Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Contrary to what Paul Trejo has suggested in his message to Harry (above) there was no "doctoring" by the FBI. FBI-Los Angeles merely excerpted Harry's long letter as is common practice when dealing with lengthy stuff and they inserted an ellipsis to indicate when they were skipping over certain sections and moving on to Harry's key points in his letter.

<snip>

Case closed.

Ernie, the case is far from closed. I found a ton of discrepancies comparing the FBI memo that you shared with the letter of the same date that Harry Dean published publicly in 1990 (which is the same as the FBI memo that Bill Kelly shared with us last week in post #253). There is only one letter that Harry Dean sent to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963, and there are so many differences that they cannot both be the real letter. Let's take a good look.

Point 1: The original memo by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover was written in sentence case, that is, it was not all UPPER CASE or CAPITAL LETTERS. This is a MAJOR difference. Therefore, the first item to notice is that this memo that Ernie Lazar kindly provided to us from the Mary Ferrell website was typed by the FBI and not by Harry Dean.

Point 2: Harry Dean's memo as published in his CROSSTRAILS manuscript/book on page 31 of chapter 2, is heavily redacted using a heavy black marker. So I will only be able to (i) compare the words we can read; and (ii) estimate a word count for the words that we cannot read.

Point 3: I compared the word count of words we can read in both. In the FBI memo we can read ~750 words. In Harry Dean's published memo, we can read ~175 words. That's a very wide margin, but we should now count, by approximation, the blacked-out words.

Point 4: To count words that are entirely blacked out, I estimated ten words per line (the average number of words in a line that we can fully read in Harry's letter) and approximately 5.5 inches per line. I measured approximately 40 inches of blanked out words, giving an approximate count of ~75 blacked out words. That is not precise, but given the circumstances, one is unlikely to find a hugely different count by some other measurement.

Point 5: Adding 175 readable words to 75 blanked-out words will total 250 words in Harry Dean's original memo to J. Edgar Hoover. Here is a MAJOR difference: the FBI proposes that Harry Dean wrote a memo of about 750 words, and Harry Dean claims that he wrote a memo of about 250 words. This immediately suggests that somebody is lying. It is now possible that the FBI added 500 words to Harry's original memo, MINIMUM. I say MINIMUM, because I don't yet know how much of Harry's original memo the FBI actually left intact.

Point 6: In the text that follows I will trace the 25 lines of Harry Dean's version of his memo.

FIRST LINE: The FBI version has three words and a number before the number, 1960. Harry Dean's version has one word before the number, 1960.

SECOND LINE: The FBI version follows the words, "FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE" with "AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME." Harry Dean's version omits that second clause.

THIRD LINE: Harry's version has the phrase, "local Chicago office of the Bureau." The FBI version lacks that phrase.

FOURTH LINE: Harry's version has the phrase, "present assignments." The FBI version lacks that phrase.

FIFTH LINE: Harry's version of the 5th line is entirely blacked out.

SIXTH LINE: Harry's version of the 6th line uses the phrase, "has this information." The FBI version lacks that phrase.

SEVENTH LINE: Harry's version of the 7th line uses the phrase, "undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago". The FBI version lacks anything like that phrase.

EIGHTH LINE: Harry's version of the 8th line reads, "done in June 1961 because Eastland's Committee was issuing", while the FBI version lacks anything like that text.

NINTH LINE: Harry's version of the 9th line reads, "subpoenas to hold hearings on the Fair Play for", while the FBI version lacks anything like that text.

TENTH LINE: Harry's version of the 10th line reads, "Cuba Communists and the 26th of July Movement [REDACTED]." The FBI version lacks anything like that text.

ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH LINES: Harry's 11th and 12th lines are almost entirely blacked out - except for the phrase "moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time", while the FBI version lacks any strings matching that text.

THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH LINES: Harry's 13th and 14th lines begin with three inches of blanked-out text, and then reads, "I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports". However, the FBI version lacks any four sequential words from that phrase.

FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH LINES: Harry's 15th and 16th lines contain the phrase, "making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] limiting my effectiveness". However, the FBI version lacks any three sequential words from that phrase.

SEVENTEENTH THROUGH NINETEENTH LINES: Harry's 17th, 18th and 19th lines read almost in full, "name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee's report no. 96465 part 2 pages 84 & 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level". Finally we have a partial match with the FBI document. In this case the FBI semi-matching lines read as follows: "THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT NO. 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE)." We can see that 18 words match in the same sequence, yet another 18 words clearly fail to match. Insofar as this is an alteration of Harry's original memo, it should cause alarms to go off.

TWENTIETH THROUGH TWENTY-SECOND LINES: Harry's 20th, 21st and 22nd lines are partly redacted, but read, "[REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure, live to regret this fact." Again we have a partial match with the FBI document. In this case the FBI semi-matching lines read as follows: "BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD." Again, we can see that 11 words match in sequence, but another 16 words fail to match. Again, one may argue that the FBI has altered Harry's text.

TWENTY-THIRD THROUGH TWENTY-FIFTH LINES: Harry's 23rd, 24th and 25th lines are almost entirely blanked-out, except for this phrase, "that you will see to this urgent matter." For the first time we have a very close match as the FBI document reads, "IT IS MY PRAYER THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS.

Point 7: Of course, we cannot comment on the blanked-out lines of Harry's memo, except to say that there are only about 75 words blanked out, and the FBI has at least 500 additional words to account for.

In conclusion, given that Harry Dean is telling the truth, then the FBI has clearly forged this document that Ernie Lazar presents as a "case closed." This is what I meant when I said last week (when Bill Kelley shared Harry Dean's original memo with the Forum) that there is a "divergence" early in the memo that does not seem to return. In my results tonight, I find that fewer than 50 words match in sequence between the two memos. That is, the FBI must account for about 700 words that they present as Harry Dean's writing, which Harry Dean today denies is his writing.

It therefore appears to me that the FBI has conducted a well-orchestrated smear campaign against Harry Dean regarding Harry Dean's claims about the JFK assassination.

The FBI has not only accused Harry Dean of being "certified insane" and "committed" with a criminal record (i.e. all together that means 'criminally insane,' which is folly to anybody who knows Harry Dean), but they have evidently, by Harry Dean's claim this week -- put up to 700 words into Harry Dean's mouth, in order to influence gullible readers to regard Harry's witness as a "case closed."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I have never seen Crosstrails so forgive my ignorance here.

1. When you refer to the letter "that Harry published publicly in 1990" -- are you referring to a photocopy or carbon copy of the original 1963 letter in Harry's possession which, in 1990, he scanned and inserted into Crosstrails OR are you referring to something else which is being used?

2. Why are we using anything supplied by Bill Kelly? The two operative documents are the letter which you claim Harry published in 1990 and the letter appearing in FBI files. The Los Angeles FBI memo never was presented as a complete version of the original incoming letter. It was merely an excerpt -- which is why there are numerous elipses in it.

YOUR POINTS:

#1 = Again, please clarify: have you SEEN the "original memo" (and why do you use the word "memo"? Is it a memo or is it a letter?

As I mentioned previously, the FBI did not use the typewriter font style which you see used in the 11-19-63 letter which you now claim is a forgery. Go back and review all of the FBI memos which I posted online and notice the kind of type fonts used -- OR -- take a look at the FBI files I have posted online (such as the Los Angeles file on the JBS -- during the time period Harry's letter was written) http://www.buildingdemocracy.us/archive/dox/jbs/JBS-Los%20Angeles-6.pdf

or look at FBI HQ files containing FBI HQ memos and letters around the date when Harry's letter was written such as this one

http://www.buildingdemocracy.us/archive/dox/far%20right/000%20FBI-XR-A__Z/McGinley,%20Conde%20J.-CEA-HQ-25.pdf

You will notice that the type font used by HQ and by field offices is much larger and much clearer (I am not referring to blurriness, I mean the actual style of the font which the Bureau chose for its typewriters, because they knew that multiple copies would be made of memos -- and carbon copies are not easy to read when a small or condensed-type font is used).

