Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Let's discuss another Harry "anomaly"

1. Joan Mellen's 2005 book, "A Farewell To Justice" makes the following observation. [And, incidentally, UNLIKE Paul Trejo, Joan's book is heavily footnoted so that readers can discover upon what evidence her assertions and statements are made.]

"Approximately two weeks after the assassination, Harry Dean of the Chicago FPCC met with an FBI Agent named Rapp of the Pomona California office, who told him not to talk to anyone else. Dean told Rapp that he had heard Loran Hall state that a Communist would be framed for the murder of JFK."

The footnote reference for this statement is on page 278 and it refers to House Select Committee on Assassinations document 180-10105-10298 which is an interview of Harry by HSCA investigator Kenneth Klein which resulted in a 5/23/77 memo from Klein to Robert K. Tannenbaum.

The original Klein document makes this statement about what Harry said during his interview with Klein:

"He stated that in California he was an FBI informant and he informed them of the activities of the Covina John Birch Society. He said that in 1962-1963, he was present at meetings in which Loran Hall talked about how much he was offered to kill President Kennedy. Also present at these meetings were Lawrence Howard, General Walker, and Guy Galbadon. He said that they would frame a Communist for the murder. They were going to kill President Kennedy in Mexico City. He stated that he relayed this information to the FBI's Los Angeles office. He said that after the JFK assassination he met with FBI Agent Rapp of the Pomona office approximately two weeks after the assassination and Rapp told him not to talk to anyone."

2. So the first thing we learn is that (unlike Paul Trejo), Joan Mellen can (1) accurately quote or paraphrase the substance of what documentary evidence contains and (2) Joan provides relevant footnotes so that interested parties may fact-check her references.

3. Now -- with respect to the substance of what Harry told Klein during his interview.

3.1 First of all, we see yet again that Harry described himself in May 1977 as an "FBI informant" despite repeated contacts with FBI Agents who told him not to do so. [see more details below.]

3.2 If we calculate "approximately two weeks" after JFK's murder, that would result in a period sometime in early December 1963. But, let's give Harry some leeway here and just say all of December 1963 and all of January 1964.

3.3. There are only THREE serials in Harry's file during that December-January time frame. They are as follows:

(1) 12/2/63 (Los Angeles 105-12933, serial #9) which is an airtel from Hoover to SAC Los Angeles which pertains to Hoover's airtel to Chicago dated 11/22/63 and Chicago's reply dated 11/26/63.)

Serial #9 is the serial where Hoover gives Los Angeles instructions about how to respond to Harry's 11/19/63 letter to Hoover. Readers will recall that I previously pointed out that Hoover stated that any reply to Harry's letter would be held in abeyance until both Chicago and Los Angeles had provided HQ with a summary of information in their files re: Harry so that HQ could evaluate the statements made by Harry in his letter to Hoover. Hoover also asked each field office for their recommendations concerning what sort of response to make to Harry.

So, serial #9 contains Hoover's instructions to Los Angeles, which were as follows:

"You are instructed to have Harry Dean contacted in the immediate future by two mature and experienced Agents. He should be advised that he has never operated as an 'undercover agent' for the FBI and has never been authorized to represent this Bureau pr act in any official capacity for it. He should be advised that the FBI does not issue or deny clearances of any type and that his association with the FPCC was upon his own volition. It should be pointed out to him that the FBI did not encourage his association with that organization and he should be told that he should not claim any past relationship with this Bureau. Results are to be furnished, under above caption, to reach the Bureau by 12-12-63." [and a copy of this airtel was sent to Chicago field office].

Los Angeles date-stamped the Hoover "airtel" communication "received" on 12/3/63 -- and the Agent who initialed the document is (as you might expect) William J. McCauley.

(2) The second serial is serial #10 dated 12/10/63 which is from SAC Los Angeles to HQ (Hoover) to report upon their contact with Harry -- per instructions in serial #9 from HQ.

Los Angeles told HQ that:

"Harry Dean was contacted at his residence 18109 Atina Drive, La Puente California, by Special Agents Richard L. Cromwell and William J. McCauley on 12/10/63. Dean produced a receipt indicating he joined the FPCC in Chicago on 7/28/60, and was a member of the July 26th Movement in Chicago on 4/5/61. He said he had connections, however, with the J26M, as early as 1958, visited Cuba in June, 1960, and on his return to Chicago had joined the FPCC at the instigation of one Juan Del Rosario and Joaquin Freire, then Cuban Counsel in Chicago (since defected). He said that shortly after he joined the FPCC and was elected Secretary of the chapter in Chicago, he discovered he was associated with Communists and Trokskyites, and that about early August 1960 he contacted the FBI in Chicago. He said he thereafter furnished information concerning the FPCC and J26M orally to the FBI in Chicago until about July 1961 when he moved with his family to California.

Dean said that he is fully aware that his association with the above organizations was initiated and continued on his own volition, that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest.

He said that he has never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI or as one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it.

He said that he was not so concerned over the fact his name appeared in the Senate Subcommittee report on the hearings of the FPCC in Chicago on July 13, 14, 1961, as that he was never called to testify, as he feels he could have effectively exposed the whole matter from personal knowledge and helped to ruin the FPCC. He added that it is possible he might some day be concerned with an employment clearance, but that he is presently suffering no jeopardy working as a plasterer out of the Plasterers Local number 2, of Los Angeles. It was explained to him that the Bureau neither issues nor denies clearances concerning anyone, that it would be the responsibility of the particular defense agency concerned. Dean said he understood the policy. It is understood that Dean is in possession of considerable literature of an anti-Communist nature.

Additional information relating to the FPCC and the J26M in Chicago furnished by Dean, will be made the subject of a separate communication."

So what can we learn from this serial?

