Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

Paul in all honesty the length of this single threat is overwhelming but my impression is as follows:

Ernie has been saying that other people including a couple of other people who promoted Harry's story positioned Harry as an undercover agent, paid informant etc...having some ongoing connection to the Bureau -- while Ernie himself has only described Harry as an individual who offered information to the Bureau on occasion. Now the latter sounds very much like I see in the quote in the field office Bureau file

No idea whether my view is correct but its based on my only on my recollection of reading those dozens of long and convoluted posts ...so the short answer is no I don't think it sounds like the opposite.

-- Larry

Larry, as I read your perception, Ernie Lazar and Harry Dean actually agree on this: (1) Harry was never a paid agent of the FBI; (2) Harry never claimed to be a paid agent of the FBI, as this FBI document witnesses; and (3) only third-parties who promoted Harry Dean's story claimed that Harry was a paid agent of the FBI.

That is indeed Harry Dean's story.

I've been laboring under the impression that this is not Ernie Lazar's story. My impression is that Ernie says: (4) Harry did claim to be a paid agent of the FBI; and (5) the FBI spent 60+ serials and hundreds of pages largely to keep telling Harry Dean to stop claiming to be an FBI agent.

It would be GREAT if somehow my perceptions were mistaken. Somehow, I don't feel that lucky this month.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

The only real dispute is whether released or unreleased files would show a deeper relationship with the FBI, and whether, if they did not show a deeper relationship, and/or did not provide direct corroboration of Harry Dean's story of the assassination plot and plotters, that the FBI files should then be considered proof that this plot as detailed by Harry Dean did not exist.

Let's see what Lazar uncovers. If nothing new is revealed we can then debate the general question of the ultimate veracity of Intelligence files. We read often that so and so destroyed this or that file. We know cops cover their tracks as best they can, and that is true everywhere. Its easy for me to conclude that the FBI, CIA, ONI etc deliberately misfile or otherwise hide from investigators any files that reveal illegal actions by their operatives.

Your make some thought-provoking points, Paul B.

If these newly released Los Angeles FBI files on Harry Dean fail to show a "deeper relationship with the FBI" (i.e. a relationship such as Harry described between himself and Wesley Grapp in his Confessions) then you would raise the question of whether this failure could be taken as conclusive proof of the falsity of Harry Dean's claim.

I have to admit that your idea sounds plausible. Certainly such a failure would be at least "strike one" for the Harry Dean story. So I completely agree with you that the contents of the Los Angeles FBI files are important.

You are also willing to raise the question regarding the FBI destruction of FBI files -- that cannot be automatically discounted.

My thinking is somewhere between. If there are FBI files that really do corroborate Harry Dean's story -- I personally don't expect to see them in 2014. If they exist, then I suspect that they cannot -- by law -- be released until 2017, when the JFK Act comes due. That's because Harry Dean's story identifies names and places.

My worry, as an advocate of Harry Dean, is that these Los Angeles FBI files might completely demolish the Harry Dean story. I have to be open to that possibility -- my mind is not closed.

For example, if all 60+ FBI serials and their hundreds of pages of FBI text contain nothing at all except complaints by the FBI that Harry Dean is a "very minor annoyance" who has to be continually reminded to stop claiming to be an FBI agent -- then, I would count that as "strike two" for Harry's story.

I personally expect to see something more than that -- some complaints, yes, but also some real questions and real answers between the FBI and Harry in some of those 60+ FBI serials. Time will tell. Thanks for your response.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

The only real dispute is whether released or unreleased files would show a deeper relationship with the FBI, and whether, if they did not show a deeper relationship, and/or did not provide direct corroboration of Harry Dean's story of the assassination plot and plotters, that the FBI files should then be considered proof that this plot as detailed by Harry Dean did not exist.

Let's see what Lazar uncovers. If nothing new is revealed we can then debate the general question of the ultimate veracity of Intelligence files. We read often that so and so destroyed this or that file. We know cops cover their tracks as best they can, and that is true everywhere. Its easy for me to conclude that the FBI, CIA, ONI etc deliberately misfile or otherwise hide from investigators any files that reveal illegal actions by their operatives.

Paul B: Your general position is reasonable but please do keep in mind that there are multiple different methods which can be used by a persistent researcher to identify what files were opened by the FBI on any given subject (person, organization, publication, event, controversy, criminal act, etc.)

In other words, even when the FBI "destroyed this or that file" -- there are almost always references to those destroyed files in other files which allow researchers to figure out what files were created, when they were created, how large they were, what types of information were contained in them, and when they were destroyed.

In fact, Dr. Athan Theoharis has written extensively about this. For example: I recently mentioned his 2004 article entitled "Secrecy and Power: Unanticipated Problems In Researching FBI Files". In that article, Dr. Theoharis discusses at length the detective work he performed in order to discover the covert relationship which the FBI had with Sen. Joseph McCarthy -- a relationship which in many instances IS NOT discussed in McCarthy's various FBI files.

Also, Theoharis goes into considerable detail about Hoover's "Official and Confidential File" (which consisted of 17,000 pages) plus another file captioned "Personal And Confidential". There were equivalent files maintained by Associate Director Tolson and several Assistant Directors---which contain documents that were not serialized into their respective subject main files. There was even a "Do Not File" file devised in 1942 to govern FBI break-ins which FBI memos candidly admit were "clearly illegal".

Much of the evidence concerning "tesurs" (technical surveillances aka wiretaps) or "ELSUR" (electronic surveillances) appear OUTSIDE the actual main file which was opened on the person(s) or organizations who were the subject of the tesur or ELSUR.

In another message I posted recently, I copied a list of the FBI files which Dr. Theoharis donated to Marquette University (where he taught for many years). One of those files is the FBI's "Records Destruction File" and there are many useful clues in that file. Ditto for the SAC Letters file.

In his article mentioned above, Dr. Theoharis refers readers to the following articles for more information. Also several of his books discuss the detective work required to find historically significant material which is archived in various FBI files.

John Rosenberg: The FBI Shreds Its Files: Catch In The Information Act [The Nation, 3/3/79, pp 231-232)

Athan Theoharis: Bureaucrats Above The Law: Double-Entry Intelligence Files [The Nation, 10/22/77, p 394

Athan Theoharis: The FBI and the FOIA: Problems of Access and Destruction [The Midwestern Archivist, 1981, Volume V, #2, pp 69-70]

Susan Steinwall: The FBI Files Case: Implications For Archivists [ seminar paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison Library Science #976]

One of the more famous examples of someone discovering the existence of an FBI file which, for decades, was generally unknown within the academic community, pertains to the FBI files that were created for its "Sex Deviate Program".

Specifically, there was a file on "Sex Offenders Foreign Intelligence", HQ 105-12198 (regarding "sex perverts" in government service) and another file (HQ 94-4-480 = Sex Degenerates and Sex Offenders).

These files became known largely because of the efforts of a friend of mine -- a former investigative reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. He had spoken to Dr. Theoharis and then afterward he pursued some initial clues which Theoharis provided. Theoharis had discovered a comment in the October 1953 minutes of the FBI "Executive Conference" file -- which led to the discovery of the existence of the program authorized by Hoover in June 1951. Altogether, there were 330,000 pages created (index cards, abstracts, and related documents from 1937 thru 1977). The SF Chronicle reporter then published his article in January 1991.

So, my point is this: Contrary to Paul's "secret files" mythology, there are multiple ways to discover the existence of files -- even when files have been destroyed. And it makes utterly no difference if a file was originally "classified" secret or top secret -- because the original rules have been superseded by mandatory declassification stipulations appearing in subsequent FOIA legislation, Presidential Executive Orders, plus the JFK Records Act of 1992.

