Harry Dean: Memoirs

Paul Trejo · February 27, 2014

(1) …You also state that a final analysis “must always wait until all the evidence has been presented. But not all the evidence has been presented.” This…is like saying that I must drink an entire gallon of sour milk before I can make a reasonable conclusion about the taste or condition of that milk.

(2) …If, as you claim, you have made “no conclusions”, then what has this entire debate been about?

(3) …Your “theory” is NOT based upon ANY facts. Consequently, what you propose is NOT a legitimate theory.

(4) …I have made the effort to obtain the relevant documentary evidence. I then saw a CONSISTENT PATTERN which appears in that evidence.

(5) …What you describe as “putting down Harry” is simply an inescapable conclusion which any rational, fair-minded person would draw from the available documentary evidence.

(6) …I have REPEATEDLY told you that your defamatory and libelous characterizations of Harry are logically fallacious.

(7) …I explicitly told you that I DID NOT believe Harry was “lying”. …Witness testimony is universally recognized as the most unreliable – NOT because anybody is “lying”…but because of many other different factors.

(8) There is nothing “top secret” about the speculations of a non-informant.

(9) …We are constantly subjected to your FEVERED IMAGININGS!

(10) We have plenty of “proof” with respect to Harry Dean.

(11) …Every time somebody finds some evidence which is not supportive of your claims regarding Harry – then you trot out…it was W.R. Morris who “manipulated” Harry or some such nonsense.

(12) Has Paul ever contacted ANY FBI employee (especially a Supervisor within their Domestic Intelligence Division or successor units) to ask that person what type of information would be classified as “Top Secret” by the FBI? And THEN describe to that person, the type of data from Harry which YOU think would be placed into a “Top Secret” file – and ask the FBI employee if such data would have originally been (or still might be) so classified? No! Of course not! Because Paul operates EXCLUSIVELY in terms of whatever he IMAGINES in his own mind!

(13) NEVERTHELESS, every other person who provided comparable information about a “plot” to murder JFK has had their FBI files released (if any existed) which is why we know about all those other “plots” – even when individual serials in their files were classified “secret” or “top secret”...But Paul is totally oblivious to ALL of this information because it does not "fit" into his "theory".

(14) I have stated over and over and over again, that it is entirely plausible that Harry gave unsolicited information to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles) – as was done by tens of thousands of other people over the years. I also have stated over and over and over again, that Harry may be confused about, or may be exaggerating in his own mind, the nature and significance of his contacts with the FBI (or CIA).

(15) So, I give Paul this challenge: QUOTE THE EXACT COMMENT I MADE. Be sure to specify the message number (see below) so everyone can go back to it and check it out.

This selection of quotations from Ernie Lazar is from post #645, dated 16 February 2014. (I numbered his quotes so that I can respond by the numbers, which I think is courteous to the reader. I'm moving as fast as I can, but I'm still about ten days behind.)

(1) Ernie Lazar says that when I ask him to wait until all the evidence has been presented before he rushes to judgment on Harry Dean, that this “is like saying that I must drink an entire gallon of sour milk before I can make a reasonable conclusion about the taste or condition of that milk.”

Actually, it’s not like sour milk at all. We’re talking about a person here. Also, your remark is callous, because when judging a fellow human being we ought to take care to weigh all the evidence that is available – and not just rush to judgment based on circumstantial evidence, or superficial appearances, as the FBI did in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(2) Ernie Lazar asks me, Paul Trejo, “If, as you claim, you have made ‘no conclusions,’ then what has this entire debate been about?” Actually, Ernie, it has been about your hasty conclusions.

(3) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “Your ‘theory’ is NOT based upon ANY facts. Consequently, what you propose is NOT a legitimate theory.” Actually, Ernie, I have a lot of facts on my side – but you just close your eyes and ears to them – which is obvious to the average reader here.

(4) Ernie Lazar says, “I have made the effort to obtain the relevant documentary evidence. I then saw a CONSISTENT PATTERN which appears in that evidence.” Actually, you have seen a little bit of the evidence, and then you rush to judgment without seeing all of the evidence. Your opinion is biased, Ernie; your methods are sloppy; and you exaggerate too much.

(5) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo, “What you describe as ‘putting down Harry’ is simply an inescapable conclusion which any rational, fair-minded person would draw from the available documentary evidence.” Actually, Ernie, the average reader sees through your excuses – you are simply reaffirming your position and pretending that you aren’t being biased. It’s obvious.

(6) Ernie Lazar says, “I have REPEATEDLY told you that your defamatory and libelous characterizations of Harry are logically fallacious.” This is comical. Ernie Lazar, who wants to portray Harry Dean as “confused,” and “exaggerating in his own mind” about the role he played with the FBI from 1960-1963, accuses me, Harry’s friend, of libel against Harry!

Why? Because I can see through Ernie’s nonsense and I can see that Ernie is mincing words so that he can convince people to that Harry Dean cannot be believed. He’s afraid of using the word, ‘xxxx’ as he did in post #551, so he’s denying he ever used it, and he’s saying that I, Paul Trejo, am the one who is calling Harry Dean a xxxx! What weasel words!

(7) Ernie Lazar says: “Witness testimony is universally recognized as the most unreliable – NOT because anybody is ‘lying’…but because of many other different factors.” So, Ernie is taking back his charge that Harry Dean is a xxxx (post #551) probably because he now knows that John Simkin banned that word from this Forum – instead Ernie only wants to show that Harry’s claims are “most unreliable.” Not because Harry is “lying”, oh no, but “because of many other factors.” In plain English, Ernie wants to call Harry a xxxx but doesn’t want to use the word, xxxx. Everybody sees right through Ernie’s claptrap.

(8) Ernie Lazar says, “There is nothing ‘top secret’ about the speculations of a non-informant.” But actually it all depends on the context, as we all know. For example, if the context is the JFK assassination, we know that the FBI cannot be trusted. Even former FBI Agent Don Adams assures us of this fact. So, really, context is everything, and Ernie is just trying to squirm out of the facts here.

(9) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo: “We are constantly subjected to your FEVERED IMAGININGS!” Actually, I produce carefully worded observations about the JFK assassination – while Ernie provides exaggerations in the defense of the FBI on the one hand, and of the John Birch Society on the other hand. Let the reader decide.

(10) Ernie Lazar says: “We have plenty of ‘proof’ with respect to Harry Dean.” Actually, Ernie means that he believes, in his opinion, that we have sufficient FBI records to jump to the conclusion that Harry Dean’s claims are “most unreliable.” But when asked to show that ‘proof,’ we get more exaggerations from Ernie.

(11) Ernie Lazar says, to me, Paul Trejo: “Every time somebody finds some evidence which is not supportive of your claims regarding Harry – then you trot out…it was W.R. Morris who “manipulated” Harry or some such nonsense.” Actually, Ernie, the fiction of W.R. Morris lives down to this very day, not only in the web pages of Spartacus, but also in your own prejudice against Harry Dean, even though you deny it.

(12) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “Has Paul ever contacted ANY FBI employee…to ask that person what type of information would be classified as “Top Secret” by the FBI?...No! Of course not! Because Paul operates EXCLUSIVELY in terms of whatever he IMAGINES in his own mind!” Actually, Ernie, I’m very interested in what the FBI records say about Harry Dean. I read them all as they are presented here on this thread (and on the Mary Ferrell web site). So far, they haven’t contradicted Harry’s recollections more than a cat’s hair.

(13) Ernie Lazar says: “Every other person who provided comparable information about a ‘plot’ to murder JFK has had their FBI files released (if any existed) which is why we know about all those other ‘plots’ – even when individual serials in their files were classified ‘secret’ or ‘top secret’.”

There are two main flaws in Ernie’s claim. First, Ernie presumes there are “comparable” claims to Harry Dean’s claim about the plot to involve specifically Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to kill JFK in Dallas. But nobody else ever presented that. Secondly, Ernie placed the word ‘plot’ in quotation marks, insinuating that he, Ernie, does not even believe that such a ‘plot’ existed.

Like the average FBI Agent today, Ernie evidently looks down upon us deluded conspiracy buffs who believe in a JFK plot and perhaps aliens from Mars.

(14) Ernie Lazar says: “I have stated over and over and over again, that it is entirely plausible that Harry gave unsolicited information to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles)…also…that Harry may be confused about, or may be exaggerating in his own mind, the nature and significance of his contacts with the FBI…”

Actually, Ernie is merely patronizing Harry Dean now, so that he can escape from his original claim that Harry Dean is a xxxx (post #551). Ernie’s position today is that Harry Dean is not a xxxx – but only “confused” and “exaggerating in his own mind.” And he expects us to accept this.

(15) Ernie Lazar challenges me, Paul Trejo, to “QUOTE THE EXACT COMMENT I MADE. Be sure to specify the message number…so everyone can go back to it and check it out.” OK, Ernie, as you can see for the past several days, I’m quoting the exact comments you made

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · February 28, 2014

(1) …You also state that a final analysis “must always wait until all the evidence has been presented. But not all the evidence has been presented.” This…is like saying that I must drink an entire gallon of sour milk before I can make a reasonable conclusion about the taste or condition of that milk.

(2) …If, as you claim, you have made “no conclusions”, then what has this entire debate been about?

(3) …Your “theory” is NOT based upon ANY facts. Consequently, what you propose is NOT a legitimate theory.

(4) …I have made the effort to obtain the relevant documentary evidence. I then saw a CONSISTENT PATTERN which appears in that evidence.

(5) …What you describe as “putting down Harry” is simply an inescapable conclusion which any rational, fair-minded person would draw from the available documentary evidence.

(6) …I have REPEATEDLY told you that your defamatory and libelous characterizations of Harry are logically fallacious.

(7) …I explicitly told you that I DID NOT believe Harry was “lying”. …Witness testimony is universally recognized as the most unreliable – NOT because anybody is “lying”…but because of many other different factors.

(8) There is nothing “top secret” about the speculations of a non-informant.

(9) …We are constantly subjected to your FEVERED IMAGININGS!

(10) We have plenty of “proof” with respect to Harry Dean.

(11) …Every time somebody finds some evidence which is not supportive of your claims regarding Harry – then you trot out…it was W.R. Morris who “manipulated” Harry or some such nonsense.

(12) Has Paul ever contacted ANY FBI employee (especially a Supervisor within their Domestic Intelligence Division or successor units) to ask that person what type of information would be classified as “Top Secret” by the FBI? And THEN describe to that person, the type of data from Harry which YOU think would be placed into a “Top Secret” file – and ask the FBI employee if such data would have originally been (or still might be) so classified? No! Of course not! Because Paul operates EXCLUSIVELY in terms of whatever he IMAGINES in his own mind!