#2 = Where did Harry obtain this "heavily redacted" memo? It is difficult to make judgments when I have never seen what you are referring to. Can you scan a copy and post it here for everyone to see?

#5 = Again, there is no way to intelligently answer you unless I see an actual copy of what you are looking at. Also, what FOIA exemption codes are shown for each redaction, i.e. the "blanked out words"?

#5 = Why do you write that Harry "claims he wrote a memo of about 250 words"? I guess I am missing something very important here. What, EXACTLY, are you referencing? Why do you use the word MEMO instead of LETTER? Why do you use the word "CLAIMS" as if you do not have any documentary evidence to corroborate whatever Harry says?

#6 = Sorry, Paul --- there is no way to make sense out of all this unless WE SEE what you are referring to. However, let me offer these observations -- for whatever they are worth.

I previously mentioned Eustace Mullins... the anti-semite/racist who is widely admired in some circles. His "theory" was that the JBS was created, controlled, and financed by the Rockefeller family. [He claimed as his primary source for this stunning observation -- the infamous Revilo P. Oliver -- who, somehow, "forgot" to mention that in his own book; instead he said "Jews" controlled and financed the JBS!] Go figure!

Anyway, in 1985, Eustace self-published an autobiographical memoir entitled "A Writ For Martyrs". You probably would enjoy reading it because Mullins makes all sorts of pejorative accusations against the FBI and against Hoover.

In his memoir, Mullins claims that he "reproduced" in his book, the exact copies of FBI documents which he received when he made an FOIA request on himself. He received 800 pages of his HQ file.

So...for 20 years everybody who read Mullins' memoir probably believed what they saw with their own eyes----i.e. the actual scanned copies of the FBI documents which Mullins wrote about and put into his book which "proved" how the FBI harassed, intimidated, and terrorized him, his family, his friends and how the FBI lied about Mullins to employers, neighbors, etc. etc. etc.

Now fast forward to February 2010. Mullins dies. So, now, anybody can submit an FOIA request to the FBI for all of Mullins' files -- which I did (not just HQ but also several field offices in the locations where Mullins had lived over the years).

To make a long story short: After I received his files, I noticed that there was a significant difference in redactions (i.e. blacked out portions of some sentences) in many documents. But what was even more suspicious is that some of the redacted documents in Mullins memoir did NOT show the FOIA exemption code in the margin where all government agencies insert the appropriate code -- such as B-7c or B-7d -- the two most common exemptions.

When I compared each of the documents appearing in Mullins' book to the original file from which they came, I noticed that Mullins had used a black marker to blank out references to his homosexuality, his life-long associations with neo-nazis and racists, and, generally, to anything which he did not want readers of his memoir to know about him or his history.

So....that is why I say we must see whatever you are writing about.

Lastly, the discrepancies which you list in your message don't seem to make a lot of sense. By that I mean, many of them do not add to, or subtract from, any substantive meaning which could somehow advantage the FBI or disadvantage Harry --- so one has to ask an obvious question -- WHY BOTHER? What would be the point?

if the FBI wanted to go to all the trouble of forging an incoming letter and attributing it to Harry -- then, presumably, the purpose would be to discredit Harry in some way. So why bother with things like your "FIRST LINE" or your "THIRD LINE" discrepancies?

Also, your reported 23rd-25th line redaction does not make any sense. There is no FOIA exemption that would apply to anything written from the part starting with "I continue the fight, day and night...." to the end of the letter. I probably have several hundred incoming letters from JBS members to Hoover which close with comparable (and in fact virtually identical) sentiments and they were never redacted.

Let's also keep something VERY important in mind. Harry's November 1963 letter (the one in FBI files) does NOT present Harry in a bad light. Insofar as it reports specific details about Harry himself (and his past history), everything mentioned in it is factually true -- isn't it? Let's recap:

1. Harry acknowledges that he was not only a member of FPCC, he was an officer of the Chicago chapter. TRUE

2. Harry states that he gave a lot of information to Chicago FBI Agents -- usually by phone. TRUE (and FBI internal memos itemize what Harry gave them).

3. Harry states that he continued for "several months" to give info to Chicago agents. TRUE

4. Harry states that as a young unmaried man he made "many errors". TRUE

5. Harry states that FBI-Chicago investigated his background. TRUE

6. Harry states that just prior to the Judiciary Subcommittee hearings into FPCC, the FBI in Chicago told him he could not be an informant because of adverse info in his background. TRUE

7. Harry states that he would like to know how to get his name cleared and perhaps he could be re-considered by the FBI. TRUE as far as we know.

So WHAT, EXACTLY, would have been the FBI's OBJECTIVE in forging or re-constructing Harry's letter?

Now's let's consider a few things which you do not mention in your message:

1. In the Crosstrails version (or anything you have SEEN), did Harry use the phrase "my shady character" in his letter to Hoover?

2. In the Crosstrails version (or anything you have SEEN), did Harry praise the Chicago FBI Agents as "patriots" and then characterize his contacts with those Agents in very positive terms?

3. In the Crosstrails version (or anything you have SEEN) is Harry's name NOT redacted?

POINT 7: No, Paul, your "evidence" is not dispositive and certainly could not be used to prove that the FBI "clearly forged" anything. [Re-read my Mullins example above.]

There is nothing which you have presented in your message regarding this letter which supports any contention about a "smear job" because there is nothing in this letter (the FBI file version) which smears Harry -- and, in fact, one could easily interpret it as supporting the idea that Harry (like many Americans who got mixed up with radical groups during the 1960's), was just an ordinary person who was trying to make amends for an honest mistake in judgment. That hardly constitutes a "smear campaign". If the FBI wanted to "smear" Harry, it would have fabricated from whole cloth something that could never be disproven -- such as claiming that in October 1948 Harry was committed to a mental institution when, in reality, Harry never spent a single minute in therapy or in a psychiatric evaluation during his entire lifetime up to that point. So, does Harry categorically dispute that FBI file reference (which originated with RCMP)? If not -- then the FBI documents which mention that (but do not dwell upon it) -- simply present a factual statement -- not a "smear job". Similarly, it is NOT a "smear job" to report that Bill Clinton or Martin Luther King Jr. was a serial adulterer. It is simply factually true. There are many people in history whom we admire and respect (and even honor) who made stupid and immoral choices about their personal behavior. We do not characterize as "smear jobs", factual reports about those matters.

And once again you deliberately mis-represent what is contained in FBI files. The FBI did not "accuse" Harry Dean of being "certified insane".

Why can't you accurately summarize what is in FBI documents? Is your case so weak that you feel compelled to embellish everything so as to make everything into a cartoon caricature of good vs evil? You are referring to information which the FBI received from the Detroit Police Department which they got from Canadian law enforcement authorities So, I guess your ultimate point is that the entire law enforcement community in Canada and the United States "conspired" to "smear" Harry Dean, starting in 1948 by falsely inserting a reference to his commitment to a mental institution and then disseminating that information through law enforcement channels to U.S. law enforcement agencies?

As CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY stated in a 5/3/67 SAC Chicago to Hoover summary memo, when Harry Dean was living in Whiting, Indiana, the FBI-Indianapolis field office

"...conducted an inquiry in Whiting, Indiana, in September 1960. Detective Captain Edward Grabovac, Whiting, Indiana Police Department, advised that Dean...had skipped town and the Whiting Police Department had a warrant for his arrest on bad check charges. Grabovac said Dean was a self-employed plasterer. The Whiting, Indiana Police Department procured an identification record from the Detroit, Michigan Police Department under FBI #4657880. This record revealed that Dean had been committed as a mental patient in Canada in 1948 and was sentenced at Chatham, Ontario, Canada for breaking and entering to 'one year indefinite'"

Other FBI documents are a bit more specific and mention that Dean "had been committed as a mental patient in Canada on October 22, 1948."