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul in all honesty the length of this single threat is overwhelming but my impression is as follows:

Ernie has been saying that other people including a couple of other people who promoted Harry's story positioned Harry as an undercover agent, paid informant etc...having some ongoing connection to the Bureau -- while Ernie himself has only described Harry as an individual who offered information to the Bureau on occasion. Now the latter sounds very much like I see in the quote in the field office Bureau file

No idea whether my view is correct but its based on my only on my recollection of reading those dozens of long and convoluted posts ...so the short answer is no I don't think it sounds like the opposite.

-- Larry

Larry, as I read your perception, Ernie Lazar and Harry Dean actually agree on this: (1) Harry was never a paid agent of the FBI; (2) Harry never claimed to be a paid agent of the FBI, as this FBI document witnesses; and (3) only third-parties who promoted Harry Dean's story claimed that Harry was a paid agent of the FBI.

That is indeed Harry Dean's story.

I've been laboring under the impression that this is not Ernie Lazar's story. My impression is that Ernie says: (4) Harry did claim to be a paid agent of the FBI; and (5) the FBI spent 60+ serials and hundreds of pages largely to keep telling Harry Dean to stop claiming to be an FBI agent.

It would be GREAT if somehow my perceptions were mistaken. Somehow, I don't feel that lucky this month.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

As usual, you are mistaken in your interpretation of my position (what a surprise!). I will repeat this yet again. Try paying attention, ok?

1. I have never stated or insinuated that Harry Dean was a "paid agent of the FBI".

-----------SO...If you repeat that again, you are creating a straw-man argument to deliberately confuse everybody and divert attention from real issues.

2 I have never stated or insinuated that Harry Dean claimed that he was a "paid agent of the FBI".

-----------SO...If you repeat that again, then you are creating a straw-man argument to deliberately confuse everybody and divert attention from real issues.

3. I have never stated or insinuated that third parties promoting Harry's story have claimed that Harry was a "paid agent of the FBI"

-----------SO...If you repeat that again, then you are creating a straw-man argument to deliberately confuse everybody and divert attention from real issues.

4. I have never stated or insinuated that the FBI-Los Angeles created 60+ serials and hundreds of pages to keep telling Harry to stop claiming to be an FBI agent.

----------SO...If you repeat that again, then you are creating a straw-man argument to deliberately confuse everybody and divert attention from the real issues.

[Ernie Lazar]

When I first entered this current debate several months ago, I came to the table with some initial tentative conclusions. Up to that point in time, I based my initial tentative conclusions upon my general knowledge about the FBI and my specific knowledge about FBI files which pertain to the various subject matters which have been discussed in this thread.

As I mentioned once before to Paul T., I had never done any significant research into Harry's story prior to late last year.

Frankly, I did not even understand why anybody would give Harry's story much credence since there was no actual documentary evidence being presented nor any corroborating witness testimony. On the other hand, I had never read Harry's 1990 book, Crosstrails -- but I noticed that it was not available for purchase anywhere online (used book seller, Ebay auction) nor could I find a listing for it in the holdings of any library in California, or for that matter, anywhere else in the United States.

So--based upon those factors ALONE, I thought Harry's story was not likely to be credible.

At THAT time, I was not even thinking in terms of what FBI files might reveal. Instead, I was just concentrating on the internal evidence being presented or I should say the absence of evidence. Then, as I reviewed the softball questions which Harry was being asked here in this thread and I saw Harry's answers, I just couldn't comprehend why anybody would believe Harry's recollections and assertions.

THEN, I discovered the Mary Ferrell website. And despite Paul's comments, I do not see how anything there supports Harry's story. In fact, Harry's June 1961 letter to JFK is (in my judgment) devastating to Paul's entire argument because Harry acknowledged in his own handwriting in a contemporaneous primary source document that the FBI in Chicago told him they did not want his assistance. And then Harry dropped his bombshell about his "past difficulty with the law" and "my outstanding debts".

THEN, I discovered Harry's FBI rap sheet. The less said about that at this point the better....except to mention that from my subsequent research, I now know what the Canadian charges against Harry were all about.

So---we can go round and round about whatever points Paul T. wants to make concerning the alleged incompetence of the entire FBI bureaucracy. That certainly is a convenient catch-all excuse to dismiss all inconvenient evidence. Oddly, however, everybody who has studied the FBI (as an institution, during Hoover's tenure) comes to the exact opposite conclusion from Paul T.

And let me share something here about my own view:

When I started making FOIA requests to the FBI, my personal opinion regarding Hoover was extremely hostile. Everything I had in my personal library concerning FBI history was written by severe critics of Hoover and the FBI during his tenure. The picture which all of those authors painted of Hoover was extremely derogatory.

I thought Hoover was someone who facilitated domestic hysteria about the communist movement within our country. I thought he was unscrupulous and mean-spirited. I thought he probably should have been indicted and given a prison sentence for his violations of American law. I also thought that Hoover was a product of his upbringing in segregated Washington DC and I was certain that he had no interest in racial justice in our country.

But AFTER I saw literally scores of FBI personnel files -- with omnipresent handwritten comments by Hoover, I came to admire his administrative ability. One of my pet peeves about career politicians and government bureaucrats is that ALL of them (Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative) never seem interested in developing clear metrics for measuring whether or not their subordinates are performing their jobs properly while they independently develop ideas to improve their agencies or departments and reduce costs while increasing productivity and efficiency.

More often than not, our career politicians and professional bureaucrats appear to be incompetent as administrators Witness the Obamacare website rollout for example or the recent fiasco in Atlanta just because 2-inches of snow fell and the Governor declares he was "unaware" of the late evening revision to the weather forecast for the next afternoon! Geez!

HOWEVER....Whatever you want to believe about Hoover as a person or about the FBI as an institution --- I think any fair-minded person (including severe critics) acknowledge that Hoover was a VERY competent administrator. He had his fingers on the pulse of that organization and everybody knew EXACTLY what was expected and how they would be evaluated.

Just my two cents....

Edited February 27, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Harry J.Dean]

While you'er zig-zaging all over my old 'battle fields' have you been able to crack the

NARA items titled {released with deletions} also those referred to as {restrictions}

and others titled {secret}?

[Ernie Lazar]

While you'er zig-zaging all over my old 'battle fields' have you been able to crack the

NARA items titled {released with deletions} also those referred to as {restrictions}

and others titled {secret}?

You would have to give me some specific examples Harry so I understand what you are referring to. I will say this however: there are exemptions which apply to releasing certain kinds of information -- particularly on a living person. For example: income tax records or a report made by a foreign government with the expectation that their information would be kept confidential.

[Ernie Lazar]

This morning I received an email from an FBI FOIA employee which is very interesting so I will share this with everybody.

1. Prior to about 5 or 6 years ago, the FBI did not offer FOIA requesters the option of obtaining files copied onto a CD. Instead, in prior years, everything was only releasable as paper documents. Most of the FBI files in my collection were obtained in the 1980's and 1990's as paper documents.

2. When I learned about the CD option becoming available, I started submitting requests for important files in my collection which I had previously requested and received as paper docs -- so that I could donate them to interested parties and (hopefully) post many of them online.

3. Naturally, the first file which came into my mind was the FBI HQ main file on the JBS (62-104401). But when I sent my new request to the FBI, I received a letter stating that the JBS HQ file had been transferred to NARA. Then, about 3 months ago, I contacted NARA to find out what they would charge for me to get a copy of the JBS HQ file on a CD or DVD. Amazingly, NARA told me that they did NOT have that file. I then immediately re-submitted a new FOIA request to the FBI -- and I included a 6-page list of deceased JBS members (and others) who I know were mentioned in the HQ file -- so that their names would not be redacted in any subsequent release. [in 1980, when I made my first request to the FBI, I submitted no list of deceased JBS members.]

4. This morning, I finally have confirmation from the FBI that they DO still have the JBS HQ main file. In fact, some other person had requested a portion of it and 3240 pages are available for release right now while another 7500+ pages (including public source material) will still need to be processed. So......I will be able to share that file (and have it posted online) sometime in the not-too-distant future.

[Paul Trejo]

...THEN, I discovered the Mary Ferrell website. And despite Paul's comments, I do not see how anything there supports Harry's story. In fact, Harry's June 1961 letter to JFK is (in my judgment) devastating to Paul's entire argument because Harry acknowledged in his own handwriting in a contemporaneous primary source document that the FBI in Chicago told him they did not want his assistance. And then Harry dropped his bombshell about his "past difficulty with the law" and "my outstanding debts"...

Just my two cents....

Ernie Lazar would have to read Harry's 1961 letter to JFK and his 1963 letter to J. Edgar Hoover with a biased eye to arrive at his conclusions.

There is nothing in those letters that is the least bit "devastating" to Harry's claims. Harry's claims stand up just fine in the light of both those letters.

This is where I accuse Ernie Lazar of spreading disinformation about Harry Dean and of a rush to judgment.

Ernie doesn't see how anything on the Mary Ferrell web site supports Harry's story? Well, Harry claimed he wrote to JFK in 1961 and to Hoover in 1963. The Mary Ferrell web site produced those documents -- proving Harry told the truth. So, again Ernie is simply prejudiced.

Ernie thinks Harry's 1961 letter to JFK is "devastating" to my entire argument? Why? Just because Harry told JFK that the Chicago FBI in 1961 told Harry that they no longer wanted information from him? But Ernie's biased judgment jumps to conclusions.

In my reading, before that announcement, the Chicago FBI was gladly accepting information from Harry Dean -- that remains plausible in light of Harry's letter to JFK. But not to Ernie Lazar.

Ernie Lazar finds the JFK letter "devastating" to my position about Harry Dean, so Ernie is insinuating that the Chicago FBI never considered Harry Dean's information to be valuable or useful! Even though Ernie doesn't come out and say it, Ernie's underhanded words insinuate it.

Ernie Lazar thinks that Harry's reference to his "past difficulty with the law," and his "outstanding debts" is a "bombshell". A bombshell? Not at all.

Harry was addressing the President of the USA, so he wanted to come clean. Insofar as Harry Dean, a WW2 Veteran, had some youthful indiscretions, and some outstanding debts -- that only makes Harry normal.

Yet for Ernie Lazar, that is a "bombshell". This is the bias I'm talking about with regard to Ernie. It shows through in every long, repetitive post that Ernie Lazar unloads on this thread about Harry Dean. Ernie has been doing this since 2010 and has not changed his tune.

Ernie does not want to change his story that he has been preaching for years on the Internet, to the effect that the Harry Dean story has no merit.

Even after seeing dozens of FBI files that confirm specific parts of Harry Dean's story -- still Ernie Lazar does not want to change his story.

All right -- I admit that no solid proof has been presented either way -- but the more Ernie Lazar behaves as though Harry Dean's story has no merit, the more I'll continue to oppose his opinion, and to demand that he cough up PROOF. Insinuations alone don't make proof. Let's see the PROOF.

In my view, the growing case against Ex-General Edwin Walker, a prominent member of the John Birch Society starting in 1959, and a personal friend of JBS founder, Robert Welch, is a growing independent confirmation of Harry Dean's story. History will vindicate Harry Dean -- that's my position.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

1. The interview transcript consists of 16 pages of text.

The total number of comments or questions made by Snyder: 85

The total number of replies/comments made by HARRY: 68

The total number of replies/comment made by MORRIS: 26

MOST of Morris's replies/comments are comments about the Birch Society, about LHO, and about the book Morris was promoting.

2. …The applicable principle is that silence gives consent and that is usually accompanied by the principle…"when he ought to have spoken and was able to."

4. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER that Harry has not said "I was an FBI agent". That is merely ONE way to express a thought --- but not the ONLY way.

5. The question is whether or not Harry has presented himself in numerous different contexts in ways ordinary people could reasonably expect to understand what he meant.

6. The FBI has repeatedly stated that…Harry never…an "informant" or a "confidential source" -- nor was he even considered for such positions.

7. Why don't you focus ALL your attention on the FBI documents which categorically deny Harry's claims?

This selection of quotes from Erne Lazar is from post #636, from 14Feb14.

(1) Ernie Lazar counts the number of comments made by Harry Dean and W.R. Morris to the 85 questions asked by Tom Snyder of the Tomorrow Show in 1975. Since Harry answered about 3/4 of the questions, Ernie wishes to conclude that Harry dominated the interview -- as if quantity tells more than quality.

Actually, W.R. Morris arranged the interview ahead of time with Tom Snyder. It was W.R. Morris’ show, and he was paid for it – not Harry Dean; in fact W.R. Morris promised to pay Harry Dean’s expenses, but at the end of the show he refused to do so – being basically a dishonest operator.

W.R. Morris prepared Tom Snyder with an initial orientation and told Snyder to direct his questions to Harry Dean.

Morris was out to sell his book (The Men Behind the Guns), and he was exploiting Harry Dean as a patsy in his marketing scheme – unknown to Harry at the time. Harry was asked leading questions by Tom Snyder that leaned toward the story that W.R. Morris had told Tom Snyder beforehand.

Once Harry Dean caught on to the game – near the end of the interview – only then did he begin to contradict the message of W.R. Morris – and it caused a lot of friction. (This is probably why Morris refused to pay Harry Dean for his ticket and traveling expenses, as promised.) Harry and Morris split up after that show, never to reconcile.

Here’s something most people don’t know that Harry Dean told me. Tom Snyder decided to give Harry Dean the taped copy of the show, just as they were leaving the studio. W.R. Morris reached for it, and promised to send Harry a copy. Harry held on to it, and promised to send Morris a copy. (Harry did send Morris his copy).

W.R. Morris printed only a part of the original transcript in his book, The Men Behind the Guns, and he doctored parts of it. As it happens, Morris’ version of that TV show is the only available version, because Harry Dean’s trunk of documents was stolen, according to a Victorville Police Department record ca. 1990.

That means that even the page that Ernie Lazar posted to this thread this week is really only a reflection of the fiction published by W.R. Morris. Ernie doesn’t even realize how much his perceptions of Harry Dean depend on W.R. Morris, down to this very day. (The same must also be said about our sister Spartacus site.)

(2) Ernie Lazar says that ”silence gives consent,” and that Harry Dean should have set the record straight in that interview, “when he ought to have spoken, and was able to." Actually, silence does not give consent in all cases, such as cases of fraud. Ernie has no sympathy with the fact that W.R. Morris was a flim-flam man and that Harry Dean did not know it at the time.

Harry admits that he was fooled by W.R. Morris at first – and played right into his hands. Immediately after the Tomorrow Show, however, Harry Dean broke off all relations with W.R. Morris. Sadly, Morris only hired an actor to play Harry Dean to tour the USA with him to market his book.

(4) Ernie Lazar says that, “IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER that Harry has not said ’I was an FBI agent.’” In other words, Ernie – despite his many denials – still proposes that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent. This sort of underhanded insinuation reveals the bias of Ernie Lazar that drips out of every pore.

(5) Ernie Lazar claims that the real question is, “whether or not Harry has presented himself in numerous different contexts in ways ordinary people could reasonably expect to understand,” that he was an FBI agent. Even granting that in the Tomorrow Show interview, Harry Dean actually said the words, “I am not an FBI Agent,” that still does not change Ernie’s mind one bit.

(6) Ernie Lazar admits, “the FBI has repeatedly stated that…Harry never…an ‘informant’ or a ‘confidential source’.” Actually, Harry Dean also said that repeatedly -- but that’s the part we don’t hear from Ernie Lazar.

(7) Ernie Lazar challenges me, “Why don't you focus ALL your attention on the FBI documents which categorically deny Harry's claims?” Actually, Ernie must first show that Harry Dean actually CLAIMED what Ernie charges!

Ernie today insists that he never said that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent – but he does accuse Harry of “claiming” something along those lines. We can’t get straight talk from Ernie Lazar about what Harry allegedly claimed – even Larry Hancock, a distinguished writer on this topic – can’t make out what Ernie Lazar is charging.

Perhaps that’s because Ernie is hedging his bets – he wants to be on both sides of the question when the proof finally comes out.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...THEN, I discovered the Mary Ferrell website. And despite Paul's comments, I do not see how anything there supports Harry's story. In fact, Harry's June 1961 letter to JFK is (in my judgment) devastating to Paul's entire argument because Harry acknowledged in his own handwriting in a contemporaneous primary source document that the FBI in Chicago told him they did not want his assistance. And then Harry dropped his bombshell about his "past difficulty with the law" and "my outstanding debts"...

Just my two cents....

Ernie Lazar would have to read Harry's 1961 letter to JFK and his 1963 letter to J. Edgar Hoover with a biased eye to arrive at his conclusions.

No, Paul, an independent analyst does not have to be "biased" to arrive at a different interpretation from you. But this DOES reveal something about the way YOU interpret evidence -- particularly from critics or skeptics.

In YOUR scheme of things there are always ONLY "either/or" options. There is never another possibility. And that is because (as you acknowledge) you are a "defender" of Harry --- not an independent observer and analyst.

Consequently, when confronting evidence, you see everything in terms of: "does this information help me defend Harry or does it not?" If the latter is the case, then the person presenting a different conclusion from the one you prefer must be dismissed as "biased"

There is nothing in those letters that is the least bit "devastating" to Harry's claims. Harry's claims stand up just fine in the light of both those letters.

This is where I accuse Ernie Lazar of spreading disinformation about Harry Dean and of a rush to judgment.

"Disinformation" is not applicable to honest differences of interpretation or of opinion. Disinformation is a technique employed to deliberately manipulate a targeted audience into accepting falsehoods. In YOUR mind, all criticism or skepticism or doubt about Harry's story is "disinformation" -- because, once again, you exist solely as a "defender" of Harry.

Ernie doesn't see how anything on the Mary Ferrell web site supports Harry's story? Well, Harry claimed he wrote to JFK in 1961 and to Hoover in 1963. The Mary Ferrell web site produced those documents -- proving Harry told the truth. So, again Ernie is simply prejudiced.

Paul, you are confusing and conflating two entirely different matters. You think that the mere existence of a letter "proves" Harry is telling "the truth". But I am focusing upon the SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT of the letters. You focus upon the format -- I focus upon the SUBSTANCE. It is the SUBSTANCE which will ultimately determine the final conclusion to be drawn -- not the format.

Ernie thinks Harry's 1961 letter to JFK is "devastating" to my entire argument? Why? Just because Harry told JFK that the Chicago FBI in 1961 told Harry that they no longer wanted information from him? But Ernie's biased judgment jumps to conclusions.

Why is that biased? It is an incredibly important admission by Harry. You could say, "Well, Ernie, I admit that his statement is very serious and has repercussions but here is some additional information for you to consider" -- but, instead of that entirely reasonable approach, you feel compelled to de-value and dismiss what Harry wrote in his own handwriting! If, as Harry admits, he was told that his background precluded the FBI from accepting his further information -- there is a logical conclusion to be drawn from that.

In my reading, before that announcement, the Chicago FBI was gladly accepting information from Harry Dean -- that remains plausible in light of Harry's letter to JFK. But not to Ernie Lazar.

Another straw-man argument. Nobody disputes that Harry provided unsolicited information to the Chicago field office. THOUSANDS of people contact their local FBI field office every year (both then and now) to report information which their local FBI office "gladly accepts".

But you apparently are not capable of making a rational distinction between an FBI employee passively "accepting" information versus an intelligence agency actively soliciting it, or instructing and directing a person to obtain it, or an agency otherwise controlling the activities of a non-employee for the benefit of a specific intelligence agency.

Ernie Lazar finds the JFK letter "devastating" to my position about Harry Dean, so Ernie is insinuating that the Chicago FBI never considered Harry Dean's information to be valuable or useful! Even though Ernie doesn't come out and say it, Ernie's underhanded words insinuate it.

I answered your snotty comment weeks ago in several other messages. I explicitly said that it was entirely plausible that some of what Harry provided was useful to the FBI and I even said that it would be entirely reasonable to expect that local Agents might have asked Harry questions because that would be STANDARD PROCEDURE.

But, again, this reveals your inability to accurately summarize or paraphrase what someone EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY states. Instead, you ALWAYS make smart-aleck snotty comments which convey sinister implications such as "underhanded". What the hell is wrong with you Paul?

Ernie Lazar thinks that Harry's reference to his "past difficulty with the law," and his "outstanding debts" is a "bombshell". A bombshell? Not at all. Harry was addressing the President of the USA, so he wanted to come clean. Insofar as Harry Dean, a WW2 Veteran, had some youthful indiscretions, and some outstanding debts -- that only makes Harry normal.

It was more serious than your euphemism Paul. You apparently do not understand the full scope of what Harry did -- in Canada. ALSO: Trustworthiness and reliability and stability are important character questions which ALWAYS must be considered when dealing with informants -- which is why the FBI (and all other intelligence agencies) spend so much time investigating a potential informant's background.

Yet for Ernie Lazar, that is a "bombshell". This is the bias I'm talking about with regard to Ernie. It shows through in every long, repetitive post that Ernie Lazar unloads on this thread about Harry Dean. Ernie has been doing this since 2010 and has not changed his tune.

OK, I accept YOUR personal opinion that you do not think it is particularly relevant information. But that is YOUR bias -- and at least everybody reading our exchanges now knows how little interest you have in evidence.

Ernie does not want to change his story that he has been preaching for years on the Internet, to the effect that the Harry Dean story has no merit.

Correct. As of today, we have seen no new evidence which would support changing my original evaluation but if any becomes available, I will be the first to acknowledge it.

Even after seeing dozens of FBI files that confirm specific parts of Harry Dean's story -- still Ernie Lazar does not want to change his story.

There are no "dozens of FBI files" about Harry. There are many serials in 3 or 4 "files"-- but they do not "confirm" any truly significant parts of Harry's story -- i.e. the major substance of Harry's narrative. For example:

1. At present, there is no serial which proves that Harry was contacted by Wesley Grapp in Los Angeles

2. At present, there is no serial which establishes that Harry had any case agents assigned to him (as an informant) in Chicago or that Chicago field office instructed or directed Harry to obtain any specific information and then made quarterly reports to HQ about whatever "information" Harry was instructed to obtain

3. At present, there is no serial which confirms that Harry reported any information to Los Angeles Agents regarding JBS or Minutemen or that FBI-Los Angeles requested Harry to do so

4. At present, there is no serial which confirms that Harry told Los Angeles Agents in September 1963 about any "JBS plot" to murder JFK

5. At present, there is no serial which confirms that any information Harry provided about Galbadon, Walker, Rousselot, Loran Hall, or about anybody else was ever considered significant or actionable by Los Angeles FBI Agents

6, At present, there is no serial (Chicago field or Los Angeles field) that confirms that ANY FBI employee thought Harry was a useful or important source of valuable information --- OR -- that any field office employee ever asked HQ for authorization to use Harry as an informant OR asked HQ for authorization to pay Harry "expenses" because they wanted to continue their relationship with Harry

These are the types of SUBSTANTIVE matters which need to be addressed.

All right -- I admit that no solid proof has been presented either way -- but the more Ernie Lazar behaves as though Harry Dean's story has no merit, the more I'll continue to oppose his opinion, and to demand that he cough up PROOF. Insinuations alone don't make proof. Let's see the PROOF.

Paul -- you are correct. You have not provided any proof (solid or otherwise). All you have done is provide unsubstantiated allegations. And thank you for again admitting that you continue to function not as an independent objective analyst but solely as a shill for Harry.

In my view, the growing case against Ex-General Edwin Walker, a prominent member of the John Birch Society starting in 1959, and a personal friend of JBS founder, Robert Welch, is a growing independent confirmation of Harry Dean's story. History will vindicate Harry Dean -- that's my position.

How did the alleged "personal friendship" between Welch and Walker manifest itself?

When people are "personal friends", they usually see a lot of each other, talk on the phone or write to each other frequently; they often are invited to attend significant family events such as weddings or christenings or Thanksgiving/Christmas dinners; they often exchange gifts or enter into business relationships with each other.

What, exactly, is the evidence you have concerning the "personal friendship" between Welch and Walker??

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

My comments appear underneath yours

[Ernie Lazar]

1. The interview transcript consists of 16 pages of text.

The total number of comments or questions made by Snyder: 85

The total number of replies/comments made by HARRY: 68

The total number of replies/comment made by MORRIS: 26

MOST of Morris's replies/comments are comments about the Birch Society, about LHO, and about the book Morris was promoting.

2. …The applicable principle is that silence gives consent and that is usually accompanied by the principle…"when he ought to have spoken and was able to."

4. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER that Harry has not said "I was an FBI agent". That is merely ONE way to express a thought --- but not the ONLY way.

5. The question is whether or not Harry has presented himself in numerous different contexts in ways ordinary people could reasonably expect to understand what he meant.

6. The FBI has repeatedly stated that…Harry never…an "informant" or a "confidential source" -- nor was he even considered for such positions.

7. Why don't you focus ALL your attention on the FBI documents which categorically deny Harry's claims?

This selection of quotes from Erne Lazar is from post #636, from 14Feb14.

(1) Ernie Lazar counts the number of comments made by Harry Dean and W.R. Morris to the 85 questions asked by Tom Snyder of the Tomorrow Show in 1975. Since Harry answered about 3/4 of the questions, Ernie wishes to conclude that Harry dominated the interview -- as if quantity tells more than quality.

Quantity does determine who dominates an interview. Many people have complained that when political office candidates agree to debate, one person or another seems to be given more time to present his/her answers. As a result, it is often observed that one person "dominated" the debate. That perception is always based upon QUANTITY of time allotted to each person to speak.

Quality is a subjective judgment -- particularly when you consider that so many of Harry's comments are, as previously described by other people in this thread, "inscrutable" which, by definition, means "impossible to understand or interpret" . How can anyone make "qualitative" judgments about undecipherable sentence or thought fragments?

Actually, W.R. Morris arranged the interview ahead of time with Tom Snyder. It was W.R. Morris’ show, and he was paid for it – not Harry Dean; in fact W.R. Morris promised to pay Harry Dean’s expenses, but at the end of the show he refused to do so – being basically a dishonest operator.

W.R. Morris prepared Tom Snyder with an initial orientation and told Snyder to direct his questions to Harry Dean.

Morris was out to sell his book (The Men Behind the Guns), and he was exploiting Harry Dean as a patsy in his marketing scheme – unknown to Harry at the time. Harry was asked leading questions by Tom Snyder that leaned toward the story that W.R. Morris had told Tom Snyder beforehand.

Actually, Snyder's questions were not "leading" questions. They were open-ended -- allowing Harry to answer any way he wanted. And frequently when Harry gave one of his "inscrutable" answers, Snyder asked a follow-up question to get Harry to spell out what he meant. For example, Harry made ambiguous references to an un-named organization -- and Snyder asked a follow-up question so that Harry would specifically declare what organization he had in mind -- i.e. the JBS!

Once Harry Dean caught on to the game – near the end of the interview – only then did he begin to contradict the message of W.R. Morris – and it caused a lot of friction. (This is probably why Morris refused to pay Harry Dean for his ticket and traveling expenses, as promised.) Harry and Morris split up after that show, never to reconcile.

You don't explain what you mean by "contradict" at the end of the interview. The theme which Harry presented throughout the interview remained constant (unchanging) so I have no clue what you mean.

Here’s something most people don’t know that Harry Dean told me. Tom Snyder decided to give Harry Dean the taped copy of the show, just as they were leaving the studio. W.R. Morris reached for it, and promised to send Harry a copy. Harry held on to it, and promised to send Morris a copy. (Harry did send Morris his copy).

W.R. Morris printed only a part of the original transcript in his book, The Men Behind the Guns, and he doctored parts of it. As it happens, Morris’ version of that TV show is the only available version, because Harry Dean’s trunk of documents was stolen, according to a Victorville Police Department record ca. 1990.

That means that even the page that Ernie Lazar posted to this thread this week is really only a reflection of the fiction published by W.R. Morris. Ernie doesn’t even realize how much his perceptions of Harry Dean depend on W.R. Morris, down to this very day. (The same must also be said about our sister Spartacus site.)

But there is no verifiable factual evidence to support your contentions so it is just another unsubstantiated allegation.

(2) Ernie Lazar says that ”silence gives consent,” and that Harry Dean should have set the record straight in that interview, “when he ought to have spoken, and was able to." Actually, silence does not give consent in all cases, such as cases of fraud. Ernie has no sympathy with the fact that W.R. Morris was a flim-flam man and that Harry Dean did not know it at the time.

Non-sequitir. Whatever Harry's relationship was with Morris is irrelevant. The only relevant point is that Harry was asked questions and Harry gave answers to those questions. Everything else is nothing more than your unsubstantiated speculation.

Harry admits that he was fooled by W.R. Morris at first – and played right into his hands. Immediately after the Tomorrow Show, however, Harry Dean broke off all relations with W.R. Morris. Sadly, Morris only hired an actor to play Harry Dean to tour the USA with him to market his book.

(4) Ernie Lazar says that, “IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER that Harry has not said ’I was an FBI agent.’” In other words, Ernie – despite his many denials – still proposes that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent. This sort of underhanded insinuation reveals the bias of Ernie Lazar that drips out of every pore.

Paul -- you really need to take a course in basic logic. I have explicitly and repeatedly stated that I am not offering my personal judgment about what Harry did or did not say. Obviously, I was not present during those conversations and neither were you.

All I have ever said is that there is documentary evidence to support the contention that people came away from their conversations with Harry with an impression concerning what he was trying to say about himself in relation to the FBI.

Why are you so obsessed over this point? It makes no difference to the larger issues we are discussing.

FOR EXAMPLE: Suppose you eventually discover indisputable factual evidence that makes you conclude that Harry was never an FBI informant. Would it then make ANY difference to you whether or not somebody in the 1960's came away from their discussion with Harry (such as during an interview with a newspaper reporter) thinking that Harry claimed to be an "undercover agent" for the FBI?

Nothing about Harry's story is dependent upon the exact terminology which he used to describe his relationship with the FBI.

You can select from ANY of the available options:

"street informer",

"undercover operative",

"undercover agent",

"FBI agent",

"informant",

"unofficial informant"

"intelligence asset"

----or other terms --- but, ultimately, what we are discussing is much more significant than the appropriate descriptive term. What we are discussing is the OVERALL NARRATIVE which Harry presents in your eBook and in his previous writings and interviews. If the essential parts of that narrative cannot be proven, or if major parts can be disproven, then the descriptive terms used are totally irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

(5) Ernie Lazar claims that the real question is, “whether or not Harry has presented himself in numerous different contexts in ways ordinary people could reasonably expect to understand,” that he was an FBI agent. Even granting that in the Tomorrow Show interview, Harry Dean actually said the words, “I am not an FBI Agent,” that still does not change Ernie’s mind one bit.

On what page of the Snyder interview did you find Harry's comment "I am not an FBI Agent"? I can't find it right now.

The very first comment Snyder made during his interview was to introduce his guests. There are 3 sentences describing Morris. Then, when Snyder started to describe Harry he said:

"My second guest, I can only call Mr. X or Mr. Agent, which do you prefer? Mr X. or Mr. Agent?"

HARRY'S REPLY: "Either. Either will be fine"

This reminds me of the old Groucho Marx routine in which he says: "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?"

Paul wants us to believe HIS PERSONAL OPINION -- but not the written transcript which our "lying eyes" can read for ourselves.

(6) Ernie Lazar admits, “the FBI has repeatedly stated that…Harry never…an ‘informant’ or a ‘confidential source’.” Actually, Harry Dean also said that repeatedly -- but that’s the part we don’t hear from Ernie Lazar.

What? Harry has never said that he was not an informant. As Harry is quoted as saying in your eBook (I underline and bold one word for emphasis):

"My credentials at best qualified me to be a street informer for the FBI – which I was. Some researchers have complained that they can’t verify my informant status with the FBI, and I can only reply that the nature of my information, which included facts about the Communist revolution in Cuba as well as the assassination of JFK, would probably be a viable reason for the FBI to classify my records to an extraordinary degree."

(7) Ernie Lazar challenges me, “Why don't you focus ALL your attention on the FBI documents which categorically deny Harry's claims?” Actually, Ernie must first show that Harry Dean actually CLAIMED what Ernie charges!

What are you talking about? Harry's "claims" are contained in YOUR eBook.

Ernie today insists that he never said that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent – but he does accuse Harry of “claiming” something along those lines. We can’t get straight talk from Ernie Lazar about what Harry allegedly claimed – even Larry Hancock, a distinguished writer on this topic – can’t make out what Ernie Lazar is charging.

You mean to tell me, that you seriously expect us to believe that you do not understand what I have stated over and over again in hundreds of messages in this thread?

If you GENUINELY have some sort of comprehension problem here Paul, then present very specific, clear questions to me about whatever matters you find confusing or ambiguous or incomplete (and unlike Harry) I will answer each and every question you present. But DO NOT insert your personal editorial opinions. Just ask precise questions such as these examples:

Ernie, do you believe that Harry Dean has ever claimed that he was an FBI informant?

Ernie, do you believe that Harry Dean was a JBS member in southern California?

Perhaps that’s because Ernie is hedging his bets – he wants to be on both sides of the question when the proof finally comes out.

Nobody seriously entertains your absurdity that I am hedging anything nor that I am on both sides of anything pertaining to Harry. Get real Paul. Go back to my original 2010 message. Nothing has changed since that time.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My replies appear underneath your comments......But as a general observation: So much of your story always relies upon UNPROVABLE assertions.

1. Critical evidence has been "stolen" or "lost" or "destroyed"

2. Critical evidence is dependent upon ONE person's recollections.

This is NOT the type of story which is credible.

[Ernie Lazar]

Incidentally, Paul, are you saying that it is unfair or inaccurate or even a deliberate falsehood if someone describes Harry as "an undercover agent" who investigated and reported to the FBI about Cuba and about the JBS -- because that was his assigned mission?

[Paul Trejo]

(1) …EVERY FBI file which contained JFK-related material was identified (and inventoried) and all responsive documents were released with very few exceptions.

(2) …YOU have NO PROOF that any file(s) exist on Harry other than the ones we know about. It makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER if one or more serials were originally "classified". There are MANY "classified" files related to the JFK-murder which are currently available.

(3) …There is NOTHING which you or Harry claim Harry reported to the FBI which would preclude releasing his type of information. MUCH MORE SERIOUS information has already been released – even when "classified" secret or top secret…

(4) …You attempt to reverse the significance of the clues in order to make it seem that the entire FBI bureaucracy was incompetent on JUST ONE "informant" – Harry Dean. Nobody else. Not ever.

(5) …It is entirely understandable why HQ would have no serials about Harry from 1960. The reasons would be that:

(i) Harry's phone calls were just ordinary routine contacts – like many thousands of others…which were recorded on standard FBI contact forms; and (ii) Chicago recorded Harry's phone contacts – but they quickly determined from FBI-Indianapolis that Harry was not somebody whose background would make it possible for a field office to accept him as an informant or provide any useful information so they told Harry his assistance was not required.

(5.1) …Later, when Harry started contacting Hoover directly (in 1963) or when field offices were sending inquiries to HQ to ask for background info on Harry, Hoover wanted to know who this guy was because HQ informant indexes did not reflect that Harry was ever an FBI informant.

(5.2) …So Chicago (and Los Angeles) then summarized everything they had in their files regarding Harry -- and that was the end of the matter.

(6) …AND, in October 2017, if you discover that there is NO other FBI-Los Angeles file and NO other FBI-Chicago file and NO other FBI-HQ file on Harry --- won't your position be that the FBI destroyed all of Harry's files which had all the data you claim is currently "classified"? DO YOU TRULY NOT SEE THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT WHICH YOU HAVE CREATED? THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BECOMES PROOF IN YOUR SCHEME OF THINGS!

(7) …You have not presented any answer which corresponds to what scholars or researchers know about standard FBI procedures and practices…Instead, you just INVENTED from whole cloth what you consider to be "plausible, logical" answers – but, in reality, your answers do not correspond to what is known about everything pertaining to informants and FBI filing and indexing practices.

This selection of quotations from Ernie Lazar is from post #638, dated 14 February 2014.

(1) Ernie Lazar admits of “exceptions” to the rule that, “EVERY FBI file which contained JFK-related material was identified…and…released.” Ernie claims, however, that these exceptions are “very few.” Actually, Ernie is no FBI insider, so it is impossible for Ernie to know how many exceptions there really are. Yet Ernie wants us to believe that his expertise in FBI bureaucratic procedure also gives him the authority to tell us that “very few” exceptions to FOIA releases exist.

(2) Ernie Lazar says that I, Paul Trejo, have “NO PROOF that any file(s) exist on Harry other than the ones we know about.” Actually, that applies equally to Ernie Lazar – he has NO PROOF that all the Harry Dean FBI files have been identified. Ernie says “MANY” formerly classified FBI files have been released, but that remains vague -- all we know is that "MANY" is usually more than “very few.”

(3) Ernie Lazar says, “There is NOTHING which…Harry reported to the FBI which would preclude releasing his type of information. MUCH MORE SERIOUS information has already been released.” Or so Ernie claims. Actually, Ernie fails to give any examples, so his objection is toothless. Actually, Harry Dean named (as Jack Ruby named) Ex-General Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society as the center of conspiracy involving the exploitation of Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of JFK!

Somebody please tell me when “much more serious” information has ever been released by the FBI! I know of nothing more serious than a direct naming of the key conspirators! In fact, the FBI to this day denies that any conspiracy even existed! Again, Ernie Lazar hopes that his reputation as an FBI expert will be enough for readers to accept anything he says.

(4) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “You…make it seem that the entire FBI bureaucracy was incompetent on JUST ONE ‘informant’ – Harry Dean. Nobody else. Not ever.” Here again we see Ernie Lazar exaggerating, since he has no stronger arguments to work with.

(5) Ernie Lazar claims to understand why FBI HQ had no serials about Harry Dean from 1960: “(i) Harry's phone calls were just ordinary routine contacts…(ii) Chicago…quickly determined from FBI-Indianapolis that Harry was not somebody whose background would make it possible…to…provide any useful information so they told Harry his assistance was not required.”

Actually, given that Harry’s initial phone calls to the Chicago FBI were routine, why does Ernie rush to the conclusion that Chicago “quickly determined” that Harry was not suitable as an informant? How “quickly” is “quickly?” Is it fuzzy like “very few” or “MANY?” These weasel words are common in Ernie’s so-called research.

Does Ernie hope his readers will presume that the Chicago FBI rejected Harry’s assistance in the very same day that Harry phoned them? But Harry phoned them in December, 1960, with full identification, and it was not until June, 1961, that the Chicago FBI told Harry that his services were not required. So, we can reasonably ask – what happened between December 1960 and June 1961 regarding Harry Dean and the Chicago FBI? It seems to me that seven months is longer than what we usually mean by the word, “quickly.”

(5.1) Ernie Lazar says that, “when Harry started contacting Hoover directly (in 1963)…Hoover wanted to know who this guy was…So Chicago (and Los Angeles) then summarized everything they had in their files regarding Harry -- and that was the end of the matter.” Actually, dear readers, there is much more to it than that. What are the contents of these alleged summaries? Is there any bias or behind-covering in them? When can we see them?

(6) Ernie Lazar asks me, Paul Trejo, “In October 2017, if you discover that there is NO other FBI-Los Angeles file and NO other FBI-Chicago file and NO other FBI-HQ file on Harry – won't your position be that the FBI destroyed all of Harry's files which had all the data you claim is currently ‘classified’?” Actually, that all depends on the contents of the FBI files we actually receive, doesn’t it?

(7) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, that, “You have not presented any answer which corresponds to what scholars or researchers know about standard FBI procedures and practices.” By this, Ernie refers to himself – an authority on FBI procedures and practices. So Ernie sets himself up as judge of any statements that non-experts make about the FBI and its methods. Hmm.

In the same way, Ernie Lazar wishes to present J. Edgar Hoover, for all his faults, as a "very competent Administrator." I’ve had it up to here with “very competent Administrators” and “excellent bureaucratic practices,” and so forth.

JFK researchers know for a fact that the FBI was the main source of information for the Warren Commission, and the bias and contradictory evidence that the FBI provided to the Warren Report cannot be trusted – although they followed “standard practices!“

Ernie Lazar seems to have a lot more faith in the FBI than the average JFK researcher. We agree with former FBI Agent Don Adams, who was an eye-witness to dishonest FBI record-keeping practices in the case of the JFK assassination! The FBI does not get a free pass just because J. Edgar Hoover was an “very competent Administrator!“

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

(1) …EVERY FBI file which contained JFK-related material was identified (and inventoried) and all responsive documents were released with very few exceptions.

(2) …YOU have NO PROOF that any file(s) exist on Harry other than the ones we know about. It makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER if one or more serials were originally "classified". There are MANY "classified" files related to the JFK-murder which are currently available.

(3) …There is NOTHING which you or Harry claim Harry reported to the FBI which would preclude releasing his type of information. MUCH MORE SERIOUS information has already been released – even when "classified" secret or top secret…

(4) …You attempt to reverse the significance of the clues in order to make it seem that the entire FBI bureaucracy was incompetent on JUST ONE "informant" – Harry Dean. Nobody else. Not ever.

(5) …It is entirely understandable why HQ would have no serials about Harry from 1960. The reasons would be that:

(i) Harry's phone calls were just ordinary routine contacts – like many thousands of others…which were recorded on standard FBI contact forms; and (ii) Chicago recorded Harry's phone contacts – but they quickly determined from FBI-Indianapolis that Harry was not somebody whose background would make it possible for a field office to accept him as an informant or provide any useful information so they told Harry his assistance was not required.

(5.1) …Later, when Harry started contacting Hoover directly (in 1963) or when field offices were sending inquiries to HQ to ask for background info on Harry, Hoover wanted to know who this guy was because HQ informant indexes did not reflect that Harry was ever an FBI informant.

(5.2) …So Chicago (and Los Angeles) then summarized everything they had in their files regarding Harry -- and that was the end of the matter.

(6) …AND, in October 2017, if you discover that there is NO other FBI-Los Angeles file and NO other FBI-Chicago file and NO other FBI-HQ file on Harry --- won't your position be that the FBI destroyed all of Harry's files which had all the data you claim is currently "classified"? DO YOU TRULY NOT SEE THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT WHICH YOU HAVE CREATED? THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BECOMES PROOF IN YOUR SCHEME OF THINGS!

(7) …You have not presented any answer which corresponds to what scholars or researchers know about standard FBI procedures and practices…Instead, you just INVENTED from whole cloth what you consider to be "plausible, logical" answers – but, in reality, your answers do not correspond to what is known about everything pertaining to informants and FBI filing and indexing practices.

This selection of quotations from Ernie Lazar is from post #638, dated 14 February 2014.

(1) Ernie Lazar admits of “exceptions” to the rule that, “EVERY FBI file which contained JFK-related material was identified…and…released.” Ernie claims, however, that these exceptions are “very few.” Actually, Ernie is no FBI insider, so it is impossible for Ernie to know how many exceptions there really are. Yet Ernie wants us to believe that his expertise in FBI bureaucratic procedure also gives him the authority to tell us that “very few” exceptions to FOIA releases exist.

No, Paul, not my "expertise in FBI bureaucratic procedure". I base my comments upon the reports made by the Chairman of the Assassination Records Review Board. And just like I do not know the exact nature of (or the specific number of) the "exceptions", the same thing applies TO YOUR incessant references to "secret files". You are speculating about something you know absolutely nothing about. In my case, however, I at least have the general descriptive info provided by the ARRB.

(2) Ernie Lazar says that I, Paul Trejo, have “NO PROOF that any file(s) exist on Harry other than the ones we know about.” Actually, that applies equally to Ernie Lazar – he has NO PROOF that all the Harry Dean FBI files have been identified. Ernie says “MANY” formerly classified FBI files have been released, but that remains vague -- all we know is that "MANY" is usually more than “very few.”

Actually, Paul, you are missing the point (again). Because I have copies of the search slips used by the FBI to identify all internal records pertaining to Harry Dean, I know the numbers of all actual and potential Harry Dean-related files.

In addition, as a result of seeing numerous documents posted on the Mary Ferrell website (and keep in mind those are specifically JFK-assassination-related), I am able to see (just like you or anybody else is able to see) the file numbers into which Bureau memos or reports were filed as cross-references. ALSO: you can see the file copy notations stating "original copy filed in" --- which reflect the other relevant files.

Now, perhaps, Harry's Los Angeles field file will contain something new (not previously shown on any HQ document) but that is extremely unlikely because HQ files contain the notations about all files into which copies of investigative reports are filed.

In addition, I recently requested HQ files on many key actors in the Chicago FPCC chapter (during the time period when Harry was in Chicago). That will be the last rational avenue for potentially discovering some new file that contains Harry-related info which is not referenced anywhere else.

For many years, I have already possessed the FBI HQ and Los Angeles files on the JBS and a major portion of the HQ and Los Angeles Minutemen files plus files on Rousselot, Edwin Walker, etc. There is nothing in those files which mentions Harry or identifies any file number which might pertain to Harry.

So---by process of elimination, there is nothing left to check.

(3) Ernie Lazar says, “There is NOTHING which…Harry reported to the FBI which would preclude releasing his type of information. MUCH MORE SERIOUS information has already been released.” Or so Ernie claims. Actually, Ernie fails to give any examples, so his objection is toothless. Actually, Harry Dean named (as Jack Ruby named) Ex-General Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society as the center of conspiracy in the exploitation of Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of JFK!

By much more serious information, I am referring to reports that originated with Police Departments or US Secret Service concerning individuals who were arrested on weapons charges (such as Ashland Burchwell in Dallas), OR reports from Police Department informants (such as the Somersett-Milteer episode) OR reports about organizations who discussed murdering JFK (ANP, NSRP, KKK) that were well-known to welcome mentally unbalanced violence-prone extremists into their ranks, OR informants who reported various plausible "plots" against JFK (such as the Stanley Drennan incident).

What distinguished all of these reports from what Harry allegedly provided is that Harry had no specific evidence to support anything he supposedly reported. In addition, people like Rousselot and groups like the JBS had spotless records (no criminal activities, no arrests, no convictions -- i.e. nothing to support a story about their supposed interest in murdering JFK or anybody else. And much of the leadership of the JBS consisted of very prominent, respected businessmen, clergymen, local/state/national politicians, lawyers, major newspaper publishers, senior retired military officers etc. --- in short, nobody who could plausibly be considered part of any illegal activity or plot.

Somebody please tell me when “much more serious” information has ever been released by the FBI! I know of nothing more serious than a direct naming of the key conspirators! In fact, the FBI to this day denies that any conspiracy even existed! Again, Ernie Lazar hopes that his reputation as an FBI expert will be enough for readers to accept anything he says.

No, Paul, you could avoid these types of irrational absurdities if you would simply ask questions instead of making false conclusions based upon your hostility toward me.

(4) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “You…make it seem that the entire FBI bureaucracy was incompetent on JUST ONE ‘informant’ – Harry Dean. Nobody else. Not ever.” Here again we see Ernie Lazar exaggerating, since he has no stronger arguments to work with.

Well, if I am "exaggerating", then please give us an example of some other FBI informant whom you claim matches the situation you recently described with respect to Harry, i.e. one or more field offices somehow "forgot" to file mandatory reports about one (or more) of their informants for 3 years!

(5) Ernie Lazar claims to understand why FBI HQ had no serials about Harry Dean from 1960: “(i) Harry's phone calls were just ordinary routine contacts…(ii) Chicago…quickly determined from FBI-Indianapolis that Harry was not somebody whose background would make it possible…to…provide any useful information so they told Harry his assistance was not required.”

Actually, given that Harry’s initial phone calls to the Chicago FBI were routine, why does Ernie rush to the conclusion that Chicago “quickly determined” that Harry was not suitable as an informant? How “quickly” is “quickly?” Is it fuzzy like “very few” or “MANY?” These weasel words are common in Ernie’s so-called research.

Quickly means that the FBI initiated a background check in the summer of 1960 and within one or two weeks, they had a definitive report from FBI-Indianapolis regarding Harry's background (in both the U.S. and in Canada). Now, Harry disappeared for some period of time, but then he re-surfaced and contacted Chicago field again. By early summer of 1961, the FBI advised Harry that his assistance was not required. There are no "weasel words" here Paul. You really should learn to control your emotional outbursts and, instead, concentrate on finding evidence.

Does Ernie hope his readers will presume that the Chicago FBI rejected Harry’s assistance in the very same day that Harry phoned them? But Harry phoned them in December, 1960, with full identification, and it was not until April, 1961, that the Chicago FBI told Harry that his services were not required. So, we can reasonably ask – what happened between December 1960 and April 1961 regarding Harry Dean and the Chicago FBI? It seems to me that FIVE MONTHS is longer than what we usually mean by the word, “quickly.”

In answer to your first sentence -- of course not. Another example of how you create straw-man arguments to argue against and then you pat yourself on the back for your "solid points". And it wasn't April 1961 it was June 1961. You constantly have a problem with dates, don't you?

I take your point about the 5-month gap but, as I noted, Harry disappeared for some period of time and when he re-surfaced, he refused to provide his address or contact info. More importantly, we do not even know the precise number or nature of his "contacts" with the FBI between December 1960 and June 1961. If you want me to suggest a plausible explanation I could do so but I would just be speculating and I prefer to deal in verifiable facts.

(5.1) Ernie Lazar says that, “when Harry started contacting Hoover directly (in 1963)…Hoover wanted to know who this guy was…So Chicago (and Los Angeles) then summarized everything they had in their files regarding Harry -- and that was the end of the matter.” Actually, dear readers, there is much more to it than that. What are the contents of these alleged summaries? Is there any bias or behind-covering in them? When can we see them?

We have seen the summary memos so I don't know what you are referring to. You are correct, however, if you mean that we do not currently have all of the original Chicago documents which discussed Harry.

For example: we have HQ file 62-109068, serials #1, 2, 3, 3X, and 3X1 (November 1963) -- which are detailed summaries concerning Harry -- including his FBI rap sheet, a summary of the information which Harry provided concerning FPCC and J26M (and some of the individuals involved in those organizations).

The next serials in Harry's HQ file are #3X2, #4, #5, -- dated December 1964 -- regarding Harry and the Joe Pyne Program

The next serials are #6 thru #12 -- all of which are from June 1965 -- regarding Harry and the La Puente Valley Journal episode

Then the next serial #13 is dated October 22, 1965 concerning an inquiry arising from contact with Ray W. Gardner (a PR guy who claims he was going to help Harry write or compile something for publication)

All remaining serials are dated in 1966, 1967, and 1976 -- and pertain to the LHO grave flowers, and the inquiries regarding whether or not Harry was the person who appeared at the Soviet embassy in Mexico and CIA contacts etc.

When I receive the Los Angeles field file, I will fill in the details concerning their serials on Harry.

(6) Ernie Lazar asks me, Paul Trejo, “In October 2017, if you discover that there is NO other FBI-Los Angeles file and NO other FBI-Chicago file and NO other FBI-HQ file on Harry – won't your position be that the FBI destroyed all of Harry's files which had all the data you claim is currently ‘classified’?” Actually, that all depends on the contents of the FBI files we receive, doesn’t it?

In other words, if I understand your insinuation, if you do not find what you expect to find in 2017, then you WILL conclude that relevant serials (or entire files) have been destroyed

(7) Ernie Lazar says that “You have not presented any answer which corresponds to what scholars or researchers know about standard FBI procedures and practices.” By this, Ernie refers to himself – an authority on FBI procedures and practices. So Ernie sets himself up as judge of any statements that non-experts make about the FBI and its methods. Ernie Lazar wishes to present J. Edgar Hoover, for all his faults, as a "very competent Administrator."

Paul --- I am NOT referring to myself. Which is why I have REPEATEDLY challenged you to contact ANY scholar or historian of YOUR CHOICE.

And do you remember the recent message (#638) where I used 18-point type to tell you "DO NOT ACCEPT MY WORD FOR ANYTHING" ??

I copy it again below in its original format --- just to illustrate (YET AGAIN) how intellectually dishonest you are

P.S. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS NEXT POINT AS STRONGLY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE!

DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN ABOVE IN ANSWER TO YOUR COMMENTS.

INSTEAD, CONTACT ANY HISTORIANS OR POLITICAL SCIENTISTS OR LEGISLATORS OF YOUR CHOICE WHO HAVE SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FBI HISTORY AND PRACTICES --- AND ASK THEM IF YOUR "ANSWERS" ARE "LOGICAL" OR "PLAUSIBLE".

I’ve had it up to here with “very competent Administrators” and “excellent bureaucratic practices,” and so forth. JFK researchers know for a fact that the FBI was the main source of information for the Warren Commission, and the bias and contradictory evidence that the FBI provided to the Warren Report cannot be trusted – although they followed “standard practices!“

My only comment is that you should read the 10-page memo which was prepared to summarize disciplinary measures taken against FBI employees (including demotions) whose performance was criticized because of what the Warren Commission revealed about FBI mistakes and negligence.

Ernie Lazar seems to have a lot more faith in the FBI than the average JFK researcher. We agree with former FBI Agent Don Adams, who was an eye-witness to dishonest FBI record-keeping practices in the case of the JFK assassination! The FBI does not get a free pass because J. Edgar Hoover was an “very competent Administrator!“

Again -- this has nothing to do with "faith". Nor did I suggest that the FBI should get a free pass. You are congenitally UNABLE to make rational distinctions Paul. Oddly, however, you seem clueless about your own blind faith in everything Harry tells you.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My replies are underneath your comments.