(13) NEVERTHELESS, every other person who provided comparable information about a “plot” to murder JFK has had their FBI files released (if any existed) which is why we know about all those other “plots” – even when individual serials in their files were classified “secret” or “top secret”...But Paul is totally oblivious to ALL of this information because it does not "fit" into his "theory".

(14) I have stated over and over and over again, that it is entirely plausible that Harry gave unsolicited information to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles) – as was done by tens of thousands of other people over the years. I also have stated over and over and over again, that Harry may be confused about, or may be exaggerating in his own mind, the nature and significance of his contacts with the FBI (or CIA).

(15) So, I give Paul this challenge: QUOTE THE EXACT COMMENT I MADE. Be sure to specify the message number (see below) so everyone can go back to it and check it out.

This selection of quotations from Ernie Lazar is from post #645, dated 16 February 2014. (I numbered his quotes so that I can respond by the numbers, which I think is courteous to the reader. I'm moving as fast as I can, but I'm still about ten days behind.)

(1) Ernie Lazar says that when I ask him to wait until all the evidence has been presented before he rushes to judgment on Harry Dean, that this “is like saying that I must drink an entire gallon of sour milk before I can make a reasonable conclusion about the taste or condition of that milk.”

Actually, it’s not like sour milk at all. We’re talking about a person here. Also, your remark is callous, because when judging a fellow human being we ought to take care to weigh all the evidence that is available – and not just rush to judgment based on circumstantial evidence, or superficial appearances, as the FBI did in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Of course we are talking about a person but the PRINCIPLE is the same. If 95% of "all the evidence" is available, it is not "callous" to make tentative conclusions. YOU have made all sorts of conclusions for YEARS -- even though you had not seen ANY evidence. You explicitly wrote in one of your replies to me that I had presented more primary source evidence in this thread than you had ever seen before. Nevertheless, that didn't stop you from making your own conclusions.

You use phrases like "rush to judgment" for their emotional impact even though they are not applicable. A "rush to judgment" occurs when you have not seen ANY significant amount of evidence. BY CONTRAST, we have seen your eBook (which does not present ANY evidence), we have seen dozens of FBI documents, we have seen several letters written by Harry, we have seen Harry's numerous answers to questions posed to him in this thread, we have seen newspaper articles and interview transcripts regarding Harry's statements. How does ALL THAT convert into "rushing to judgment"???

WILL YOU PLEASE STOP EVADING MY QUESTION?

WHAT, EXACTLY, DO YOU ANTICIPATE WILL BE FOUND IN 2014 OR BETWEEN NOW AND 2017 THAT YOU BELIEVE WILL BE MATERIALLY IMPORTANT NEW EVIDENCE? BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE.

(2) Ernie Lazar asks me, Paul Trejo, “If, as you claim, you have made ‘no conclusions,’ then what has this entire debate been about?” Actually, Ernie, it has been about your hasty conclusions.

It has also been about YOUR conclusions Paul. So why do you exempt yourself from "hasty" even though prior to our discussion in this thread, you had not seen ANY of the evidence which I presented?

(3) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “Your ‘theory’ is NOT based upon ANY facts. Consequently, what you propose is NOT a legitimate theory.” Actually, Ernie, I have a lot of facts on my side – but you just close your eyes and ears to them – which is obvious to the average reader here.

Paul a "fact" is something which is known (proven) to be true. Virtually everything you have written in this thread has been your OPINIONS and SPECULATIONS -- not "facts". In addition, you frequently make assertions which you present as though they are "factual" but they are falsehoods.

(4) Ernie Lazar says, “I have made the effort to obtain the relevant documentary evidence. I then saw a CONSISTENT PATTERN which appears in that evidence.” Actually, you have seen a little bit of the evidence, and then you rush to judgment without seeing all of the evidence. Your opinion is biased, Ernie; your methods are sloppy; and you exaggerate too much.

What do you mean by a "little bit of the evidence"? Let's put this in metric terms. 100 represents "ALL" the evidence. What is your current evaluation of my "score" in terms of the amount of evidence I have seen? And what "score" do you give yourself?

By "little bit" are you (for example) giving me a score of "10" or "20" or what? And, what, exactly, have I NOT seen which you have that you consider to be critically important before anybody should make a judgment?

(5) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo, “What you describe as ‘putting down Harry’ is simply an inescapable conclusion which any rational, fair-minded person would draw from the available documentary evidence.” Actually, Ernie, the average reader sees through your excuses – you are simply reaffirming your position and pretending that you aren’t being biased. It’s obvious.

Please GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE of any critic of Harry whom you regard as "unbiased" ??

(6) Ernie Lazar says, “I have REPEATEDLY told you that your defamatory and libelous characterizations of Harry are logically fallacious.” This is comical. Ernie Lazar, who wants to portray Harry Dean as “confused,” and “exaggerating in his own mind” about the role he played with the FBI from 1960-1963, accuses me, Harry’s friend, of libel against Harry!

Yes, Paul, it is ironic....but it is ME who is defending Harry against your fallacious logic which always presents us with "either/or" options.

Why? Because I can see through Ernie’s nonsense and I can see that Ernie is mincing words so that he can convince people to that Harry Dean cannot be believed. He’s afraid of using the word, ‘xxxx’ as he did in post #551, so he’s denying he ever used it, and he’s saying that I, Paul Trejo, am the one who is calling Harry Dean a xxxx! What weasel words!

I am not afraid to use the word "xxxx" when it is appropriate. However, UNLIKE YOURSELF, I can make rational distinctions. I understand that witness testimony is inherently prone to major problems which have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with deliberate falsehoods. What upsets you is that you want to create a caricature of me so that you can demonize me as somebody who always describes Harry as a xxxx -- when that is NOT what I believe.

FOR EXAMPLE: I quote below from my PRIVATE email to you of 2/11/14 when I brought your attention to NEW information I had discovered about Harry's contact with Sen. George Murphy. I referenced Harry's November 1963 letter to Hoover -- and I concluded:

"To be clear -- I am NOT accusing Harry of "lying". I just think he forgot the extent of what he wrote to Hoover. After all, Harry seems to have been writing to just about everyone he could think of to find someone to help him "clear" his name so it would be entirely understandable if he is just confused about what he wrote to whom (50 years ago!)-- and how many words he used."

YOU, by contrast, are NOT capable of nuanced discussion or making rational distinctions.

(7) Ernie Lazar says: “Witness testimony is universally recognized as the most unreliable – NOT because anybody is ‘lying’…but because of many other different factors.” So, Ernie is taking back his charge that Harry Dean is a xxxx (post #551) probably because he now knows that John Simkin banned that word from this Forum – instead Ernie only wants to show that Harry’s claims are “most unreliable.” Not because Harry is “lying”, oh no, but “because of many other factors.” In plain English, Ernie wants to call Harry a xxxx but doesn’t want to use the word, xxxx. Everybody sees right through Ernie’s claptrap.

No, Paul, as I previously explained, my use of the word "xxxx" was limited in scope to one specific set of statements made by Harry. My comment was not intended to refer to EVERYTHING which Harry ever said or wrote in his entire lifetime. But, again, this shows your congenital inability to make rational distinctions or to make limited conclusions. Instead, you actually WANT somebody to make permanent, all-encompassing, generalized conclusions because you have some sort of need to discredit everybody who challenges you.

(8) Ernie Lazar says, “There is nothing ‘top secret’ about the speculations of a non-informant.” But actually it all depends on the context, as we all know. For example, if the context is the JFK assassination, we know that the FBI cannot be trusted. Even former FBI Agent Don Adams assures us of this fact. So, really, context is everything, and Ernie is just trying to squirm out of the facts here.

What "facts" are you referring to? Apparently, the principle you want us to adopt is that if we can show ONE instance where the FBI screwed up and cannot be trusted, then that means EVERYTHING they present (for all time) cannot be trusted. Don Adams is ONE person and I am willing to bet the farm that you have never investigated anything which he has presented. Instead, you just accept everything he asserts because you think it advances your defense of Harry. You know that DOUBT, once planted, can be trusted to grow and lazy people will then excuse themselves from performing due diligence simply because the original seed of doubt which was planted gives them a permanent excuse to disengage their critical faculties.

(9) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo: “We are constantly subjected to your FEVERED IMAGININGS!” Actually, I produce carefully worded observations about the JFK assassination – while Ernie provides exaggerations in the defense of the FBI on the one hand, and of the John Birch Society on the other hand. Let the reader decide.

I "defend" the JBS? You still believe that? You need professional help. But, actually, Paul, I am GLAD that is your position because, in the final analysis, your fanaticism and irrationality will prevent anybody from trusting you.

(10) Ernie Lazar says: “We have plenty of ‘proof’ with respect to Harry Dean.” Actually, Ernie means that he believes, in his opinion, that we have sufficient FBI records to jump to the conclusion that Harry Dean’s claims are “most unreliable.” But when asked to show that ‘proof,’ we get more exaggerations from Ernie.

Your definition of "proof" does not correspond to any known standard and it certainly DOES NOT apply to your own eBook which contains not one iota of proof.

(11) Ernie Lazar says, to me, Paul Trejo: “Every time somebody finds some evidence which is not supportive of your claims regarding Harry – then you trot out…it was W.R. Morris who “manipulated” Harry or some such nonsense.” Actually, Ernie, the fiction of W.R. Morris lives down to this very day, not only in the web pages of Spartacus, but also in your own prejudice against Harry Dean, even though you deny it.

I could not care less what Morris wrote or believed. The only known (and undisputed) examples of erroneous information which this thread has revealed are those which YOU are responsible for -- including your admitted falsehoods regarding the FBI "forgery" of Harry's letter to Hoover and your recent all-over-the-map comments regarding the date when Harry first met Grapp AND your absolute refusal to answer my challenge regarding your claim that I stated you had "proof" of Harry's meeting with Grapp. So you have quite the nerve Paul. Look into a mirror when you want to discuss "fiction".

(12) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “Has Paul ever contacted ANY FBI employee…to ask that person what type of information would be classified as “Top Secret” by the FBI?...No! Of course not! Because Paul operates EXCLUSIVELY in terms of whatever he IMAGINES in his own mind!” Actually, Ernie, I’m very interested in what the FBI records say about Harry Dean. I read them all as they are presented here on this thread (and on the Mary Ferrell web site). So far, they haven’t contradicted Harry’s recollections more than a cat’s hair.