ALSO: Note that when Bureau-friendly politicians (such as Sen. George Murphy) contacted Hoover to inquire about Dean, the Hoover reply to Murphy did not even mention the 1948 mental institution commitment.

If the Bureau REALLY wanted to "smear" Harry Dean, they would have told Murphy (and other FBI-friendly sources) about Dean's psychiatric history -- although I am still not sure how a factually true statement can be a smear.

So far -- in terms of what I have seen posted on the Ferrell website, ALL the references to Harry's 1948 commitment are contained in INTERNAL Bureau memos -- not something that was circulated OUTSIDE the Bureau and nobody had the remotest clue about this until (at the earliest), the year 1985 when there was an FOIA request which produced some documents from Dean's HQ, Chicago, and Los Angeles files (it is not currently known how many documents were released at that time.)

On a personal note:

My experience over the past 40+ years debating political extremists (left and right) corresponds to what Laird Wilcox discusses in his very perceptive article on "Extremist Traits"

http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html

Political extremists "reason" their way to conclusions in a much different manner than by using normal logic and ordinary analytical skills. As Laird correctly points out. Extremist Traits include such things as:

3. IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things, events, or persons are alike in some respects, they must be alike in most respects. The sloppy use of analogy is a treacherous form of logic and has a high potential for false conclusions.

4. INADEQUATE PROOF FOR ASSERTIONS.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy about what constitutes proof, and they also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their before and after relationship). They tend to project wished-for conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information that confirms their beliefs while derogating or ignoring information that contradicts them. They tend to be motivated by feelings more than facts, by what they want to exist rather than what actually does exist. Extremists do a lot of wishful and fearful thinking.

5. ADVOCACY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Extremists generally tend to judge themselves or their interest group in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view very generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith, but they demand proof for yours. They tend to engage in special pleading on behalf of themselves or their interests, usually because of some alleged special status, past circumstances, or present disadvantage.

6. TENDENCY TO VIEW THEIR OPPONENTS AND CRITICS AS ESSENTIALLY EVIL.

To the extremist, opponents hold opposing positions because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, hateful, cruel, or whatever, not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests, or are perhaps even mistaken.

Unfortunately, it appears that Paul is perilously close to adopting some of these qualities.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- I have never seen Crosstrails so forgive my ignorance here.

1. When you refer to the letter "that Harry published publicly in 1990" -- are you referring to a photocopy or carbon copy of the original 1963 letter in Harry's possession which, in 1990, he scanned and inserted into Crosstrails OR are you referring to something else which is being used?

2. Why are we using anything supplied by Bill Kelly? The two operative documents are the letter which you claim Harry published in 1990 and the letter appearing in FBI files. The Los Angeles FBI memo never was presented as a complete version of the original incoming letter. It was merely an excerpt -- which is why there are numerous elipses in it.

<snip>

Ernie, I know that many people on EF have a copy of Harry Dean's self-published 1990 manuscript, Crosstrails, so they were able to follow my comparison more closely than others. The fact that others don't have a copy should not delay my comparison for those who do. A solution to offer Harry's personal documents online to the public must, of course, be presented to Harry and approved by Harry.

(1) Still, I'll make an effort to describe what Harry published. It is a Xerox copy of a single page (or perhaps I should say a half-page) letter to J. Edgar Hoover. It is dated 19 November 1963, and it is signed by Harry Dean.

J. Edgar Hoover's address is at the top left, while Harry's address is in the top right. The letter is typed in sentence case, which is to be distinguished from upper case, which means ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, which is the style that the FBI used in its version of this same letter.

Furthermore, about 1/3 of this letter is "redacted," which is FBI lingo for "blacked out" or "censored" or "classified." In FBI memos we commonly see, this is usually done for the names of individuals or personal places or personal numbers that retain privacy rights.

(2) The reason that I refer to the memo supplied by Bill Kelly in post #153 of this thread is because the memo Bill supplied contains exactly the same content as the memo that Harry Dean published in his 1990 Crosstrails. As I understand it, Bill Kelly obtained a copy of Harry Dean's memo -- I don't know his source; perhaps it was the FBI -- and he kindly typed in the entire memo for EF readers.

(Bill, would you kindly tell us the source of the letter that you typed in post #153 for the Forum?)

Thanks to Bill and to you, Ernie, every EF reader has access to the CONTENT of all three memo versions that have been published. They are, to the very best of my knowledge today: (I) the original, 250 word memo that Harry himself typed on 19 November 1963 to J. Edgar Hoover; (ii) the suspect, 750 word memo typed by the FBI entirely in upper case; and (iii) the shorter, half-page excerpt of that 750 word memo, also presented by the FBI, with several ellipses in it.

Bear in mind that I still haven't drawn a final conclusion about all this -- yet my current thinking is that the FBI is lying, scheming, plotting and FORGING documents to make Harry Dean look bad. I'm looking forward to new information and insights as they may become available from readers who are courteous, considerate and fair-minded.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 13, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- I have never seen Crosstrails so forgive my ignorance here.

1. When you refer to the letter "that Harry published publicly in 1990" -- are you referring to a photocopy or carbon copy of the original 1963 letter in Harry's possession which, in 1990, he scanned and inserted into Crosstrails OR are you referring to something else which is being used?

2. Why are we using anything supplied by Bill Kelly? The two operative documents are the letter which you claim Harry published in 1990 and the letter appearing in FBI files. The Los Angeles FBI memo never was presented as a complete version of the original incoming letter. It was merely an excerpt -- which is why there are numerous elipses in it.

<snip>

Ernie, I know that many people on EF have a copy of Harry Dean's self-published 1990 manuscript, Crosstrails, so they were able to follow my comparison more closely than others. The fact that others don't have a copy should not delay my comparison for those who do. A solution to offer Harry's personal documents online to the public must, of course, be presented to Harry and approved by Harry.

(1) Still, I'll make an effort to describe what Harry published. It is a Xerox copy of a single page (or perhaps I should say a half-page) letter to J. Edgar Hoover. It is dated 19 November 1963, and it is signed by Harry Dean.

J. Edgar Hoover's address is at the top left, while Harry's address is in the top right. The letter is typed in sentence case, which is to be distinguished from upper case, which means ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, which is the style that the FBI used in its version of this same letter.

Furthermore, about 1/3 of this letter is "redacted," which is FBI lingo for "blacked out" or "censored" or "classified." In FBI memos we commonly see, this is usually done for the names of individuals or personal places or personal numbers that retain privacy rights.

(2) The reason that I refer to the memo supplied by Bill Kelly in post #153 of this thread is because the memo Bill supplied contains exactly the same content as the memo that Harry Dean published in his 1990 Crosstrails. As I understand it, Bill Kelly obtained a copy of Harry Dean's memo -- I don't know his source; perhaps it was the FBI -- and he kindly typed in the entire memo for EF readers.

(Bill, would you kindly tell us the source of the letter that you typed in post #153 for the Forum?)

Thanks to Bill and to you, Ernie, every EF reader has access to the CONTENT of all three memo versions that have been published. They are, to the very best of my knowledge today: (I) the original, 250 word memo that Harry himself typed on 19 November 1963 to J. Edgar Hoover; (ii) the suspect, 750 word memo typed by the FBI entirely in upper case; and (iii) the shorter, half-page excerpt of that 750 word memo, also presented by the FBI, with several ellipses in it.