(1) First, this serial is the one which most closely approximates the "approximately two weeks" contact date which Harry mentioned in his Klein interview (i.e. it is 18 days after JFK's murder). However, there was no contact with Agent Rapp (referring to Ferd J. Rapp). Instead, the contact was with McCauley and Cromwell.

(2) Second, the summary provided by SAC Los Angeles to HQ has the initials of the person who dictated the report upon which the airtel was based -- i.e. "WJM". So the information contained in this airtel to HQ was provided by McCauley.

(3) The summary by McCauley concerning his (and Cromwell's) meeting with Harry is significant because, remember that Paul Trejo has described McCauley as an arrogant and insulting person, but, nevertheless, his report appears to conform to Harry's general narrative. In other words, despite McCauley's personal opinions about Harry (as a "mental case"), his personal opinions do not seem to have colored or distorted what McCauley reported regarding what Harry said to these two Agents. There is nothing in this airtel which disadvantages Harry. The information contained in this airtel is in the professional form you would expect and it matches what Harry has previously written.

(4) In the past, Paul Trejo has cited the portion of this airtel which refers to Harry stating that he "never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI or as one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it."

Now consider the hypocrisy of Paul about this matter.

We have no literal transcript of what questions Harry was asked nor what answers Harry gave. Instead, we just have a summary memo prepared by an FBI Special Agent whom Paul has characterized as arrogant and insulting.

In the past, Paul has said such FBI summary memos are NOT acceptable evidence because of the "bias" of the FBI and its history of dishonesty. NEVERTHELESS, because Paul Trejo thinks this particular memo supports Harry's narrative, then, now, it is suddenly TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE evidence!

ONLY when FBI memos reflect what Paul perceives as adverse info re: something Harry has said or written, does Paul object to accepting whatever an FBI Agent reports and then Paul wants literal transcripts --- even though no such transcripts exist (which is precisely why Paul demands them!)

(3) The last serial in the December/January time period is dated January 28, 1964, serial #11, from SAC Los Angeles to HQ (Hoover).

This is the serial which provides the information that was discussed at the end of serial #10, i.e. "Additional information relating to the FPCC and the J26M in Chicago furnished by Dean, will be made the subject of a separate communication."

This is a 7-page serial which lists all of the 16 documents which Harry gave to McCauley and Cromwell concerning Harry's Chicago FPCC and J26M activities and his correspondence with Dr. Juan Orta (Cuba).

This serial was also based upon information provided by WJM (McCauley).

And, once again, Paul does not have ANY objection to the summary which McCauley wrote about the information Harry provided.

BUT how come we have no references to Agent Ferd J. Rapp?

The FIRST reference to Agent Rapp in Harry's Los Angeles file (after JFK was murdered) comes from a letter which Harry wrote to FBI-Los Angeles on 10/3/64. Harry claims he had a meeting with Rapp in "late September 1964". But there is no document in Harry's file which reports upon that supposed September meeting.

But I can now tell you when and where Harry had his contact with Agent Rapp.

Let us first recall what Harry told Kenneth D. Klein, namely:

"He said that after the JFK assassination he met with FBI Agent Rapp of the Pomona office approximately two weeks after the assassination and Rapp told him not to talk to anyone."

On 11/21/64 at 5:40pm, Agent John P. Andrews answered a phone call from Harry. Here is Agent Andrews' summary:

"C., [Complainant] claiming past assistance to govt. re Cuban matter, in an incoherent manner while another party at his residence was interrupting him on a telephone extension, related that he has been in contact with this office recently and today received additional information to the effect that Guy Galbadon had telephoned him that Larry Howard would kill Lorenzo Hall, if and when he can locate him. Dean did not want to repeat previous info furnished. He also claims own life may be in jeopardy, details not furnished."

This contact form was subsequently initialed by Agent Ferd Rapp.

-a- So Andrews is yet another FBI Agent who described Harry as "incoherent" (or some comparable term)---based upon his personal contact with Harry.

-b- Harry's contact with Agent Rapp did not occur "approximately two weeks" after JFK's assassination, It occurred almost a YEAR later!

THEN, on 11/30/64, Agent Rapp wrote a memo to record his interview of Harry -- because of Harry's prior phone call to Los Angeles.

Harry reported that he had read the Warren Report and was particularly interested in a section concerning Oswald's "alleged association with various Mexican or Cuban individuals".

Harry referred to the testimony of Silvia Odio and the visit of Lawrence Howard and Loran Hall. Harry told Rapp that he had met Hall and heard him make an anti-Castro speech in Covina in September 1963. And about that time he also met Lawrence Howard but he had no contact with either of them since the assassination of JFK and he never heard either of them make anti-JFK statements. However, Harry "stated it was interesting to speculate that it might have been Oswald actually with these two men in Dallas. He speculated that both Hall and Howard who are anti-Castro leaders of the Cuban underground, actually wanted President Kennedy removed from the scene because of the failure of the 1960 Cuban invasion. He stated that in his opinion Hall and Howard would be capable of entering into conspiracy with Oswald to commit the assassination."

NOTE: In November 1964, Harry was "speculating" that Oswald WAS involved in committing the murder of JFK (along with Hall and Howard). And, oddly, Harry does not even mention Walker, Rousselot, Galbadon, or the JBS!

Reviewing the entire Los Angeles file makes it very obvious that Harry would often write letters or make phone calls to the Los Angeles office to report what he thought were interesting tidbits of information or to speculate (as the example above indicates) about some matter.

But Harry was NEVER an FBI informant. Nor was he given any assignments,

Now----when Harry confronted actual FBI Agents in his home, he made all the right clucking sounds and agreed with them that he was NOT an FBI informant or undercover operative nor did he join (or stay in) any organizations at the behest of the FBI. Instead, everything Harry did was based upon his own decisions and for his own reasons.

