Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

We are now operating upon Paul's recently stated criteria for "proof" or "facts".

...Where is the "proof" regarding Loran Hall being a "close associate" of Fidel and Che? Where is the document we can read which establishes their "association"? Ditto re: Gerald Patrick Hemming.

Paul also states that Harry heard Loran Hall make his "standard speech before the JBS". Where is the "proof"? Can Paul supply us with some documentary evidence which establishes that Harry attended any speech by Loran Hall? IF NOT -- then according to Paul's stated criteria, this is nothing more than an "allegation" but not "fact" or "proof"

In response to Post #621 by Ernie...

The evidence that Loran Hall was personally acquainted with Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra is given in Loran Hall's own words as recorded in one of the speeches he gave before the John Birch Society in 1963, entitled, CUBA BETRAYED. It is preserved on YouTube in two parts:

LORAN HALL, Part One: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6daWtQYlydQ

LORAN HALL, Part Two: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kLVVHQ_Myg

The case of Loran Hall is special because it parallels Harry Dean's case to an extraordinary degree. Both Loran and Harry were supporters of Castro in 1959 and early 1960, and both Loran and Harry became enemies of Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra in early 1960.

There were many militant Americans who switched from supporting Fidel's Cuba to attacking it within that same time period -- including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie and even TV host, Ed Sullivan (though Ed Sullivan's role was only on the propaganda side).

Ex-General Edwin Walker claims that the CIA itself supported Fidel Castro in the early years -- that's how confusing politics were for countless thousands of activists in the USA. All of this history gives real body and substance to the claims made by Harry Dean.

As for Gerry Patrick Hemming himself, it was right here in this Forum, less than a decade ago, that Gerry Patrick Hemming told us about his close relationship with Che Guevarra. Hemming respected Che very much, even after Hemming changed sides -- that was part of his confusion.

As for Harry Dean's claim that he attended Loran Hall's speeches to the JBS in Southern California, that has been independenty confirmed by David Robbins, who is still living and still willing to talk. David does not deny that he arranged speakers for the JBS from 1962-1963, and that these speakers included Congressman John Rousselot, Ex-General Edwin Walker, mercenary Loran Hall and former FPCC Secretary-turned-anti-Red, Harry Dean.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul writes....."David Robbins told me personally..."

But. according to Paul, that type of "evidence" is, nothing but "hearsay" and, consequently, has no value.

Where is the "proof"?

Does Paul have a letter or email from David Robbins or perhaps a tape recording in which David Robbins acknowledges whatever he supposedly told Paul? IF NOT, this is nothing more than what Paul describes as an unsubstantiated allegation.

In respose to Post #623 by Ernie...

As for proof that David Robbins told me these things -- the fact is that anybody can contact David Robbins if they want to -- and I posted his web site on this very thread, to give everybody an equal access to him. I don't control access to David Robbins -- he's an American citizen.

Dave Robbins is a Christian Evangelist and an honest gentleman. He still subscribes to the Schwarz Report and to Human Events, and he's happy to talk about right-wing politics even today.

Just contact him and ask him yourself. It's easy -- unless you lack people skills.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 24, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...Paul, when you post falsehoods, you should expect push-back from someone who notices those falsehoods. Unlike yourself, I welcome any corrections to what I write....

Your paranoid delusions and routine brain freezes make any possibility of you recognizing your grievous errors virtually impossible.

Ernie, people who live in tin houses shouldn't throw can-openers.

I'll continue to supply more push-back to your many falsehoods on this Forum thread. I'm glad you "welcome any corrections," because there are plenty more.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, you have not provided any "corrections". All you have done is propose that we adopt an alternate methodology for confirming evidence but your own writings here in this thread and in your eBook do not conform to that methodology.

[Ernie Lazar]

We are now operating upon Paul's recently stated criteria for "proof" or "facts".

...Where is the "proof" regarding Loran Hall being a "close associate" of Fidel and Che? Where is the document we can read which establishes their "association"? Ditto re: Gerald Patrick Hemming.

Paul also states that Harry heard Loran Hall make his "standard speech before the JBS". Where is the "proof"? Can Paul supply us with some documentary evidence which establishes that Harry attended any speech by Loran Hall? IF NOT -- then according to Paul's stated criteria, this is nothing more than an "allegation" but not "fact" or "proof"

In respose to Post #621 by Ernie...

The evidence that Loran Hall was personally acquainted with Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra is given in Loran Hall's own words as recorded in one of the speeches he gave before the John Birch Society in 1963, entitled, CUBA BETRAYED. It is preserved on YouTube in two parts:

LORAN HALL, Part One: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6daWtQYlydQ

LORAN HALL, Part Two: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kLVVHQ_Myg

The case of Loran Hall is special because it parallels Harry Dean's case to an extraordinary degree. Both Loran and Harry were supporters of Castro in 1959 and early 1960, and both Loran and Harry became enemies of Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra in early 1960.

There were many militant Americans who switched from supporting Fidel's Cuba to attacking it within that same time period -- including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie and even TV host, Ed Sullivan (though Ed Sullivan's role was only on the propaganda side).

Ex-General Edwin Walker claims that the CIA itself supported Fidel Castro in the early years -- that's how confusing politics were for countless thousands of activists in the USA. All of this history gives real body and substance to the claims made by Harry Dean.

As for Gerry Patrick Hemming himself, it was right here in this Forum, less than a decade ago, that Gerry Patrick Hemming told us about his close relationship with Che Guevarra. Hemming respected Che very much, even after Hemming changed sides -- that was part of his confusion.

As for Harry Dean's claim that he attended Loran Hall's speeches to the JBS in Southern California, that has been independenty confirmed by David Robbins, who is still living and still willing to talk. David does not deny that he arranged speakers for the JBS from 1962-1963, and that these speakers included Congressman John Rousselot, Ex-General Edwin Walker, mercenary Loran Hall and former FPCC Secretary-turned-anti-Red, Harry Dean.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

You cannot "independently verify" something by relying upon the word or recollections of the very person whose statements are being challenged. Independently verify means finding some objective documentary or audio/video evidence to support your contention. NORMALLY, that INCLUDES a transcript of an interview (for example) but you have told us that we cannot even rely upon a verbatim transcript.

Now with respect to what you CLAIM David Robbins will "confirm", we cannot rely just upon his word or yours.

There must be some sort of objective proof. After all, it is YOU who has told us that FBI documents which reference MULTIPLE different people who made reports to the FBI cannot be accepted as reliable evidence. Instead, you insist that some sort of contemporaneous documentary evidence be supplied (such as a "confession" in writing by the person whose statements are being scrutinized).