Bear in mind that I still haven't drawn a final conclusion about all this -- yet my current thinking is that the FBI is lying, scheming, plotting and FORGING documents to make Harry Dean look bad. I'm looking forward to new information and insights as they may become available from readers who are courteous, considerate and fair-minded.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I am still having some difficulty understanding something which you have written -- and then there is one obvious point which needs to be considered.

1. You wrote "Furthermore, about 1/3 of this letter is redacted..."

Are you referring to the letter in Harry's possession (the "xerox copy") which he put into his 1990 self-published manuscript, Crosstrails?

If your answer is "yes" -- then I am even more confused than before because I thought you were telling me that Harry had some sort of copy of his own original letter (a photocopy or a carbon copy). If that is NOT the case, then what, exactly, is this "xerox copy"? Where did it come from? From whom did Harry get it?

2. Now, Paul, here is where we must employ ordinary common sense and logic.

Think for a moment about this question:

What is the purpose of a forgery?

Here is the normal definition of counterfeit or forgery:

"Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive."

To make this easier, think about counterfeit money which is a type of forgery. The purpose of making counterfeit money (a forgery) is to be able to pass off the counterfeit in the normal course of one's activities, i.e. to deceive merchants or businesses or individuals into thinking they have received proper payment for some debt. Right?

So -- for example -- you could not even dream of walking into your local grocery store and handing them Monopoly money and expect them to accept your imitation of real currency, right?

Similarly, if somebody makes a counterfeit work of art by a Master painter -- it must be good enough to withstand scrutiny and pass in the art world -- and, most importantly, not be immediately recognized as a forgery.

NOW---let's consider DOCUMENTS.

(1) Do you recall the 1980's controversy about the alleged 62 volumes of "Hitler Diaries" which somebody supposedly "discovered" in East Germany?

Initially, some handwriting experts (one American and one Swiss) confirmed that the diaries were written by Hitler because the handwriting matched samples of Hitler's writing which were in the German Federal Archives. However, subsequent tests proved that the diaries were elaborate forgeries.

(2) My point here is that a forged document MUST meet one critical MINIMUM test.

It MUST seem to be and appear to be authentic. It cannot be something like Monopoly money, i.e. instantly recognizable as obviously a fake document.

The forger also has to be CERTAIN that there are no legitimate copies of the original document in existence and easily available for review--and especially not copies in the hands of multiple parties who have copies of the legitimate document. Right?? Otherwise, why bother making a forgery that would be instantaneously disproven as a fraud?

(3) So now let's consider the two Harry letters which appear in FBI files (the 11-19-63 letter to Hoover and Harry's 12-10-64 letter to the Director of the Joe Pyne Show.

-a- First of all, is it Harry's contention that his letter to Joe Pyne is ALSO a forgery? Presumably, Harry's answer is "YES" since that letter is ALSO typed in ALL CAPS, right?

-b- If the FBI wanted to go to the extraordinary trouble of manufacturing one or more forged letters from Harry, you have to ask yourself one simple question, i.e. having received Harry's 11-19-63 letter to Hoover in sentence case WHY would they forge a copy of that letter in ALL CAPS -- when they would know (with absolute certainty) that such a forgery could easily be proven to be a fraudulent document? [For what possible reason would they convert a sentence case letter into an ALL CAPS letter?]

-c- The FBI had no way of knowing if Harry kept copies of his original letters or if he sent copies to friends or perhaps even to the news media -- because, as we know from Harry's FBI files, the FBI knew that Harry was in contact with various media contacts (newspapers and TV).

-d- So---employing rudimentary common sense -- do you really believe that the FBI would manufacture a document in 1963 and again in 1964 (which, incidentally, was only kept in FBI files?) because they thought they might need to use it sometime 40 or 50 years later? And for what purpose?

There is nothing substantively different in the alleged "forged" letter which disadvantages Harry in any way, is there?

Again, Paul, what is the PURPOSE of making a forged document? In this case, we can rule out monetary gain. Nobody is trying to sell a copy of Harry's letter to Hoover. It is not a collector's item. It was released to someone in 1985 (perhaps even more than one person) because of an FOIA request. It also exists in HSCA files. It also exists on Mary Ferrell's website. And, now, it also exists on Education Forum.

-e- So---employing rudimentary common sense -- do you really believe that the FBI was so incredibly inept and stupid that they would manufacture two letters which could easily be proven to be fraudulent---especially since they had no way of knowing how many copies of those letters were in existence AND they knew Harry was in contact with media outlets in southern California and thus Harry could effortlessly embarrass the Bureau by proving them to be liars--just by producing a copy of the original letter(s)?

Incidentally, I assume you know this, but in case not ---- when the FBI received incoming correspondence, it usually made copies of the envelope which contained the correspondence. Believe it or not, they even made copies of the front and back sides of manila clasp envelopes! So---if someone could obtain all of Harry's FBI files, any correspondence he sent to the Bureau will probably contain copies of the envelope he used to send his letter to Hoover -- and the envelope would show the postmark and return address -- perhaps also typed in ALL CAPS.....although I imagine you will claim that the FBI forged that too and just had their Los Angeles office mail it so it would have the correct Los Angeles postmark?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- I am still having some difficulty understanding something which you have written -- and then there is one obvious point which needs to be considered.

1. You wrote "Furthermore, about 1/3 of this letter is redacted..."

Are you referring to the letter in Harry's possession (the "xerox copy") which he put into his 1990 self-published manuscript, Crosstrails?

If your answer is "yes" -- then I am even more confused than before because I thought you were telling me that Harry had some sort of copy of his own original letter (a photocopy or a carbon copy). If that is NOT the case, then what, exactly, is this "xerox copy"? Where did it come from? From whom did Harry get it?

2. Now, Paul, here is where we must employ ordinary common sense and logic.

<snip>

-e- So---employing rudimentary common sense -- do you really believe that the FBI was so incredibly inept and stupid that they would manufacture two letters which could easily be proven to be fraudulent---especially since they had no way of knowing how many copies of those letters were in existence AND they knew Harry was in contact with media outlets in southern California and thus Harry could effortlessly embarrass the Bureau by proving them to be liars--just by producing a copy of the original letter(s)?

<snip>

Ernie, the document that Harry Dean published in Crosstrails in 1990 was REDACTED. It was not the full letter. I don't know where Harry got it, just as I don't know where Bill Kelly got his copy. I only know that they have exactly the same CONTENT and exactly the same REDACTIONS.

I realize that you want to be more careful at this point, Ernie, because the very fact that the FBI appears to have THREE different versions of the same letter may be as puzzling to you as it is to the rest of us.

As for myself, I realize that I am relying entirely on the honesty of Harry Dean -- he tells me that the letter he published in 1990 is the original letter (except for the REDACTIONS) and I believe him. Taking that as my premise, I must conclude -- obviously -- that the FBI version which is typed in all CAPS with 500 extra words is a forgery.

There is no other conclusion that ordinary common sense can make, given my premise.

Now, do I believe that the FBI was, in your words, "so incredibly inept and stupid that they would manufacture two letters which could easily be proven to be fraudulent"? Well, I wouldn't use those words, but I do believe that the FBI was not above bending the law if it served J. Edgar Hoover somehow. Experts in the law know best how to bend it.

If (and only if) the FBI forged this 750 word memo in the name of Harry Dean, then they must have believed: (1) they were doing the right thing; (2) they could get away with it; (3) most people would just take them at their word since they were the FBI; and (4) even if Harry produced the original letter, the FBI would deny it and call Harry a xxxx, a crook, a madman, and so on, and the public would believe the FBI and not Harry.

I don't believe that the FBI has ever admitted to telling a lie, Ernie. Yet I continue to believe that the FBI are no better or worse than ordinary people -- so they would lie to protect their own.

Again, Ernie, normal FBI procedures are also in doubt here, because the JFK assassination is a special case, and the classified nature of all JFK threads were treated specially. So you cannot continue to appeal to ordinary FBI procedure here. We must keep digging and hope that the FBI (or somebody) slips up so that we can finally discern the truth.

In other words, the only solution is to obtain more FBI records on Harry Dean, and subject them to detailed scrutiny. So far, the FBI isn't looking as good as its fan club would like.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 13, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Harry J.Dean]

Hanging Harry, by FBI, then again, by Lazar 50 years later, is not likely designed

to keep people from reading of the pre-arranged fate of JFK? as exposed in the

eBook, located at Smashwords.com and titled, Harry Dean's Confessions...

[Ernie Lazar]

Hanging Harry, by FBI, then again, by Lazar 50 years later, is not likely designed

to keep people from reading of the pre-arranged fate of JFK? as exposed in the

eBook, located at Smashwords.com and titled, Harry Dean's Confessions...

Harry -- I know that playing persecuted victim is always more useful than answering probing questions (what you describe as "hanging") but I doubt anybody is more likely to purchase or believe your Ebook just because you do not want to answer obvious questions.

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- I am still having some difficulty understanding something which you have written -- and then there is one obvious point which needs to be considered.

1. You wrote "Furthermore, about 1/3 of this letter is redacted..."

Are you referring to the letter in Harry's possession (the "xerox copy") which he put into his 1990 self-published manuscript, Crosstrails?

If your answer is "yes" -- then I am even more confused than before because I thought you were telling me that Harry had some sort of copy of his own original letter (a photocopy or a carbon copy). If that is NOT the case, then what, exactly, is this "xerox copy"? Where did it come from? From whom did Harry get it?

2. Now, Paul, here is where we must employ ordinary common sense and logic.

<snip>

-e- So---employing rudimentary common sense -- do you really believe that the FBI was so incredibly inept and stupid that they would manufacture two letters which could easily be proven to be fraudulent---especially since they had no way of knowing how many copies of those letters were in existence AND they knew Harry was in contact with media outlets in southern California and thus Harry could effortlessly embarrass the Bureau by proving them to be liars--just by producing a copy of the original letter(s)?

<snip>

Ernie, the document that Harry Dean published in Crosstrails in 1990 was REDACTED. It was not the full letter. I don't know where Harry got it, just as I don't know where Bill Kelly got his copy. I only know that they have exactly the same CONTENT and exactly the same REDACTIONS.

I realize that you want to be more careful at this point, Ernie, because the very fact that the FBI appears to have THREE different versions of the same letter may be as puzzling to you as it is to the rest of us.

As for myself, I realize that I am relying entirely on the honesty of Harry Dean -- he tells me that the letter he published in 1990 is the original letter (except for the REDACTIONS) and I believe him. Taking that as my premise, I must conclude -- obviously -- that the FBI version which is typed in all CAPS with 500 extra words is a forgery.

There is no other conclusion that ordinary common sense can make, given my premise.

Now, do I believe that the FBI was, in your words, "so incredibly inept and stupid that they would manufacture two letters which could easily be proven to be fraudulent"? Well, I wouldn't use those words, but I do believe that the FBI was not above bending the law if it served J. Edgar Hoover somehow. Experts in the law know best how to bend it.

If (and only if) the FBI forged this 750 word memo in the name of Harry Dean, then they must have believed: (1) they were doing the right thing; (2) they could get away with it; (3) most people would just take them at their word since they were the FBI; and (4) even if Harry produced the original letter, the FBI would deny it and call Harry a xxxx, a crook, a madman, and so on, and the public would believe the FBI and not Harry.

I don't believe that the FBI has ever admitted to telling a lie, Ernie. Yet I continue to believe that the FBI are no better or worse than ordinary people -- so they would lie to protect their own.

Again, Ernie, normal FBI procedures are also in doubt here, because the JFK assassination is a special case, and the classified nature of all JFK threads were treated specially. So you cannot continue to appeal to ordinary FBI procedure here. We must keep digging and hope that the FBI (or somebody) slips up so that we can finally discern the truth.

In other words, the only solution is to obtain more FBI records on Harry Dean, and subject them to detailed scrutiny. So far, the FBI isn't looking as good as its fan club would like.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- Unlike yourself, I am not "relying entirely upon" the honesty of anybody. I am following the evidence to wherever it leads.

You still have not presented a plausible reason for why the FBI would want to forge a letter that does not contain any information which is disadvantageous to Harry.

ALSO: I continue to ask -- DOES HARRY CONTEND THAT HIS LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE JOE PYNE PROGRAM (IN FBI FILES) IS ALSO A FORGERY?

Yes or No Harry?

And, Paul, you continue to repeat your mantra about the JFK-related documents being a "special case" -- but you still do not have any evidence to support that assumption. As I have previously stated numerous times, there are many FBI files which contain documents about JFK-related matters that have been released and some of them discuss "plots" to murder JFK.

I do recognize (as I am sure everyone reading this thread recognizes) that your "special case" argument is an all-purpose intellectual escape hatch. No matter what volume of evidence is presented, you will ALWAYS trot out this excuse for the absence of verifiable factual evidence.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Harry -- I know that playing persecuted victim is always more useful than answering probing questions (what you describe as "hanging") but I doubt anybody is more likely to purchase or believe your Ebook just because you do not want to answer obvious questions.

Ernie, you should really work harder on your personal charm.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- Unlike yourself, I am not "relying entirely upon" the honesty of anybody. I am following the evidence to wherever it leads.

<snip>

And, Paul, you continue to repeat your mantra about the JFK-related documents being a "special case" -- but you still do not have any evidence to support that assumption. As I have previously stated numerous times, there are many FBI files which contain documents about JFK-related matters that have been released and some of them discuss "plots" to murder JFK.

I do recognize (as I am sure everyone reading this thread recognizes) that your "special case" argument is an all-purpose intellectual escape hatch. No matter what volume of evidence is presented, you will ALWAYS trot out this excuse for the absence of verifiable factual evidence.

Ernie, you're mistaken -- you really do rely on the honesty of the FBI. You take what they write as GIVEN and you go from there. Your critical faculties are suspended when you recite their memoranda.

As for my argument that the FBI treatment of the JFK assassination is an EXCEPTION, it is a logical, rational argument that you continually evade. You call it an "escape hatch" only because you have no logical reply.

This is a viable argument -- and you know it's correct. The FBI continues to keep Lee Harvey Oswald files hidden from the public view, even though he's been DEAD for 50 years, and poses no threat to anybody.

The FBI is clearly hiding something, and your faith in them amounts to "relying on their honesty."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 13, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Hanging Harry, by FBI, then again, by Lazar 50 years later, is not likely designed

to keep people from reading of the pre-arranged fate of JFK? as exposed in the

eBook, located at Smashwords.com and titled, Harry Dean's Confessions...

Harry, please hang in there as your case is being disputed once again.

Now, Ernie is not alone in wondering whether the letter he posted -- allegedly by you to the Joe Pyne Show director -- was really your letter.

Ernie posted a PDF of that file, but not everybody has easy access to large PDF documents. So, I'm typing the entire letter into this thread so that all EF readers can see that text.

After you review this text, Harry, please tell the Forum whether you are the author of this letter, dated 10 December 1964.

------------------ BEGIN ALLEGED LETTER FROM HARRY DEAN TO JOE PYNE SHOW ----------------------

18109 ATINA DR.

LA PUENTE CALIF.

DEC, 10 1964

THE DIRECTOR

THE JOE PYNE SHOW

CHANNEL 11 KTTV

HOLLYWOOD 28 CALIF.

DEAR SIR,

HERE ARE SOME DETAILS OF MY ASSOCIATIONS AS MENTIONED THIS DAY VIA OUR PHONE CONVERSATION.

ASSISTED CASTRO CUBANS IN CHICAGO ILINOIS, WITH MONEY, ARMS, LATE 1957.

SAME AGAIN IN 1958. GAINED MANY FRIENDS IN 26th OF JULY MOVEMENT IN U.S. FOR SUCH ASSISTANCE. WAS FULLY FOR THE CAUSE OF DEFEATING BATISTA AFTER HEARING THE HORRORS OF HIS REGIME AS DESCRIBED BY HIS PEOPLE.

1959 MORE HELP IN MONEY, SYMPATHY. JOINED IN MEETING OF 26th. MET CUBAN COUNCIL IN CHICAGO. BECAME GOOD FRIENDS. WAS ASKED TO WRITE CASTRO'S CHIEF DIRECTOR DR. JUAN A. ORTA HAVANA. DID SO. RECEIVED LETTER RETURN. MORE INSPIRED TO HELP REVOLUCION.

1960 MORE ACTIVITY IN SAME AREA. PRESS ACCUSED US OF COMMUNIST TIES. THOUGHT OBVIOUSLY WRONG. 26th ASKED ME TO VISIT CUBA. I DID SO IN JUNE 1960, GOT RED CARPET TREATMENT MUCH SURPRISED. VISITED ABOUT COUNTRY. MET SEVERAL TOP CATS IN REVOLUTIONARY GOV. HAD LENGHTY MEETING WITH SAME. RETURNED TO CHICAGO WITH LETTER FROM ORTA TO COUNCIL IN CHICAGO.

SOON RECRUITED INTO FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE BEGINNING TO ORGANIZE IN CHICAGO. ELECTED SECRETARY AT SECOND MEETING BECAUSE I WAS SUCH A LOUD SUPPORTER OF CASTRO.

ASSIGNED PROPAGANDA WORK, FOUND BOOKS IN FAIR PLAY LITERATURE I WAS TO DROP IN VARIOUS PLACES AND MAIL OUT, NAMED, "COMMUNISM IN AMERICA!" MUCH DISILLUSIONED, REPORTED TO 26th [ABOUT] COMMUNISTS IN OUR MOVEMENT. THOSE FRIENDS OF LONG STANDING SAID IS OK. EVERYONE NEEDED TO HELP REVOLUCION.

WAS COMPLETELY SHOCKED. ASKED FEDERAL BUREAU RE: SOME OF THESE PEOPLE. THEY ASK IF I WOULD PASS INFO TO THEM. AFTER DISCUSSION, WAS HAPPY TO DO SO WHERE FPCC WAS CONCERNED. THEN FOUND MANY CUBAN FRIENDS LIKED AND TOOK ORDERS FROM LOCAL COMMUNISTS. I TURNED AGAINST THEM BUT STAYED ON INSIDE TO GAIN INFO ON ALL ACTIVITIES, WAS SUCCESSFUL, AS LATER HEARINGS SHOW BY US SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE OF 1961 JUNE.

IN MANY DEMONSTRATIONS SOME BLOODY A6 PEOPLE OBJECTED BUT MANY JOINED FPCC. MET MOST OF THE LEADERS OF FPCC FRONT FROM ALL OVER NATION: GIBSON, WILLIAMS, TABER AND OTHERS.

AS TRUSTED FRIEND OF THE REVOLUCION TOLD 26th THE TRACTORS WERE METALURGICALLY DEFECTIVE, CASTRO DROPPED DEAL.

IN 1961 WAS SENT TO JOIN ANTI-CASTRO ORG IN CHICAGO TO GAIN INFO FOR 26th OF JULY MOVEMENT RE: PRE-INVASION PLANS.

MOVED TO DETROIT. JOINED NEWLY FORMING FPCC. GOT LOWDOWN ON THEM. GAVE TO FED. MOST FPCC PEOPLE HAD BEEN TO SEE CASTRO THEN STARTED FRONTS WHEN RETURNED TO U.S.

WAS MADE OFFICIAL MEMBER OF THE 26th WITH CARD AS REWARD FOR ALL EFFORTS AS TRUSTED FRIEND OF REVOLUCION, ETC. MANY MORE DETAILS. ABOVE NOT IN ORDER AS TO TIME OF EVENTS. FBI SAID, "BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER INFORMANT JOB SEEN." WAS GREAT REWARD TO ME TO WORK AGAINST ENEMIES OF MY AMERICA.

HAVE MANY DOCUMENTS TO VERIFY, ENCLOSED STATEMENTS.

VERY SINCERELY

HARRY DEAN

------------------ END ALLEGED LETTER FROM HARRY DEAN TO JOE PYNE SHOW -------------------------

I do notice, Harry, that the content of this letter is substantially like the information in Section 2 of our eBook, "Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK."

Please let us know if you were the one who actually wrote this letter.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 13, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Harry -- I know that playing persecuted victim is always more useful than answering probing questions (what you describe as "hanging") but I doubt anybody is more likely to purchase or believe your Ebook just because you do not want to answer obvious questions.

Ernie, you should really work harder on your personal charm.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, when I first became an EF member (June 8, 2010), I posted a message at 8:52am summarizing what I had discovered inside FBI files and I also shared some info I learned from many years of making FOIA requests and from becoming acquainted with FBI filing practices and procedures.

So----what was the reaction?

At 1:19pm that day, Bill Kelly declared that he was "suspicious" of me. Keep in mind he never asked me ONE SINGLE question!

At 11:42pm on June 9th, Bernice Moore agreed with Bill -- she wrote that she was also "suspicious" of me -- also without asking ONE SINGLE question!

At 2:18pm on June 9th, Bill Kelly replied to another person who asked me a question about FBI files on Gordon Hall, Robert DePugh and others. Here is what Bill wrote:

"Dave, Don't hold your breath. Ernie is so full of it that he will never share anything unless it fits in with his program, whatever it is."

Bill arrived at this unkind and defamatory conclusion, again, without asking me ONE SINGLE question! Keep in mind, that for many years I have been providing answers to exactly the type of questions which Dave asked me -- for literally HUNDREDS of researchers, scholars, and students ALL OVER THE WORLD! And you can see my name cited as their source for data used in numerous books, doctoral dissertations, and academic journal articles and conference papers -- as well as in numerous on-line blogs and articles.

So---perhaps you should direct your "CHARM" comment to some of the other (regular) people here?

Edited November 14, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- Unlike yourself, I am not "relying entirely upon" the honesty of anybody. I am following the evidence to wherever it leads.

<snip>

And, Paul, you continue to repeat your mantra about the JFK-related documents being a "special case" -- but you still do not have any evidence to support that assumption. As I have previously stated numerous times, there are many FBI files which contain documents about JFK-related matters that have been released and some of them discuss "plots" to murder JFK.

I do recognize (as I am sure everyone reading this thread recognizes) that your "special case" argument is an all-purpose intellectual escape hatch. No matter what volume of evidence is presented, you will ALWAYS trot out this excuse for the absence of verifiable factual evidence.

Ernie, you're mistaken -- you really do rely on the honesty of the FBI. You take what they write as GIVEN and you go from there. Your critical faculties are suspended when you recite their memoranda.

As for my argument that the FBI treatment of the JFK assassination is an EXCEPTION, it is a logical, rational argument that you continually evade. You call it an "escape hatch" only because you have no logical reply.

This is a viable argument -- and you know it's correct. The FBI continues to keep Lee Harvey Oswald files hidden from the public view, even though he's been DEAD for 50 years, and poses no threat to anybody.

The FBI is clearly hiding something, and your faith in them amounts to "relying on their honesty."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- empirical evidence is all you or I can rely upon. If you do not believe that FBI documents are reliable -- then why do you quote ANY of them?

OR is it your position that the FBI documents which support or conform to something YOU currently believe are, by definition, "reliable" but ANY FBI document which reports something that you do not like (even if the information in that document originates from some other source), then THOSE documents are, by definition, UNRELIABLE?

I have no problem of any kind with you or anybody else questioning data appearing in FBI documents but I need to see verifiable facutal EVIDENCE to support your contentions. I cannot just accept YOUR WORD for something just because you want us to believe it.

IF, for example, you believe that the FBI has ripped documents about Harry Dean out of numerous different files and put them into some secret file -- then I need to have some sort of verifiable FACTUAL evidence to support your contention.

Apparently, from what you have written to me in this thread (and privately) I was able to find documents online which you have never previously seen -- correct? Such as Harry's 1961 letter to JFK. And I discovered the Hoover letter (which you think should be disputed). Nevertheless, all these documents have been in the public domain for at least 28 years! So how is it possible that you missed them? Some of the FBI memos about Harry Dean which were originally classified as "confidential" show that they were declassified in 1978!

I come back to my previous question to you:

You have admitted that you do not have a lot of familiarity with FBI filing practices and procedures.

(1) So I would like to know if you have EVER contacted ANYBODY who DOES have extensive knowledge about those practices and procedures?

(2) Have you EVER asked anybody who is expert at this -- whether or not THEY KNOW about ANY example where the FBI has ripped serials out ALL their original files (main files and cross-references filed in secondary files) and then put them into a new "secret" file which nobody even knows exists?

(3) Have you EVER interviewed ANY former FBI employees to ask them if THEY know about any such filing practices?

(4) Have you EVER contacted ANY historian or political scientist who has devoted DECADES to researching FBI history and FBI files -- and asked THEM about YOUR theory?

Unless and until you can answer these type of questions -- there is NO reason to believe your speculation or assumptions.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- empirical evidence is all you or I can rely upon. If you do not believe that FBI documents are reliable -- then why do you quote ANY of them?

OR is it your position that the FBI documents which support or conform to something YOU currently believe are, by definition, "reliable" but ANY FBI document which reports something that you do not like (even if the information in that document originates from some other source), then THOSE documents are, by definition, UNRELIABLE?

I have no problem of any kind with you or anybody else questioning data appearing in FBI documents but I need to see verifiable facutal EVIDENCE to support your contentions. I cannot just accept YOUR WORD for something just because you want us to believe it.

IF, for example, you believe that the FBI has ripped documents about Harry Dean out of numerous different files and put them into some secret file -- then I need to have some sort of verifiable FACTUAL evidence to support your contention.

Apparently, from what you have written to me in this thread (and privately) I was able to find documents online which you have never previously seen -- correct? Such as Harry's 1961 letter to JFK. And I discovered the Hoover letter (which you think should be disputed). Nevertheless, all these documents have been in the public domain for at least 28 years! So how is it possible that you missed them? Some of the FBI memos about Harry Dean which were originally classified as "confidential" show that they were declassified in 1978!

I come back to my previous question to you:

You have admitted that you do not have a lot of familiarity with FBI filing practices and procedures.

(1) So I would like to know if you have EVER contacted ANYBODY who DOES have extensive knowledge about those practices and procedures?

(2) Have you EVER asked anybody who is expert at this -- whether or not THEY KNOW about ANY example where the FBI has ripped serials out ALL their original files (main files and cross-references filed in secondary files) and then put them into a new "secret" file which nobody even knows exists?

(3) Have you EVER interviewed ANY former FBI employees to ask them if THEY know about any such filing practices?

(4) Have you EVER contacted ANY historian or political scientist who has devoted DECADES to researching FBI history and FBI files -- and asked THEM about YOUR theory?

Unless and until you can answer these type of questions -- there is NO reason to believe your speculation or assumptions.

Ernie, I’ll answer by numbers:

1. Your logic is flawed by one-sidedness. Most FBI documents are reliable, while some are not. In your hero-worship of the FBI, either one must accept it all, or accept none of it, and you offer no middle term. Thus your logic is flawed.

2. I don't operate by adapting a given FBI document to my theory – it is a matter of adapting all documents to LOGIC and REASON. If an FBI document fails to conform to REASON, then it is suspect, no matter if J. Edgar Hoover himself wrote it. The criterion of LOGIC and REASON is the simple criterion of Self-contradiction. If the FBI contradicts itself, then ON THAT POINT, they have shown a weakness. Very clear.

3. It is absurd to ask me to provide proof that the FBI has kept secrets from the public, since by definition FBI secrets are secret. I have no more access to FBI secrets than you do. I cannot make any determination about them, except that they EXIST. Now, Ernie, if you deny that the FBI has any secret files at all, then you are out of step with common sense. That’s all anyone can say.

4. Again, I was unaware of most of these FBI documents about Harry Dean until you presented them here on this Forum, Ernie. I have thanked you for sharing, and I continue to thank you for sharing. These are historical documents that will prove to be valuable in resolving the lingering mysteries of the JFK assassination 50 years ago. If you want further recognition for your tireless efforts in the mastery of FBI materials – mastery that rivals only FBI agents themselves -- I’m sure you will receive it in the future from others as well.

5. To answer your first direct question – no, I’ve never contacted anybody who has as extensive a knowledge of FBI filing practices as you, Ernie.

6. As for your next direct question – no, I’ve never contacted anybody with such expertise whether they know of any example of how FBI secrets are maintained.

7. As for your next direct question – no, I’ve never interviewed an FBI agent to ask about how FBI secrets are maintained, however, if I had, I am certain that no FBI agent would ever tell me if he or she knew.

8. As for your next direct question, yes, I have passed my theory by a professor of Cold War History, and he advised me to seek a publisher. I have a large body of facts at my disposal, and a large body of unfilled FOIA requests to NARA for film relating to resigned General Edwin Walker. The US government continues to keep secrets about General Walker and the assassination of JFK. That much is certain.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 14, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I don't know if these docs are at Mary Ferrell or not, and have not revisited this in years, but I did locate a few redacted documents that I pulled out of Harry's file a few years ago to ask him about it - and got sidetracked.

In any case, here's one document from Harry's file that I pulled and wanted to ask him about.

Harry, did you write this letter or is it someone else who wrote it and your name is written in at the bottom for some other reason? And who redacted it? Thanks - BK

18109 xitina Dr.

La Puente Calif.

Nov. 19, 1963

Director J. E. Hoover

F.B.I.

Washington D.C.

Dear Sir,

[REDACTED] 1960 [REDACTED] the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [REDACTED] information [REDACTED] local Chicago office of the Bureau. My present assignments [REDACTED] Los Angeles office [REDACTED] has this information.

[REDACTED] undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago [REDACTED] done in June 1961 because Eastland’s Committee was issuing subpoenas to hold hearing on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the 26th of July Movement ([REDACTED] moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time [REDACTED] I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports [REDACTED] released [REDACTED] making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] groups limiting my effectiveness.

[REDACTED] name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee’s report no.96465 part 2 pages 84 and 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level [REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact.

[REDACTED] that you will see to this urgent matter, [REDACTED]

J.R.

[REDACTED]

Harry J. Dean

Bill, this document is becoming increasingly important in these discussions. Do you recall your source for your copy of this document?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 14, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- empirical evidence is all you or I can rely upon. If you do not believe that FBI documents are reliable -- then why do you quote ANY of them?

OR is it your position that the FBI documents which support or conform to something YOU currently believe are, by definition, "reliable" but ANY FBI document which reports something that you do not like (even if the information in that document originates from some other source), then THOSE documents are, by definition, UNRELIABLE?

I have no problem of any kind with you or anybody else questioning data appearing in FBI documents but I need to see verifiable facutal EVIDENCE to support your contentions. I cannot just accept YOUR WORD for something just because you want us to believe it.

IF, for example, you believe that the FBI has ripped documents about Harry Dean out of numerous different files and put them into some secret file -- then I need to have some sort of verifiable FACTUAL evidence to support your contention.

Apparently, from what you have written to me in this thread (and privately) I was able to find documents online which you have never previously seen -- correct? Such as Harry's 1961 letter to JFK. And I discovered the Hoover letter (which you think should be disputed). Nevertheless, all these documents have been in the public domain for at least 28 years! So how is it possible that you missed them? Some of the FBI memos about Harry Dean which were originally classified as "confidential" show that they were declassified in 1978!

I come back to my previous question to you:

You have admitted that you do not have a lot of familiarity with FBI filing practices and procedures.

(1) So I would like to know if you have EVER contacted ANYBODY who DOES have extensive knowledge about those practices and procedures?

(2) Have you EVER asked anybody who is expert at this -- whether or not THEY KNOW about ANY example where the FBI has ripped serials out ALL their original files (main files and cross-references filed in secondary files) and then put them into a new "secret" file which nobody even knows exists?

(3) Have you EVER interviewed ANY former FBI employees to ask them if THEY know about any such filing practices?

(4) Have you EVER contacted ANY historian or political scientist who has devoted DECADES to researching FBI history and FBI files -- and asked THEM about YOUR theory?

Unless and until you can answer these type of questions -- there is NO reason to believe your speculation or assumptions.

Ernie, I’ll answer by numbers:

1. Your logic is flawed by one-sidedness. Most FBI documents are reliable, while some are not. In your hero-worship of the FBI, either one must accept it all, or accept none of it, and you offer no middle term. Thus your logic is flawed.

2. I don't operate by adapting a given FBI document to my theory – it is a matter of adapting all documents to LOGIC and REASON. If an FBI document fails to conform to REASON, then it is suspect, no matter if J. Edgar Hoover himself wrote it. The criterion of LOGIC and REASON is the simple criterion of Self-contradiction. If the FBI contradicts itself, then ON THAT POINT, they have shown a weakness. Very clear.

3. It is absurd to ask me to provide proof that the FBI has kept secrets from the public, since by definition FBI secrets are secret. I have no more access to FBI secrets than you do. I cannot make any determination about them, except that they EXIST. Now, Ernie, if you deny that the FBI has any secret files at all, then you are out of step with common sense. That’s all anyone can say.

4. Again, I was unaware of most of these FBI documents about Harry Dean until you presented them here on this Forum, Ernie. I have thanked you for sharing, and I continue to thank you for sharing. These are historical documents that will prove to be valuable in resolving the lingering mysteries of the JFK assassination 50 years ago. If you want further recognition for your tireless efforts in the mastery of FBI materials – mastery that rivals only FBI agents themselves -- I’m sure you will receive it in the future from others as well.

5. To answer your first direct question – no, I’ve never contacted anybody who has as extensive a knowledge of FBI filing practices as you, Ernie.

6. As for your next direct question – no, I’ve never contacted anybody with such expertise whether they know of any example of how FBI secrets are maintained.

7. As for your next direct question – no, I’ve never interviewed an FBI agent to ask about how FBI secrets are maintained, however, if I had, I am certain that no FBI agent would ever tell me if he or she knew.

8. As for your next direct question, yes, I have passed my theory by a professor of Cold War History, and he advised me to seek a publisher. I have a large body of facts at my disposal, and a large body of unfilled FOIA requests to NARA for film relating to resigned General Edwin Walker. The US government continues to keep secrets about General Walker and the assassination of JFK. That much is certain.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul --- THERE YOU GO AGAIN!

(1) I just got done writing that I am HAPPY to entertain any FACTUAL evidence which supports your contention about FBI documents and about FBI filing practices -- ESPECIALLY if you can provide substantiation for your assertions -- but then how do you respond to that? BY DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING what I just got done saying. You converted my NORMAL respect for logic and fact-based evidence into yet another personal attack upon my character and integrity and intellectual honesty by FALSELY referring to my "hero worship of the FBI."

I have told you OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again that I am totally willing to review ANY evidence (by you or by ANYBODY) which concerns whether or not ANYTHING contained in FBI files is "reliable" or flawed or defective in any way. I also told you that a lot of material in FBI files is RAW DATA from various sources which has to be weighed for importance and significance and then COMPARED to other available data.

So why do you deliberately LIE about what I have written OVER AND OVER AND OVER again?

(2) You have never clearly defined what you describe as "contradiction". Obviously, as I just said above, FBI files often contain RAW information. That raw information came to the FBI from literally HUNDREDS of different sources. Sometimes information is incomplete, ambiguous, or subject to different interpretations. Other times, information is exaggerated or based upon rumor, gossip, hearsay, half-truths. or outright falsehoods. But FBI investigations were intended to separate FACT from FICTION which is why (for example) you can discover in the FBI file on Highlander Folk School, that it was FACTUALLY WRONG to describe that school (as the Birch Society did) as a "Communist training school". That is why, also, you can discover in FBI investigative files that both Hoover and the FBI rejected the claims made by racists and by low-information (but gullible) people that our civil rights movement was "Communist-inspired" or "Communist-controlled" or "Communist-dominated".

As J. Edgar Hoover declared in a public speech in 1964:

"Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists--because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all." [J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - Hoover speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; bold emphasis on "not" and "never" in original document].

That is also why FBI investigative files falsified standard extreme right arguments about all sorts of individuals, organizations and publications. Nevertheless, you can find raw data in those files which is not the same as and "contradicts" the ultimate conclusions made by the FBI.

(3) I told you explicitly that the FBI had mechanisms in place to file certain things OUTSIDE its normal filing procedures. I referred in a previous message (for example) to "JUNE MAIL". I also corrected one your misunderstandings re: what happened to Hoover's personal files.

OBVIOUSLY, there are FBI files which contain "secrets". That is why you see documents and files clearly marked "Top Secret" or "Secret" or "Confidential".

But, once again, Paul you are totally mis-representing what my position is. It is now obvious to me that you have no interest in a PRINCIPLED discussion with anybody who disputes ANYTHING you believe.

(4) I don't care ONE WHIT if I get any "recognition". I simply asked you how it could be possible for somebody such as yourself who has spent (how long?) years? decades? specializing in research on Harry Dean's assertions to not be aware of documentary evidence that has been available since at least 1985??? Remember our previous messages where you pooh-poohed my question regarding why it is you or Harry never bothered to make an FOIA request?? The documents we are discussing were released as a result of an FOIA request made in 1985. ONLY your pig-headed BIAS prevented you from finding and obtaining them! THAT is my point Paul.

(5) thru (7) = Well, then at least have the courtesy to stop attacking me for having the curiosity and the persistence to do the kinds of things which you now admit you never have had the common sense to do.

Incidentally, with respect to your comment in #7 -- you could not be more mistaken. MANY former FBI Special Agents have written "exposes" concerning their experiences inside the FBI. Some of them contain useful information; others are so sensationalistic that their accuracy is highly suspect. But there are LOADS of very important insights which can be obtained by reading those narratives. EXAMPLE: The last surviving Assistant Director who worked with Hoover (Cartha DeLoach) died earlier this year. But his 1995 book revealed a great deal of NEW information. See: http://www.amazon.com/Hoovers-FBI-Cartha-D-DeLoach/dp/089526479X I then sent several emails to DeLoach and I got some extraordinarily important information which helped me with my critique of FALSE statements made by former FBI Special Agents like Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot.

(8) Good luck with your requests. MAYBE someday you will finally understand (and stop misrepresenting) my position about FBI documents and FOIA requests to obtain those documents.