.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, you have a lot of nerve.

I quoted Harry's own statements over and over again and you still deliberately LIE and state that I am "echoing the FBI".

Obviously, you have no interest in facts or truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PT: Yet we also know that the FBI also accused Silvia Odio of being a "mental case," too. Because she said (like Harry Dean said) that LHO had accomplices (namely, Loran Hall and Larry Howard, in the service of General Walker).

What does this mean?

​Loran Hall and Howard were never at Odio's door. That was something dreamed up by Hoover at the request of the WC, in late August to dispose of what Odio said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Trejo - you would do well to examine your oppositional nature and your desperate need to be right. We all want to know the truth. It is altogether a sign of a healthy mind to be willing to acknowledge that others may be right on occasion. Of all the strong minded people on this board, you are the most impervious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...