And that will be your position from now through 2017 and thereafter. So what is the purpose of your echo-chamber?

(13) Ernie Lazar says: “Every other person who provided comparable information about a ‘plot’ to murder JFK has had their FBI files released (if any existed) which is why we know about all those other ‘plots’ – even when individual serials in their files were classified ‘secret’ or ‘top secret’.”

There are two main flaws in Ernie’s claim. First, Ernie presumes there are “comparable” claims to Harry Dean’s claim about the plot to involve specifically Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to kill JFK in Dallas. But nobody else ever presented that. Secondly, Ernie placed the word ‘plot’ in quotation marks, insinuating that he, Ernie, does not even believe that such a ‘plot’ existed.

No, Paul, you missed the point. Those other files were also "classified". Those other files also pertained to JFK's assassination. Nevertheless they have been released. In addition, there are numerous LHO documents which have been released even though originally classified. There is nothing particularly sensitive or unique about Harry's story. The quality of the information is the same as (or less than) the quality of the information already released from other files about other plots.

Like the average FBI Agent today, Ernie evidently looks down upon us deluded conspiracy buffs who believe in a JFK plot and perhaps aliens from Mars.

No---I just use more rigorous standards of evidence than you do.

(14) Ernie Lazar says: “I have stated over and over and over again, that it is entirely plausible that Harry gave unsolicited information to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles)…also…that Harry may be confused about, or may be exaggerating in his own mind, the nature and significance of his contacts with the FBI…”

Actually, Ernie is merely patronizing Harry Dean now, so that he can escape from his original claim that Harry Dean is a xxxx (post #551). Ernie’s position today is that Harry Dean is not a xxxx – but only “confused” and “exaggerating in his own mind.” And he expects us to accept this.

I have never denied my original comment concerning Harry. So why do you deliberately LIE about it? I am not "escaping from" it. Unlike yourself, however, I know how to make rational distinctions between different types of evidence and I also recognize (as do experts who have studied witness testimony) the inherent problems which exist. If YOU think I am mistaken about that, then AGAIN, contact ANY person of YOUR CHOICE whom you respect for their expertise, and ask them.

(15) Ernie Lazar challenges me, Paul Trejo, to “QUOTE THE EXACT COMMENT I MADE. Be sure to specify the message number…so everyone can go back to it and check it out.” OK, Ernie, as you can see for the past several days, I’m quoting the exact comments you made

I appreciate that you have FINALLY started to provide specifics -- and not merely attribute comments to me but, in most instances, you insist upon claiming that my words do not mean anything, i.e. I am dishonest or trying to escape from my original statements etc. You do this even though I have explicitly corrected your mis-representations. So there is a logical conclusion to be drawn from your unwillingness to accurately summarize my positions and beliefs.

I note for the record here that all of our greatest disputes are the result of documentary evidence which I produced (not you). Isn't it odd that despite HUNDREDS of messages and TENS OF THOUSANDS OF WORDS -- you have contributed NOTHING NEW? The reason is because you have NOTHING NEW. You just regurgitate everything Harry tells you. And you have NO documentary evidence.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My replies appear underneath your comments.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

Paul Trejo · February 28, 2014

[Regarding Harry Dean’s recent change of mind about the year he spoke with the Los Angeles FBI and with Los Angeles FBI SAC Wesley Grapp…]

(1) So, here again, we see the peril of relying EXCLUSIVELY upon the recollection of one "witness" and we also see the profound defects of employing Paul's "give the benefit of the doubt" methodology.

(2) There is not the remotest possibility that the FBI (or any other agency) would continue to "classify" a document which mentions that one or more FBI Agents "met" with some information source. Such documents would automatically be de-classified if they are over 25 years old and they would be released, but it is possible that the names of parties involved in such a meeting might be redacted…

These quotations from Ernie Lazar are from post #648 dated 17 February 2014. (I numbered the quotations for ease of response below).

(1) When Harry Dean changed his mind about the year he spoke with the LA FBI and FBI SAC Wesley Grapp, Ernie Lazar said: “So, here again, we see the peril of relying EXCLUSIVELY upon the recollection of one ‘witness’ and…the profound defects of employing Paul's 'give the benefit of the doubt' methodology.”

Actually, Ernie is being melodramatic. I’ve always candidly admitted that Harry Dean and I lack objective proof of his claims. This is why I encouraged Harry to title our eBook, “Harry Dean’s Confessions,” because his story isn’t yet ready for a historical treatment.

Thanks to the recent honesty of the FBI, however, Harry Dean is accumulating more evidence for his claims, and this also refreshes his memory about events that occurred a half century ago.

Actually, there are no “profound defects” in the method of “giving the benefit of the doubt” to witnesses in the JFK assassination case – in which the FBI has withheld evidence for so many decades.

It is a legitimate method of theory-making, and it has proved useful. I also give the benefit of the doubt to Marina Oswald, to Ron Lewis, to Kelly Brown, to George De Mohrenschildt, to Jack Ruby, to Silvia Odio and to many other eye-witnesses in the saga of Lee Harvey Oswald. My method yields a consistent theory, even though I still need to accumulate independent confirmation.

Ernie Lazar, on the other hand, prefers to rush to judgment, and prefers to stop all evidence gathering with a few memos from the FBI. According to Ernie Lazar, the FBI Director was such a “competent Administrator” and Ernie is proud to believe any and all “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” I, on the other hand, number myself among the doubters of the FBI, and I’m proud of that standing.

(2) Ernie Lazar says, “There is not the remotest possibility that the FBI…would continue to ‘classify’ a document which mentions that one or more FBI Agents ‘met’ with some information source. Such documents would automatically be de-classified if they are over 25 years old and they would be released…”

Again, Ernie Lazar is exaggerating. The JFK research community knows that there are documents about the JFK assassination that are already 50 years old and are still “classified” by the FBI as well as the CIA. The US Government admits this. Nobody except the highest officials in the USA knows their contents. Ernie Lazar is ignorant of their contents.

So, how can Ernie Lazar pontificate about what the FBI may or may not keep classified? Since nobody knows what the classified files contain, Ernie should be more humble; at least he should stop exaggerating his claims like some sophomore.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo · February 28, 2014

(1) The American Historical Association has produced a very detailed ‘Standards of Professional Conduct’. http://educationforu...=44#entry284754 … I urge everyone reading this thread to review the entire "Standards" document -- particularly because people like Paul Trejo simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND these basic principles.

(2) Paul interprets EVERYTHING in the context of "defending" or "opposing". He cannot even grasp the concept of intellectual neutrality or what I previously have described in some messages here in this thread as being the equivalent of "auditing", i.e. taking no side, defending nobody, but just explicitly recognizing when statements made are FALSE, GROSSLY EXAGGERATED, INACCURATE, UNFAIR, or OUT-OF-CONTEXT --- regardless of whose argument or position that might appear to help.

(3) What Paul needs to learn is the difference between defending a principle, or subscribing to standards of intellectual honesty, versus "defending" an organization.

(4) …Paul's comment reveals that he is totally CLUELESS about the profound difference between having extensive personal experience with some subject or with some process and the insights which such experience provides in terms of informing judgment and analysis -- versus having no such experience -- and how that lack of experience limits one's ability to recognize what is reasonable or accurate.

These quotes from Ernie Lazar are from post #649 dated 17 Feb 2014. (I numbered the quotes for ease of response below.)

(1) Ernie Lazar cites The American Historical Association ‘Standards of Professional Conduct’, and he adds that I, Paul Trejo, “simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND these basic principles.”

This is Ernie’s rhetoric to try to foreclose the debate by accusing his opponent of incompetence. Actually, Ernie’s own incompetence is the real issue. I fully understand the principles of Historical Analysis, and I’ve violated none of them in my attempt to revive the 48-year-old claims of Harry Dean for serious reconsideration by the JFK research community.

What are Ernie’s objections? They are unclear, as we’ve seen from recent feedback by Larry Hancock. Ernie floods this thread with volume, deliberately obscuring his message with exaggeration, ad hominem attacks (like those above) and mincing words so that his accusations against the veracity of Harry Dean seem to be merely patronizing rather than open accusation.

Still, those with the patience to wade through the morass can make out the contours of bias. Ernie objects to accusations that the John Birch Society was complicit in the JFK assassination. Ernie also seeks respect and deference to J. Edgar Hoover who was, in Ernie’s words, “a very competent Administrator.” Ernie also seeks deference to the FBI itself, in Ernie’s words, “our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” Ernie does not seem to be aware that he is addressing his remarks to the JFK research community which has taken Hoover and his FBI to task precisely on the topic of the JFK assassination.

Although Ernie insinuates that he himself is an objective historian, he has not yet offered his own opinion of the JFK assassination. So far, his labors on this Forum have been exclusively negative – to shut down the claims of Harry Dean. In this effort Ernie has labored since 2010, and shows no signs of slowing down.

(2) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “He cannot even grasp the concept of intellectual neutrality or…taking no side, defending nobody, but just explicitly recognizing when statements made are FALSE, GROSSLY EXAGGERATED, INACCURATE, UNFAIR, or OUT-OF-CONTEXT.

Actually, Ernie continually makes statements that are "false, grossly exaggerated, inaccurate, unfair and out of context." I continually point this out to him – but Ernie won’t listen. The main source of bias and exaggeration on this thread, as I've amply demonstrated, is Ernie Lazar himself.

(3) Ernie Lazar attempts to patronize me, Paul Trejo, by saying, “What Paul needs to learn is the difference between defending a principle, or subscribing to standards of intellectual honesty, versus "defending" an organization.”

Actually, my principles are clear and firm – I'm seeking the truth about the JFK assassination, despite the falsehoods created and maintained by the FBI starting in 1963. The Lone-Nut theory that accuses Lee Harvey Oswald of being the sole killer of JFK has long been refuted by scholars and objective historians.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (1979) concluded that “JFK was probably killed as part of a conspiracy.” So even the US Government disagrees with the FBI on this point. Still, those who uncritically and blindly believe the FBI, and its alleged “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency” (to use Ernie’s own words) continue to loudly object to doubting the FBI – a half century later.

(4) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, that, “Paul's comment reveals that he is totally CLUELESS…”

Actually, Ernie's sophomoric statements reveal the weakness of Ernie’s reasoning. Ernie is prone to exaggeration, and he can’t seem to help himself. He seems to think that ad hominem attacks work in his favor – when for most readers, they only show that Ernie finds it difficult to be impartial.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · February 28, 2014

[Regarding Harry Dean’s recent change of mind about the year he spoke with the Los Angeles FBI and with Los Angeles FBI SAC Wesley Grapp…]

(1) So, here again, we see the peril of relying EXCLUSIVELY upon the recollection of one "witness" and we also see the profound defects of employing Paul's "give the benefit of the doubt" methodology.

(2) There is not the remotest possibility that the FBI (or any other agency) would continue to "classify" a document which mentions that one or more FBI Agents "met" with some information source. Such documents would automatically be de-classified if they are over 25 years old and they would be released, but it is possible that the names of parties involved in such a meeting might be redacted…

These quotations from Ernie Lazar are from post #648 dated 17 February 2014. (I numbered the quotations for ease of response below).

(1) When Harry Dean changed his mind about the year he spoke with the LA FBI and FBI SAC Wesley Grapp, Ernie Lazar said: “So, here again, we see the peril of relying EXCLUSIVELY upon the recollection of one ‘witness’ and…the profound defects of employing Paul's 'give the benefit of the doubt' methodology.”

Actually, Ernie is being melodramatic. I’ve always candidly admitted that Harry Dean and I lack objective proof of his claims. This is why I encouraged Harry to title our eBook, “Harry Dean’s Confessions,” because his story isn’t yet ready for a historical treatment.

Thanks to the recent honesty of the FBI, however, Harry Dean is accumulating more evidence for his claims, and this also refreshes his memory about events that occurred a half century ago.

Actually, there are no “profound defects” in the method of “giving the benefit of the doubt” to witnesses in the JFK assassination case – in which the FBI has withheld evidence for so many decades.

It is a legitimate method of theory-making, and it has proved useful. I also give the benefit of the doubt to Marina Oswald, to Ron Lewis, to Kelly Brown, to George De Mohrenschildt, to Jack Ruby, to Silvia Odio and to many other eye-witnesses in the saga of Lee Harvey Oswald. My method yields a consistent theory, even though I still need to accumulate independent confirmation.

Ernie Lazar, on the other hand, prefers to rush to judgment, and prefers to stop all evidence gathering with a few memos from the FBI. According to Ernie Lazar, the FBI Director was such a “competent Administrator” and Ernie is proud to believe any and all “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” I, on the other hand, number myself among the doubters of the FBI, and I’m proud of that standing.

(2) Ernie Lazar says, “There is not the remotest possibility that the FBI…would continue to ‘classify’ a document which mentions that one or more FBI Agents ‘met’ with some information source. Such documents would automatically be de-classified if they are over 25 years old and they would be released…”

Again, Ernie Lazar is exaggerating. The JFK research community knows that there are documents about the JFK assassination that are already 50 years old and are still “classified” by the FBI as well as the CIA. The US Government admits this. Nobody except the highest officials in the USA knows their contents. Ernie Lazar is ignorant of their contents.

So, how can Ernie Lazar pontificate about what the FBI may or may not keep classified? Since nobody knows what the classified files contain, Ernie should be more humble; at least he should stop exaggerating his claims like some sophomore.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

I typed answers to all of your questions/comments but, unfortunately, we had a brief power outage here so I lost everything. Rather than re-type everything, let me just briefly say that I am able to make informed judgments about FBI practices/procedures and files because (UNLIKE YOURSELF) of my familiarity with numerous court cases involving the FBI and FOIA requests -- particularly with respect to when the FBI has been challenged for their use of "national security" as a reason for not releasing documents.

For example: I previously told you about my friend (former SF Chronicle investigative reporter) who successfully sued the FBI 5 times over a period of many years, One of his lawsuits concerned a 1960's FBI informant in California. And, yes, his file was "classified". And, yes, the FBI cited "national security" as a reason for not releasing documents. However, my friend ultimately prevailed and the informant's file was released (albeit redacted). Altogether, the 5 lawsuits produced over 340,000 pages of FBI documents.

With respect to your other comments -- I don't think anybody really cares what you think because nothing you present is based upon any real knowledge. You are just inventing stuff in your head or speculating about matters you know nothing about.

Ernie Lazar · February 28, 2014

(1) The American Historical Association has produced a very detailed ‘Standards of Professional Conduct’. http://educationforu...=44#entry284754 … I urge everyone reading this thread to review the entire "Standards" document -- particularly because people like Paul Trejo simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND these basic principles.

(2) Paul interprets EVERYTHING in the context of "defending" or "opposing". He cannot even grasp the concept of intellectual neutrality or what I previously have described in some messages here in this thread as being the equivalent of "auditing", i.e. taking no side, defending nobody, but just explicitly recognizing when statements made are FALSE, GROSSLY EXAGGERATED, INACCURATE, UNFAIR, or OUT-OF-CONTEXT --- regardless of whose argument or position that might appear to help.

(3) What Paul needs to learn is the difference between defending a principle, or subscribing to standards of intellectual honesty, versus "defending" an organization.

(4) …Paul's comment reveals that he is totally CLUELESS about the profound difference between having extensive personal experience with some subject or with some process and the insights which such experience provides in terms of informing judgment and analysis -- versus having no such experience -- and how that lack of experience limits one's ability to recognize what is reasonable or accurate.

These quotes from Ernie Lazar are from post #649 dated 17 Feb 2014. (I numbered the quotes for ease of response below.)

(1) Ernie Lazar cites The American Historical Association ‘Standards of Professional Conduct’, and he adds that I, Paul Trejo, “simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND these basic principles.”

This is Ernie’s rhetoric to try to foreclose the debate by accusing his opponent of incompetence. Actually, Ernie’s own incompetence is the real issue. I fully understand the principles of Historical Analysis, and I’ve violated none of them in my attempt to revive the 48-year-old claims of Harry Dean for serious reconsideration by the JFK research community.

Actually, if you were not so biased and irrational, you would understand that the precise opposite was my point. I am not trying to "foreclose debate". I am trying to get you to identify and follow NORMAL customary rules of logic and evidence.

What are Ernie’s objections? They are unclear, as we’ve seen from recent feedback by Larry Hancock. Ernie floods this thread with volume, deliberately obscuring his message with exaggeration, ad hominem attacks (like those above) and mincing words so that his accusations against the veracity of Harry Dean seem to be merely patronizing rather than open accusation.

Well, if you think something is "unclear" - then ask a question. That is what normal rational people do. I don't think Larry Hancock said that I was "unclear" and I don't think anybody (but you) thinks I am "mincing words". However, it is true that oftentimes when discussing complex matters, one must be prepared for a nuanced discussion -- not black/white or "either/or" declarations -- which is your preferred methodology.

Still, those with the patience to wade through the morass can make out the contours of bias. Ernie objects to accusations that the John Birch Society was complicit in the JFK assassination. Ernie also seeks respect and deference to J. Edgar Hoover who was, in Ernie’s words, “a very competent Administrator.” Ernie also seeks deference to the FBI itself, in Ernie’s words, “our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” Ernie does not seem to be aware that he is addressing his remarks to the JFK research community which has taken Hoover and his FBI to task precisely on the topic of the JFK assassination.

More straw-man arguments but it is pointless to continually address Paul's hallucinations.

Although Ernie insinuates that he himself is an objective historian, he has not yet offered his own opinion of the JFK assassination. So far, his labors on this Forum have been exclusively negative – to shut down the claims of Harry Dean. In this effort Ernie has labored since 2010, and shows no signs of slowing down.

Another DELIBERATE LIE by Paul. I am not an historian. As previously mentioned, I never even completed college.

Nobody is interested in your or my "opinions". Instead, the purpose of this thread is to separate FACT from FICTION.

Nor am I trying to "shut down the claims of Harry Dean". Instead, I have attempted to get answers to questions which would help EVERYBODY make informed judgments about his story. Significantly, however, YOU interpret probing questions as being onerous impositions on your (and Harry's) time, energy, and intellect. THAT is NOT the attitude of somebody genuinely committed to discovering or sharing facts or truth.

I have no clue why you keep referring to the year 2010 as if that is important. You have been contributing to this website since at least 2005 -- so should we make some sort of derogatory conclusion about YOU?

(2) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “He cannot even grasp the concept of intellectual neutrality or…taking no side, defending nobody, but just explicitly recognizing when statements made are FALSE, GROSSLY EXAGGERATED, INACCURATE, UNFAIR, or OUT-OF-CONTEXT.

Actually, Ernie continually makes statements that are "false, grossly exaggerated, inaccurate, unfair and out of context." I continually point this out to him – but Ernie won’t listen. The main source of bias and exaggeration on this thread, as I've amply demonstrated, is Ernie Lazar himself.

Your personal opinions are not "evidence". You have never once identified anything I have written that is "false". All you have ever done is ASSERT something or express your personal opinion. What is really amazing is that apparently you think that you do not operate with any "bias" -- despite the fact that you simultaneously describe yourself as Harry's #1 defender!

(3) Ernie Lazar attempts to patronize me, Paul Trejo, by saying, “What Paul needs to learn is the difference between defending a principle, or subscribing to standards of intellectual honesty, versus "defending" an organization.”

Actually, my principles are clear and firm – I'm seeking the truth about the JFK assassination, despite the falsehoods created and maintained by the FBI starting in 1963. The Lone-Nut theory that accuses Lee Harvey Oswald of being the sole killer of JFK has long been refuted by scholars and objective historians.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (1979) concluded that “JFK was probably killed as part of a conspiracy.” So even the US Government disagrees with the FBI on this point. Still, those who uncritically and blindly believe the FBI, and its alleged “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency” (to use Ernie’s own words) continue to loudly object to doubting the FBI – a half century later.

(4) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, that, “Paul's comment reveals that he is totally CLUELESS…”

Actually, Ernie's sophomoric statements reveal the weakness of Ernie’s reasoning. Ernie is prone to exaggeration, and he can’t seem to help himself. He seems to think that ad hominem attacks work in his favor – when for most readers, they only show that Ernie finds it difficult to be impartial.

"Ad hominem"?? --- such as FALSELY accusing me of claiming that you and Harry had "proof" of Harry's meeting with Grapp?

And also writing that:

Ernie continually makes statements that are "false, grossly exaggerated, inaccurate, unfair and out of context." ??

Here is what I propose Paul: Let's STOP making these personal attacks and just focus upon EVIDENCE.

Do you have any verifiable DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to support Harry's assertions OR is everything based SOLELY upon his recollections?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My replies appear underneath your comments.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

Ernie Lazar · February 28, 2014

Incidentally, I noticed this morning that the credit card I used to pay NARA for Harry's Los Angeles file has now been debited. Usually, they only process the debit when they have completed processing a request -- so I imagine I should receive the CD or DVD sometime next week

Paul Trejo · February 28, 2014

(1) ...The reality is that those two field offices were not inventing anything. Instead, they were following mandatory procedures contained in section 107 of the FBI's "Manual of Instructions" [MOI}...an extremely large and very detailed 4-volume handbook of FBI policies and procedures which ALL FBI employees were required to follow. Any deviations or failures to comply with those rules and procedures resulted in what could be blistering rebukes not just from the appropriate Assistant Director – but also from Hoover personally.

(2) ...Significantly, however, there are no references in any FBI file (HQ or field office) to any such document being prepared on Harry.

(3) ...Now, we all know what Paul's reply will be---i.e. there are some "secret files" in existence which we have not yet seen.

(4) ...Why, for example, was Mark Allen able to obtain all the FBI documents sent to the HSCA (including numerous references to informants who provided info to the FBI--and their names were not even redacted although they were then (and in many cases still are alive!), but we can find NO references to Harry in those same documents as an FBI informant?

(5) At some point, one has to...stop fabricating excuses for the total absence of confirming data in FBI files about Harry's status and, simultaneously, the incessant references in FBI files (HQ and field office) which categorically state Harry was NOT an FBI informant!

(6) IN FACT: does anybody know about ANY OTHER person who claims to have been an FBI (or CIA) informant sometime during 1960-1965 and that person provided info re: ANY "plot" -- but the both the FBI and CIA have categorically denied that they were an informant?

(7) According to Paul's "solid points", he is asking us to believe that Chicago and Los Angeles...BOTH field offices "forgot" to send ALL of their required quarterly reports to HQ and neither Hoover or any FBI Supervisor or Assistant Director ever bothered to send the SAC at Chicago or Los Angeles a blistering teletype or airtel demanding such reports immediately!

(8) ...Although I AGREE with Paul – that obtaining and reviewing Harry's Los Angeles FBI file is likely to be quite important because it may provide us with an even more definitive understanding of Harry's relationship with the FBI – AND – that Los Angeles file may also provide many more clues...nevertheless...all of the available evidence reflects a general pattern which every new piece of evidence seems to reinforce.

These quotations from Ernie Lazar are from post #650, dated 17 Feb 2014. (I numbered them for ease of response.)

(1) Ernie Lazar said: “...Those two field offices…were following mandatory procedures contained in section 107 of the FBI's "Manual of Instructions"…Any…failures to comply with those rules…resulted in…blistering rebukes…from the appropriate Assistant Director – but also from Hoover personally.”

Actually, Ernie is exaggerating. I cite former FBI Agent Don Adams who says that J. Edgar Hoover himself broke FBI rules, and of course there was no rebuke at all – on the contrary, the FBI Agents involved were obliged to break those rules in cooperation with Hoover. So it all depends on the context.

Although this was generally rare, Don Adams is an eye-witness who says that in the single case of the JFK assassination, this was common. Yet Ernie wants us to accept whatever the FBI says, because their bureaucratic procedures are so orderly. Well – yes and no. Hoover himself made exceptions, according to Don Adams. (I’m not inventing this – any impartial reader can read Don Adams’ recent writings on this topic at www.adamsjfk.com .)

(2) Ernie Lazar said, “...Significantly, however, there are no references in any FBI file (HQ or field office) to any such [informant] document being prepared on Harry.” Actually, this is not necessarily damaging to the claims of Harry Dean. While it is possible that the FBI is holding back records related to the JFK assassination – that’s a secondary point. Remember that Harry Dean continually insisted (contrary to W.R. Morris and Ernie Lazar) that he was never a formally recognized, i.e. paid, informant for the FBI. There is simply no contradiction!

But Ernie Lazar keeps reminding us that some FBI Agents wrote to Hoover that Harry Dean himself claimed to be an FBI informant! I question the truth of these statements by these FBI Agents – is there independent confirmation? We’re talking about the JFK assassination here, a case in which Don Adams confesses that rules and procedures were broken!

To be generous to these Agents, I’d claim that these FBI Agents were mistaken about what they heard. Ernie Lazar objects that I, Paul Trejo, deliberately reject “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” Yes, I’m proud of that, because I’m in good company in this position. Even the US Government HSCA rejected the FBI conclusions on the JFK assassination!

(3) Ernie Lazar said, “...Now, we all know what Paul's reply will be – i.e. there are some ‘secret files’ in existence which we have not yet seen.” That’s not necessarily so. Many FBI files about Harry Dean are being released now, so perhaps a full and clear portrait of the issues will be presented. I’ll keep an open mind about it.

At the same time, I think most JFK researchers accept that the FBI still keeps some files related to the JFK assassination locked, closed and out of bounds until October, 2017. So, I’ll always reserve the right – until 2017 – to refer to those secret files as a problem. Why should there be any secret FBI files at all about the JFK assassination, given the FBI claim that Lee Harvey Oswald, now dead for 50 years, was the lone killer? It boggles common sense.

(4) Ernie Lazar said, “...Why, for example, was Mark Allen able to obtain all the FBI documents sent to the HSCA…but we can find NO references to Harry in those same documents as an FBI informant?” Actually, the answer is simple: Harry Dean was questioned by neither the Warren Commission in 1964 nor by the HSCA in 1977-1979. It seems that Earl Warren never heard about Harry Dean from the FBI. But we know that the FBI had files on Harry Dean going back to 1960.

For that matter, Ex-General Edwin Walker was not questioned by the HSCA, either! The HSCA had lost the trail, thanks to the mangled job the FBI did for the Warren Commission. The HSCA started from square one, and they never got around to Edwin Walker, though he was mentioned hundreds of times in the Warren Commission volumes! They lost the trail. (My personal theory is that this is exactly what the FBI was hoping for.)

The testimony of Harry Dean is first and foremost (as Paul Brancato noted last week) an accusation of Ex-General Edwin Walker as the central figure in the JFK assassination plot. Harry Dean claims to be an eye-witness to Edwin Walker in a John Birch Society meeting in September 1963, proposing to use Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy in a plot to kill JFK in Dallas in November.

It is no accident that Jack Ruby told Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren a similar account in 1964, naming Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society in Dallas as central in the JFK plot. I’ll keep pursuing this thread until conclusive, empirical and independently confirmed proof is presented.

(5) Ernie Lazar said, “At some point, one has to...stop fabricating excuses for the total absence of confirming data in FBI files about Harry's status and, simultaneously, the incessant references in FBI files (HQ and field office) which categorically state Harry was NOT an FBI informant!”

Actually, Ernie Lazar has been confusing this issue for weeks now. Actually, it is Harry Dean who categorically states that “Harry was NOT an FBI informant!”

So, why does Ernie keep harping about “the incessant references in FBI files (HQ and field office) which categorically state Harry was NOT an FBI informant”? Clue: Ernie is not saying that the FBI agrees with Harry – although the unwary reader might get that idea.

Actually, Ernie is suggesting – in an underhanded way – that the FBI is contradicting a claim (ostensibly by Harry Dean) that Harry Dean was an FBI informant. This is the irritation that keeps surfacing in Ernie’s posts. He now only insinuates that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI informant. He no longer calls Harry Dean a “xxxx” outright, but insinuates that Harry Dean was not telling the truth due to “confusion” or some other reason to “inflate his credentials.”

But it comes down to the same thing, doesn’t it? Ernie should be more direct and clear about his claims here. When a serious researcher like Larry Hancock can’t determine what Ernie Lazar is saying, it’s clear that Ernie is being too underhanded in his claims. Come out with it, Ernie, and tell the readers what you really think!

(6) Ernie Lazar said, “Does anybody know about ANY OTHER person who claims to have been an FBI (or CIA) informant sometime during 1960-1965…but the… FBI and CIA have categorically denied that they were an informant?” Again, Ernie underhandedly suggests that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI informant sometime during 1960-1965.

Ernie – you should show hard evidence that this was the case before you go around smearing people like that! Clue: FBI claims in this case are not enough evidence, because we are talking about the JFK assassination, and we have former FBI agent Don Adams (for one) admitting that the FBI cannot be trusted on this topic. So, Ernie, stop accusing Harry Dean of saying something the FBI only claimed he said, until you get independent confirmation!

(7) Ernie Lazar said, “According to Paul's ‘solid points,’ he is asking us to believe that Chicago and Los Angeles...BOTH field offices ‘forgot’ to send ALL of their required quarterly reports to HQ…” Actually, I’m not asking any such thing, Ernie.

You asked me to explain why, if Harry Dean was in contact with the FBI from 1960-1962, that FBI Headquarters had no files on Harry Dean until November of 1963. I said that it’s possible the FBI field offices bungled their reporting, since we know they had records on Harry Dean, and we know that FBI headquarters lacked those records.

It’s also possible that the several FBI serials held by the field offices on Harry Dean were simply beneath their radar. However, it is curious that Harry Dean’s name did come up in the context of the FBI investigation of the JFK assassination, but were never presented to Chief Justice Earl Warren. I’ll wait for further evidence to surface.

(8) Ernie Lazar said, “...Although I AGREE with Paul – that obtaining and reviewing Harry's Los Angeles FBI file is likely to be quite important because it may provide us with an even more definitive understanding of Harry's relationship with the FBI – AND – that Los Angeles file may also provide many more clues...nevertheless...all of the available evidence reflects a general pattern which every new piece of evidence seems to reinforce.

Here Ernie alludes to “a general pattern” but now Ernie becomes reticent. He doesn’t come out and say in clear English what he means. The explanation becomes clear by a review of point #5 above.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo · February 28, 2014

I got distracted by a phone call when I was finishing my reply to Paul's message #656 and I forgot to include "evidence item #5" regarding the Harry "FBI agent" controversy, which is an 11/29/66 memo which quotes from an 11/26/66 United Press International article which originated in Ft. Worth TX but was published around the country which pertained to flowers which were placed on LHO's grave.

The FBI memo mentions two Los Angeles newspapers which carried the UPI report and it summarizes:

"The two papers had a statement indicating that according to Marguerite Oswald, the flowers had been sent by a former FBI Agent."

Then, there is one more piece of evidence which I will not use for our "agent" dispute because the copy is very poor and illegible in parts, but there is a comment which I found intriguing about another matter.

The document is a 3/21/67 letter from John Arvidson of Hacienda Heights CA. It is clear from the legible portion of Arvidson's letter (and from some background info about Arvidson contained in a CIA report) that Arvidson was unusually well acquainted with Harry's personal background -- including his arrest and conviction in Canada. Also Arvidson had personally spoken to Harry on more than one occasion -- probably because they had similar political viewpoints (both of them being JBS members at the time).

Among the interesting comments made by Arvidson:

1. On the day JFK was assassinated, Harry was "in a near state of hysteria" over the murder of JFK. Apparently, Harry thought he also might be assassinated!

2. Arvidson states that by early 1963, Harry was "very well known to local anti-Communist circles" and Harry spent a lot of time around anti-communist bookstores including JBS HQ in San Marino. Arvidson says that Harry wrote "several letters to my organization, American Veterans Against Communism" which were not answered.

3. Arvidson observed about Harry that because of "his pro-Communist past, he was not generally trusted in right-wing circles with the possible exception of the California Minutemen group , headed by Troy Houghton."

4. Arvidson says he visited Harry at this home in La Puente about one year after JFK's murder. Harry stated that he was a member in good standing of the MM at that time.

Ernie, I appreciate your posting of objective information by third-parties -- not FBI Agents -- about Harry Dean. Let's take a closer look.

(1) First, we have a UPI newspaper report about flowers that kept appearing on Oswald's grave every year since 1964. Harry Dean admits that he was the one who sent those flowers -- claiming that Lee Harvey Oswald was unfairly convicted by the FBI and Warren Commission of killing JFK.

That 26 November1966 newspaper article quoted Marguerite Oswald saying that "the flowers had been sent by a former FBI Agent."

It's widely accepted that Marguerite Oswald was beside herself with grief over the fate of her son, and she was likely to accept any story about Lee to defend him from the charge that the FBI and the Warren Commission placed on his shoulders.

It's plausible that Marguerite Oswald invented the story that Harry Dean was "a former FBI Agent." Perhaps she misunderstood something Harry said, or perhaps she just made it up. But this isn't the earliest appearance of that mistake. FBI Agents seem to identify KTTV Executive Bob Hayward in connection with its first appearance -- but that was in an internal memo to Hoover.

This 1966 UPI article is the first public appearance of the phrase linked to Harry Dean that I've seen so far. Very interesting.

(2) Secondly, with regard to the March 1967 letter by John Arvidson of Hacienda Heights, California, it is interesting on multiple levels. Arvidson provides independent confirmation of several points within Harry Dean's account -- at least as many as Dave Robbins.

A. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he moved within JBS circles in Southern California.

B. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he told his JBS friends in Southern California about his FPCC past.

C. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he was "very well known to local Anticommunist circles."

D. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he spent a lot of time around the JBS headquarters in San Marino. (This is the location where Harry Dean claims he heard the plot to kill JFK using Lee Oswald as a patsy.)

E. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he was often kept at an arm's distance because of his former support of Fidel Castro.

F. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he belonged to the Minutemen in Southern California, under Troy Houghton.

G. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he was deeply disturbed by the JFK assassination. (Harry writes in his Confessions that he didn't think the plotters were serious, since he'd heard so much bluster about killing JFK for more than a year.)

H. Arvidson also confirms Harry's claim that he lived in La Puente somewhat before, during and after the JFK assassination. Arvidson's claim that Harry Dean was still a member in good standing of the Minutemen in late 1964 contradicts Harry's Confession that he became inactive with their group after the death of JFK. Perhaps that was a misunderstanding by John Arvidson.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · February 28, 2014

I got distracted by a phone call when I was finishing my reply to Paul's message #656 and I forgot to include "evidence item #5" regarding the Harry "FBI agent" controversy, which is an 11/29/66 memo which quotes from an 11/26/66 United Press International article which originated in Ft. Worth TX but was published around the country which pertained to flowers which were placed on LHO's grave.

The FBI memo mentions two Los Angeles newspapers which carried the UPI report and it summarizes:

"The two papers had a statement indicating that according to Marguerite Oswald, the flowers had been sent by a former FBI Agent."

Then, there is one more piece of evidence which I will not use for our "agent" dispute because the copy is very poor and illegible in parts, but there is a comment which I found intriguing about another matter.

The document is a 3/21/67 letter from John Arvidson of Hacienda Heights CA. It is clear from the legible portion of Arvidson's letter (and from some background info about Arvidson contained in a CIA report) that Arvidson was unusually well acquainted with Harry's personal background -- including his arrest and conviction in Canada. Also Arvidson had personally spoken to Harry on more than one occasion -- probably because they had similar political viewpoints (both of them being JBS members at the time).

Among the interesting comments made by Arvidson:

1. On the day JFK was assassinated, Harry was "in a near state of hysteria" over the murder of JFK. Apparently, Harry thought he also might be assassinated!

2. Arvidson states that by early 1963, Harry was "very well known to local anti-Communist circles" and Harry spent a lot of time around anti-communist bookstores including JBS HQ in San Marino. Arvidson says that Harry wrote "several letters to my organization, American Veterans Against Communism" which were not answered.

3. Arvidson observed about Harry that because of "his pro-Communist past, he was not generally trusted in right-wing circles with the possible exception of the California Minutemen group , headed by Troy Houghton."

4. Arvidson says he visited Harry at this home in La Puente about one year after JFK's murder. Harry stated that he was a member in good standing of the MM at that time.

Ernie, I appreciate your posting of objective information by third-parties -- not FBI Agents -- about Harry Dean. Let's take a closer look.

(1) First, we have a UPI newspaper report about flowers that kept appearing on Oswald's grave every year since 1964. Harry Dean admits that he was the one who sent those flowers -- claiming that Lee Harvey Oswald was unfairly convicted by the FBI and Warren Commission of killing JFK.

That 26 November1966 newspaper article quoted Marguerite Oswald saying that "the flowers had been sent by a former FBI Agent."

It's widely accepted that Marguerite Oswald was beside herself with grief over the fate of her son, and she was likely to accept any story about Lee to defend him from the charge that the FBI and the Warren Commission placed on his shoulders.

It's plausible that Marguerite Oswald invented the story that Harry Dean was "a former FBI Agent." Perhaps she misunderstood something Harry said, or perhaps she just made it up. But this isn't the earliest appearance of that mistake. FBI Agents seem to identify KTTV Executive Bob Hayward in connection with its first appearance -- but that was in an internal memo to Hoover.

This 1966 UPI article is the first public appearance of the phrase linked to Harry Dean that I've seen so far. Very interesting.

(2) Secondly, with regard to the March 1967 letter by John Arvidson of Hacienda Heights, California, it is interesting on multiple levels. Arvidson provides independent confirmation of several points within Harry Dean's account -- at least as many as Dave Robbins.

A. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he moved within JBS circles in Southern California.

B. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he told his JBS friends in Southern California about his FPCC past.

C. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he was "very well known to local Anticommunist circles."

D. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he spent a lot of time around the JBS headquarters in San Marino. (This is the location where Harry Dean claims he heard the plot to kill JFK using Lee Oswald as a patsy.)

E. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he was often kept at an arm's distance because of his former support of Fidel Castro.

F. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he belonged to the Minutemen in Southern California, under Troy Houghton.

G. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he was deeply disturbed by the JFK assassination. (Harry writes in his Confessions that he didn't think the plotters were serious, since he'd heard so much bluster about killing JFK for more than a year.)

H. Arvidson also confirms Harry's claim that he lived in La Puente somewhat before, during and after the JFK assassination. Arvidson's claim that Harry Dean was still a member in good standing of the Minutemen in late 1964 contradicts Harry's Confession that he became inactive with their group after the death of JFK. Perhaps that was a misunderstanding by John Arvidson.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

1. What makes Arvidson's comments "objective" in your scheme of things?

2. Arvidson also made comments in his letter to the CIA which are damaging to Harry. Do you now want to still claim he was "objective"?

For example, Arvidson says "We did not learn whether Dean was actually attempting to gather information on right wing activities for some Left cause or whether he was actually sincere in his change of opinion...Our main concern with the Minutemen was the possibility of that group being infiltrated by Communist or pro-Communist elements, thus our interest in Dean and a few others."

3. Everything you cite above as being "confirmed" because Arvidson wrote it in his letter to the CIA, qualifies in the Paul Trejo School of Evidence as worthless "hearsay" because Arvidson was merely reporting street gossip or rumors or hearsay which he said he heard circa November 22-23, 1963 "from people connected with 'Americanism Centers' in the area."

4. NOW---keep in mind that I was quoting directly from the actual copy of Arvidson's March 21, 1967 letter to the CIA.

However, there is an FBI memo dated April 17, 1967 from J. Edgar Hoover to FBI-Chicago which summarizes the content of Arvidson’s letter AND Hoover also sent Chicago a copy of what he described as “CIA communication dated 4/4/67 classified ‘Secret ’”

This Hoover memo appears in the FBI HQ main file on the JFK assassination [HQ 62-109060]. So one wonders why Paul thinks that “classified” documents pertaining to the JFK assassination which were classified “secret” (by FBI or CIA) are supposedly unavailable to us?

Significantly, a subsequent memo to Hoover from a Deputy Director of the CIA captioned “Harry J. Dean” dated 5/23/67 reports that: “The records of this Agency contain no information on subject, except for a report dated 3 March 1964 captioned Harry J. Dean received from your Bureau on 13 March 1964.”

WHAT?

According to Harry, he was “de-briefed” by the FBI and CIA in June 1960 after he returned from his trip to Cuba – but now in May 1967 the CIA has no record of Harry? And the FBI never communicated with the CIA about Harry prior to March 3, 1964? How could that be possible?

4. There are major factual errors in Arvidson's letter to the CIA. For example, he states that Harry "traveled to Cuba for a six month period after the Castro takeover." Arvidson also makes a statement regarding one particular crime which Harry supposedly was convicted of in Canada which is not accurate (unless he knows something not shown in Harry's rap sheet) – although he was correct about the more general aspects of Harry’s background.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

Ernie Lazar · March 1, 2014

(1) ...The reality is that those two field offices were not inventing anything. Instead, they were following mandatory procedures contained in section 107 of the FBI's "Manual of Instructions" [MOI}...an extremely large and very detailed 4-volume handbook of FBI policies and procedures which ALL FBI employees were required to follow. Any deviations or failures to comply with those rules and procedures resulted in what could be blistering rebukes not just from the appropriate Assistant Director – but also from Hoover personally.

(2) ...Significantly, however, there are no references in any FBI file (HQ or field office) to any such document being prepared on Harry.

(3) ...Now, we all know what Paul's reply will be---i.e. there are some "secret files" in existence which we have not yet seen.

(4) ...Why, for example, was Mark Allen able to obtain all the FBI documents sent to the HSCA (including numerous references to informants who provided info to the FBI--and their names were not even redacted although they were then (and in many cases still are alive!), but we can find NO references to Harry in those same documents as an FBI informant?

(5) At some point, one has to...stop fabricating excuses for the total absence of confirming data in FBI files about Harry's status and, simultaneously, the incessant references in FBI files (HQ and field office) which categorically state Harry was NOT an FBI informant!

(6) IN FACT: does anybody know about ANY OTHER person who claims to have been an FBI (or CIA) informant sometime during 1960-1965 and that person provided info re: ANY "plot" -- but the both the FBI and CIA have categorically denied that they were an informant?

(7) According to Paul's "solid points", he is asking us to believe that Chicago and Los Angeles...BOTH field offices "forgot" to send ALL of their required quarterly reports to HQ and neither Hoover or any FBI Supervisor or Assistant Director ever bothered to send the SAC at Chicago or Los Angeles a blistering teletype or airtel demanding such reports immediately!

(8) ...Although I AGREE with Paul – that obtaining and reviewing Harry's Los Angeles FBI file is likely to be quite important because it may provide us with an even more definitive understanding of Harry's relationship with the FBI – AND – that Los Angeles file may also provide many more clues...nevertheless...all of the available evidence reflects a general pattern which every new piece of evidence seems to reinforce.

These quotations from Ernie Lazar are from post #650, dated 17 Feb 2014. (I numbered them for ease of response.)

(1) Ernie Lazar said: “...Those two field offices…were following mandatory procedures contained in section 107 of the FBI's "Manual of Instructions"…Any…failures to comply with those rules…resulted in…blistering rebukes…from the appropriate Assistant Director – but also from Hoover personally.”

Actually, Ernie is exaggerating. I cite former FBI Agent Don Adams who says that J. Edgar Hoover himself broke FBI rules, and of course there was no rebuke at all – on the contrary, the FBI Agents involved were obliged to break those rules in cooperation with Hoover. So it all depends on the context.

Why do you "cite" Don Adams? What do you actually know about him? Did Adams work in Washington DC? Did he have any direct contact with Hoover or with the HQ units responsible for handling informants? What rules regarding informants did Hoover "break" in "cooperation" with other Agents? Be specific. QUOTE something by Adams based upon his personal first-hand experience with informants.

Although this was generally rare, Don Adams is an eye-witness who says that in the single case of the JFK assassination, this was common. Yet Ernie wants us to accept whatever the FBI says, because their bureaucratic procedures are so orderly. Well – yes and no. Hoover himself made exceptions, according to Don Adams. (I’m not inventing this – any impartial reader can read Don Adams’ recent writings on this topic at www.adamsjfk.com .)

(2) Ernie Lazar said, “...Significantly, however, there are no references in any FBI file (HQ or field office) to any such [informant] document being prepared on Harry.” Actually, this is not necessarily damaging to the claims of Harry Dean. While it is possible that the FBI is holding back records related to the JFK assassination – that’s a secondary point. Remember that Harry Dean continually insisted (contrary to W.R. Morris and Ernie Lazar) that he was never a formally recognized, i.e. paid, informant for the FBI. There is simply no contradiction!

Paul -- when you make comments like #2 above, you are revealing profound ignorance and your extreme intellectual dishonesty.

I am now going to give you a challenge which I made to a JBS chapter leader whom I debated who (like yourself) had major problems with presenting factual evidence

I will donate $100 to any charity of your choice if you can produce ANY message by me which has ever claimed that Harry was a "paid informant for the FBI" . Time for you to put up or shut up OR admit you are lying to advance your argument.

Furthermore, please clarify what you mean by your WEASEL WORDS "never a formally recognized" informant. Are you suggesting that the only "formally recognized" FBI informants were "paid"??

But Ernie Lazar keeps reminding us that some FBI Agents wrote to Hoover that Harry Dean himself claimed to be an FBI informant! I question the truth of these statements by these FBI Agents – is there independent confirmation? We’re talking about the JFK assassination here, a case in which Don Adams confesses that rules and procedures were broken!

First of all, Don Adams did not "confess" anything. Second, we are not debating what FBI Agents wrote to Hoover with respect to Harry's status. Harry, himself, has described himself as an informant -- and YOU have described him as an informant and as an undercover agent

To be generous to these Agents, I’d claim that these FBI Agents were mistaken about what they heard. Ernie Lazar objects that I, Paul Trejo, deliberately reject “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” Yes, I’m proud of that, because I’m in good company in this position. Even the US Government HSCA rejected the FBI conclusions on the JFK assassination!

Non-sequitir because most of what Harry wrote to JFK and to Hoover and to the Joe Pyne program and to Sen. George Murphy was accurately summarized in FBI documents.

(3) Ernie Lazar said, “...Now, we all know what Paul's reply will be – i.e. there are some ‘secret files’ in existence which we have not yet seen.” That’s not necessarily so. Many FBI files about Harry Dean are being released now, so perhaps a full and clear portrait of the issues will be presented. I’ll keep an open mind about it.

At the same time, I think most JFK researchers accept that the FBI still keeps some files related to the JFK assassination locked, closed and out of bounds until October, 2017. So, I’ll always reserve the right – until 2017 – to refer to those secret files as a problem. Why should there be any secret FBI files at all about the JFK assassination, given the FBI claim that Lee Harvey Oswald, now dead for 50 years, was the lone killer? It boggles common sense.

(4) Ernie Lazar said, “...Why, for example, was Mark Allen able to obtain all the FBI documents sent to the HSCA…but we can find NO references to Harry in those same documents as an FBI informant?” Actually, the answer is simple: Harry Dean was questioned by neither the Warren Commission in 1964 nor by the HSCA in 1977-1979. It seems that Earl Warren never heard about Harry Dean from the FBI. But we know that the FBI had files on Harry Dean going back to 1960.

Paul -- the answer is not simple. Perhaps you did not understand my point.

Mark Allen got a court order compelling the FBI to turn over everything they gave to the HSCA re: the JFK assassination (and other records re: MLK Jr and RFK). My question to you was not predicated upon any testimony by Harry before HSCA. It was predicated upon WHY there were no CONTEMPORANEOUS serials in FBI (or CIA) files (released to Mark Allen) which described Harry as an informant of any kind NOR even a "confidential source"

For that matter, Ex-General Edwin Walker was not questioned by the HSCA, either! The HSCA had lost the trail, thanks to the mangled job the FBI did for the Warren Commission. The HSCA started from square one, and they never got around to Edwin Walker, though he was mentioned hundreds of times in the Warren Commission volumes! They lost the trail. (My personal theory is that this is exactly what the FBI was hoping for.)

The testimony of Harry Dean is first and foremost (as Paul Brancato noted last week) an accusation of Ex-General Edwin Walker as the central figure in the JFK assassination plot. Harry Dean claims to be an eye-witness to Edwin Walker in a John Birch Society meeting in September 1963, proposing to use Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy in a plot to kill JFK in Dallas in November.

You have never told us if your review of Walker personal papers revealed any Walker comments regarding Harry? If not, what does that suggest to you?

It is no accident that Jack Ruby told Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren a similar account in 1964, naming Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society in Dallas as central in the JFK plot. I’ll keep pursuing this thread until conclusive, empirical and independently confirmed proof is presented.

(5) Ernie Lazar said, “At some point, one has to...stop fabricating excuses for the total absence of confirming data in FBI files about Harry's status and, simultaneously, the incessant references in FBI files (HQ and field office) which categorically state Harry was NOT an FBI informant!”

Actually, Ernie Lazar has been confusing this issue for weeks now. Actually, it is Harry Dean who categorically states that “Harry was NOT an FBI informant!”

Not correct. Both you and Harry have described Harry as an FBI informant. In fact, you both have gone even further than that. You quote Harry as stating that he had case agents assigned to him in Chicago and Los Angeles AND he had FBI code names assigned AND he had a mission assigned to him by the FBI. That, BY DEFINITION, refers to an official FBI informant.

So, why does Ernie keep harping about “the incessant references in FBI files (HQ and field office) which categorically state Harry was NOT an FBI informant”? Clue: Ernie is not saying that the FBI agrees with Harry – although the unwary reader might get that idea.

What?

Actually, Ernie is suggesting – in an underhanded way – that the FBI is contradicting a claim (ostensibly by Harry Dean) that Harry Dean was an FBI informant. This is the irritation that keeps surfacing in Ernie’s posts. He now only insinuates that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI informant. He no longer calls Harry Dean a “xxxx” outright, but insinuates that Harry Dean was not telling the truth due to “confusion” or some other reason to “inflate his credentials.”

Paul---please invest in a dictionary. I have never "insinuated" anything. I have made clear declarative statements that both Harry and yourself have described Harry as an informant and undercover operative or agent for the FBI who was given assignments to produce information for the CIA and the FBI.

IF you now want to claim that neither you or Harry has ever made such comments, then stop beating around the bush and tell us that is your position.

But it comes down to the same thing, doesn’t it? Ernie should be more direct and clear about his claims here. When a serious researcher like Larry Hancock can’t determine what Ernie Lazar is saying, it’s clear that Ernie is being too underhanded in his claims. Come out with it, Ernie, and tell the readers what you really think!

When did Larry Hancock claim he cannot determine what I am saying. QUOTE his comment. You KNOW what I think. It has been self-evident for months.

(6) Ernie Lazar said, “Does anybody know about ANY OTHER person who claims to have been an FBI (or CIA) informant sometime during 1960-1965…but the… FBI and CIA have categorically denied that they were an informant?” Again, Ernie underhandedly suggests that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI informant sometime during 1960-1965.

There is nothing "underhanded" here -- Harry has made such claims -- as have you!

Ernie – you should show hard evidence that this was the case before you go around smearing people like that! Clue: FBI claims in this case are not enough evidence, because we are talking about the JFK assassination, and we have former FBI agent Don Adams (for one) admitting that the FBI cannot be trusted on this topic. So, Ernie, stop accusing Harry Dean of saying something the FBI only claimed he said, until you get independent confirmation!

Paul -- you have lost all credibility. I suggest you graciously apologize for your deliberate mis-representations.

(7) Ernie Lazar said, “According to Paul's ‘solid points,’ he is asking us to believe that Chicago and Los Angeles...BOTH field offices ‘forgot’ to send ALL of their required quarterly reports to HQ…” Actually, I’m not asking any such thing, Ernie.

You asked me to explain why, if Harry Dean was in contact with the FBI from 1960-1962, that FBI Headquarters had no files on Harry Dean until November of 1963. I said that it’s possible the FBI field offices bungled their reporting, since we know they had records on Harry Dean, and we know that FBI headquarters lacked those records.

It’s also possible that the several FBI serials held by the field offices on Harry Dean were simply beneath their radar. However, it is curious that Harry Dean’s name did come up in the context of the FBI investigation of the JFK assassination, but were never presented to Chief Justice Earl Warren. I’ll wait for further evidence to surface.

It is "possible" that as I type this, a 747 jet will crash into my apartment (I live 10 blocks from our airport), but I do not arrange my daily routine around that "possibility". There are meetings of the Flat Earth Society which you should attend.

(8) Ernie Lazar said, “...Although I AGREE with Paul – that obtaining and reviewing Harry's Los Angeles FBI file is likely to be quite important because it may provide us with an even more definitive understanding of Harry's relationship with the FBI – AND – that Los Angeles file may also provide many more clues...nevertheless...all of the available evidence reflects a general pattern which every new piece of evidence seems to reinforce.

Here Ernie alludes to “a general pattern” but now Ernie becomes reticent. He doesn’t come out and say in clear English what he means. The explanation becomes clear by a review of point #5 above.

I have repeatedly stated in plain English what I mean. And, in a previous message, I even listed the type of documents which MIGHT be in the Los Angeles file.

Paul, if YOU GENUINELY do not understand my position about anything we have debated all these months, then please do us all a favor. Present SPECIFIC CLEAR QUESTIONS to me instead of using innuendo, insinuations, and ad hominem attacks on me.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

My replies appear underneath your comments.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

Larry Hancock · March 1, 2014

It seems that just because I've been foolish enough to respond to a couple of calls for comment in this thread I've become part of it.... Let me clarify that it is the length and breadth of the number of posts on this single thread that cautions me from having missed something since I've not read all of them and never will. My remark was that I might have missed something but that I recalled no instance in which Ernie had stated that Harry was a sanctioned or even paid informant although other individuals seem to have made such claims for Harry in past years.

Quit frankly the whole thing seems something of an exercise in semantics since the FBI always took information and statements from sources. Indeed they might maintain contact and take information over an extended period of time without ever even making the move to convert someone to a higher status relationship. You find numerous examples of folks like Hemming calling up the Bureau and providing information, often for their own purposes but also seemingly to attempt to establish some sort of relationship. We found the same thing in one of the most violent Klan terrorists ever to hit Mississippi; he continued to visit the FBI even while conducting terror bombings.

Perhaps the term "source" would help clarify matters in regard to Harry because he did attempt to provide information...then the focus could remain on what he did provide when. And of course hearing conversations about the folks he was associating with talking about killing Kennedy is not particularly exceptional. In AGOG Stu and I cite numerous instances of the same network of right wing radicals having conversations, making plans and even training rifle squads. None of that means they orchestrated the attack in Dallas. And all those conversations were accurately reported by multiple sources to the FBI, triggered investigations and show up in Bureau documents.

Perhaps if Paul and Ernie could dial down on the one key element - did Harry see Lee Oswald with specific people on the west coast, when did he see that and was it reported and captured in FBI documents before or after the assassination, this could move forward. Otherwise it seems like it will go on like this right up to the time that John takes down the forum, with no real forward movement.

-- Larry

Ernie Lazar · March 1, 2014

It has now been 12 days since I first challenged Paul to give us his proof for his libelous ad hominem attack upon my integrity and character (copied below).

Do you think Paul will EVER respond with EVIDENCE?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then there is Paul’s ENORMOUS WHOPPER.

Paul then boldly makes a very clear and defamatory declaration about me. Paul declares that I “continue to misrepresent my position as claiming we have proof.”

I am willing to rest my ENTIRE case against Paul’s method of argument – on just this ONE example.

I will apologize to Paul and I will retract all critical statements which I have ever made about Paul in this entire thread if Paul will just tell readers WHEN and WHERE I supposedly made the statement which Paul now attributes to me.

Remember: Paul is asserting that I have claimed that Paul or Harry stated that they have PROOF that Harry met with Grapp in mid-1961.

And that is what Paul now describes as me “misrepresenting” his position because Paul declares he has never made such a statement.

And to emphasize his point, Paul closes with this comment:

“I have always, always, always said we don’t have proof.”

By using three “always” – Paul is emphasizing that he is angry about my supposed mis-representation of his position about this matter.

HOWEVER: Notice, that (as is Paul’s routine custom), Paul NEVER quotes anything I wrote nor does he even cite a message number so that interested parties could refer back to my original statement to check out where I supposedly stated that either he or Harry had “proof” of Harry meeting with Grapp in mid-1961.

WHEN AND WHERE DID I STATE WHAT PAUL CLAIMS?

QUOTE IT!

DON’T JUST ATTRIBUTE THE COMMENT TO ME.

Ernie Lazar · March 1, 2014

It seems that just because I've been foolish enough to respond to a couple of calls for comment in this thread I've become part of it.... Let me clarify that it is the length and breadth of the number of posts on this single thread that cautions me from having missed something since I've not read all of them and never will. My remark was that I might have missed something but that I recalled no instance in which Ernie had stated that Harry was a sanctioned or even paid informant although other individuals seem to have made such claims for Harry in past years.

Quit frankly the whole thing seems something of an exercise in semantics since the FBI always took information and statements from sources. Indeed they might maintain contact and take information over an extended period of time without ever even making the move to convert someone to a higher status relationship. You find numerous examples of folks like Hemming calling up the Bureau and providing information, often for their own purposes but also seemingly to attempt to establish some sort of relationship. We found the same thing in one of the most violent Klan terrorists ever to hit Mississippi; he continued to visit the FBI even while conducting terror bombings.

Perhaps the term "source" would help clarify matters in regard to Harry because he did attempt to provide information...then the focus could remain on what he did provide when. And of course hearing conversations about the folks he was associating with talking about killing Kennedy is not particularly exceptional. In AGOG Stu and I cite numerous instances of the same network of right wing radicals having conversations, making plans and even training rifle squads. None of that means they orchestrated the attack in Dallas. And all those conversations were accurately reported by multiple sources to the FBI, triggered investigations and show up in Bureau documents.

Perhaps if Paul and Ernie could dial down on the one key element - did Harry see Lee Oswald with specific people on the west coast, when did he see that and was it reported and captured in FBI documents before or after the assassination, this could move forward. Otherwise it seems like it will go on like this right up to the time that John takes down the forum, with no real forward movement.

-- Larry

Thank you Larry. You have accurately summarized (in your first two paragraphs) the essence of what I have unsuccessfully been writing to Paul for months. And you were able to figure all this out just from a cursory review of this debate.

Ernie Lazar · March 1, 2014

I do have one disagreement with what Larry Hancock wrote -- and I will explain why after I provide the following preface.

Last night I was going through the detailed notes which I originally wrote 25 years+ ago when I finally received all 60 sections of the FBI HQ file on the JBS. Altogether, I typed about 100 pages of single-spaced notes.

As I refreshed my memory about everything contained in the JBS file, I saw literally hundreds of serials which reported upon letters and phone calls (and occasionally telegrams) received by local FBI field offices from self-identified JBS members. The local FBI field office then forwarded the information to HQ.

Frequently, the JBS member contacted their local field office to report what they thought was important information about some local person or organization whom they suspected of being "subversive" or "un-American" or "pro-Communist" or otherwise a security concern.

The field office dutifully recorded each contact -- because that was standard Bureau procedure. In addition, when JBS members wrote directly to Hoover in Washington DC, they were instructed to report any concerns to their local field office -- and Hoover usually provided them with the FBI field office address.

Now---in Paul Trejo's scheme of things, ALL of these JBS members just became "FBI informants" -- because they contacted their local field office and the field office recorded their contacts.

In addition, the JBS HQ file has THOUSANDS of serials which discuss letters and phone calls which HQ or local field offices received from individuals who reported about local controversies involving the Birch Society. These individuals reported on such matters as:

* disputes within their churches

* disputes about the Great Decisions discussion program

* disputes about UNICEF and UNESCO

* disputes about local speeches made by prominent lecturers (such as Dr. Harry Overstreet)

* disputes about water fluoridation

* disputes about Warren Supreme Court decisions

* disputes about JBS showings of filmstrips such as "Communism on the Map"

* disputes about proposed local mental health programs

* disputes about the United Nations

* disputes about local media coverage of the JBS

-----and the list goes on and on

Many incoming letters were from individuals who had been invited to attend a local JBS recruitment meeting where they sat and listened to a multi-hour tape recording of the same speech which Robert Welch made to businessmen at the founding meeting of the JBS in Indianapolis (December 1958). After that meeting, these folks contacted their local FBI office to inquire if the JBS was a legitimate anti-Communist organization which the FBI (or Hoover) would recommend. In many cases, these folks reported that they were concerned that the JBS might be a "Communist front" organization because it was so effectively trashing our entire national leadership and the JBS meeting made it seem like a Communist takeover of our country was imminent and inevitable.

Once again, the local FBI field offices dutifully recorded all these contacts and sent them up the food chain to FBI HQ in Washington DC.

So, I guess in Paul Trejo's scheme of things, all the thousands of individuals who made these reports were also "FBI informants".

MY DIFFERENCE WITH LARRY HANCOCK

Larry wrote in his message that "the whole thing seems something of an exercise in semantics since the FBI always took information and statements from sources. Indeed they might maintain contact and take information over an extended period of time without ever even making the move to convert someone to a higher status relationship."

I would respectfully suggest that this is NOT just "an exercise in semantics". The FBI did not devote entire sections of its "Manual of Instructions" (and numerous pages) plus periodic updates in SAC Letters sent to every field office merely to discuss "semantics".

Actual FBI informants were given assignments. They were carefully monitored. They were told to report to specific case agents. They were given code names. Their information was disseminated (via code to conceal their identity) at the highest levels of our government (including to the White House, to Congressional committees, to military intelligence, to the U.S. Secret Service) plus to police departments, United States Attorneys and to a host of other agencies and officials.

Actual FBI informants often were called upon to testify, under oath, in court proceedings and administrative hearings and their testimony often put people in jail OR resulted in people being deported from our country OR caused an employer to terminate their employment OR caused an organization (such as a labor union) to not accept them as members OR prevented people from getting security clearances.

So, respectfully, this is not just a matter of "semantics".

Edited March 1, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

Harry Dean: Memoirs

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements