Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - how do you account for the Secret Service orchestrated failure to protect JFK in Dealey Plaza without concluding conspiracy

Well, Paul B., it's an excellent question. It was this line of inquiry that got me interested in JFK research, back in 1991, after Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, came out into American theaters.

In that film, a secretive character named, "Mister X" (played by Donald Sutherland) told Jim Garrison that he would have been responsible for managing security of JFK in Dallas on 22 November 1963, including the supervision of the Secret Service, except that his supierior officer, "General Y," sent him to the South Pole, instead.

That was a life-changing scene for me. I realized that the movie, JFK, was presented as a historically accurate film about the career of Jim Garrison; his memoirs as an eye-witness of special sort in New Orleans.

"Mister X" explained to Garrison that while at the South Pole, he marveled that before Lee Harvey Oswald was ever charged with the assassination of JFK, that the newspaper at McMurdo Sound station in Antartica published a full biographical feature on Lee Harvey Oswald, including a studio photograph, explaining that he was probably the lone killer of JFK.

That was the most stunning perspective and most convincing story I've ever heard - down to this day - to convince me that there was an extensive plot to kill JFK, and that it extended into key positions inside the US Military and Intelligence circles. I still accept that account today, and I admit that it must be accounted for fully in any complete theory of the JFK assassination.

Today we know that "Mister X" was none other than Fletcher Prouty, who was a Colonel in the US Air Force, as well as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1963. It was in that capacity that he would have been responsible for the full protection of JFK in 1963 -- and he was devoted to JFK.

Today we also know that "General Y" was none other than Edward Lansdale, who was a Major General in the US Air Force and also executive officer in the Office of Strategic Services, where he became the boss of Colonel Prouty. Unless Lansdale had moved Prouty away from his post in November, 1963, it would have been impossible to kill JFK, I'm convinced. I gather from your remarks, Paul B., that we see eye to eye on these factors.

So, as I read your question, Paul B., you're asking me how I can still support the theory that resigned Major General Edwin Walker was the leader of the JFK assassination plot, when actually he no longer had any rank in the US Military. On the other hand, General Edward Lansdale still held a high rank in the US Military, and he -- by the eye-witness account of Fletcher Prouty -- certainly manipulated Secret Service personnel to reduce the protection of JFK down to a minimum that day.

Is that your question? How can a resigned General outrank a sitting General in a plot like this? If so, then you may be interested to learn that I've thought a lot about that question in recent years. I've gone back and forth on the question. At first glance, it seemed logical to presume that the sitting General would have had more power, more flexibility, and more resources than a resigned General.

Further, if I could presume that General Lansdale took the lead role in sabotaging the Secret Service protection of JFK, then I could also use Lansdale to coordinate the other dubious activities, cover-ups and problems regarding the standing down of the 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston, moving JFK's body around, the limousine, the coffins and CIA secrecy. But the larger I built that house of cards, the faster it fell down. First, the CIA didn't need his orders on secrecy. Also, the Pentagon is no use in controlling medical records, or even the local police.

That was my problem. Although the sabatage of Secret Service protection was vital to the success of the JFK plot, it was only one small part of the larger picture. General Lansdale could control Fletcher Prouty, the Secret Service and the 112th MIG at 4th Army HQ, but after that he would need support at a local level. It is this local level that is all-important.

This is why Jim Garrison could never crack this case. Jim Garrison was terrified about the prospect of getting involved in Dallas. He hoped and prayed that somebody in Dallas would decide to join him, but they never did. Garrison also knew that if he went to interview Jack Ruby rotting away in his Dallas jail cell, that he would receive no better information from Jack Ruby than Ruby had already given to Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1964, as follows:

Mr. RUBY. There is an organization here, Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life at this moment to say it...there is a John Birch Society right now in activity, and Edwin Walker is one of the top men of this organization -- take it for what it is worth, Chief Justice Warren...Don't register with you, does it?

Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don't understand that.

We have reliable information that Jim Garrison spoke about General Walker in his various interviews over the years with the likes of Loran Hall and Gerry Hemming, but he never broached the major Dallas players. Garrison was only one man. His life was in danger as it was. Why didn't anybody in Dallas come forward to help Jim Garrison?

Yes, weakening the Secret Service was a major issue in the killing of JFK. So was the standing down of the 112th MIG at 4th Army HQ. But even more insidious in that regard was the behavior of the Dallas Police Department. They controlled the streets that day. They controlled Dealey Plaza. They controlled the suspects. They controlled the evidence!

Dallas Chief of Police Jesse Curry immediately pointed to the sixth floor of the TSBD building after the shots rang out -- and yet it took the Dallas Police Department 40 minutes to climb up six floors to look around. That simply isn't reasonable. Besides, there are two problems there: the first is that Jesse Curry was instantly certain that the shots came from the sixth floor of the TSBD to the exclusion of all other sources. Yet how could he be so sure, since the Secret Service men themselves initially reported that the shots came from the grassy knoll. I gather from this that Jesse Curry was a central member of the Dallas plot.

The second problem is that Jesse Curry should not have pointed to the TSBD at all, since he should have known that the Dallas Police were not going to be ready so quickly with their set-up of the sixth floor. He should have kept silent -- because it would take the Dallas police a full 40 minutes to stage their charade on the sixth floor, and another 12 minutes to stage their bogus discovery of the rifle(s) found. I remember reading an account of a person filming the sixth floor window from a nearby building after the JFK killing, and he reported that his home movie showed a group of men building a sniper's nest there -- after the shooting! Well, that would certainly explain why it took 52 minutes to locate the rifle -- which was not hidden but simply placed between a stack of boxes, easily seen.

So, by immediately pointing to the TSBD building's sixth floor, Jesse Curry actually made a confession -- that's how it seems to me. I conclude that the behavior of the Dallas Police is equally as suspicious as the behavior of the Secret Service, and it required a local handler.

Let us say -- simply for the sake of argument -- that the local right-wing leader, General Walker, was (as Jack Ruby claimed) the leader of the local Dallas ground-crew. Then, should I not say that there were two equal leaders equally involved -- both General Edward Lansdale and General Edwin Walker?

No, because there is one feature that remains to be accounted for that will decide the matter -- and that is the status of the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. I will choose Edwin Walker as the senior partner in this (alleged) unholy alliance, even above Edward Lansdale, because of their relative proximity to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Although we can easily associate Lee Harvey Oswald with Edward Lansdale using the early newspaper article at the South Pole naming Lee Harvey Oswald -- formally -- as the JFK killer, that is not enough. We can just as easily associate Lee Harvey Oswald with Guy Banister (and his ground crew, including Eladio Del Valle, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier, what to speak of his super-financier, Carlos Marcello) as the crew that performed the six-week sheep-dipping job on Lee Harvey Oswald. WIthout that sheep-dipping job, nothing Edward Lansdale could do would be sufficient.

But wait, there's more. The later news that came out after the JFK killing, that Lee Harvey Oswald was also the shooter at General Edwin Walker back in April 1963, directly associates Walker with Oswald on a personal basis. Clearly, Edwin Walker lied multiple times to Earl Warren and news reporters, claiming that he never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until after the JFK killing. Because, in his personal papers, Walker often admits that he learned that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter the very week of the April shooting.

That is now a matter of documented history.

So, based on this proximity of time and motive -- and based on the need to explain the Dallas ground crew -- even over and above the New Orleans ground crew -- I will place resigned Major General Edwin Walker at the top of my suspect list in the JFK killing.

This also satisfies the methodology of my theory -- I will not blame the official USA for the killing of JFK without hard evidence. In this way, I can grasp the role of General Edward Lansdale (who was identified by the eye-witness of Colonel Fletcher Prouty) to be an unofficial and rogue role, and subordinate to a larger plot that was older than his involvement.

I trust this answers your excellent question, Paul B. Please tell me if I missed any major issues.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited January 7, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - how do you account for the Secret Service orchestrated failure to protect JFK in Dealey Plaza without concluding conspiracy

Paul B., I'd like to add another remark as a follow-up to your excellent question.

In 1991, after watching Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, I was disturbed for several months about the claim in that movie that newspapers in the South Pole had claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone killer" of JFK. Fletcher Prouty read this article during the South Pole equivalent of 7pm on 22 November 1963.

This was only 6.5 hours after the assassination of JFK -- and in fact at this hour Lee Oswald had only just been charged with the killing of Dallas police office J.D. Tippit. It would be hours before Oswald would be charged with killing JFK -- and already newspapers in the South Pole had a full story about Oswald, about his time in the USSR, with a studio photograph, and alleged that Oswald was the "lone nut" killer.

But the most disturbing aspect to me was that this incidentally portrayed J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI in a tremendously bad light.

Here's what I mean. Historian David Wrone reported that J. Edgar Hoover was the first person to imagine that Oswald was the "lone nut" killer of JFK. Hoover first imagined this scenario at 3pm on 22 November 1963, only one hour after Oswald was arrested, while Hoover sat in his Washington DC office overlooking the Potomac River -- yet how could that opinion, which hadn't even been announced to the FBI staff yet, become part of a full-bodied newspaper report in New Zealand only four hours later?

It was impossible, I worried, that this sort of information could be transmitted so far and so fast. If these times and events are accepted, then the obvious conclusion is that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't really the first person to imagine that Oswald was the "lone nut." On the contrary, the people who leaked the story to the New Zealand newspapers were the real originators of the story, so these people must have hovered above J. Edgar Hoover and dictated to him what he must say.

I saw no other explanation for the stipulated facts. It was disturbing to me to imagine that J. Edgar Hoover (whom I knew was not perfect) was playing along with higher-ups, and that he was therefore directly involved in the plot to assassinate JFK. I don't like thinking this about the US government -- but if the New Zealand newspaper printed that Oswald was the "lone nut" killer of JFK before Oswald was even charged with the crime, then I had no choice but to doubt that J. Edgar Hoover was the true source of the "lone nut" theory.

Thanks to the Internet, however, I was able to ease my worried mind. The Internet made it possible for anybody to find and read the very same newspaper that Fletcher Prouty read that day. Here's what I found.

1. The name of that New Zealand newspaper is The ChristChurch Star.

2. At exactly 7pm on 22 November 1963 in Dallas, the time zone for New Zealand would be 2pm on 23 November 1963. So the date of the newspaper issue we want is 23 November 1963.

3. For sake of this thread, I'll type in the entire article from The ChristChurch Star:

--------------------- Begin article from The ChristChurch Star dated 23 November 1963 -------------------

ARRESTED MAN LIVED IN RUSSIA

DALLAS (Texas), November 22.

Police have arrested a man employed at the building where a rifle was found after President Kennedy's assassination, British United Press reported. The man reported to be married to a Russian, shot dead a police officer as he was chased into a Dallas cinema.

HAD PISTOL

The Associated Press of America named the man as Lee H. Oswald, aged 24. Oswald was armed with a pistol when he was finally overpowered. After he was subdued he said: "Well, it's all over now."

After being questioned for two hours, Oswald denied any connection with the murder of President Kennedy or the policeman. Reuter said a Secret Service agent had also been shot from the same distance as the President but no details of this shooting were immediately available.

Oswald was pulled screaming and yelling from the Texas Theater in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, A.P. said. A large crowd had congregated around the theatre and saw the arrest. Police had to hold the crowds back.

Police said Oswald was an employee in the building where the rifle was found following the President's assassination, British United Press reported.

Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union in 1959, it was later learned. He returned to the United States last year. He has a Russian wife and a child. While in the Soviet Union he worked in a Minsk factory. He went to the Soviet Union following his discharge from the Marines.

While in Russia he apparently became disillusioned with life there. Soviet authorities gave him and his family exit permits to return to America. Oswald was later identified as chairman of a "fair play for Cuba committee." He became the prime suspect in the assassination of the President.

SHOT DEAD

Oswald had been chased in to the cinema by two policemen. The officers, J. Tippit and M. MacDonald, had received a tip that the President's assassin might have gone into the cinema. Tippit was shot dead as he ran into the cinema British United Press said. MacDonald grappled with the man and they sprawled over theatre seats. He recieved a four-inch lash across the face before he overpowered the man.

--------------------- End article from The ChristChurch Star dated 23 November 1963 -------------------

So, there's the article. After reading it carefully, we can easily see that the flaw really rests in Oliver Stone's account of the article. In his movie, JFK, Stone's script suggests that the "lone nut" theory appeared there in New Zealand at 7pm Dallas time, only 6.5 hours after the JFK killing. However, as the reader can plainly see, the "lone nut" theory is entirely absent from the article.

Now, I do agree that the timing of the article remains suspicious, and that a military-linked agency is the most likely source to be held responsible for setting up a cover story about Lee Harvey Oswald so quickly after the killing of JFK, and sending it to New Zealand. It remains suspicious that an international newspaper would receive so much detail, even before Oswald was charged with killing JFK. (It reminds me of General Edwin Walker calling the German newspaper, the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, early in the morning after the JFK killing, and telling them that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963.)

However, I breathed a sigh of relief, because it lets J. Edgar Hoover off the hook. Don't get me wrong -- I'm no great fan of J. Edgar Hoover -- I think his behavior with regard to the USA Civil Rights movement was deplorable. But I'm relieved to be free of the hard evidence that the Director of the FBI was a pawn in the plot to kill JFK.

That is, if the "lone nut" theory had really originated with somebody above his head, then Hoover was a pawn in the plot. I had feared that this New Zealand newspaper might be hard evidence that Hoover was not the originator of the "lone nut" theory -- based on Oliver Stone's claim. However, the actual evidence removed my fear and my doubt.

I continue to believe that J. Edgar Hoover's motivation for the "lone nut" theory was to prevent Civil War from breaking out in the USA -- Civil War specifically against the John Birch Society and the Minutemen, and its most prominent leader at the time, General Edwin Walker.

I continue to believe all members of LBJ's inner circle, including Hoover, Dulles and Warren, all knew that Edwin Walker was their culprit -- and that the right-wing in the USA was a force to be feared during the Cold War. I believe the "lone nut" theory prevented Civil War in the middle of the Cold War, and therefore prevented World War Three.

If my theory is correct, then just as Marguerite Oswald suggested to Harry Dean in 1965, the USA owes a great debt of gratitude to Lee Harvey Oswald for being the lightning rod that absorbed the tremendous shock to the body politic of the USA in November 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited January 10, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I can now identify the primary individual whose FOIA requests resulted in the release of numerous FBI and CIA documents which are posted on the Mary Ferrell website.

As Mary's website points out:

"The large CIA and FBI collections come from the Assassination Archives and Research Center, which obtained them directly from these agencies as a result of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits."

According to Mary, about 85% of the scanned documents on her website originated from AARC lawsuits. The President of AARC is Washington DC attorney James H. Lesar -- and he specializes in FOIA lawsuits. Mr. Lesar has represented Mark A. Allen, Harold Weisberg, among others in their lawsuits against FBI, CIA, NSA, and other agencies.

Mark Allen submitted FOIA requests to the FBI which asked for all FBI records pertaining to the murders of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr. which the FBI submitted to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

I am trying to track down an email address for Mark Allen so that I can ask him additional questions regarding what files/documents he obtained regarding Harry Dean. If anyone knows Mr. Allen's email address, I would appreciate learning about it!

Edited January 13, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie,

Thanks for continuing your research. Best wishes in contacting Mark Allen and obtaining further clarification about the FBI files on Harry Dean.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Another source of documents about Harry Dean:

http://cisupa.proquest.com/ksc_assets/catalog/102545.pdf

[Ernie Lazar]

For interested parties, I attach the first interim release of FBI documents on Jerry Milton Brooks

Brooks, Jerry M.-HQ-1a.pdf

Brooks, Jerry M.-HQ-3.pdf

[Paul Trejo]

Another source of documents about Harry Dean:

http://cisupa.proquest.com/ksc_assets/catalog/102545.pdf

Thanks, Ernie, for posting this official index of Part 2 of the Papers from the JFK Assassination Records Collection at the National Archives. This particular Index concentrates on the Church Committee -- the organization that preceded the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations) of 1977.

I found it interesting that the Church Committee had not one, but seven official folders with information about our own Harry Dean, in seven different Boxes from three different Reels of data. For those who wish an instant reading, I reproduce those folder descriptions here, and I highlight the name of Harry J. Dean in bold letters for the convenience of the reader.

Regards

--Paul Trejo

PAPERS FROM THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS COLLECTION AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Part 2: Church Committee Investigation

Reel 12 – FBI Background Information on Lee Harvey Oswald

0515 Box 13, Folder 3: [FBI Memorandums and Documents Relating to JFK Assassination].

Major Topics: FBI knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to JFK assassination; James P. Hosty; Sylvia Odio; Oswald travel to Mexico City; FBI response to Warren Commission questions; Harold Weisberg characterization of Warren Commission report as a “whitewash”; James C. Garrison; John A. McCone; Oswald ties to FBI; LBJ statement announcing creation of Warren Commission; mystery of TSBD elevators; FPCC; Oswald arrest in New Orleans; Nicholas Katzenbach; Gerald R. Ford; questions of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. concerning JFK assassination; CIA filing system; Secret Service; Earl Warren; Michael Paine family; Harry J. Dean. Principal Correspondent: Harold Weisberg.

Reel 19 – Ralph Schoenman’s Report to Rockefeller Commission

0294 Box 20, Folder 2: [Documents Relating to the Overthrow of Fidel Castro; Miscellaneous Documents on Lee Harvey Oswald].

Major Topics: CIA activities prior to Bay of Pigs; Cuba; Harry J. Dean; Warren Commission; FBI file on Lee Harvey Oswald; Oswald ties to USSR; Marion M. Johnson; Marguerite Oswald; defectors to USSR; Marina Oswald; arrest of Silvia Duran; FBI investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald travel to Mexico City; Gilberto Alvarado; McGeorge Bundy affidavit to Rockefeller Commission; Operation Mongoose; William K. Harvey; David W. Belin; INS report on Marina Oswald. Principal Correspondent: William C. Sullivan.

0768 Box 20, Folder 6: [Church Committee Press Briefings and Document Acquisitions Lists; Documents Relating to Harry J. Dean].

Major Topics: Church Committee press conferences with Philip W. Buchen, Frank Church, and John Tower; Chile; assassination of Rene Schneider; Richard M. Nixon; NSA; Church interviews; Maurice “Maury” Povich; Richard Helms; Edward M. Kennedy; JFK and RFK knowledge of plot to assassinate Fidel Castro; sale of Pershing missiles to Israel; FPCC; Harry J. Dean alleged ties to FBI; FBI disavowal of Dean; Church appearance on Meet the Press; William E. Colby; Bartholomew “Barry” M. Goldwater; lists of Church Committee document acquisitions; Gerald R. Ford opposition to publication of Church Committee report on assassinations. Principal Correspondents: Bill Capps; Harry J. Dean; Gerald R. Ford.

0904 Box 20, Folder 7: [Miscellaneous Documents on JFK Assassination and Cuba].

Major Topics: FBI documents on Warren Commission critics; FBI documents on MLK; list of documents that may be used in Church Committee report; Harry J. Dean; memorandum on CIA reorganization; Operation Mongoose; Cuba; passport data on Gilberto P. Lopez; jurisdiction of Rockefeller Commission concerning CIA involvement in assassinations; Gerald R. Ford and William E. Colby opposition to publication of Church Committee report on assassinations; Walt W. Rostow meeting with Richard M. Bissell Jr.; SGA status report. Principal Correspondents: Michael E. Shaheen Jr.; Paul G. Wallach; Steven Blackhurst; J. Edgar Hoover; Arthur Schlesinger Jr.; Edward G. Lansdale; Benjamin T. Harris; James A. Wilderotter; Philip W. Buchen; Marvin L. Gray Jr.; Gerald R. Ford; William E. Colby; Walt W. Rostow.

Reel 22 – Church Committee Index Cards on Lee Harvey Oswald

0288 Box 23, Folder 2: [CIA Documents on AMLASH; Rockefeller Commission Depositions; INS Documents on Marina Oswald].

Major Topics: Interview with Forrest Sorrels; Secret Service; Warren Commission; JFK assassination; TSBD; Zapruder film; Lee Harvey Oswald; Jack Ruby; AMLASH; Cuba; plot to assassinate Fidel Castro; Castro 1965 speech reporting progress in Cuba; biography of Edward G. Lansdale; depositions of Peter Brown and Peter D. Dyke; CIA meeting with Shirley Stetson and John Wilson; Jose Antonio Cabarga threatening phone call concerning JFK assassination; Oswald ties to KGB; Harry J. Dean ties to FBI; FPCC; CIA attempt to counter criticism of Warren Commission

0468 Box 23, Folder 3: [FBI Memorandums Relating to Anti-Castro Activities, Cuba, and Harry J. Dean].

Major Topics: Luis Somoza; Cuban exiles; plot to assassinate Fidel Castro; Miami Herald; Antonio Veciana; CRC; Gus Finger; New York City Anti-Defamation League; Morton M. Rosenthal; Placido Hernandez; Rafael Rodriguez; Edward P. Morgan; Harry J. Dean ties to FBI; FPCC; Daniel Milian and Carlos Rodriguez Quesada plot to assassinate Castro; Sentinels of Liberty; Luis Conte Aguero; Bruce A. Norris; Edward Lombardo; Church Committee weekly report; Jose Miro Cardona; Manuel “Manolo” Ray; Manuel Artime; Manuel Antonio de Varona. Principal Correspondent: Robert James Dwyer.

0603 Box 23, Folder 4: [Memorandums on Cuban Exile Organizations, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Harry J. Dean].

Major Topics: Cuban exile raids on Cuba; Lee Harvey Oswald travel to Mexico City; Jose Miro Cardona; Cuban exile organizations; CRC; Cuban Committee of Liberation; Manuel Antonio de Varona; recommendation not to release Church Committee report on assassinations; Edward P. Morgan; plot to assassinate Fidel Castro; Oswald and Marina Oswald passport information; Harry J. Dean; FPCC; Lee Harvey Oswald return to U.S.; statement of Louis M. Kelley; FBI Washington field office; Marguerite Oswald; Lee Harvey Oswald residence in USSR; FBI report on investigation into JFK assassination; Lee Harvey Oswald murder of J. D. Tippit; TSBD; Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle; Warren Commission use of information received from CIA. Principal Correspondent: Robert James Dwyer.

--- END Extract ---

[Ernie Lazar]

I can now identify the primary individual whose FOIA requests resulted in the release of numerous FBI and CIA documents which are posted on the Mary Ferrell website.

As Mary's website points out:

"The large CIA and FBI collections come from the Assassination Archives and Research Center, which obtained them directly from these agencies as a result of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits."

According to Mary, about 85% of the scanned documents on her website originated from AARC lawsuits. The President of AARC is Washington DC attorney James H. Lesar -- and he specializes in FOIA lawsuits. Mr. Lesar has represented Mark A. Allen, Harold Weisberg, among others in their lawsuits against FBI, CIA, NSA, and other agencies.

Mark Allen submitted FOIA requests to the FBI which asked for all FBI records pertaining to the murders of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr. which the FBI submitted to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

I am trying to track down an email address for Mark Allen so that I can ask him additional questions regarding what files/documents he obtained regarding Harry Dean. If anyone knows Mr. Allen's email address, I would appreciate learning about it!

I was able to contact Mark Allen and he confirmed the initial details which I previously provided. His email to me stated that:

Yes. In 1980 or 81 I filed a FOIA for docs the FBI sent to the HSCA. I also filed other similar suits for HSCA related docs at the CIA and other executive agencies. Altogether, over a half million were produced. I don't know how many were FBI, but most were...Some documents were reluctantly produced in the 80s, often heavily redacted, but most came after the JFK Records Act was passed in the 90s."

So, the FBI and CIA documents posted online on the Mary Ferrell website which reflect FOIA #211,326 were the documents which Mark Allen was able to obtain as a consequence of his successful FOIA lawsuits. Some of the basic facts are summarized here:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2959233373412375839&q=Mark+Allen+vs+FBI&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

There are FBI documents which probably contain references to Harry Dean which are not currently available - mostly because nobody has bothered to make FOIA requests for them. For example: the FBI-Chicago and FBI-New York City field files on FPCC probably have references to contacts which Harry had with the Chicago field office during the summer of 1960 and thereafter. In addition, as I previously pointed out, we do not have the specific serials which Chicago created which reflect all the details of their investigation into Harry's background which resulted in their June 1961 rejection of Harry's further assistance. It is likely that those serials also contain more details re: Harry from the FBI-Detroit field office and from RCMP in Canada.

I mention all this simply because a serious researcher or author would want to discover as much data as possible before making hard or final conclusions. Which is why I have stated repeatedly that Harry's and Paul's singular lack of curiosity is very troubling and serves as a major red flag which deserves scrutiny. It goes without saying that I have never devoted much time to Harry's narrative. But I know from decades of personal experience that there is considerable data regarding Harry which is available to anybody with the time, interest, and resources to pursue that data. However, insofar as FBI or CIA files or documents have already been, or will be, transferred to NARA, it will become much more difficult to obtain them due to the exorbitant fees which NARA charges for document reproduction.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

...There are FBI documents which probably contain references to Harry Dean which are not currently available - mostly because nobody has bothered to make FOIA requests for them...

I mention all this simply because a serious researcher or author would want to discover as much data as possible before making hard or final conclusions. Which is why I have stated repeatedly that Harry's and Paul's singular lack of curiosity is very troubling and serves as a major red flag which deserves scrutiny.

Well, Ernie, your insults just keep coming. Your tone is about as sympathetic as a porcupine.

But your attacks miss their mark, simply because you misunderstand Harry Dean and his project, and my role in it.

Harry Dean is not a researcher -- and neither am I. Harry Dean is an eye-witness who has courageously been trying since 1965 to tell the world what he saw in September 1963, regarding General Walker, the John Birch Society, Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald.

The FBI has opposed Harry Dean ever since he chose to go public with his information. The attacks by the FBI started in 1965, and they continue down to this day through the unofficial intermediary of Ernie Lazar.

As for me, I'm a computer specialist in SQL databases. I also happen to be a part-time student, and I recently enjoyed some history courses by the famous H.W. Brands, who encouraged me in my research into the personal papers of resigned General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century) here at the Briscoe Center for American History.

After two semesters with Professor Brands, I agreed to help Harry Dean write his CONFESSIONS. This is not the work of a professional historian -- and I'm not a professional researcher. I helped Harry Dean write his CONFESSIONS. That's all.

For my troubles, I get the prize of Ernie Lazar, hounding me relentlessly, here on the Harry Dean thread of Education Forum.

But you should be ashamed, Ernie, to make these sorts of accusations and declamations in public -- you don't know what you're talking about. You admit that you "have never devoted much time to Harry's narrative." But that doesn't prevent you from attacking it, obviously.

Furthermore, you accuse me of "making hard or final conclusions." But that's baloney. I've always said that my opinions here amount to a theory or hypothesis. I realize that the information on the JFK assassination is among the most suppressed information the FBI has to offer -- even 50 years after the fact. But that's not my fault -- that's the fault of the FBI.

As for FOIA requests, they are expensive and time-consuming. Neither Harry nor I have surplus cash lying around for research. Also, as you yourself are aware, NARA prices are "exorbitant." Harry and I are happy that others are willing to share the results of their FOIA requests -- that is, unless they brag endlessly about them.

So, come off it, Ernie. What good does it do you to keep harping on the imperfections of others? Are you that lonely?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 23, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...There are FBI documents which probably contain references to Harry Dean which are not currently available - mostly because nobody has bothered to make FOIA requests for them...

I mention all this simply because a serious researcher or author would want to discover as much data as possible before making hard or final conclusions. Which is why I have stated repeatedly that Harry's and Paul's singular lack of curiosity is very troubling and serves as a major red flag which deserves scrutiny.

Well, Ernie, your insults just keep coming. Your tone is about as sympathetic as a porcupine.

But your attacks miss their mark, simply because you misunderstand Harry Dean and his project, and my role in it.

Harry Dean is not a researcher -- and neither am I. Harry Dean is an eye-witness who has courageously been trying since 1965 to tell the world what he saw in September 1963, regarding General Walker, the John Birch Society, Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald.

The FBI has opposed Harry Dean ever since he chose to go public with his information. The attacks by the FBI started in 1965, and they continue down to this day through the unofficial intermediary of Ernie Lazar.

As for me, I'm a computer specialist in SQL databases. I also happen to be a part-time student, and I recently enjoyed some history courses by the famous H.W. Brands, who encouraged me in my research into the personal papers of resigned General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century) here at the Briscoe Center for American History.

After two semesters with Professor Brands, I agreed to help Harry Dean write his CONFESSIONS. This is not the work of a professional historian -- and I'm not a professional researcher. I helped Harry Dean write his CONFESSIONS. That's all.

For my troubles, I get the prize of Ernie Lazar, hounding me relentlessly, here on the Harry Dean thread of Education Forum.

But you should be ashamed, Ernie, to make these sorts of accusations and declamations in public -- you don't know what you're talking about. You admit that you "have never devoted much time to Harry's narrative." But that doesn't prevent you from attacking it, obviously.

Furthermore, you accuse me of "making hard or final conclusions." But that's baloney. I've always said that my opinions here amount to a theory or hypothesis. I realize that the information on the JFK assassination is among the most suppressed information the FBI has to offer -- even 50 years after the fact. But that's not my fault -- that's the fault of the FBI.

As for FOIA requests, they are expensive and time-consuming. Neither Harry nor I have surplus cash lying around for research. Also, as you yourself are aware, NARA prices are "exorbitant." Harry and I are happy that others are willing to share the results of their FOIA requests -- that is, unless they brag endlessly about them.

So, come off it, Ernie. What good does it do you to keep harping on the imperfections of others? Are you that lonely?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, what you interpret as an "insult" is merely normal rigorous examination of evidence. Strange (but significant) that you don't understand basic procedures which are employed under "witness impeachment". I suggest you review "Federal Rules of Evidence" to get an idea of what I mean OR consult any logic textbook published in America.

And, as usual, you misrepresent the issues involved here. The issue is not what exact category you or Harry or anybody else belongs in. It makes utterly no difference whatsoever whether you or Harry are "a researcher". The point is that you (and through you, Harry) are authors who ask readers to believe that you are presenting accurate, truthful and factual information about historical events which occurred 5 decades ago.

No alleged "eyewitness" gets a free pass just because you like the person. As previously mentioned, eyewitness testimony is, by nature, the MOST unreliable type of evidence. Strange you do not understand that either. During your college days, did you never take any courses in the study of history as an academic discipline? Did you never learn about the distinction between (and the critical importance of) primary vs secondary sources of evidence? Did Professor Brands never bring your attention to the PURPOSE of original research, i.e. producing NEW knowledge -- as opposed to presenting or summarizing existing knowledge in a new form?

The FBI never "attacked" Harry Dean. Again, this reveals your extreme bias and the fact that you do not function as an independent researcher and instead you function as a shill (an advocate) for Harry's personal opinions. ANY objective review of available evidence clearly reflects that the FBI totally ignored Harry Dean for many years. The ONLY reason the Bureau got involved is because of inquiries they received about Harry from journalists and television programs. On Planet Trejo, I guess you think that the FBI should have totally ignored those inquiries and never answered them. Furthermore, I am not an intermediary of the FBI or anybody else. You are PROJECTING your own role (for Harry) onto me. I am SEARCHING for relevant data -- something which totally escapes you because of your impenetrable bias.

You did not merely "help" Harry write his "confessions". You express your agreement with his statements and assertions. There are many passages in "Confessions" which linguistically and substantively are clearly YOUR thoughts layered on top of Harry's.

Nobody is "hounding" you. But you are so accustomed to the format of Education Forum -- which reflects uncritical acceptance of everything presented by every person who posts messages here -- that you cannot withstand genuine scrutiny of your statements. The point of my comment about not spending much time with Harry's narrative, was my way of comparing my personal involvement in this matter to yours. You have spent considerable time interviewing Harry but, apparently, you never bothered asking him the most rudimentary questions. You obviously are totally clueless about the difference between "attacking" a source of information versus EXAMINING it in order to determine its credibility. But as you admit, your field of expertise is not history nor is it even research -- so ANY rigorous examination chafes on you.

WIth respect to your comments in the final two paragraphs of your message:

1. You have no "theory" or "hypothesis". You immediately reject ANYTHING which calls into question Harry's narrative and then you trash the person who brings your attention to that contradictory evidence OR you claim it is a forgery!

2. There are very few JFK-related documents which have not been released. There is currently no reason to believe that anything subsequently released will vindicate Harry's narrative --- particularly since so many files/documents have been released which bear directly upon his assertions.

3. FOIA requests can be "expensive and time-consuming" when there are large files which need to be obtained. BUT there are provisions in the FOIA statutes for fee exemptions and fee reductions.

However, based upon the indexes which appear on Mary Ferrell's website which list the specific FBI files and serial numbers that contain references to Harry (I have posted one of them in this forum for interested parties), it does not seem that Harry's FBI files are very large.

For example: one of Harry's main FBI files (HQ 62-109068) was opened in November 1963 and the last serial listed on its index was dated June 3, 1976. The total number of pages in that file = 126.

If you ask the FBI to copy and release responsive documents onto a CD, the first CD is normally free unless the total number of pages in a file exceeds 500 in which case the first CD might cost $5 and the subsequent CD's cost $15 each.

Based upon available evidence, there is no reason to believe that ANY FBI (or CIA) file on Harry exceeds 500 pages. In fact, I am willing to bet that the combined total of ALL FBI and CIA files which were opened on Harry (Chicago, Los Angeles, and HQ) total less than 1500 pages.

The reason why Mark Allen's FOIA request produced over half-a-million documents is because Mark never made a request on Harry Dean. Mark requested all FBI documents about any JFK-related subject matter which were transmitted to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. And, incidentally, Mary Ferrell's website offers for sale a DVD containing hundreds of thousands of documents on the JFK-assassination for $325.

"Imperfection of others": You still don't get it Paul. EVERY historical narrative is subject to rigorous examination. Everything is subject to questioning and verifability. You are so thin-skinned about this because "computer specialists" work in a field which does not require their work to be subjected to peer-review or analysis. In addition, normal rules of evidence are not something which your work requires. Physical sciences operate on much different rules because there is not a lot of "interpretation" involved. Instead, something works or it doesn't. There are not many nuances or contradictions in "eyewitness testimony" to sort through.

IF you think I am uniquely and unfairly harsh, you had better pray that no serious academic scholar or journal ever decides to produce a formal review of your eBook! They will rip it to shreds!

ADDENDUM

One final point -- just for clarity.

I would like to bring everyone's attention to something which may be lost in the recriminations between Paul and myself.

1. Although (as I acknowledged) I have not spent a fraction of the time which Paul Trejo (and others) have spent on this matter, it is significant that I was able to find material which, apparently, has never been previously produced in this forum or any another.

2. More significantly (and this is the ultimate point I was trying to get Paul to understand), decades before I became involved (34 years ago to be precise !!!), Mark Allen made an FOIA request to the FBI. After initial denials by the FBI, Mark was ultimately able to obtain hundreds of thousands of JFK-related documents. And those documents benefit all serious students of this subject matter.

3. Among the documents which Mark received 30 years ago (!!!) are very important documents (FBI and CIA) which "fill in the blanks" regarding Harry and his story.

4. I do not know if Mark Allen published anything after he received this material but I am certain many other interested parties did use documents obtained by Mark.

However, EVEN IF it were the case that somebody published something I disagreed with, I would, nevertheless, respect their work because they made a good-faith effort to discover all pertinent factual evidence BEFORE making their conclusions.

In short, they exhibited normal intellectual curiosity. This is what annoys me about Paul and Harry, i.e. they reveal the opposite attitude and they constantly use phony excuses for not performing due diligence or exercising normal intellectual curiosity.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

I would like to bring everyone's attention to something which may be lost in the recriminations between Paul and myself.

1. Although (as I acknowledged) I have not spent a fraction of the time which Paul Trejo (and others) have spent on this matter, it is significant that I was able to find material which, apparently, has never been previously produced in this forum or any another.

2. More significantly (and this is the ultimate point I was trying to get Paul to understand), decades before I became involved (34 years ago to be precise !!!), Mark Allen made an FOIA request to the FBI. After initial denials by the FBI, Mark was ultimately able to obtain hundreds of thousands of JFK-related documents. And those documents benefit all serious students of this subject matter.

3. Among the documents which Mark received 30 years ago (!!!) are very important documents (FBI and CIA) which "fill in the blanks" regarding Harry and his story.

4. I do not know if Mark Allen published anything after he received this material but I am certain many other interested parties did use documents obtained by Mark.

However, EVEN IF it were the case that somebody published something I disagreed with, I would, nevertheless, respect their work because they made a good-faith effort to discover all pertinent factual evidence BEFORE making their conclusions.

In short, they exhibited normal intellectual curiosity. This is what annoys me about Paul and Harry, i.e. they reveal the opposite attitude and they constantly use phony excuses for not performing due diligence or exercising normal intellectual curiosity.

1. Yes, Ernie, you seek applause for the FOIA requests you have submitted and had filled. The thanks you've received so far has evidently not satisfied your starvation for approval.

2. Mark Allen's FOIA requests are also appreciated. Evidently Mark Allen was satisfied with our thanks.

3. In your arrogance, Ernie, you vastly overstate your case about allegedly "very important documents" which allegedly "fill in the blanks" regarding the Confessions of Harry Dean. Your posts on this thread show what you really mean -- you mean that these "very important documents" contradict Harry Dean's account. Yet you haven't proved that.

On the contrary, the FBI documents that you've so far been able to show only contradict themselves. In general they support Harry Dean's Confessions, because they prove that Harry Dean was present in the places and at the times he claimed he was.

4. Your statements, Ernie, only show that you don't respect Harry Dean. Not only that, but you have spent MONTHS on this thread, nagging and harping and hounding Harry Dean, just like the FBI used to do in the old days of the Warren Commission fallout.

Your persona is therefore like that of J. Edgar Hoover -- you think of yourself as a Junior G-Man, perhaps, and you want to make Hoover proud of you, so you persecute Harry Dean in 2014, just as the FBI persecuted Dean in 1965 and afterward.

It's a truly pathetic performance, Ernie. Yet I can see that nothing is going to dissuade you from your fantasy of being a Junior G-Man.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo, MA

Edited January 24, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I would like to bring everyone's attention to something which may be lost in the recriminations between Paul and myself.

1. Although (as I acknowledged) I have not spent a fraction of the time which Paul Trejo (and others) have spent on this matter, it is significant that I was able to find material which, apparently, has never been previously produced in this forum or any another.

2. More significantly (and this is the ultimate point I was trying to get Paul to understand), decades before I became involved (34 years ago to be precise !!!), Mark Allen made an FOIA request to the FBI. After initial denials by the FBI, Mark was ultimately able to obtain hundreds of thousands of JFK-related documents. And those documents benefit all serious students of this subject matter.

3. Among the documents which Mark received 30 years ago (!!!) are very important documents (FBI and CIA) which "fill in the blanks" regarding Harry and his story.

4. I do not know if Mark Allen published anything after he received this material but I am certain many other interested parties did use documents obtained by Mark.

However, EVEN IF it were the case that somebody published something I disagreed with, I would, nevertheless, respect their work because they made a good-faith effort to discover all pertinent factual evidence BEFORE making their conclusions.

In short, they exhibited normal intellectual curiosity. This is what annoys me about Paul and Harry, i.e. they reveal the opposite attitude and they constantly use phony excuses for not performing due diligence or exercising normal intellectual curiosity.

1. Yes, Ernie, you seek applause for the FOIA requests you have submitted and had filled. The thanks you've received so far has evidently not satisfied your starvation for approval.

2. Mark Allen's FOIA requests are also appreciated. Evidently Mark Allen was satisfied with our thanks.

3. In your arrogance, Ernie, you vastly overstate your case about allegedly "very important documents" which allegedly "fill in the blanks" regarding the Confessions of Harry Dean. Your posts on this thread show what you really mean -- you mean that these "very important documents" contradict Harry Dean's account. Yet you haven't proved that.

On the contrary, the FBI documents that you've so far been able to show only contradict themselves. In general they support Harry Dean's Confessions, because they prove that Harry Dean was present in the places and at the times he claimed he was.

4. Your statements, Ernie, only show that you don't respect Harry Dean. Not only that, but you have spent MONTHS on this thread, nagging and harping and hounding Harry Dean, just like the FBI used to do in the old days of the Warren Commission fallout.

Your persona is therefore like that of J. Edgar Hoover -- you think of yourself as a Junior G-Man, perhaps, and you want to make Hoover proud of you, so you persecute Harry Dean in 2014, just as the FBI persecuted Dean in 1965 and afterward.

It's a truly pathetic performance, Ernie. Yet I can see that nothing is going to dissuade you from your fantasy of being a Junior G-Man.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo, MA

Paul -- I do not now, nor have I ever believed that you are stupid -- but you continuously make false statements which reveal that you have very serious problems with understanding basic principles of evidence and historical research. What this now makes indisputable, I regret to say, is that NOTHING you present can be trusted or believed because you are hostile toward the very process of truth-seeking.

1. I NEVER seek "applause" for my FOIA requests. In fact, this may shock you, but my closest friends and acquaintances do not even know about this aspect of my life because I have never brought it to their attention. The only people who know about my avocation are those who have contacted me to ask questions (or who stumble on one of my online reports).

2. All I have tried to do (unsuccessfully) is get you to understand what incredibly important data you (and Harry) have deliberately and repeatedly refused to pursue. The entire point of my previous message (which, as usual, you do not comprehend) was to show you what Mark Allen was able to obtain THIRTY YEARS AGO while you, in 2014, still moan and whine and complain about "secret files" or documents being withheld.

3. I have no interest of any kind whatsoever in your approval or thanks because it would be meaningless to me. I do not respect your work as a serious researcher -- so why would I care about your approval or thanks?

4. What you interpret as "arrogance" is what any serious student of any subject would bring to your attention if they carefully examine what you have written. But you have such thin-skin, you cannot accept any comments about deficiencies in your logic or your research abilities.

5. The "very important documents" I referred to were not documents that contradict Harry's account. See, Paul, this reveals yet again how incredibly biased you are. Important documents are primary source documents of any kind which help us understand whatever we are studying. So, for example, Harry's letter to JFK is critically important. So is his letter to J. Edgar Hoover. And any documents concerning how law enforcement entities in the U.S. and Canada came to know Harry are critically important. But, obviously, the ONLY documents which are valuable or pertinent to you, are those which you think may conform to Harry's narrative. Everything else should (in your scheme of things) be discarded.

6. I am not attempting to "prove" anything about Harry. BUT YOU ARE. You keep using the term "eyewitness account" as though we should all bow down and kiss Harry's feet. You obviously have no experience with serious historical research so you now have a form of hero-worship which substitutes for critical analysis.

7. Proving that Harry was in the places and times he claimed contributes NOTHING WHATSOEVER to validating his narrative because we are not disputing the locations where Harry lived or what years he lived there. For example: knowing that Harry lived in Los Angeles has no bearing upon whether or not Harry's story concerning Wesley Grapp is accurate and truthful. Yet another example which reveals your inability to focus upon the real issues.

8. With respect to your item #4: Once again this reveals that you have no serious background in historical research -- particularly when the subject matter involves unproven statements or assertions. The FBI never "persecuted Dean in 1965 and afterward" and you have never presented one single iota of evidence to establish otherwise. All the FBI did is answer inquiries about Harry. Period. End of story. As I pointed out previously, from approximately 1966 to 1977 the FBI almost totally ignored Harry. In fact, they did not even know who he was! Some "persecution" !!

I now issue this challenge to Paul Trejo. Put together a comprehensive list (in chronological sequence) of everything which you believe constitutes evidence of how the FBI "persecuted" Harry Dean. Let's see what you come up with.

[incidentally, when I did a quick review of the published literature re: Harry Dean, i.e. various books and articles which mention him, I did not find any author who corroborates your accusation about the FBI "persecution" of Harry. In fact, every serious JFK-assassination book author I have reviewed does not even list Harry's name in their index! And, as I pointed out once before, the newest books regarding the JFK assassination which have been released in the past few years do not mention Harry either. Obviously that is because NOBODY believes his story OR they cannot prove major predicates of Harry's narrative so they do not find it credible.]

9. Your psychiatric analysis skills are as atrophied as your historical research skills. I suggest you continue, instead, with your present day job. Obviously, nothing will dissuade you from your fantasy of being taken seriously as a researcher or author - which is why nobody buys or cites your eBook.

Sincerely,

Ernie

Edited January 24, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

I now issue this challenge to Paul Trejo. Put together a comprehensive list (in chronological sequence) of everything which you believe constitutes evidence of how the FBI "persecuted" Harry Dean. Let's see what you come up with.

[incidentally, when I did a quick review of the published literature re: Harry Dean, i.e. various books and articles which mention him, I did not find any author who corroborates your accusation about the FBI "persecution" of Harry. In fact, every serious JFK-assassination book author I have reviewed does not even list Harry's name in their index! And, as I pointed out once before, the newest books regarding the JFK assassination which have been released in the past few years do not mention Harry either. Obviously that is because NOBODY believes his story OR they cannot prove major predicates of Harry's narrative so they do not find it credible.]

9. Your psychiatric analysis skills are as atrophied as your historical research skills. I suggest you continue, instead, with your present day job. Obviously, nothing will dissuade you from your fantasy of being taken seriously as a researcher or author - which is why nobody buys or cites your eBook.

Sincerely,

Ernie

Well, Ernie, here's some news. There's no way I have time to put together a comprehensive list (in chronological sequence) of everything which I believe constitutes evidence of how the FBI "persecuted" Harry Dean.

I have an 8-5 job, and I'm plenty busy with it. In any case, my opinions on specifics are well-known in this thread. All the FBI materials I ever saw about Harry Dean were published in this very thread. I've said that for months now.

Also, I've given my opinions about them all, very clearly. You tried to respond to them, but your bias against Harry and myself are the only aspects I remember -- you aren't a careful researcher, you allow your bias to get in the way.

Also, I don't care about mere opinions of others -- the FBI on the one hand admitted that they got information from Harry Dean, and then they claimed that Harry Dean was never a source of information. They contradicted themselves about Harry -- and that is proof of "persecution."

Also, the FBI's alleged "rap sheet" about Harry Dean, so full of holes as I pointed out, had no other purpose than to discredit Harry Dean after the JFK assassination. This is clearly another proof of "persecution."

It's not that I never made those points before -- it's just that you deny them. It's your word against mine -- let the readers decide.

Furthermore, you;re talking out of your hat when you claim that "NOBODY believes Harry;'s story."

Now, as for my amateur psychology skills, I'd like to try once more to explain your strange, hostile behavior. For YEARS, Ernie, you've been posting over the Internet that Harry Dean was a xxxx, and that you were certain of this because you could find no FBI files at all that mention Harry Dean. Period.

Then, after debates with me last year, you suddenly looked places you never looked before, and behold, you actually found A MOTHERLODE of FBI documents that mention Harry Dean!

Lots and lots of them -- with more coming out every month, evidently.

Now, by all accounts of courtesy and manners, you should have APOLOGIZED to Harry Dean last year when all those FBI documents were found. BUT YOU DIDN'T.

Instead, you keep searching for "persecuting" FBI documents that attack Harry, or that accuse him of being a mental case, or that accuse him of being a criminal -- all of which are easily found in this thread if anybody bothers to look.

I showed amply that the FBI has some documents that admit Harry was a source of information for them, and other documents that deny that Harry was a source of information for them. That alone proves my case.

But YOU, Ernie, try to get our readers only to focus on the NEGATIVE documents, and your words are evidence of a psychological denial of the TRUTH that there are FBI documents that admit that Harry Dean was a source for the FBI.

That's the TRUTH and you won't show the decency to APOLOGIZE to Harry Dean for years of calling him a xxxx.

You should be ASHAMED to look at your face in the morning, sir. You should BEG FOR HARRY DEAN'S FORGIVENESS!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

I now issue this challenge to Paul Trejo. Put together a comprehensive list (in chronological sequence) of everything which you believe constitutes evidence of how the FBI "persecuted" Harry Dean. Let's see what you come up with.

[incidentally, when I did a quick review of the published literature re: Harry Dean, i.e. various books and articles which mention him, I did not find any author who corroborates your accusation about the FBI "persecution" of Harry. In fact, every serious JFK-assassination book author I have reviewed does not even list Harry's name in their index! And, as I pointed out once before, the newest books regarding the JFK assassination which have been released in the past few years do not mention Harry either. Obviously that is because NOBODY believes his story OR they cannot prove major predicates of Harry's narrative so they do not find it credible.]

9. Your psychiatric analysis skills are as atrophied as your historical research skills. I suggest you continue, instead, with your present day job. Obviously, nothing will dissuade you from your fantasy of being taken seriously as a researcher or author - which is why nobody buys or cites your eBook.

Sincerely,

Ernie

Well, Ernie, here's some news. There's no way I have time to put together a comprehensive list (in chronological sequence) of everything which I believe constitutes evidence of how the FBI "persecuted" Harry Dean.

I would not think it would take all that much time -- perhaps a couple hours? Even if you just limited your listing to what you consider the most egregious examples starting in (I think you said) year 1965.

I have an 8-5 job, and I'm plenty busy with it. In any case, my opinions on specifics are well-known in this thread. All the FBI materials I ever saw about Harry Dean were published in this very thread. I've said that for months now.

Wow Paul! This is an astonishing revelation by you because there is nothing posted in this thread that reveals any FBI persecution. Apparently, the problem here is that (once again) you use different definitions of English words than are commonly used. You probably interpret ANY derogatory reference or negative comment as "persecution" -- even if it is brief factual citation of an arrest.

Also, I've given my opinions about them all, very clearly. You tried to respond to them, but your bias against Harry and myself are the only aspects I remember -- you aren't a careful researcher, you allow your bias to get in the way.

Nevertheless, it was MY research (not yours) which scanned copies of most of those FBI documents into this thread and MY research (not yours) which was able to establish the identity of the person who was responsible for the release of those FBI (and CIA) documents. And I did this without investing much time or effort because the information is readily available to anybody with a few hours to spend digging. Imagine what YOU could have accomplished since you have expended so much time on this subject and you consider yourself to be a "careful researcher" whereas I am not.

Also, I don't care about mere opinions of others -- the FBI on the one hand admitted that they got information from Harry Dean, and then they claimed that Harry Dean was never a source of information. They contradicted themselves about Harry -- and that is proof of "persecution."

No---this reveals you do not understand anything Paul. You obviously have never even seen any FBI files. They are filled with "reports" from all sorts of people---i.e. raw information. In your dumbed-down scheme of things, if somebody picks up a telephone and calls their local FBI field office, they become an "informant". Getting unsolicited information from some party or answering questions about that unsolicited information is not what makes someone an FBI informant Paul. The fact that you STILL do not understand that basic principle makes everything you write totally absurd. I suggest you spend just 15-20 minutes reading the FBI Manual of Instructions which governs how the FBI obtains and uses actual informants.

OR if that is too much of an imposition on your time, how about reading a few paragraphs from books or articles which have been written about actual well-known FBI informants such as Herbert Philbrick or Elizabeth Bentley or Delmar Dennis etc. so you can learn the difference between how they became informants and what protocols they operated under versus what Harry claims.

Also, the FBI's alleged "rap sheet" about Harry Dean, so full of holes as I pointed out, had no other purpose than to discredit Harry Dean after the JFK assassination. This is clearly another proof of "persecution."

Two problems with your statement. (1) The rap sheet was created BEFORE the assassination and (2) the FBI is not the source of the data appearing on anybody's rap sheet. The "holes" you reference are in your own understanding regarding what a rap sheet is -- not in the information shown on Harry's. However, it is significant that you have never performed any research into the rap sheet -- have you? And yet you are prepared to make conclusions about it. I suspect that prior to me posting it online here, you probably were never fully aware of Harry's background and that is why you now feel compelled to diminish its importance or credibility. Again---if you were a GENUINE independent researcher, instead of a shill for Harry, you would have performed due diligence to establish the facts about Harry's background BEFORE you bought into his story hook, line, and sinker.

It's not that I never made those points before -- it's just that you deny them. It's your word against mine -- let the readers decide.

It is not your "word" Paul or mine. It is what documentary evidence reveals.

Furthermore, you;re talking out of your hat when you claim that "NOBODY believes Harry;'s story."

Well, perhaps I used a bit of hyperbole -- but you may correct me by quoting any well-known historian or respected researcher who has published Harry's story and then stated it seemed to be truthful and credible. As I said, I couldn't find anybody -- but I will be happy to correct myself if you provide some evidence -- not just your personal opinion. There are many authors who have pursued the "right wing" plot theme re JFK's murder, but how many of them have cited Harry's narrative in their books or articles?

Incidentally, you never answered the point I made a long time ago. Did you find ANYTHING in Edwin Walker's personal papers to confirm that Walker knew Harry Dean or engaged in any sort of ongoing contact with him? Was there ANYTHING in Walker's papers to hint that he was involved in any sort of murder plot?

Now, as for my amateur psychology skills, I'd like to try once more to explain your strange, hostile behavior. For YEARS, Ernie, you've been posting over the Internet that Harry Dean was a xxxx, and that you were certain of this because you could find no FBI files at all that mention Harry Dean. Period.

"YEARS"?? You must use very unusual calendar Paul. Altogether, I have probably written that Harry is not credible perhaps 2 times before joining this discussion in Education Forum. And, as usual, you cannot accurately summarize what I have written. I never said I could not find FBI files that mention Harry Dean. Obviously, that is absurd since I posted online the letter which the Assistant Director of the Los Angeles FBI field office wrote about Harry in 1977.

What I have said is that I cannot find ANY references to Harry in ANY of the files where you would have expected to see either his name or a description which corresponds to him -- such as Minutemen files or Birch Society files or the files of people Harry claims were involved in the "plot" -- such as Walker, Rousselot, etc. -- especially in terms of someone matching Harry's description being an informant who was providing information to the FBI about those groups or people.

This illustrates, once again and indisputably, that YOU are congenitally INCAPABLE of making RATIONAL and FACTUAL distinctions -- even when someone clearly and repeatedly states (in writing) a position.

Then, after debates with me last year, you suddenly looked places you never looked before, and behold, you actually found A MOTHERLODE of FBI documents that mention Harry Dean!

Lots and lots of them -- with more coming out every month, evidently.

Now, by all accounts of courtesy and manners, you should have APOLOGIZED to Harry Dean last year when all those FBI documents were found. BUT YOU DIDN'T.

Paul -- you are so child-like in your reasoning that I sincerely don't understand you. I have already told you (repeatedly) that I based my conclusions about Harry on the FBI files I had in my possession and those files had no references to Harry or anybody who fit his description.

I never had access to Mary Ferrell's website prior to our debate here. When I performed a google search on Harry in 2010, the FBI and CIA documents which appear on Ferrell's website (about Harry) did not come up -- perhaps because Ferrell's website requires a membership or perhaps I should have used different search terms.

However, when I finally did discover the documents I found on Ferrell's website, they did NOT add ANY support to your story. Instead, they confirm MY conclusion about Harry except here is the HUGE new information. MY conclusion came from that 1977 letter by the Los Angeles Assistant Director which I found in the Los Angeles field file on the Birch Society. But I had no clue that Harry himself had written in JUNE 1961 that the FBI told him THEN, that they had no interest in his assistance. 1961 Paul!--and in Harry's own handwriting! So how, in your warped mind, does discovering 100 or so more pages on Mary Ferrell's website help your case when ALL those documents simply confirm what Harry wrote to JFK in June 1961 (and to J. Edgar Hoover in 1963?)

Instead, you keep searching for "persecuting" FBI documents that attack Harry, or that accuse him of being a mental case, or that accuse him of being a criminal -- all of which are easily found in this thread if anybody bothers to look.

I am not searching for any such "persecuting FBI documents". Are you out of your mind Paul? I am searching for ANYTHING which sheds light on Harry's story (and your claims about him). THAT is the difference between you and I. You never searched for anything -- except whatever you think supports Harry's narrative. Don't you see the inherent contradiction in your own words? On the one hand you claim my only interest is finding "persecuting FBI documents" but on the other hand you state that the documents which I have posted here in EF support Harry's story! Please make up your mind.

I showed amply that the FBI has some documents that admit Harry was a source of information for them, and other documents that deny that Harry was a source of information for them. That alone proves my case.

No--Paul-- you are mixing up two entirely different matters. The FBI acknowledged that Harry provided unsolicited information (at first anonymously) to their Chicago field office but they also pointed out that Chicago never encouraged him to continue, and Harry never became an actual informant because of what the FBI discovered about his background. AND by June 1961 (as even Harry admits) they told Harry that his assistance was not required. Actual FBI informants are handled much differently from individuals who just walk in off the street or make a telephone call to their local FBI field office.

But YOU, Ernie, try to get our readers only to focus on the NEGATIVE documents, and your words are evidence of a psychological denial of the TRUTH that there are FBI documents that admit that Harry Dean was a source for the FBI.

I have no clue what you mean by this paragraph. I want readers to focus on ALL documents -- not just the ones you or Harry think are important.

That's the TRUTH and you won't show the decency to APOLOGIZE to Harry Dean for years of calling him a xxxx.

I have not called Harry a xxxx "for years". That is your FABRICATION. If it makes you or Harry feel better, you may believe that Harry is confused and exaggerating.

You should be ASHAMED to look at your face in the morning, sir. You should BEG FOR HARRY DEAN'S FORGIVENESS!

Paul -- Ultimately, over time, you may discover the truth about Harry's story -- and when you discover that his narrative is full of holes, hyperbole, exaggeration, and confused recollections -- you may want to see a psychiatrist to cope with your own problems.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- my replies appear underneath your comments.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Because Paul Trejo is totally clueless about the standard procedures which FBI field offices were required to follow with respect to ALL potential and actual FBI informants, I am attaching two documents.

(1) The first document is a 10-page San Francisco field office checklist which they were required to fill out on every potential or actual informant. Then, summary memos were prepared for FBI HQ about each informant.

(2) The second document is a Chicago field memo which covers many of the same instructions as shown in the San Francisco checklist.

Notice that ALL FBI field offices were required to search for background information of the type which Paul Trejo falsely describes as "persecution" -- and that information was REQUIRED to be sent to HQ for their review before any informant could actually be authorized for use by a field office. AFTER an informant was approved, the field office was then required (by section 107 of the FBI's Manual of Instructions) to submit a quarterly summary report on each informant. Those summary reports were to use the following format:

1. Recommendation by field (i.e. did they want continued HQ authorization to use informant?)

2. Residence and Employment

3. Current Membership in Organizations

4. Summary of Information Furnished

5. Amount Paid For Services

6. Type and Number of Meetings Attended

7. Number of Written and Oral Reports Submitted

8. Information Furnished Of Unusual Value

9. Approximate Number of Persons on Whom Informant Furnished Coverage and Their Importance

10. Steps Being Taken To Advance Informant

11. Stability and Reliability

12. Indoctrination Against Disclosure

13. Action On Information Furnished

14. Miscellaneous

IMPORTANT ADDENDUM

IF Harry Dean was EVER authorized as an FBI informant in Chicago or Los Angeles (or even if he was just being considered as a potential informant by either field office) there would be comparable documents (to the ones in my pdf link) created on him in both locations.

Why is this important?

Because if Harry (or an authorized party) made an FOIA request to the FBI for Harry's file(s), this type of document (if ever created) would be released. Since all of the information contained in this type of document was either provided by the informant or was already known to the informant (such as arrests, convictions, credit history, previous and current employers etc) -- there is no applicable FOIA "privacy" exemption which could be cited to permit withholding such a document.

Furthermore, as we all now know, Mark Allen was able to obtain documents 30+ years ago which contain very derogatory references to Harry (including his rap sheet) -- which means the FBI has already reviewed and declassified and released such documents. Why did the FBI do that -- even though Harry is still living? Because the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act trumps all other normal "privacy" rules in FOIA statutes.

It is VERY significant that there was no checklist on Harry released previously because that is yet more evidence that Harry was never seriously considered by Chicago as a potential informant.

INFORMANT CHECKLIST.PDF

Edited January 25, 2014 by Ernie Lazar