HOWEVER, when Harry was out in the real world (away from FBI Agents), he conveyed the impression that he was given ASSIGNMENTS by the FBI (and CIA) and he used varying terminology to convey that message.

Sometimes he used the word "informant"

Sometimes he used the phrase "street informer"

Sometimes he used the phrase "undercover operative"

Sometimes he used the word "spy"

Sometimes he wrote advertisements intended to solicit customers for his publications where he described himself as "undercover informant to the FBI"

Sometimes he used language which suggested that he was an FBI "agent" or he accepted questions with "agent" in the predicate without correcting the questioner

Sometimes he accepted questions whose premise was that he was "an employee of the Federal government"

As previously mentioned, the MOST sophisticated people (law enforcement) and the LEAST sophisticated people (ordinary readers) and both Harry's friends and admirers (such as here in EF) and his critics -- all came away from their contacts with Harry believing that he intended to convey the impression that he was CALLED UPON by the "intelligence services" of our country to provide them with specific information which THEY wanted. Which is why Harry wrote, in his own words, here in this thread (in July 2005) that :

It should be remembered, that before and after, reporting to the Bureau re: conversations about Kennedy by those JBS persons involved, I was at the same time advising the Bureau, as requested, re; certain other individuals and groups,{eg} of my section {as a member} Southern California, Minuteman activities, Fair Play For Cuba Committee person{s}, Alpha 66 Los Angeles leader{s} etc;. Certainly the Bureau checked any and all such details, as remote, or impossible as some reports might seem..... Bureau agents reactions were always no-nonsence, matter-of-fact, in personal meetings, or by phone.

[my bold and underline emphasis]

Edited March 16, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

In a further effort to discover relevant information on Harry Dean, I have today submitted yet another new FOIA request on the following subjects:

1. Specific HQ and Los Angeles field files on Alpha 66/SNFE and JURE

2. Chicago and Los Angeles FBI files captioned "Anti-Castro Activities"

3. The personnel file of Los Angeles Special Agent Ferd J. Rapp

4. Additional cross-reference serials pertaining to Harry which are listed on his HQ and Los Angeles field file "search slips"

Naturally, Paul Trejo would never dream of doing any of this -- because he just relies upon one (and only one) source (Harry).

[Paul Trejo]

Finally Ernie Lazar has found some evidence from the FBI itself that Harry Dean was in contact with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp!

So, does Ernie Lazar show the common courtesy of apologizing to Harry Dean for all those recent posts in which he doubted that Harry Dean was in contact with Wesley Grapp? Not a chance.

Instead, Ernie wishes to again accept what the FBI says about Harry Dean at face value -- that Harry claimed to be an official FBI Informant (when actually Harry was only an informal information "source" for the FBI in both Chicago and Los Angeles from 1960 through 1964).

Yet we have already seen from both former FBI Agents Wesley Swearingen and Donald Adams that when it comes to the topic of the JFK assassination, the FBI cannot be trusted. Even when internal FBI Agents attempted to follow up warm leads about a conspiracy to murder JFK in 1963, they were suppressed at every turn.

Again, Ernie Lazar wishes us to accept the FBI at its word when speaking about Harry Dean. Little does Ernie Lazar realize that for the past several months he has been accumulating FBI documents that increasingly, bit by bit, confirm Harry Dean's story.

Ernie Lazar's case against Harry Dean since 2010 is crumbling before his very eyes -- the more he tries to prove that Harry Dean is a xxxx (e.g. post #551) the more Ernie winds up proving that Harry Dean has been telling the truth for 49 years, and taking it in the teeth.

Soon I anticipate that Harry Dean will receive from the FBI all of its records about Harry himself, and then this thread won't need to depend on Ernie Lazar to be its main source of FBI records. At that point we can all begin a truly objective reading of the FBI record, instead of the bias we still receive from Ernie Lazar today.

Best regrds,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I'd like to add a word here about the recent eBooks offered by Harry Dean, Wesley Swearingen and Donald Adams.

Whlie a superficial reading will see only the differences between these three accounts of a conspiracy to murder JFK, a more careful reading of the three accounts will show their common threads.

Former FBI Agent Donald Adams strongly suspected that right-wing racist Joseph Milteer was involved in a conspiracy to murder JFK, because as covert tape recordings show, Milteer knew too many specific details about what would happen in two weeks time in Dallas.

Former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen strongly suspected that rogue CIA agents from JM/Wave and their Mafia contractors, in their zeal to kill Fidel Castro, because of their many failures to do so, finally gave up and blamed JFK for their failures, and murdered JFK instead. Swearingen's evidence is that he was told about such a plot in October of 1962 by an unofficial informant from JM/Wave, and that all of the people named to Swearingen died gruesome Mafia deaths -- often before they were scheduled to testify before the HSCA in the late 1970's -- and some before that time.

Notice that Don Adams knows nothing about Swearingen's list of names, just as Swearingen knows nothing about Adams' list of names. As I said, a superficial reading would only point out the differences. So where is the common thread?

Most of the theories about the JFK murder in the past 50 years have been only partially correct. No single theory has been able to obtain a consensus.

The main reason for this state of affairs, of course, is because the FBI has refused to release its secret files about Lee Harvey Oswald. There are vital facts that no theorist about the JFK murder can obtain -- and therefore some guesswork is always a part of every theory in the JFK case. This was true as early as Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, Jim Marr, Jim Garrison all the way through Robert Blakey, Gaeton Fonzi and all the rest.

It's like getting a simple problem of long addition to solve, where one of the long numbers is hidden from view. It could be ANYTHING. Therefore, all attempts to arrive at the total sum will be mere guesswork -- and the possibilities are literally endless.

Or, it's like the old Hindu tale of the ten blind men, each touching a separate part of an elephant, and attempting to describe the elephant. It's like a snake, said the one touching its tail. No, it's like a wall, said the one touching its side. No, it's like a tree, said the one touching its leg. No, it's like a blanket, said the one touching its ear. And so on.

A superficial reading would simply reject each of the accounts of the blind men -- however, a more judicious logic would somehow combine them to produce a more accurate portrayal.

Anyway, here's the interesting part. Harry Dean provides the common thread to combine both of those theories by Wes Swearingen and Don Adams.

Harry Dean's account is that Ex-General Edwin Walker and other members and supporters of the extreme right-wing John Birch Society in Southern California (including Loran Hall and Larry Howard) were at the leadership of a JFK murder plot that openly named Lee Harvey Oswald. Superficially, it would seem that Harry's account has no relationship to the stories of either Swearingen or Adams; and there seems to be only a difference.

But let's look closer. Notice that the accounts of FBI Agents Swearingen and Adams are at opposite corners. In Swearingen's corner we find only JM/Wave and Mafia folks. In Adams' corner we have only the racist right-wing. However, the account of Harry Dean tells about both JM/Wave and extreme rightist folks.

Notice this connecting link -- Loran Hall and Larry Howard, were notorious members of Interpen (led by Gerry Patrick Hemming) which was a known asset of JM/Wave.

Notice this connecting link -- Ex-General Edwin Walker was a well-known leader of the extreme rightist movement in the South in 1962-1963. The racist right in Georgia (the home of Joseph Milteer) was devoted to the speaking tours of Ex-General Walker who was famous throughout the US South which hated the rise of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. (as did J. Edgar Hoover). Walker led the race riots at Ole Miss university in late 1962 -- so he was even offered the role of Grand Dragon of a KKK Klavern in the South.

In conclusion, if we add these accounts together, a more detailed, synthetic portrait begins to emerge. Instead of three different accounts, we can now suggest that JM/Wave, the Mafia and the Racist Right all shared key roles in the JFK murder. The memoirs of Harry Dean make this possible.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Finally Ernie Lazar has found some evidence from the FBI itself that Harry Dean was in contact with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp!

So, does Ernie Lazar show the common courtesy of apologizing to Harry Dean for all those recent posts in which he doubted that Harry Dean was in contact with Wesley Grapp? Not a chance.

Instead, Ernie wishes to again accept what the FBI says about Harry Dean at face value -- that Harry claimed to be an official FBI Informant (when actually Harry was only an informal information "source" for the FBI in both Chicago and Los Angeles from 1960 through 1964).

Yet we have already seen from both former FBI Agents Wesley Swearingen and Donald Adams that when it comes to the topic of the JFK assassination, the FBI cannot be trusted. Even when internal FBI Agents attempted to follow up warm leads about a conspiracy to murder JFK in 1963, they were suppressed at every turn.

Again, Ernie Lazar wishes us to accept the FBI at its word when speaking about Harry Dean. Little does Ernie Lazar realize that for the past several months he has been accumulating FBI documents that increasingly, bit by bit, confirm Harry Dean's story.

Ernie Lazar's case against Harry Dean since 2010 is crumbling before his very eyes -- the more he tries to prove that Harry Dean is a xxxx (e.g. post #551) the more Ernie winds up proving that Harry Dean has been telling the truth for 49 years, and taking it in the teeth.

Soon I anticipate that Harry Dean will receive from the FBI all of its records about Harry himself, and then this thread won't need to depend on Ernie Lazar to be its main source of FBI records. At that point we can all begin a truly objective reading of the FBI record, instead of the bias we still receive from Ernie Lazar today.

Best regrds,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- What are you talking about? What "evidence" did I find that Harry was in contact with Wesley Grapp?

I discussed Harry's contact with Agent Ferd J. Rapp --- did you misread his name as "Grapp?

[Ernie Lazar]

Finally Ernie Lazar has found some evidence from the FBI itself that Harry Dean was in contact with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp!

No, Paul, as my previous message indicated, you seem you have another brain freeze about this. When I first received his Los Angeles file (as paper docs), I posted a message stating that Wesley Grapp's name does not appear EVEN ONE TIME in the entire file (265pp). After I received the CD containing the same file, I did an OCR scan and checked again to make sure that I did not miss anything. And, AGAIN, there was not a single reference to Wesley Grapp in the entire file.

But you unintentionally raise an interesting point.

During the period from March 1964 forward, Grapp was the SAC of the Los Angeles office so he saw all the memos or reports to HQ which were sent captioned "from: SAC Los Angeles".

Significantly, there is not a single instance when Grapp hand-wrote any comments on any memo -- not even when "arrogant and insulting" Agent McCauley wrote highly pejorative statements about Harry on two memos/reports. Nor is there ANY comment by Grapp to chastise any OTHER Agent who wrote critical descriptions about Harry's mental state (such as "incoherent", "rambling", "disconnected"). One would think that if Grapp and Harry were such close buddies (driving around together for hours etc), Grapp might have interceded with his subordinates to tell them something like this: "Tone down your criticisms. Harry is a valuable information source."

So, does Ernie Lazar show the common courtesy of apologizing to Harry Dean for all those recent posts in which he doubted that Harry Dean was in contact with Wesley Grapp? Not a chance.

I would be HAPPY to apologize to Harry for ANY mistake which I have made. The problem is that there is NO documentary evidence to support Harry's assertions. IBUT, there are examples where different FBI employees, at different times, and in different locations, made critical comments about Harry's mental state. AND there are NO comments by ANY FBI employee which express ANY positive evaluation regarding Harry's numerous contacts with the FBI.

Instead, Ernie wishes to again accept what the FBI says about Harry Dean at face value -- that Harry claimed to be an official FBI Informant (when actually Harry was only an informal information "source" for the FBI in both Chicago and Los Angeles from 1960 through 1964).

You are correct in one limited sense.

ALL research starts with a NEUTRAL question such as: "What did FBI-Los Angeles think about Harry Dean and the information he provided?".

So, yes, I accept "at face value" what the available primary source documentary evidence reveals -- JUST LIKE YOU DO when you discover an FBI document which YOU interpret as positive evidence for YOUR point of view. And JUST LIKE YOU DO when you accept (at face value) whatever Harry tells you.

We have seen MULTIPLE explicit and unambiguous examples (including many in Harry's own words posted here on EF and in his "I Confess" advertising flyer) which establish, BEYOND DISPUTE, that Harry described himself as an "FBI informant" and comparable terms.

YOU use the word "official" ONLY to confuse the issue and misdirect everybody's attention away from how people perceived Harry's statements and insinuations.

There is no such thing as an "unofficial FBI informant" -- and nobody reading Harry's comments or listening to Harry speak made such a fastidious distinction as you now want us to make.

Yet we have already seen from both former FBI Agents Wesley Swearingen and Donald Adams that when it comes to the topic of the JFK assassination, the FBI cannot be trusted. Even when internal FBI Agents attempted to follow up warm leads about a conspiracy to murder JFK in 1963, they were suppressed at every turn.

Logical fallacy. Everything has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. One example (or even a few examples) of something does not permit an overall generalized conclusion especially about an entire large institution. In ANY large organization (government or private enterprise or non-profit group) there are ALWAYS "examples" of mistakes and misjudgments and defects in logic or violations of policies and procedures.

You probably have recently read the reports about General Motors being aware of a defect in its cars but not reporting that defect in the prescribed time required by law. Does that mean we should assume that ALL 202,000 General Motors employees are DISHONEST? Similarly, in recent years, we have read about instances when serving officers in our military have been found guilty of adultery or other crimes. Does that mean that all 40 million men and women who have ever served in our military were adulterers and murderers and depraved immoral beings?

We could use the exact same principle which your propose we adopt AGAINST Harry. We could say that ONE or TWO examples of false statements made by Harry means "Harry cannot be trusted" because he is a fundamentally dishonest person. But you (and most rational beings) would violently object to any such conclusion because you know that EVERYTHING Harry claims has to be judged on a case-by-case basis and THAT will ultimately determine what degree of Harry's overall narrative should be preserved or what "minor edits" or major revisions need to be made.

Again, Ernie Lazar wishes us to accept the FBI at its word when speaking about Harry Dean. Little does Ernie Lazar realize that for the past several months he has been accumulating FBI documents that increasingly, bit by bit, confirm Harry Dean's story.

JUST LIKE YOU ACCEPT THE FBI AT ITS WORD -- when there is ANYTHING in an FBI document which you interpret as favorable evidence for Harry. There is NOTHING in the FBI documents I have discovered which "confirm" Harry's story other than ONE point which was NOT in dispute, i.e. that Harry (upon his own volition) contacted the FBI to give them what HE thought the FBI might be interested in. PERIOD. END OF STORY. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Americans contacted the FBI to report all sorts of information. Much of that information was TOTALLY FALSE (remember John Arvidson's letter to the CIA regarding the Warren Commission Exhibit #237 which contained a photo which Arvidson thought MIGHT be Harry?). Arvidson was a political soul-mate with Harry. They were BOTH members of the JBS and of Minutemen. NEVERTHELESS, Arvidson was TOTALLY WRONG -- but his information got into FBI and CIA files! Ditto for Harry.

Ernie Lazar's case against Harry Dean since 2010 is crumbling before his very eyes -- the more he tries to prove that Harry Dean is a xxxx (e.g. post #551) the more Ernie winds up proving that Harry Dean has been telling the truth for 49 years, and taking it in the teeth.

For the 100th time, I am not trying "to prove that Harry Dean is a xxxx". That is YOUR "EITHER/OR" MENTAL DEFECT. It is YOU who wrote about the 11/63 Hoover letter that EITHER the FBI was telling the truth OR Harry was "lying". So, BY YOUR OWN EXPLICTLY STATED STANDARD, you concluded that Harry is lying. BUT I DO NOT!

UNLIKE YOURSELF, I am aggressively pursuing all documentary evidence to find out what exists that does or does not support Harry's narrative. YOU, by contrast, are ONLY interested in data which supports Harry's narrative.

Soon I anticipate that Harry Dean will receive from the FBI all of its records about Harry himself, and then this thread won't need to depend on Ernie Lazar to be its main source of FBI records. At that point we can all begin a truly objective reading of the FBI record, instead of the bias we still receive from Ernie Lazar today.

Harry will not receive any significant number of FBI records "soon". First of all, virtually everything has been transferred to NARA.

Second, the current median processing time for "small track" requests (i.e. less than 500 pages) is 5 months (AFTER the request is assigned to an analyst). So, 6-8 months would be the best guess right now and, most likely, the FBI will tell Harry that "no main file records" exist. It is possible that they will send Harry a copy of his "rap sheet" which I already provided in this forum AND they might have some cross-reference serials from Detroit or Indianapolis or Ottawa-Canada which could be released if Harry asked for a search of those locations.

And what do you mean by "truly objective reading"? Is that your way of insinuating that I am lying?

Do you HONESTLY think that there will magically appear some NEW information which I have not shared with you?

AND if Harry or you decides to spend the $400 to obtain from NARA the two files which exist there and you discover that I have accurately and truthfully reported their contents -- will you have the ordinary human decency to ADMIT IN PUBLIC that YOU DELIBERATELY LIED about my character and integrity? I think not -- because you are IDENTICAL to Birch Society members i.e. you NEVER admit your own grave errors in judgment or facts.

Best regrds,

--Paul Trejo

My replies appear underneath your comments.

[Pat Speer]

Let's try to keep the "L" word at a minimum. I know I am one to talk as I spend much of my online book trying to figure out who is "lying" and who is simply mistaken, but the forum is a much more congenial place when we discuss the value of someone's testimony, or if they are credible, and don't presume to know their motives.

[Ernie Lazar]

Let's try to keep the "L" word at a minimum. I know I am one to talk as I spend much of my online book trying to figure out who is "lying" and who is simply mistaken, but the forum is a much more congenial place when we discuss the value of someone's testimony, or if they are credible, and don't presume to know their motives.

OK Pat but please tell me what word do you think I should use when someone repeatedly and incessantly mis-represents what I have explicitly written or when they FALSELY attribute some belief or position to me -- EVEN WHEN I politely correct their first "mistake" but they then choose to totally ignore that correction and, instead, REPEAT their original falsehood.

For example:

(1) If I state explicitly and repeatedly that I have NOT "cherry picked" only certain serials from an FBI file to report on their content here but, instead, I have accurately, and truthfully, provided a summary of the 65 serials and 265 pages appearing in one specific FBI file (in their chronological order) BUT somebody declares (with absolutely NO factual evidence) that I have been "biased" and dishonest in my summary of those serials and I have "cherry picked" only certain serials while deliberately ignoring others.

OR

(2) If I state explicitly and repeatedly that I do not accept every word or syllable appearing in FBI files as gospel truth about any matter and, furthermore, I have for many decades been critical of both the FBI as an institution as well as of its leadership (especially during Hoover's tenure) -- BUT -- somebody declares that I have "blind faith" in the FBI or I am "biased" and cannot recognize something sinister about the FBI (even though I have stated that I welcome any FACT-based discussion which provides EVIDENCE (not opinions) about such matters

OR

(3) If somebody declares that I am "defending" the Birch Society when for my ENTIRE ADULT LIFETIME (even starting when I was a teenager) I have been severely critical of the JBS and there are literally SCORES of published letters and articles over 4 decades which PROVE beyond dispute that I have been a severe critic of the JBS --- then what word is appropriate to describe the intellectual dishonesty of the person who insists that I am "defending" the JBS? or the FBI?

[Paul Trejo]

Let's try to keep the "L" word at a minimum. I know I am one to talk as I spend much of my online book trying to figure out who is "lying" and who is simply mistaken, but the forum is a much more congenial place when we discuss the value of someone's testimony, or if they are credible, and don't presume to know their motives.

Many thanks, Pat, for your call to civility on this Forum thread.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Former FBI Agent turned whistle-blower, Wesley Swearingen, wrote the following in 1995:

"When the FBI raided my boat, insulted my wife, searched our safe deposit box and raided my attorney's office at night without a valid warrant, the idiotic FBI goons expected to walk away from all that as though nothing had ever happened. Well, something did happen. The FBI's stupidity on that day gave me a chance to go public and expose the FBI's corruption and wrongdoing in a manner that might not have been possible without the FBI's help." (M.W. Swearingen, 1995, FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose, p. 163)

In 1966 Senator J.W. Fulbright wrote about "the arrogance of power." Although civilization dearly requires police to enforce laws, there is always a danger that the police might become arrogant with their power, and press hard for a Police State.

It appears to some writers that the FBI attained this level of "the arrogance of power" at specific points when they somehow justified "breaking the law in order to enforce the law." In the case of Wes Swearingen, I suspect the FBI now wishes they had obeyed the very laws they are sworn to uphold.

Yet what can be done in cases where "the arrogance of power" extends to the very Director of the FBI, who controls his FBI Agents with an iron fist? If J. Edgar Hoover concluded on 22 November 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Shooter in the murder of JFK, then which FBI Agents were going to fight Hoover on this position?

None, obviously. We are seeing this increasingly as former FBI Agents come out of the woodwork to expose FBI excesses.

Hoover leaked his position on Oswald to newspapers across America starting in December 1963, and continued throughout the period of the Warren Commission Hearings (e.g. the LOOK Magazine cover showing Oswald's alleged backyard photographs that came out in mid-1964).

Some people think that the Warren Commission conducted an investigation of the JFK murder. They did not. The Warren Commission instructed the FBI to do that investigation for them. Because the FBI was at that time an autocracy, with J. Edgar Hoover granted lifetime Directorship and absolute control, no FBI Agent -- no matter how honorable -- could contradict Hoover and remain an FBI Agent from that moment forward.

With J. Edgar Hoover and the JFK murder case we observe close-up what Senator Fulbright called, "the arrogance of power." The quotation by Wes Swearingen above is hard evidence for my argument.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Former FBI Agent turned whistle-blower, Wesley Swearingen, wrote the following in 1995:

"When the FBI raided my boat, insulted my wife, searched our safe deposit box and raided my attorney's office at night without a valid warrant, the idiotic FBI goons expected to walk away from all that as though nothing had ever happened. Well, something did happen. The FBI's stupidity on that day gave me a chance to go public and expose the FBI's corruption and wrongdoing in a manner that might not have been possible without the FBI's help." (M.W. Swearingen, 1995, FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose, p. 163)

In 1966 Senator J.W. Fulbright wrote about "the arrogance of power." Although civilization dearly requires police to enforce laws, there is always a danger that the police might become arrogant with their power, and press hard for a Police State.

It appears to some writers that the FBI attained this level of "the arrogance of power" at specific points when they somehow justified "breaking the law in order to enforce the law." In the case of Wes Swearingen, I suspect the FBI now wishes they had obeyed the very laws they are sworn to uphold.

Yet what can be done in cases where "the arrogance of power" extends to the very Director of the FBI, who controls his FBI Agents with an iron fist? If J. Edgar Hoover concluded on 22 November 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Shooter in the murder of JFK, then which FBI Agents were going to fight Hoover on this position?

None, obviously. We are seeing this increasingly as former FBI Agents come out of the woodwork to expose FBI excesses.

Hoover leaked his position on Oswald to newspapers across America starting in December 1963, and continued throughout the period of the Warren Commission Hearings (e.g. the LOOK Magazine cover showing Oswald's alleged backyard photographs that came out in mid-1964).

Some people think that the Warren Commission conducted an investigation of the JFK murder. They did not. The Warren Commission instructed the FBI to do that investigation for them. Because the FBI was at that time an autocracy, with J. Edgar Hoover granted lifetime Directorship and absolute control, no FBI Agent -- no matter how honorable -- could contradict Hoover and remain an FBI Agent from that moment forward.

With J. Edgar Hoover and the JFK murder case we observe close-up what Senator Fulbright called, "the arrogance of power." The quotation by Wes Swearingen above is hard evidence for my argument.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

And why do you quote Mr. Swearingen as a reliable and credible source about the FBI -- but then totally dismiss his very clear and definitive rejection of Harry's statements and assertions -- and, also reject his general dismissal of your entire "theory" about a JBS plot?

In fact, how much actual RESEARCH have you done into Swearingen's assertions? Whom did you interview? Whom did you exchange emails or correspondence with? Whom did you interview and tape record their statements or get their notarized affidavit?

The problem with you Paul is that you always artfully select ONLY that data which you think supports what you already believe.

When you confront contradictory evidence you succumb to what is normally known as "cognitive dissonance"

Cognitive dissonance recognizes that there is a natural human tendency to seek consistency in one's beliefs and perceptions or values. So when you confront data that conflicts with some idea or behavior or value which you normally favor, there is a natural tendency to rationalize (i.e. excuse) your inconsistent behavior, values, or beliefs.

One example cited by Leon Festinger when he first discussed this matter:

• The person who continues to smoke, knowing that it is bad for his health, may also feel (a) he enjoys smoking so much it is worth it; (-b-) the chances of his health suffering are not as serious as some would make out; (-c-) he can't always avoid every possible dangerous contingency and still live; and (d) perhaps even if he stopped smoking he would put on weight which is equally bad for his health. So, continuing to smoke is, after all, consistent with his ideas about smoking." (Festinger, 1957)

In your case, you have emotionally and intellectually invested yourself in Harry's story. You SELECT certain data which you think supports Harry's recollections but when you confront contradictory data you immediately search for some explanation to reject it, de-value it, or ignore it -- because of the dissonance which that contradictory data creates.

That is why you immediately rejected the copy of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover which you analyzed in ways which no rational being would ever accept as credible.

Every time I attempted to get you to focus upon how the content of that "long version" matched everything which Harry had already acknowledged elsewhere, you just immediately dismissed my comments as "biased" and exhibiting "blind faith" in the FBI.

Even more amazing, you invented from whole cloth an entirely dishonest psychiatric interpretation of the alleged FBI forgery. You wrote to me that:

"First, you continue to refer to the FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover as 'Harry's letter', which shows your massive bias. Then, you blind yourself to the digs and jabs at Harry's character there. There are major differences between the letters, and you haven't scratched the surface. Your bias against Harry Dean amounts to a blind spot in your vision, Ernie. Your lack of objectivity is probably obvious to everybody on this thread except yourself."

Nevertheless, it turned out that the alleged "forged" version was GENUINE (as you finally admitted -- although not because you had performed any real investigation of your own. In fact EVERY proven error in your eBook has been the result of MY research, not anything which YOU discovered and acknowledged).

So that means, all of your psychiatric insults against me (or against the FBI) were also TOTALLY BOGUS excuses by you to hide YOUR "bias" and "lack of objectivity" and your "blind spot" (i.e. your attempt at resolving cognitive dissonance).

There was no "character assassination" or sinister "attitude" in play (by the FBI) in that 11/63 letter as YOU claimed. [see your message copied below].

YOUR message #405 on November 21 in reply to me is copied below. EVERY SINGLE element of your message is TOTALLY FALSE.

My original comment is in blue font and your reply is in green font and I add a few comments of my own in this color font.

ERNIE WROTE: “There is absolutely NOTHING in the alleged "forged" version which reflects adversely upon Harry.”

Incorrect. The allegedly forged version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover portrays an ATTITUDE that does not belong to Harry, namely, an attitude of seeking Hoover's forgiveness for past actions.

As it turns out - the "attitude" which you perceived DID belong to Harry!

ERNIE WROTE: “There is no information in the alleged "forged" version which adds to, or subtracts from, Harry's story as it is told in the new Dean/Trejo eBook.”

Incorrect. Harry’s memoirs suggest no ATTITUDE of seeking Hoover's forgiveness.

ERNIE WROTE: “There is no information in the alleged "forged" version which would cause anybody to suspect Harry's veracity -- when the text is compared to the other versions we are discussing.”

Incorrect. Insofar as criminality is subtly implied, then Harry’s veracity is also questioned.

But now that we know Harry DID WRITE that letter -- what "criminality" or "veracity" problems do you want to discuss now?

ERNIE WROTE: “There is no advantage or benefit for the FBI, there is no disadvantage or adverse consequence to Harry.”

Incorrect. The FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover presumes an advantage and benefit for the FBI by painting Harry Dean as an unreliable witness. This puts Harry Dean at a disadvantage by the method of character assassination.

OK -- then according to you -- the appropriate conclusion to be drawn from the letter is that Harry is (per you) an "unreliable witness".

ERNIE WROTE: “The ENTIRE purpose of forgeries is to deceive...intended to harm the reputation and character of the person discussed in the forgery. But no such qualities exist in Harry's letter -- no matter which version you believe is genuine!”

Incorrect. First, you continue to refer to the FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover as "Harry's letter," which shows your massive bias. Then, you blind yourself to the digs and jabs at Harry's character there. There are major differences between the letters, and you haven't scratched the surface.Your bias against Harry Dean amounts to a blind spot in your vision, Ernie. Your lack of objectivity is probably obvious to everybody on this thread except yourself.

We now know that I did not have any "massive bias" nor was I "blind to the [non-existent] digs and jabs at Harry's character there"

Nor did I have any "obvious" "blind spot" or any "lack of objectivity"

BOTTOM LINE: What this reveals, beyond dispute, is that when YOU analyze or interpret evidence you PROJECT your own worst qualities and intellectual defects onto your critics -- when, in reality, you are DESCRIBING YOURSELF!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 17, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - at least Trejo is honest about what he believes. You continually evade the question of what you believe. Apparently you think that no one has the right to promote a theory without first proving that all the 'facts' support it. In the field of JFK assassination research that is a literal impossibility. Could Trejo or Dean try a little harder to did up every iota, every file, of info? Yes of course. Is Trejo prone to see everything through the lens of his own beliefs? Yes. We already knew that. You have not enlightened me about that - it's perfectly obvious. But we still don't know what you believe, other that your point that lefties and righties fall into the same logical traps. We, and I think I speak for most of us, nevertheless know on which side of that divide we stand. Where do you stand!

[Paul Trejo]

I'm OK with the fact that I'm still gathering the evidence I need to propose finality for my theory about the JFK murder. I'm patient and I'm willing to work and to wait.

Yet the pieces that we have today make a pattern that is becoming increasingly clear to me, and I'm hoping that I can convey it to others.

Paul Brancato was correct to separate research about Ex-General Edwin Walker from the memoirs of Harry Dean -- because the case against Edwin Walker will stand or fall on its own merits. Harry Dean's story, however, will fall if the case against Edwin Walker falls.

Nor would I feel bad if Edwin Walker was somehow exonerated -- even though I think Walker was totally wrong about Martin Luther King, the NAACP, James Meredith and Civil Rights, I continue to give Walker high marks for his heroism in World War 2 and for his accomplishments in the Korean War. Edwin Walker was, after all, a Major General from the Greatest Generation. Walker deserves our respect for his Miitary service, even if his career as a civilian was less than honorable.

Yet the personal papers of Edwin Walker himself will never let us forget Walker's obsession with the murder of JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald -- an obsession which lasted from 1961 until the year he died.

It is the personal papers of Edwin Walker himself that continually remind us about Lee Harvey Oswald, and how soon Edwin Walker knew that Oswald was his shooter on 10 April 1963. It was within days, wrote Walker, of that shooting.

Walker told a lot of people that Lee Oswald was his April shooter, including reporters of the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung, during the early morning of 23 November 1963 -- less than 24 hours after JFK was murdered.

Ten days before Marina Oswald told the FBI about Oswald's April shooting (she told the FBI on 3 December 1963) Edwin Walker and his ANP publisher, Robert Allen Surrey were telling any newspaper reporter who would listen that Lee Harvey Oswald was also Edwin Walker's shooter back in April. Walker repeated this story contnually -- until the day he died. Walker really wanted to be associated with JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald in the public mind, and he wouldn't let anybody forget it.

Even when the HSCA started up in 1977, Edwin Walker also contacted them and demanded that they investigate Lee Harvey Oswald at his home on 10 April 1963. While some people might think that this would have been too risky for any normal person (to be guilty and then call Federal attention to oneself) those people don't know the personality of Ex-General Edwin Walker.

And yet Edwin Walker had the nerve to look the Warren Commission attorneys in the eye and tell them, under oath, that he never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald in his life before 22 November 1963!

What keeps me intrigued about the memoirs of Harry Dean isn't simply that I find Harry believable -- despite minor gaps in his memory or in his assignment of cause. Those are normal attributes of any legitimate memoir. The amazing thing is that the key aspects of Harry's story match everything we now know about Ex-General Edwin Walker!

We have personal papers showing Walker's affiliation with Gerry Patrick Hemming. That spells Interpen, and that invokes Loran Hall. Loran Hall admitted to Jim Garrison that he visited the home of Edwin Walker in Dallas in 1963.

Also, one of Walker's lawyers, Robert Morris, gave Loran Hall legal assistance in Dallas in the autumn of 1963. There are real connections there.

These connections exist aside from memoirs of Harry Dean -- and Harry Dean has never changed his story since 1965 -- no matter what theories have come out by anybody -- including Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, or even E.Howard Hunt himself. Harry Dean's story remains consistent over a half-century and it harmonizes with what we are learning independently about Edwin Walker today.

Nor did Harry Dean ever see the personal papers of Edwin Walker (which were not available until the 21st century.)

That's why I'm confident that any documentation that the FBI throws at us will eventually be proved to conform to the general contours of Harry Dean's story -- because Harry Dean is telling the TRUTH.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Harry J.Dean]

That Lazar - Goy

A double-minded

Subverter boy

So un-grounded

In his Weird ways

From pressures in his head

Sending him so far astray!

With this I say a weary adios to undue

defamation, and incipient contrariety, by

the devious!

[Harry J.Dean]

That Lazar - Goy

A double-minded

Subverter boy

So un-grounded

In his Weird ways

From pressures in his head

Sending him so far astray!

With this I say a weary adios to undue

defamation, and incipient contrariety, by

the devious!