So, IF you will provide a SPECIFIC WRITTEN statement by David Robbins which confirms what you CLAIM he has said to you AND if Robbins can provide verifiable documentary evidence (or audio tapes or videotapes or films) to PROVE that he attended Loran Hall's speeches to the JBS and those sources also PROVE that Harry Dean was ALSO there....THEN...we can accept your evidence -- because it would then meet the standard which YOU have told us MUST apply to any allegation.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

We are now operating upon Paul's recently stated criteria for "proof" or "facts".

...Where is the "proof" regarding Loran Hall being a "close associate" of Fidel and Che? Where is the document we can read which establishes their "association"? Ditto re: Gerald Patrick Hemming.

Paul also states that Harry heard Loran Hall make his "standard speech before the JBS". Where is the "proof"? Can Paul supply us with some documentary evidence which establishes that Harry attended any speech by Loran Hall? IF NOT -- then according to Paul's stated criteria, this is nothing more than an "allegation" but not "fact" or "proof"

In respose to Post #621 by Ernie...

The evidence that Loran Hall was personally acquainted with Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra is given in Loran Hall's own words as recorded in one of the speeches he gave before the John Birch Society in 1963, entitled, CUBA BETRAYED. It is preserved on YouTube in two parts:

LORAN HALL, Part One: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6daWtQYlydQ

LORAN HALL, Part Two: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kLVVHQ_Myg

The case of Loran Hall is special because it parallels Harry Dean's case to an extraordinary degree. Both Loran and Harry were supporters of Castro in 1959 and early 1960, and both Loran and Harry became enemies of Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra in early 1960.

There were many militant Americans who switched from supporting Fidel's Cuba to attacking it within that same time period -- including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie and even TV host, Ed Sullivan (though Ed Sullivan's role was only on the propaganda side).

Ex-General Edwin Walker claims that the CIA itself supported Fidel Castro in the early years -- that's how confusing politics were for countless thousands of activists in the USA. All of this history gives real body and substance to the claims made by Harry Dean.

As for Gerry Patrick Hemming himself, it was right here in this Forum, less than a decade ago, that Gerry Patrick Hemming told us about his close relationship with Che Guevarra. Hemming respected Che very much, even after Hemming changed sides -- that was part of his confusion.

As for Harry Dean's claim that he attended Loran Hall's speeches to the JBS in Southern California, that has been independenty confirmed by David Robbins, who is still living and still willing to talk. David does not deny that he arranged speakers for the JBS from 1962-1963, and that these speakers included Congressman John Rousselot, Ex-General Edwin Walker, mercenary Loran Hall and former FPCC Secretary-turned-anti-Red, Harry Dean.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

You have created a flawless circular argument. It proceeds as follows:

Paul contends Person "A" was acquainted with persons "B" and "C"

As "proof" for this contention, Paul then quotes Person "A"

So, everything relies upon the word of Person "A".

If Person "A" is the ONLY source -- then, obviously, every word out of his mouth becomes, ipso facto, "factual". "Independently verify" (by definition) means relying upon a source OTHER THAN "Person A" -- because it is Person "A's" statements which are being questioned.

The very fact that you do not understand such a rudimentary principle of logic and evidence, totally disqualifies you as an analyst of ANYTHING!

Apparently, you also need to acquaint yourself with the qualitative difference between primary versus secondary sources of evidence.

Bill McIlhany wrote an article many years ago entitled "Evidence of a Master Conspiracy" which contains a good introduction -- so I quote from his article below:

First of all, the most important documents for historical study are called primary documents. If you're writing about a person who lived hundreds of years ago and you want to do a biography or survey of his or her professional career, you want to examine his letters, his correspondence, his papers, whatever diary he kept, his business papers, all of his tax returns (pardon the expression), all of his invoices, all of the checks that he wrote. That's all primary documentation. On paper, that's about as close as you can get to that person who is no longer living. In other words, the most immediate records of the person whom you are researching.

These primary documents are the ones historians are most interested in finding. But, of course, when you're talking about conspiracy, we have the problem that conspiracy can only exist successfully in the dark, without public exposure. Because of that conspirators usually try harder than anything else to conceal their own activity; so often they try to avoid either creating these primary documents in the first place or leaving them around. But we're very fortunate to say that quite a number of them have been left around nevertheless and apprehended and are available. We'll be discussing them today.

The second type of historical material is what's called contemporary sources. Contemporary sources are accounts written by a close friend, a contemporary, someone who lived at the same time as the persons they're writing about, someone who may have known them or observed them or had access to people who were close to them. It's something that was written fresh at the time of the events it is discussing and, therefore, lets us get more immediate access to the distilled essence of the subject, but still was written by someone else and incorporating their interpretation in the material. Those are called contemporary sources.

The third category, which is mostly what we read today, are secondary sources. They include any history books, writings, biographies, studies, articles, anything that's written after the event has taken place and relies on a combination of primary and contemporary sources. The trouble with secondary sources is that they really are no stronger than the primary or contemporary documentation they contain. If you're reading a book written by someone today about the French Revolution of over two hundred years ago, and it says that it was caused by some particular historical force or movement, you have no way of knowing whether that is true unless you can examine the evidence put forth for the claim.

The fact that a secondary source makes a statement about something only proves one thing: that that book or article made that statement. If you want to be critical in your thinking (it's always good, as the Bible says, to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good), you certainly need to test anything which you encounter. One way of doing that is to know whether or not the secondary source has any documentation. When you get a secondary historical account what's the first thing you do? You can look to see if it has any footnotes or bibliography. One of the worst things for me is if it doesn't have an index, but that's not what we're talking about now. Check first to see if it has footnotes, bibliography, and see what they are.

Is the book quoting simply from people who already agree with the thesis that the book is presenting or is it going back to more primary material? This is how you evaluate the strength of a historical thesis or argument about which you might not have any other basis for coming to a decision on its merits. We often have very accessible to us many secondary and some contemporary sources, but often the primary sources are not as available.

[Paul Trejo]

(1) …You probably are the only person on Planet Earth who does not accept written transcripts as "proof" of what people say.

(2) …Harry has repeatedly stated in writing that he was an "undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation".

(3) …I am bemused by your semantic ploys because it reveals how un-serious a person you are.

(4) …You DO NOT accept or apply any normal rules of logic or evidence, so, instead, you want to fabricate your own idiosyncratic rules.

(5) …There are only so many times you can use W.R. Morris as your whipping boy and all-purpose excuse.

(6) …The only person who constantly refers to Harry as a xxxx is yourself.

(7) …I even offered you an alternative…that Harry is very confused and often exaggerates to inflate his credentials.

(8) …One has to carefully examine FBI protocols for handling legitimate informants and then determine if any evidence exists to substantiate Harry's claims (which none does).

This selection of quotes from Ernie Lazar is from post #627. (Again, I numbered these quotes so I can respond to them below – which I believe is a courtesy to the reader.)

(1) Ernie Lazar says that, I, Paul Trejo, am “probably are the only person on Planet Earth who does not accept written transcripts as ‘proof’ of what people say.” That is an exaggeration on multiple levels. First, I’m not in any way unique in my demand for independent confirmation as proof. Secondly, I’m not in any way unique in my suspicion of FBI statements about the JFK assassination.

We must recall that when Ernie Lazar speaks here of “written transcripts” he means “FBI written transcripts” and he would like us all to take the FBI’s word for anything at all that they might print in their memos; period. I know too many people who laugh at such a notion to know that I'm far from “the only person on Planet Earth” who laughs at such a notion.

(2) Ernie Lazar repeats, “Harry has repeatedly stated in writing that he was an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Actually Ernie Lazar and I spin on the definition of “undercover informant,” and Ernie is dissatisfied when I say that the term can be used to describe an informal volunteer offering information to the FBI. Ernie replies that the FBI has rigorous procedures for processing official informants – with forms to fill out, meetings, signatures, payrolls and so on.

I remind Ernie that Harry never claimed to be a paid informant – but Ernie keeps ignoring that. Ernie is frustrated because he has been claiming this nonsense FOR YEARS on the Internet (not only on this Forum thread) and I keep challenging Ernie to put up or shut up – but Ernie will do neither.

(3) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “I am bemused by your semantic ploys because it reveals how un-serious a person you are.” Actually, I’m a very serious and sincere person who wants very much to get at the truth and the hidden evidence behind the JFK assassination.

(4) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “ You DO NOT accept or apply any normal rules of logic or evidence, so, instead, you want to fabricate your own idiosyncratic rules.” Actually, I observe the rules of logic very faithfully. I have no idiosyncratic rules of any kind. I fabricate nothing. My demands are clear – if the FBI says anything about the JFK assassination, I want to see independent confirmation. I leave it to the readers here to decide whether that is too much to ask.

(5) Ernie Lazar says, “There are only so many times you can use W.R. Morris as your whipping boy and all-purpose excuse.“ I reply that even to this very day, the Spartacus web site which is associated with this very Forum, continues to publish the W.R. Morris fiction about Harry Dean, that he claimed to be an FBI agent!

This is unacceptable because it encourages people like Ernie Lazar to promote his own fiction about Harry Dean. After all, if the lies of W.R. Morris are still believed in 2014, despite all the protests by Harry Dean, then why should Ernie Lazar expect less?

(6) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo, that “the only person who constantly refers to Harry as a xxxx is yourself.” Actually, that’s backward and Ernie knows it. I’m the number one defender of Harry Dean’s story as true. I’m the one who spent months interviewing Harry and writing his Confessions into an eBook.

Ernie Lazar has openly and publicly called Harry Dean “a xxxx” (post #551) and has the nerve not only to deny it, but to accuse me of being the one who called Harry Dean “a xxxx.” Obviously, Ernie prefers rhetoric, not logic or facts, to make his points.

(7) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo, that “I even offered you an alternative…that Harry is very confused and often exaggerates to inflate his credentials.” Actually, I reject those ‘alternatives,’ because Harry Dean is a sharp-witted guy – very intelligent and very clever. Yes, he’s slowing down now at 86 years old, but that suggests to me that when he was in his thirties, in the 1960’s, that he was fast, sharp, well-spoken, friendly out-going and well-liked. Ernie Lazar tends to lack these qualities, so I suspect that Ernie is probably jealous of Harry Dean. That would explain Ernie’s incessant, unfair and unkind attacks on Harry Dean.

(8) Ernie Lazar says that, “One has to carefully examine FBI protocols for handling legitimate informants and then determine if any evidence exists to substantiate Harry's claims (which none does).” Actually, neither Harry Dean nor I have ever argued that Harry Dean was a formal, paid informant of the FBI.

This fact undercuts all of Ernie Lazar’s attacks – so Ernie just ignores it and goes on his merry way, repeating the fiction by W.R. Morris that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent – and then showing again and again that Harry Dean never was an FBI agent. So Ernie Lazar is really only arguing with himself!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 24, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

(1) …You probably are the only person on Planet Earth who does not accept written transcripts as "proof" of what people say.

(2) …Harry has repeatedly stated in writing that he was an "undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation".

(3) …I am bemused by your semantic ploys because it reveals how un-serious a person you are.

(4) …You DO NOT accept or apply any normal rules of logic or evidence, so, instead, you want to fabricate your own idiosyncratic rules.

(5) …There are only so many times you can use W.R. Morris as your whipping boy and all-purpose excuse.

(6) …The only person who constantly refers to Harry as a xxxx is yourself.

(7) …I even offered you an alternative…that Harry is very confused and often exaggerates to inflate his credentials.

(8) …One has to carefully examine FBI protocols for handling legitimate informants and then determine if any evidence exists to substantiate Harry's claims (which none does).

This selection of quotes from Ernie Lazar is from post #627. (Again, I numbered these quotes so I can respond to them below – which I believe is a courtesy to the reader.)

(1) Ernie Lazar says that, I, Paul Trejo, am “probably are the only person on Planet Earth who does not accept written transcripts as ‘proof’ of what people say.” That is an exaggeration on multiple levels. First, I’m not in any way unique in my demand for independent confirmation as proof. Secondly, I’m not in any way unique in my suspicion of FBI statements about the JFK assassination.

Pure sophistry on your part. The issue (which you quoted) was verbatim written transcripts -- not the more generic issue of "independent confirmation" of disputed evidence. Transcripts are rarely, if ever disputed. BUT, IF you really believe that transcripts are generally considered as suspect evidence by researchers, scholars, and authors then it should be a very simple matter for you to quote 2 or 3 recognized authors who have made that claim. So, again, QUOTE somebody -- do not merely assert something.

We must recall that when Ernie Lazar speaks here of “written transcripts” he means “FBI written transcripts” and he would like us all to take the FBI’s word for anything at all that they might print in their memos; period. I know too many people who laugh at such a notion to know that I'm far from “the only person on Planet Earth” who laughs at such a notion.

ABSOLUTE DELIBERATE LIE. The transcript we were discussing was the Tom Snyder program transcript. I did NOT get that transcript from the FBI nor was it prepared by the FBI. Nor have I ever stated that we should "take the FBI's word for anything at all that they might print in their memos." Another deliberate straw man argument. I went to great lengths to show how FBI memos accurately summarized their contacts with Harry Dean starting in the summer of 1960 and through June 1961 --- and that was BEFORE we had actual copies of Harry's letters to compare to those memos. And STILL you don't seem to understand the significance of that. I suggest you send your theory to Dr. Athan Theoharis and after he gets done laughing, he will respond to you and you can share his message with us.

(2) Ernie Lazar repeats, “Harry has repeatedly stated in writing that he was an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Actually Ernie Lazar and I spin on the definition of “undercover informant,” and Ernie is dissatisfied when I say that the term can be used to describe an informal volunteer offering information to the FBI. Ernie replies that the FBI has rigorous procedures for processing official informants – with forms to fill out, meetings, signatures, payrolls and so on.

An "informal volunteer" *whatever that means, is not an FBI informant. Period. If your definition was accurate, then every person who ever contacted the FBI during the 20th century would be an "informant".

I remind Ernie that Harry never claimed to be a paid informant – but Ernie keeps ignoring that. Ernie is frustrated because he has been claiming this nonsense FOR YEARS on the Internet (not only on this Forum thread) and I keep challenging Ernie to put up or shut up – but Ernie will do neither.

Another DELIBERATE LIE by you -- not an honest mistake because I have repeatedly corrected you and STILL you repeat this LIE.

I have never argued that Harry was a paid informant and I have never "ignored" your comment because I previously told you that it is IRRELEVANT except for offering another avenue for research (if Harry was ever was paid anything) because that would mean there would be (1) records of those payments as well as (2) field office documents requesting permission from HQ to pay Harry and (3) HQ documents authorizing payments.

"Put up or shut up" about what? This is entirely a FABRICATION of your mind! Paul, why do you have to DELIBERATELY LIE about what I have written OVER AND OVER again? I repeat: I have NEVER stated that Harry was a paid informant. NEVER.

A few weeks ago I did point out that Harry posted a message here in EF stating he was paid "expenses" -- but before that message I had never made any statement one way or the other EXCEPT to mention that if Harry was paid, then that would mean there would be documentary evidence that could be found.

(3) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “I am bemused by your semantic ploys because it reveals how un-serious a person you are.” Actually, I’m a very serious and sincere person who wants very much to get at the truth and the hidden evidence behind the JFK assassination.

(4) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “ You DO NOT accept or apply any normal rules of logic or evidence, so, instead, you want to fabricate your own idiosyncratic rules.” Actually, I observe the rules of logic very faithfully. I have no idiosyncratic rules of any kind. I fabricate nothing. My demands are clear – if the FBI says anything about the JFK assassination, I want to see independent confirmation. I leave it to the readers here to decide whether that is too much to ask.

You are misrepresenting our dispute. The dispute is about your hypocrisy because you want "independent verification" regarding everything stated in FBI documents but you do not provide ANY "independent confirmation" for ANYTHING you write here in EF or in your eBook. You are simply looking for every possible intellectual escape hatch so that you can dismiss or de-value ANYTHING in FBI documents which is inconvenient to what you believe about Harry's story.

(5) Ernie Lazar says, “There are only so many times you can use W.R. Morris as your whipping boy and all-purpose excuse.“ I reply that even to this very day, the Spartacus web site which is associated with this very Forum, continues to publish the W.R. Morris fiction about Harry Dean, that he claimed to be an FBI agent!

This is unacceptable because it encourages people like Ernie Lazar to promote his own fiction about Harry Dean. After all, if the lies of W.R. Morris are still believed in 2014, despite all the protests by Harry Dean, then why should Ernie Lazar expect less?

I don't "promote" any "fictions" about Harry Dean because I am not emotionally invested (as you are) in either Harry or in the FBI.

As previously stated, UNLIKE YOURSELF, I have made the effort (and incurred the expense) to actually obtain ALL relevant documentary evidence concerning Harry Dean.

You, by contrast, employ a "benefit of the doubt" methodology where, instead of asking probing questions and instead of acquiring all relevant documentary evidence, you just accept and repeat everything Harry tells you.

THAT is why, for example, you FALSELY accused the FBI of "forgery" and THAT is why, for example, you cannot even present an accurate timeline for when Harry first met Wesley Grapp. You just INVENT whatever you think advances Harry's story.

(6) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo, that “the only person who constantly refers to Harry as a xxxx is yourself.” Actually, that’s backward and Ernie knows it. I’m the number one defender of Harry Dean’s story as true. I’m the one who spent months interviewing Harry and writing his Confessions into an eBook.

Ernie Lazar has openly and publicly called Harry Dean “a xxxx” (post #551) and has the nerve not only to deny it, but to accuse me of being the one who called Harry Dean “a xxxx.” Obviously, Ernie prefers rhetoric, not logic or facts, to make his points.

You have repeatedly proposed that our choices for any discrepancies in Harry's story are that either he is telling the truth OR he is lying. As you admit above, you are "the number one DEFENDER of Harry Dean" -- not an impartial objective analyst. THAT is why you always present us with an "either/or" option because a "defender" does not see anything in shades of gray. Instead, everything is presented as supporting Harry or falsifying Harry.

I am not a "defender" of Harry. I am a skeptic who is looking for all available documentary evidence to compare it to Harry's statements and assertions.

(7) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo, that “I even offered you an alternative…that Harry is very confused and often exaggerates to inflate his credentials.” Actually, I reject those ‘alternatives,’ because Harry Dean is a sharp-witted guy – very intelligent and very clever. Yes, he’s slowing down now at 86 years old, but that suggests to me that when he was in his thirties, in the 1960’s, that he was fast, sharp, well-spoken, friendly out-going and well-liked. Ernie Lazar tends to lack these qualities, so I suspect that Ernie is probably jealous of Harry Dean. That would explain Ernie’s incessant, unfair and unkind attacks on Harry Dean.

Someday the full truth will be available regarding Harry and your comment above will be transparently delusional.

(8) Ernie Lazar says that, “One has to carefully examine FBI protocols for handling legitimate informants and then determine if any evidence exists to substantiate Harry's claims (which none does).” Actually, neither Harry Dean nor I have ever argued that Harry Dean was a formal, paid informant of the FBI.

Nor have I ever claimed that Harry was a "formal paid informant of the FBI" -- so another STRAW MAN ARGUMENT by you. In fact, my entire argument is that Harry was NEVER an FBI informant -- paid or otherwise. Period.

This fact undercuts all of Ernie Lazar’s attacks – so Ernie just ignores it and goes on his merry way, repeating the fiction by W.R. Morris that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent – and then showing again and again that Harry Dean never was an FBI agent. So Ernie Lazar is really only arguing with himself!

What "fact"? What do I "ignore"? I have NEVER "repeated" any "fiction" by Morris because I have never even read anything by Morris. Everything I base my comments on has been based upon Harry statements here and in your eBook. So, once again, you have created another STRAW MAN ARGUMENT because you always argue with yourself!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My replies are underneath your comments.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

If Paul T. REALLY wants to begin a discussion about LIES -- then I suggest that he return to his message #643 where Paul claimed that I "continued" to misrepresent your position regarding Harry's meeting with Wesley Grapp. See text of your message below.

You never had the decency to QUOTE the message where I supposedly "misrepresented" your position (which is your TYPICAL ploy) and then you dishonored your word when you said you would accept my challenge to produce the evidence.

Paul's statement from message #643 and I highlight the operative accusation

"Also, you misunderstood me to say that it is a fact that Wesley Grapp met with Harry Dean in mid-1961. It is only a fact that Harry Dean claimed this. Now, I believe Harry Dean is telling the truth -- you however, believe Harry Dean is lying "to inflate his credentials." I’m humbly waiting for verification of this – and I admit (and I have always admitted) that I still don’t have the verification. You continue to misrepresent my position as claiming that we have proof. I have always, always, always said we don’t have proof."

MY CHALLENGE

HOW/WHEN DID I "CONTINUE TO MISREPRESENT" YOUR POSITION "BY CLAIMING THAT WE HAVE PROOF"??

1. When was the FIRST time I misrepresented your position, i.e. when I stated that you or Harry claimed to "have proof"?

2. When was the SECOND time I misrepresented your position, when I "continued" to state that you or Harry claimed to "have proof"?

3. And when did I state that Harry was "lying" about this matter (i.e. the date of his first meeting with Grapp)??

Edited February 25, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

MODERATOR PLEASE:

On 9 June 2013, John Simkin began a new thread entitled, "The Future of the JFK Forum."

In post #1 of that thread, John Simkin reminded everybody of a post he wrote in November 2004, which contained this sentence:

"The word 'xxxx' is banned from use on the forum."

In the course of that thread John Simkin announced he was deleting the membership of some long-time members, because they broke this rule.

The FORUM shut down shortly after that, but was revived late last year.

What is the current policy of the Forum? Ernie Lazar, as I have directly shown from quotes, has freely used that term on this list, apparently with impunity.

John Simkin cannot be sent a message these days.

What is the current future of this Forum?

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

MODERATOR PLEASE:

On 9 June 2013, John Simkin began a new thread entitled, "The Future of the JFK Forum."

In post #1 of that thread, John Simkin reminded everybody of a post he wrote in November 2004, which contained this sentence:

"The word 'xxxx' is banned from use on the forum."

In the course of that thread John Simkin announced he was deleting the membership of some long-time members, because they broke this rule.

The FORUM shut down shortly after that, but was revived late last year.

What is the current policy of the Forum? Ernie Lazar, as I have directly shown from quotes, has freely used that term on this list, apparently with impunity.

John Simkin cannot be sent a message these days.

What is the current future of this Forum?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, this "xxxx" issue would not even come up if you would simply stop claiming that I have written things or taken positions which I have NOT done.

If you were only making honest mistakes -- then we would have no problem of any kind. ALL of us make honest mistakes.

But you repeatedly attribute statements or positions to me which are NOT TRUE. So what do you want me to do? Ignore it?

You also repeatedly make assertions about the beliefs or positions of other people which are NOT factually true. Which explains why you almost never QUOTE their comment or refer to some specific publication where their alleged belief or position can be found.

For example: I bring your attention AGAIN to my last challenge to you when you claimed that I "continued" to "misrepresent" your position. THAT is YOUR way of saying that I am a xxxx. Am I NOT allowed to respond to such defamatory allegations while you are permitted to continually make them?

I asked you POLITELY to present your evidence.

Then I asked you AGAIN.

At one point you AGREED to provide your evidence. But you have never done so.

So I asked you AGAIN

But instead of saying something like this:

"OK, Ernie, I made a serious mistake and a false allegation against you. You did NOT "misrepresent" my position (or Harry's) because you never wrote anything claiming that either Harry or I "had proof" regarding Harry's meeting with Grapp. And, obviously, if you never wrote that in the first instance, then you did not "continue" to misrepresent our position."

Instead -- you just REFUSE to retract your FALSE accusation.

So what, exactly, do you want "the rule" to be? If you make a FALSE assertion -- what do you want done about it?

[Paul Trejo]

(1) …I am not relying upon anything which Morris said or wrote. I am relying upon what HARRY said during an interview.

(2) …You are focusing all your attention upon one single comment I made in answer to one specific statement YOU made and you are blowing up that ONE comment as though it represents your ENTIRE argument.

(3) …I am willing to be corrected if anything I say or write is mistaken.

(4) …The REAL problem here, Paul, is that neither you or Harry are prepared for rigorous examination of what you say and write…Harry has never once been asked a probing question. All the questions posed are softballs, based upon the assumption that Harry is telling the truth.

(5) …Nobody has EVER contradicted anything Harry has said or written.

(6) …Numerous very famous and highly respected award-winning scholars (with doctoral degrees) went after each other hammer and tong!

(7) …So, Paul, GROW UP. Stop making excuses! If Harry cannot or will not answer important questions -- then stop pretending that he welcomes scrutiny of his story.

(8) …Incidentally, the FACT that neither you or Harry has ever made ANY effort to obtain his CIA or FBI files -- does not give any serious person confidence that you have ANY genuine interest in discovering anything.

(9) …Being grilled is precisely what happens when serious researchers take interest in any disputed subject matter -- especially when there is very little (or no) documentary evidence available OR when no other living person is available to corroborate statements being made.

(10) …According to you, there MUST be verifiable documentary evidence, i.e. something "written by" the FBI that substantiates your "allegation"...and...as you have previously stated, you WILL NOT ACCEPT any mere assertion....It must be PROVEN by quoting a comment written by the originating party.

(11) …No, Paul, here again we see your incredible bias and total unfamiliarity with standard procedures or principles involved with historical research.

(12) …This is why nobody can trust ANYTHING you write or say - because you seem incapable of understanding rudimentary principles of logic, evidence, and argument.

(13) …As the accuser, Harry MUST provide substantiation for his claim.

(14) …HOWEVER: It is also true that some witnesses do lie, or they grossly exaggerate, or they color their answers to questions to present themselves in the most favorable light. This is why researchers must analyze and interpret evidence -- and then decide what significance and weight and credence to give to whatever is being stated or alleged.

These selected quotes of Ernie Lazar are from post #632. I numbered them above so that I can answer them by the numbers (which is far more courteous to the reader, IMHO).

(1) Ernie Lazar says that he is only “relying upon what HARRY said during an interview.” By this Ernie means a 1975 interview with Tom Snyder and W.R. Morris on the Tomorrow Show. Actually, the only thing Harry said in response to that interview question by Tom Snyder which Ernie keeps citing is the single word, “Yes.”

That’s not a full sentence, and so it’s always open to doubt because we can’t be sure that Harry heard Tom Snyder’s question correctly. I keep pointing this out, but Ernie keeps evading it. Ernie seems obsessed with charging Harry Dean with lying.

(2) Ernie Lazar says, “You are focusing all your attention upon one single comment I made…and you are blowing up that ONE comment as though it represents your ENTIRE argument.” That’s because, Ernie, your comment – that Harry Dean is a xxxx – is the only comment I’m interested in. I’d ignore you otherwise.

You keep repeating that Harry Dean claimed that he was an FBI Agent – which Harry denies. Then you keep repeating that Harry Dean cannot be believed because he said he was an FBI Agent! Your so-called logic is circular.

(3) Ernie Lazar says, “I am willing to be corrected if anything I say or write is mistaken.” But clearly that’s incorrect, Ernie, as you have continually refused to correct yourself on the key point here. You need to apologize to Harry Dean for accusing him of LYING. That’s the key here – but you seem to have blinders on – and ear muffs.

(4) Ernie Lazar says, “Harry has never once been asked a probing question. All the questions posed are softballs, based upon the assumption that Harry is telling the truth.” Actually, Ernie – you yourself ensure that Harry Dean is kept on the defensive here as you pummel his position with unfair accusations and name-calling going back to 2010.

(5) Ernie Lazar says, “Nobody has EVER contradicted anything Harry has said or written.” Actually, Ernie, you yourself seem to write little else except to contradict Harry Dean. Also, plenty of people contradict Harry Dean; W.R. Morris is a prime example, because his book, The Men Behind the Guns (1977) tells a false story about Harry Dean, and it is so widely distributed that our Forum sister site, Spartacus, repeats the W.R. Morris fiction about Harry Dean instead of Harry Dean’s own account! So, actually Harry’s position is contradicted here every single day.

(6) Ernie Lazar says, “Numerous very famous and highly respected award-winning scholars (with doctoral degrees) went after each other hammer and tong!” Actually, Ernie, those same people have also been courteous on occasion – and we question when you’ll get around to being courteous. Or perhaps you’re hoping for an award for going after Harry Dean with “hammer and tong!”

(7) Ernie Lazar says, “So, Paul, GROW UP. Stop making excuses! If Harry cannot or will not answer important questions -- then stop pretending that he welcomes scrutiny of his story.” Actually, Harry Dean welcomes scrutiny of his story, Ernie. We make no excuses; we only object to the name-calling which we regard as a violation of Forum policy. We’re collecting confirming data and evidence as fast as we can, and you know it. Yet once Harry Dean accumulates all the independent confirmation he needs – you do know that you’ll be expected to apologize publicly to him – don’t you?

(8) Ernie Lazar says, “Incidentally, the FACT that neither you or Harry has ever made ANY effort to obtain his CIA or FBI files -- does not give any serious person confidence that you have ANY genuine interest in discovering anything.” Actually, Ernie, we welcome every single FBI document that has surfaced in the past year. This gives us a chance to demonstrate the unfairness of the case against Harry Dean. To everybody else, it is obvious that Harry and I have a genuine interest in discovering what the US Government has to say about Harry Dean.

(9) Ernie Lazar says, “Being grilled is precisely what happens when serious researchers take interest in any disputed subject matter -- especially when there is very little (or no) documentary evidence available…” Actually, Ernie, it is also possible to be courteous about it. Questions are welcome, yet unbridled hostility is very different. Where’s your sense of courtesy?

(10) Ernie Lazar says, “According to you, there MUST be verifiable documentary evidence, i.e. something "written by" the FBI that substantiates your "allegation"...and...as you have previously stated, you WILL NOT ACCEPT any mere assertion....It must be PROVEN by quoting a comment written by the originating party.” Very good, Ernie. You’re finally, after all these months, beginning to understand my simple criteria. Keep up the good work.

(11) Ernie Lazar says, “No, Paul, here again we see your incredible bias and total unfamiliarity with standard procedures or principles involved with historical research.” Oops, you lost it again, Ernie. And you were so close.

Actually, Ernie, you got it backwards. You’re the one who doesn’t understand the basics. The burden of proof is on the FBI to prove their claim. FBI Agents are the only ones (aside from you, their advocate) charging Harry Dean with claiming to be an FBI agent. Your side bears the burden of proof – and everybody here knows it – and everybody here is waiting patiently to see the 60+ FBI serials from Los Angeles and their hundreds of pages of FBI text to prove once and for all if Ernie Lazar is right or wrong.

(12) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo: “This is why nobody can trust ANYTHING you write or say - because you seem incapable of understanding rudimentary principles of logic, evidence, and argument.” Actually, Ernie, you are again exaggerating and over-reaching. Besides, it’s you who evade the simple rules of logic when you accuse Harry Dean of LYING for allegedly claimed to be an FBI agent, even after Harry Dean repeatedly denies claiming that.

You exclude Harry’s denial in your so-called ‘logic.’ You remain unable to provide independent confirmation of this charge outside FBI Agents, whom history has shown to be unreliable on the topic of the JFK assassination (of which Harry’s story is a part). You have a lot of nerve to keep harping on this key point, month after month.

(13) Ernie Lazar says, “As the accuser, Harry MUST provide substantiation for his claim.” Actually, Ernie, the FBI is the accuser in this case. The FBI have accused Harry Dean of claiming to be an FBI Agent. The FBI must provide substantiation beyond their own word. That’s the state of this thread today.

(14) Ernie Lazar says, “HOWEVER: It is also true that some witnesses do lie, or they grossly exaggerate, or they color their answers to questions to present themselves in the most favorable light.” Actually, Ernie, even accusers can lie, or grossly exaggerate (which is your specialty). We have to be careful of both sides – or don’t you agree?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

(1) …I am not relying upon anything which Morris said or wrote. I am relying upon what HARRY said during an interview.

(2) …You are focusing all your attention upon one single comment I made in answer to one specific statement YOU made and you are blowing up that ONE comment as though it represents your ENTIRE argument.

(3) …I am willing to be corrected if anything I say or write is mistaken.

(4) …The REAL problem here, Paul, is that neither you or Harry are prepared for rigorous examination of what you say and write…Harry has never once been asked a probing question. All the questions posed are softballs, based upon the assumption that Harry is telling the truth.

(5) …Nobody has EVER contradicted anything Harry has said or written.

(6) …Numerous very famous and highly respected award-winning scholars (with doctoral degrees) went after each other hammer and tong!

(7) …So, Paul, GROW UP. Stop making excuses! If Harry cannot or will not answer important questions -- then stop pretending that he welcomes scrutiny of his story.

(8) …Incidentally, the FACT that neither you or Harry has ever made ANY effort to obtain his CIA or FBI files -- does not give any serious person confidence that you have ANY genuine interest in discovering anything.

(9) …Being grilled is precisely what happens when serious researchers take interest in any disputed subject matter -- especially when there is very little (or no) documentary evidence available OR when no other living person is available to corroborate statements being made.

(10) …According to you, there MUST be verifiable documentary evidence, i.e. something "written by" the FBI that substantiates your "allegation"...and...as you have previously stated, you WILL NOT ACCEPT any mere assertion....It must be PROVEN by quoting a comment written by the originating party.

(11) …No, Paul, here again we see your incredible bias and total unfamiliarity with standard procedures or principles involved with historical research.

(12) …This is why nobody can trust ANYTHING you write or say - because you seem incapable of understanding rudimentary principles of logic, evidence, and argument.

(13) …As the accuser, Harry MUST provide substantiation for his claim.

(14) …HOWEVER: It is also true that some witnesses do lie, or they grossly exaggerate, or they color their answers to questions to present themselves in the most favorable light. This is why researchers must analyze and interpret evidence -- and then decide what significance and weight and credence to give to whatever is being stated or alleged.

These selected quotes of Ernie Lazar are from post #632. I numbered them above so that I can answer them by the numbers (which is far more courteous to the reader, IMHO).

(1) Ernie Lazar says that he is only “relying upon what HARRY said during an interview.” By this Ernie means a 1975 interview with Tom Snyder and W.R. Morris on the Tomorrow Show. Actually, the only thing Harry said in response to that interview question by Tom Snyder which Ernie keeps citing is the single word, “Yes.”

That’s not a full sentence, and so it’s always open to doubt because we can’t be sure that Harry heard Tom Snyder’s question correctly. I keep pointing this out, but Ernie keeps evading it. Ernie seems obsessed with charging Harry Dean with lying.

(2) Ernie Lazar says, “You are focusing all your attention upon one single comment I made…and you are blowing up that ONE comment as though it represents your ENTIRE argument.” That’s because, Ernie, your comment – that Harry Dean is a xxxx – is the only comment I’m interested in. I’d ignore you otherwise.

You keep repeating that Harry Dean claimed that he was an FBI Agent – which Harry denies. Then you keep repeating that Harry Dean cannot be believed because he said he was an FBI Agent! Your so-called logic is circular.

(3) Ernie Lazar says, “I am willing to be corrected if anything I say or write is mistaken.” But clearly that’s incorrect, Ernie, as you have continually refused to correct yourself on the key point here. You need to apologize to Harry Dean for accusing him of LYING. That’s the key here – but you seem to have blinders on – and ear muffs.

(4) Ernie Lazar says, “Harry has never once been asked a probing question. All the questions posed are softballs, based upon the assumption that Harry is telling the truth.” Actually, Ernie – you yourself ensure that Harry Dean is kept on the defensive here as you pummel his position with unfair accusations and name-calling going back to 2010.

(5) Ernie Lazar says, “Nobody has EVER contradicted anything Harry has said or written.” Actually, Ernie, you yourself seem to write little else except to contradict Harry Dean. Also, plenty of people contradict Harry Dean; W.R. Morris is a prime example, because his book, The Men Behind the Guns (1977) tells a false story about Harry Dean, and it is so widely distributed that our Forum sister site, Spartacus, repeats the W.R. Morris fiction about Harry Dean instead of Harry Dean’s own account! So, actually Harry’s position is contradicted here every single day.

(6) Ernie Lazar says, “Numerous very famous and highly respected award-winning scholars (with doctoral degrees) went after each other hammer and tong!” Actually, Ernie, those same people have also been courteous on occasion – and we question when you’ll get around to being courteous. Or perhaps you’re hoping for an award for going after Harry Dean with “hammer and tong!”

(7) Ernie Lazar says, “So, Paul, GROW UP. Stop making excuses! If Harry cannot or will not answer important questions -- then stop pretending that he welcomes scrutiny of his story.” Actually, Harry Dean welcomes scrutiny of his story, Ernie. We make no excuses; we only object to the name-calling which we regard as a violation of Forum policy. We’re collecting confirming data and evidence as fast as we can, and you know it. Yet once Harry Dean accumulates all the independent confirmation he needs – you do know that you’ll be expected to apologize publicly to him – don’t you?

(8) Ernie Lazar says, “Incidentally, the FACT that neither you or Harry has ever made ANY effort to obtain his CIA or FBI files -- does not give any serious person confidence that you have ANY genuine interest in discovering anything.” Actually, Ernie, we welcome every single FBI document that has surfaced in the past year. This gives us a chance to demonstrate the unfairness of the case against Harry Dean. To everybody else, it is obvious that Harry and I have a genuine interest in discovering what the US Government has to say about Harry Dean.

(9) Ernie Lazar says, “Being grilled is precisely what happens when serious researchers take interest in any disputed subject matter -- especially when there is very little (or no) documentary evidence available…” Actually, Ernie, it is also possible to be courteous about it. Questions are welcome, yet unbridled hostility is very different. Where’s your sense of courtesy?

(10) Ernie Lazar says, “According to you, there MUST be verifiable documentary evidence, i.e. something "written by" the FBI that substantiates your "allegation"...and...as you have previously stated, you WILL NOT ACCEPT any mere assertion....It must be PROVEN by quoting a comment written by the originating party.” Very good, Ernie. You’re finally, after all these months, beginning to understand my simple criteria. Keep up the good work.

(11) Ernie Lazar says, “No, Paul, here again we see your incredible bias and total unfamiliarity with standard procedures or principles involved with historical research.” Oops, you lost it again, Ernie. And you were so close.

Actually, Ernie, you got it backwards. You’re the one who doesn’t understand the basics. The burden of proof is on the FBI to prove their claim. FBI Agents are the only ones (aside from you, their advocate) charging Harry Dean with claiming to be an FBI agent. Your side bears the burden of proof – and everybody here knows it – and everybody here is waiting patiently to see the 60+ FBI serials from Los Angeles and their hundreds of pages of FBI text to prove once and for all if Ernie Lazar is right or wrong.

(12) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo: “This is why nobody can trust ANYTHING you write or say - because you seem incapable of understanding rudimentary principles of logic, evidence, and argument.” Actually, Ernie, you are again exaggerating and over-reaching. Besides, it’s you who evade the simple rules of logic when you accuse Harry Dean of LYING for allegedly claimed to be an FBI agent, even after Harry Dean repeatedly denies claiming that.

You exclude Harry’s denial in your so-called ‘logic.’ You remain unable to provide independent confirmation of this charge outside FBI Agents, whom history has shown to be unreliable on the topic of the JFK assassination (of which Harry’s story is a part). You have a lot of nerve to keep harping on this key point, month after month.

(13) Ernie Lazar says, “As the accuser, Harry MUST provide substantiation for his claim.” Actually, Ernie, the FBI is the accuser in this case. The FBI have accused Harry Dean of claiming to be an FBI Agent. The FBI must provide substantiation beyond their own word. That’s the state of this thread today.

(14) Ernie Lazar says, “HOWEVER: It is also true that some witnesses do lie, or they grossly exaggerate, or they color their answers to questions to present themselves in the most favorable light.” Actually, Ernie, even accusers can lie, or grossly exaggerate (which is your specialty). We have to be careful of both sides – or don’t you agree?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

I am only going to address point #1 of Paul's message because it reveals how intellectually dishonest Paul is. I will then address a larger issue which I previously brought up.

Paul claims that:

"(1) Ernie Lazar says that he is only “relying upon what HARRY said during an interview.” By this Ernie means a 1975 interview with Tom Snyder and W.R. Morris on the Tomorrow Show. Actually, the only thing Harry said in response to that interview question by Tom Snyder which Ernie keeps citing is the single word, “Yes.” That’s not a full sentence, and so it’s always open to doubt because we can’t be sure that Harry heard Tom Snyder’s question correctly. I keep pointing this out, but Ernie keeps evading it. Ernie seems obsessed with charging Harry Dean with lying."

POINT #1 - Complete Sentence

As can be seen from the attached photocopy of the transcript page containing Snyder's question and then Harry's reply, contrary to what Paul asserts, Harry answered with a complete sentence. Harry did not reply with (as Paul falsely claims) "a single word".

Harry said: "That's right. Yes."

This proves, yet again, that we CANNOT rely upon Paul to give us accurate and truthful information -- even when all Paul has to do is quote a source verbatim -- without interpretation.

POINT #2 = "Ernie seems obsessed with charging Harry Dean with lying."

I have gone out of my way in several different messages of this thread (as well as in private emails to Paul) to explicitly state that I DO NOT believe Harry is "lying".

Instead, I have repeatedly brought Paul's attention to the well-known inherent deficiencies of witness memory and testimony, a phenomenon which has been recognized by everybody who has done serious study into witnesses.

I even posted an entire article in this thread which pertains to the inherent weaknesses of witness recollections. But Paul just totally ignores that. But why?

So, this leaves us with a major dilemma.

If somebody EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY points out that there are MANY potential explanations for discrepancies and errors in statements made by a "witness" and NONE of those potential explanations involve "lying" -- but somebody like Paul deliberately IGNORES all of those repeated and explicit statements, THEN what conclusion should logically be drawn regarding Paul?

Is Paul simply making an "honest mistake"?

OR is Paul DELIBERATELY mis-representing what I have written over and over again?

If we conclude that the latter explanation best fits the available evidence, then what explains why Paul would repeatedly resort to such blatant mis-representations?

Is Paul's defense of Harry so weak that Paul feels he cannot even permit a debate to occur on the REAL issues. So, instead, he constantly creates straw-men to argue against?

OR perhaps Paul does not have the mental ability or the ordinary human courtesy to accurately paraphrase or summarize what somebody repeatedly says or writes?

POINT #3 = ACCURACY OF FBI MEMOS

As I have previously written, when one carefully examines the memos which FBI HQ and FBI field offices wrote regarding their contacts with Harry, it is self-evident that they accurately summarized the basic factual information that pertains to Harry's story and their contacts with him.

I am attaching a copy of one memo appearing in the Los Angeles field file concerning Harry which was based upon the report made by two Agents who personally contacted Harry at his home.

Keep in mind, that BEFORE I had discovered copies of Harry's letters to JFK and to J. Edgar Hoover and to Joe Pyne's Program, we had no way to utilize Paul's "independent verification" methodology because we had no primary source documentary evidence BY HARRY to compare to the statements made in the FBI memo.

NOW, however, we can compare each individual assertion or statement in the Los Angeles December 1963 memo to what Harry wrote to JFK (1961) and wrote to Hoover (1963) and wrote to Joe Pyne (1964).

And it turns out that every single item contained in the Los Angeles memo accurately reflects what Harry had written in his letters.

FURTHERMORE, we can also compare various HQ memos to what Harry wrote in the three letters mentioned above -- and those HQ memos are spot-on accurate as well.

There is ONE relatively minor (and not materially important) date discrepancy (as previously mentioned) concerning when Chicago FBI Agents told Harry his assistance was not required. Harry wrote that the contact was on June 28th 1961 but the FBI memos show June 7, 1961 --- but they BOTH agree it was June 1961 and they BOTH agree about the substance of what Harry was told by those Chicago Agents.

THIS is why I maintain that Paul's pejorative ASSUMPTIONS regarding the quality of evidence presented in FBI memos are NOT warranted by available evidence.

The ONLY disputed item pertains to whether or not Harry described himself to various individuals, in different places, at different times, in a manner which made them believe that he was either (1) an employee of the Federal government or (2) an "undercover agent" working for the FBI. And when you consider Harry's direct answer to two of Snyder's unambiguous questions -- one can at least make a plausible argument for accepting what FBI memos contain WITHOUT being accused of defaming Harry.

Harry-Snyder.PDF

12-10-63 LAX-JEH.PDF

[Malcolm Ward]

Paul Trejo asked, "What is the current future of this Forum?"

Its my understanding,from reading here,that this Forum will close.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/simkin-to-close-jfk-education-forum-citing-obnoxious-so-called-researchers

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul Trejo asked, "What is the current future of this Forum?"

Its my understanding,from reading here,that this Forum will close.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/simkin-to-close-jfk-education-forum-citing-obnoxious-so-called-researchers

Well, that is certainly a shame because there is considerable significant material in this and other threads. I wish there was some way to create one pdf document containing all messages from #1 through the current messages --- so that a permanent archive could be maintained for future research purposes.

Speaking of research:

Today I submitted a new FOIA request to the FBI. I am now going after cross-reference serials which mention Harry but which were placed into the files on other subjects. I am using the "search slips" which the FBI created on Harry in December 1963 which show about 2 dozen serials that mention Harry.

In addition, I am requesting the specific files on key figures involved with the Chicago chapter of the FPCC (although I am limiting my request to the time when Harry first became involved and the time he left Chicago for California). So, for example, I am requesting files on Richard Criley, Florence Criley, Edward Gourfain and his wife Joyce, Florence Levinsohn, Edgar Swabeck, and Joaquin Freire. I have discovered their HQ file numbers (and some Chicago ones as well) -- so this will present even more opportunities to discover what information Harry provided and when.

THIS is the difference between Paul and myself. I go after EVERYTHING relevant. I am NOT a "defender" of Harry who merely parrots whatever Harry says. I am not giving ANYBODY the "benefit of the doubt" -- I am doing the tedious (and expensive) job of performing RESEARCH. Something which Paul does NOT understand or welcome.

IF, as Harry contends, he was an FBI informant who was providing the Chicago FBI field office with reports on FPCC members, then, obviously, there should be references to those reports in one or more files of the key FPCC figures.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo asked, "What is the current future of this Forum?"

Its my understanding,from reading here,that this Forum will close.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/simkin-to-close-jfk-education-forum-citing-obnoxious-so-called-researchers

Thanks, Malcom, for sharing this important news.

Any idea when the subscription to the Forum expires?

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo