Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Larry Hancock]

OK, HERE WE GO WITH COMMENTS:

We tend to agree that Oswald in NOLA was in contact with pro-Castro and anti-Castro Cuban Exiles, as well as double agents. There were Cuban Exiles from Miami who tried to make Oswald into their patsy for a possible Washington DC murder of JFK. We have hard evidence gleaned from letters from Oswald's own hand to the FPCC and CPUSA, about a move to Baltimore.

AGREED

This drama was witnessed by Richard Case Nagell -- it involved a phony Castro supporter and a genuine Castro supporter. The skullduggery was thick..

CERTAINLY A PHONY CASTRO SUPPORTER, HARD TO TELL ON THE OTHER ONE...HE MAY HAVE BEEN A TRIPLE, MAY HAVE BEEN GOING BACK AND

FORTH, BOTTOM LINE AS FAR AS OSWALD WAS CONCERNED THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE CASTRO AGENTS AND MARTINO CONSIDERED THEM BOTH

TO BE ANTI CASTRO

You suggest that a JFK murder in DC was possibly foiled by Nagell’s efforts, or by Oswald's failure to obtain a Cuban visa in time, or both. In any case, you opine that the Washington DC plotters were -- at a high level -- the same as the Dallas plotters -- correct?

NAGELL CAME ON TOO HARD AND FAST IN NEW ORLEANS AS HE HAD IN MIAMI, HE KNEW HE HAD LITTLE TIME, HE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY OSWALD WAS NOT HEEDING HIS WARNING AND HE HAD NO CLUE THAT OSWALD HIMSELF WAS GOING TO STICK IN CONTACT WITH THE GUYS TO COLLECT AND HOPEFULLY REPORT ON THEIR PLANS....MOST LIKELY TO THE FBI.. THE CUBANS TWEAKED TO NAGELL AND SET OUT TO ELIMINATE HIM AND HE HEADED FOR THE BORDER....HE WAS LIKELY TRAILED AND MAY EVEN HAVE KILLED ONE OF THE CUBANS TRAILING HIM. AS FAR AS OSWALD GOES, IT APPEARS THAT HE BROKE CONTACT WITH THE TWO AT THAT POINT AND ITS UNCLEAR WHETHER ONE OR BOTH RECONNECTED WITH HIM IN DALLAS. IT MAY HAVE BEEN NEITHER OR IT MAY HAVE BEEN SOMEONE CLAIMING TO KNOW THEM OR HE MAY SIMPLY HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE GUN DEALINGS WITH THE ALPHA 66 AND DRE GUYS THAT WERE GOING DOWN IN DALLAS. ASSUMING THAT HE WAS COLLECTING INTEL FOR THE FBI, THEIR BIGGEST PRIORITY AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS BUSTING CUBAN EXILE WEAPONS PURCHASES. AT THIS POINT I'M NOT SURE AT ALL THAT THE TACTICAL OPERATION IN DALLAS WAS ORGANIZED BY THE TWO GUYS WHO CONTACTED OSWALD IN MIAMI, INDEED I DOUBT IT. I SUSPECT THE DALLAS PLOTTERS SIMPLY PICKED UP ON HIM AS A PATSY AND WHAT WENT ON IN MEXICO CITY SOLIDIFIED THAT FOR THEM. THE ONLY THING THAT WAS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN WAS THAT WITH A NEW BABY DUE HE WOULD BE IN DALLAS BY NOVEMBER.

You then suggest that these plotters took advantage of Oswald's trip to Mexico City to form a totally a new image of Oswald as a "loose cannon" that could be traced to Fidel Castro.

NO, NOT REALLY, OSWALD MAINTAINED THE SAME IMAGE HE HAD, A CASTRO SUPPORTER, - THE ODIO INCIDENT PITCHED HIM AS A LOOSE CANNON BUT AS SOMETHING OF A MERCENARY WHO COULD KILL EITHER CASTRO OR KENNEDY - BY MEXICO CITY HE WAS LOOKING MUCH MORE FRENETIC AND DISTRACTED AND NOT MUCH LIKE THE PICTURE GIVEN TO ODIO. CERTAINLY NOTHING IN MEXICO CITY HAD THE FLAVOR OF HIM KILLING EITHER CASTRO OR KENNEDY DEPENDING UPON HOW HE FELT ON A GIVEN DAY.

I

If I have that right, then my question is why did these plotters believe that Oswald went to Mexico in the first place? Or are we possibly observing two sets of plotters -- those who sent Oswald to Mexico, and those who formed a new plot involving Oswald as a "loose cannon"?

I DON'T SEE THE ODIO GUYS BEING INVOLVED IN MEXICO CITY AT ALL. WHETHER OR NOT EITHER WAS INVOLVED IN THE DALLAS ATTACK IS BEYOND ME. THE ODIO INCIDENT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN THE LAST GASP OF A PLAN THAT STARTED IN NEW ORLEANS AND TARGETED WASHINTON DC. JUST NOT SURE.

There is also disagreement between JFK researchers about whether Oswald was really recorded at those Embassies in Mexico City -- Oswald's photographs and voice are nowhere to be found. Also, the descriptions of Oswald given by the clerks often fails to match Oswald at all.

PERSONALLY I AM CONVINCED OSWALD WAS IN MEXICO CITY, I AM UNCONVINCED HE WAS AT ODIO'S THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PART OF MEXICO CITY IN REGARD TO DALLAS IS THE TELEPHONE IMPERSONATIONS AND BILL SIMPICH IS DOING A FANTASTIC JOB OF EXPOSING THAT.

You then suggest that the Dallas plot only became firm as of October 1st, after Oswald's failure to get a Cuban Visa. But what were the plotters hoping to do in case Oswald succeeded in getting a Cuban Visa? Again, are we looking at two sets of plotters here?

OSWALD HAD NO MONEY TO TRAVEL BEYOND MEXICO CITY EVEN IF HE HAD A VISA. ALSO, THE CIA GUYS INVOLVED HAD EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WITH THE MEXICO CITY EMBASSY VIA THE AMSANTA PROJECT AND INDEED PART OF HIS VISIT THERE MAY WELL HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH AN ANTI-CUA, ANTI-FPCC PROPAGANDA PROJECT TOTALLY APART FROM ANYTHING RELATED TO DALLAS. IF HE HAD MANAGED TO GET A VISA HE MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO A PROPAGANDA ASSET ON THE ORDER OF NEW ORLEANS. AGAIN, A MATTER OF DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON WITH AND AROUND OSWALD WITH DIFFERENT AGENDAS.

(In Harry Dean's scenario, the original plan given by Guy Gabaldon in Southern California was for Loran Hall and Larry Howard to deliver Oswald to Gabaldon in Mexico City, and then for Gabaldon to give Oswald phony instructions regarding Dallas. As Harry Dean heard the plot first-hand, the JFK murder was to take place at the Trade Mart. Yet this Dallas plot was firmly set in place two weeks before Loran Hall and Larry Howard made their trip to give Oswald a ride to Mexico.)

I THINK PLANNING FOR DALLAS BEGAN SOMETIME IN LATE SEPTEMBER, AGAIN, WITH THE BABY DUE, YOU COULD COUNT ON OSWALD BEING IN DALLAS BY NOVEMBER

Your theory and Harry Dean's theory agree fully that the setup of Oswald in Dallas was done without Oswald's direct knowledge. Oswald was totally ignorant of any role he was playing in Dallas from the time he arrived there -- so he had to be managed.

I SUSPECT OSWALD CONTINUED TO PLAY MULTIPLE ROLES AFTER HIS ARRIVAL IN DALLAS AND MAY EVEN HAVE BEEN GETTING A BIT TIRED OF IT ALL. I'M NOT SURE HE HAD TO BE "MANAGED" ALL THAT MUCH, HE CERTAINLY HAD TO BE MONITORED AND PERHAPS NUDGED NOW AND THEN. ONE KEY THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT OSWALD COULD HAVE BEEN PATSIED AS AN ACCESSORY TO CONSPIRACY AND WITH LEADS POINTING TO CASTRO SIMPLY BY PLANTING A RIFLE AND OTHER MATERIAL CONNECTED TO HIM AT A KEY POINT. YOU CAN BET THAT EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN OUT FRONT AND THE POLICE HAD FOUND "HIS" RIFLE, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PULLED IN AND A CASTRO SPONSORED CONSPIRACY WOULD HAVE SURFACED. I THINK WE ALL MAKE A FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE IN ASSUMING THAT EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED WAS ACCORDING TO PLAN - WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT THE DETAILED PLAN FOR THAT DAY REALLY WAS. PERHAPS OUR BEST CLUE IS FROM VECIANA WHO DESCRIBED IT AS VERY SIMILAR TO A PLAN DEVELOPED TO KILL CASTRO.

If Gerry Patrick Hemming was telling the truth when he claimed that he offered Lee Harvey Oswald double the market price for his rifle if he would bring it to the TSBD on 22Nov63, then this is a bit of information that Harry Dean did not know about.

I GREATLY RESPECT HEMMING'S INTELLECT, BUT AS HIS BROTHER HAS SAID, GERRY PROTECTED HIMSELF BY SPREADING SO MUCH BS THAT IT WAS SAFE TO ASSUME HE WOULD NEVER REVEAL ANYTHING REALLY DAMAGING. THAT I BELIEVE.

First, it suggests that plans had been changed to murder JFK at Dealey Plaza, instead of at the Trade Mart, as Harry Dean expected. Secondly, it means that Hemming was more deeply involved with Loran Hall and Larry Howard than Harry Dean knew.

OF COURSE I DISAGREE - ALTHOUGH GIVEN THE CALIBER OF THE TACTICAL TEAM I SUSPECT THERE WERE AT LEAST THREE POTENTIAL ATTACK POINTS WITH TWO IN THE PLAZA AREA, ONE POSSIBLY WITH A LONG RANGE SNIPER AT THE TRADE MART AND ONE AT THE AIRPORT - VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT VECIANA DESCRIBES.

You then suggest, Larry, that during the month of October 1963, the plotters began selecting other patsies -- just in case they might be needed. Jack Ruby was a candidate, as was Loran Hall and possibly Carlos Quiroga.

I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CLEAR ON THAT, WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT OTHER INDIVIDUALS WERE IDENTIFIED WHO COULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH OSWALD AND ALSO BE PRESENTED AS BEING EITHER CASTRO SUPPORTERS OR SIMPLY IN THE PAY OF CASTRO AGENTS - GIVEN THAT RUBY HAD MORE THAN ONCE TRIED TO DO BUSINESS WITH CASTRO AFTER THE REVOLUTION, THAT MADE HIM A GREAT CANDIDATE. IF THE PLAN HAD COME DOWN AS I BELIEVE IT WAS CRATED, A NUMBER OF CONVINCING LEADS WOULD HAVE TIED IN CASTRO. AS MARTINO RELATES, THE PLAN FELL APART AND WAS NEVER FULLY EXECUTED.

I would add here that Guy Gabaldon acted suspiciously one night in a Los Angeles restaurant when out of the blue he hired a female restaurant photographer to take a dozen photographs of Harry Dean from many different angles. Was Harry Dean also considered as a candidate for patsy? After all, Harry could also be associated with Fidel Castro in official records. Two others feared they could be made into patsies because of their past affiliation with Fidel Castro -- Hemming and Nagell.

Following the murder of JFK, all of these guys would be reported in contact with Oswald before the assassination. But the information was never used. For example, as you point out, Larry, the FBI can be shown to have officially avoided investigating either Quiroga or Hall to the fullest. Is it possible that this frustrated the actual plotters?

OH I THINK THERE WAS SOME FRUSTRATION, OF COURSE THE SHOOTERS AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY INVOLVED HATED JFK AND WERE PERSONALLY HAPPY TO SETTLE A SCORE BUT THERE WAS CERTAINLY FRUSTRATION OVER CUBA. I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED LATER CAME TO QUESTION WHETHER THEY HAD SIMPLY BEEN USED TO KILL JFK AND ATTACKING CUBA HAD NEVER BEEN IN THE CARDS.

Harry Dean and I affirm today that the plotters who murdered JFK were hoping for the USA to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro -- first and foremost. Yet the "Lone Assassin" theory of J. Edgar Hoover (and promoted actively by LBJ, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles) would politically undercut that hope.

SWHT CERTAINLY MAKES THE CASE THAT THE LONE ASSASSIN THEME UNDERCUT THAT HOPE ALL RIGHT, BUT AS YOU KNOW I PRESENT THAT AS BEGINNING AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO AVOID A POLITICAL CRISIS AND ALSO TO AVOID AN INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD LIKELY HAVE IMPLICATED AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS IN THE CONSPIRACY AS WELL AS SURFACED A GREAT MANY ONGOING INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS. BUT THAT'S THAT'S ALL IN THE BOOK. SO I'LL STOP HERE.

-- LARRY

[Ernie Lazar]

I received a document today which contains some pertinent information about a matter which I previously mentioned, i.e. Harry's claim that the FBI in Chicago told him in August 1960 that they were not even aware that FPCC existed in Chicago.

1. FBI-HQ opened its investigation into FPCC starting in March 1960.

2. On April 6, 1960, the FPCC placed a 7-column advertisement in the New York Times, listing 30 sponsors of the organization -- about half of whom the FBI determined "to have records of procommunist sympathies".

3. The FBI discovered that the Cuban Government was subsidizing the FPCC -- but it needed legally admissible evidence to corroborate the information they received from their original confidential source. $3500 was traced to Dr. Charles Santos-Buch and to Raul Roa Jr (Cuban alternate delegate to UN).

4. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee contacted the FBI to express their interest in background information about the national and local sponsors/endorsers of FPCC.

5. All FBI field offices were instructed to provide HQ with such background information -- particularly with respect to Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party members who were key figures in local chapters.

6. In Chicago, Richard and Florence Criley were directly involved in creating the Chicago chapter of FPCC. Richard was a member of the Communist Party of Illinois State Committee. Other key figures in Chicago included Edgar and Marjorie Swabeck (Socialist Workers Party) and John Rossen (who claimed he had left the Communist Party when the Soviet Union invaded Hungary). Other Chicago members of FPCC included: Edward Packer (Socialist Workers Party), Marcia Starr (member, CPUSA 43rd Ward Club), Gaylord McDowell (member, Socialist Workers Party), Isadore Warwak (District Organizer, Socialist Workers Party), Shirley Freundlich (member, Communist Party of Illinois). [The Socialist Workers Party was designated as a subversive organization pursuant to Executive Order 10450.]

7. The FBI-Chicago field office was instructed to open an investigation into FPCC "with a view toward obtaining evidence indicating a violation of the Registration Act". Chicago FBI also sent its investigative info to G-2 Army Intelligence in Chicago, OSI (Air Force Intelligence in Chicago), ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence in Chicago).

8. SO.....in order to believe Harry's story -- you have to believe that the Chicago field office of the FBI was so totally and criminally incompetent that ...

(1) they disobeyed explicit instructions from HQ to open an investigation into FPCC,

(2) they totally ignored all of the Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party members who were key figures within the local Chicago chapter of FPCC, and

(3) that FBI-Chicago invented, from whole cloth, the information about FPCC-Chicago chapter which they sent to 3 military intelligence agencies in Chicago PRIOR TO when Harry first contacted the FBI in Chicago (by phone) in August 1960.

9. You also have to believe that the local FBI field office was so criminally incompetent that they shared information about the status of their investigations with a total stranger who called them on the phone.

It is these sorts of absolute absurdities which make Harry's story so obviously fictional.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

On a related matter, I also received a letter today from the FBI which stated that I was the only person who ever submitted an FOIA request for Harry's HQ file (62-109068).

I am still waiting for information from the FBI regarding "previous requester" data regarding Harry's Chicago field and Los Angeles field files.

[Paul Trejo]

I received a document today which contains some pertinent information about a matter which I previously mentioned, i.e. Harry's claim that the FBI in Chicago told him in August 1960 that they were not even aware that FPCC existed in Chicago.

<snip>

8. SO.....in order to believe Harry's story -- you have to believe that the Chicago field office of the FBI was so totally and criminally incompetent that ...

(1) they disobeyed explicit instructions from HQ to open an investigation into FPCC,

(2) they totally ignored all of the Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party members who were key figures within the local Chicago chapter of FPCC, and

(3) that FBI-Chicago invented, from whole cloth, the information about FPCC-Chicago chapter which they sent to 3 military intelligence agencies in Chicago PRIOR TO when Harry first contacted the FBI in Chicago (by phone) in August 1960.

9. You also have to believe that the local FBI field office was so criminally incompetent that they shared information about the status of their investigations with a total stranger who called them on the phone.

It is these sorts of absolute absurdities which make Harry's story so obviously fictional.

Once again Ernie, your bias against Harry Dean is self-evident.

The problem with your three criteria to criticize the Chicago FBI is that they are incomplete. You're not considering all the possibilities -- because of your bias.

There are other ways, I already explained, to explain why the Chicago FBI would lie to Harry Dean about their investigation of the Chicago FPCC, including:

(1) The clerk patronized Harry Dean because he had no respect for Harry. (We already saw that in the insulting comments of FBI Agent William McCauley in his own handwriting on FBI documents about Harry Dean.)

(2) Harry spoke with a clerk or an intern on the phone who had not yet been briefed on the issue of the FPCC.

(3) Harry spoke with a clerk or an intern who was willing to lie to a caller and potential information source, in order to protect and conceal any information the FBI had about the FPCC.

Of course, there are many other possibilities -- but they don't occur to you, Ernie, because of the fatal flaw of bias in your logic.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

I received a document today which contains some pertinent information about a matter which I previously mentioned, i.e. Harry's claim that the FBI in Chicago told him in August 1960 that they were not even aware that FPCC existed in Chicago.

<snip>

8. SO.....in order to believe Harry's story -- you have to believe that the Chicago field office of the FBI was so totally and criminally incompetent that ...

(1) they disobeyed explicit instructions from HQ to open an investigation into FPCC,

(2) they totally ignored all of the Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party members who were key figures within the local Chicago chapter of FPCC, and

(3) that FBI-Chicago invented, from whole cloth, the information about FPCC-Chicago chapter which they sent to 3 military intelligence agencies in Chicago PRIOR TO when Harry first contacted the FBI in Chicago (by phone) in August 1960.

9. You also have to believe that the local FBI field office was so criminally incompetent that they shared information about the status of their investigations with a total stranger who called them on the phone.

It is these sorts of absolute absurdities which make Harry's story so obviously fictional.

Once again Ernie, your bias against Harry Dean is self-evident.

The problem with your three criteria to criticize the Chicago FBI is that they are incomplete. You're not considering all the possibilities -- because of your bias.

There are other ways, I already explained, to explain why the Chicago FBI would lie to Harry Dean about their investigation of the Chicago FPCC, including:

(1) The clerk patronized Harry Dean because he had no respect for Harry. (We already saw that in the insulting comments of FBI Agent William McCauley in his own handwriting on FBI documents about Harry Dean.)

(2) Harry spoke with a clerk or an intern on the phone who had not yet been briefed on the issue of the FPCC.

(3) Harry spoke with a clerk or an intern who was willing to lie to a caller and potential information source, in order to protect and conceal any information the FBI had about the FPCC.

Of course, there are many other possibilities -- but they don't occur to you, Ernie, because of the fatal flaw of bias in your logic.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Why do you suppose the Chicago FBI clerk or intern had, as you say, "no respect for Harry" ?

--Tommy

Edited March 28, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

OK, HERE WE GO WITH COMMENTS:

<snip>

NAGELL CAME ON TOO HARD AND FAST IN NEW ORLEANS AS HE HAD IN MIAMI, HE KNEW HE HAD LITTLE TIME, HE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY OSWALD WAS NOT HEEDING HIS WARNING AND HE HAD NO CLUE THAT OSWALD HIMSELF WAS GOING TO STICK IN CONTACT WITH THE GUYS TO COLLECT AND HOPEFULLY REPORT ON THEIR PLANS....MOST LIKELY TO THE FBI.

THE CUBANS TWEAKED TO NAGELL AND SET OUT TO ELIMINATE HIM AND HE HEADED FOR THE BORDER....HE WAS LIKELY TRAILED AND MAY EVEN HAVE KILLED ONE OF THE CUBANS TRAILING HIM.

AS FAR AS OSWALD GOES, IT APPEARS THAT HE BROKE CONTACT WITH THE TWO AT THAT POINT AND ITS UNCLEAR WHETHER ONE OR BOTH RECONNECTED WITH HIM IN DALLAS. IT MAY HAVE BEEN NEITHER OR IT MAY HAVE BEEN SOMEONE CLAIMING TO KNOW THEM OR HE MAY SIMPLY HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE GUN DEALINGS WITH THE ALPHA 66 AND DRE GUYS THAT WERE GOING DOWN IN DALLAS.

ASSUMING THAT HE WAS COLLECTING INTEL FOR THE FBI, THEIR BIGGEST PRIORITY AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS BUSTING CUBAN EXILE WEAPONS PURCHASES. AT THIS POINT I'M NOT SURE AT ALL THAT THE TACTICAL OPERATION IN DALLAS WAS ORGANIZED BY THE TWO GUYS WHO CONTACTED OSWALD IN MIAMI, INDEED I DOUBT IT.

I SUSPECT THE DALLAS PLOTTERS SIMPLY PICKED UP ON HIM AS A PATSY AND WHAT WENT ON IN MEXICO CITY SOLIDIFIED THAT FOR THEM. THE ONLY THING THAT WAS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN WAS THAT WITH A NEW BABY DUE HE WOULD BE IN DALLAS BY NOVEMBER.

<snip>

-- LARRY

You suggest, Larry, that double-agent Richard Case Nagell, though effective in Miami, was ineffective in New Orleans. He had misread Oswald and could not divert Oswald from his course of action. It also seems as though Nagell did not fully understand Oswald’s role.

In my view, Oswald was a far-right activist who was working closely with far right activists in New Orleans, including Guy Bannister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier. We can be certain about the first three because of the data Jim Garrison uncovered. We can be certain about the rest because Butler and Bringuier were physically perceived in the media circus surrounding Oswald’s fake FPCC chapter.

The fact that the FPCC chapter was 100% fake is our clue that Oswald was pretending to be a left-winger. There are other clues; for example, Oswald did not personally associate with left-wing people. Oswald communicated with left-wing people using the postal service – in order to leave a documented paper trail that would serve as credentials.

Instead, Oswald personally associated with right-wing people; not only Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier, but as Gerry Patrick Hemming claims, also himself, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. I find it interesting that although Harry Dean knew nothing about Gerry Patrick Hemming in those days, still, Gerry Patrick Hemming’s story confirms Harry Dean’s story in multiple areas.

In any case, I see Lee Harvey Oswald as a dedicated rightist who was pleased to associate and work with extreme rightists, even if that meant a double role – i.e. pretending to be a Communist and FPCC officer. It is also possible that Oswald would sell information to the FBI – since after all he thought of the FBI as a legitimate part of the rightist cause.

It seems to me that Richard Case Nagell did not understand this about Oswald, and tried to warn Oswald about the two men from Miami. Oswald, realizing that Nagell was clueless about his actual role, merely ignored Nagell’s warnings, thus confusing Nagell.

Nagell then chose to interfere with Oswald’s plans in Mexico. The way I read it from Dick Russell (TMWKTM), Nagell was a double-agent, and to protect that status he had to protect Fidel Castro. Nagell saw Oswald as a possible threat to Fidel Castro, so he warned Oswald that if he succeeded in getting a Visa to Cuba, Nagell would shoot Oswald dead. Oswald apparently ignored Nagell.

(There’s another possible reaction – Ron Lewis agrees with Priscilla McMillan on this – that Oswald at this point frets about other ways to get to Cuba, and talks wildly about hi-jacking a plan to Cuba. Marina in the evenings and Ron in the mornings struggled for days to talk Oswald out of it.)

On his way to frustrate Oswald in Mexico, Nagell was followed and gave up his mission, staging an armed bank robbery to get himself imprisoned and therefore safe from murder and from being framed as the patsy for a JFK murder plot.

Now – what happened to the two Miami guys? They seem to drop out of the picture. This is why I feel that they didn’t belong to the Walker-Bannister Dallas plot, but to some other plot, e.g. in Miami or Washington DC. They simply fade away; their plot, like so many other plots to murder JFK, fizzled away.

Oswald's goal in Mexico City was to get a Visa to Cuba. Oswald failed in that mission. Now – either Oswald remained connected with rightist handlers in NOLA, or he was manipulated to believe that he had changed allegiances when in reality his original handlers still controlled him.

In my opinion – and this harmonizes with Harry Dean’s memoirs – Oswald was manipulated to believe that his NOLA handlers have abandoned him, because he failed to get his Cuban Visa, and therefore he felt he was free to accept a new mission.

Loran Hall and Larry Howard introduced Lee Harvey Oswald to Silvia Odio – firmly establishing their Anti-Castro credentials with Oswald – and now they introduce him to Guy Gabaldon. Gabaldon, says Harry Dean, offered Oswald some much-needed cash to perform some paltry duties in Dallas – mainly to stay in Dallas and await further instructions.

Even though Oswald was collecting intelligence for the FBI, they were paying him very little money for that – Oswald was not an “official” informant with a regular salary. So, Oswald was open to a new “mission.” Also, if Oswald sought to bust illegal arms transfers to Cuban Exile training camps, he would have had more opportunity in NOLA, near Lake Pontchartrain, than in Dallas.

I tend to agree with you, that the two guys from Miami were out of their depth in Dallas. They probably had nothing to do with Dallas, and when Oswald moved to Dallas, they were probably out of the picture. However, we have some evidence that Loran Hall and Larry Howard were in and out of Dallas throughout this period.

The difference between our scenarios, Larry, is that I maintain that the Dallas plotters had previously plotted with the NOLA Sheep-dippers from the very beginning of the NOLA period (e.g. back in April 1963). So in my theory, Oswald thinks that his handlers have changed, but in fact his handler has always been Ex-General Edwin Walker ever since Easter Sunday.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

I understand your scenario Paul, obviously I disagree, I'll simply leave you with it. Larry

[Ernie Lazar]

I received a document today which contains some pertinent information about a matter which I previously mentioned, i.e. Harry's claim that the FBI in Chicago told him in August 1960 that they were not even aware that FPCC existed in Chicago.

<snip>

8. SO.....in order to believe Harry's story -- you have to believe that the Chicago field office of the FBI was so totally and criminally incompetent that ...

(1) they disobeyed explicit instructions from HQ to open an investigation into FPCC,

(2) they totally ignored all of the Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party members who were key figures within the local Chicago chapter of FPCC, and

(3) that FBI-Chicago invented, from whole cloth, the information about FPCC-Chicago chapter which they sent to 3 military intelligence agencies in Chicago PRIOR TO when Harry first contacted the FBI in Chicago (by phone) in August 1960.

9. You also have to believe that the local FBI field office was so criminally incompetent that they shared information about the status of their investigations with a total stranger who called them on the phone.

It is these sorts of absolute absurdities which make Harry's story so obviously fictional.

Once again Ernie, your bias against Harry Dean is self-evident.

The problem with your three criteria to criticize the Chicago FBI is that they are incomplete. You're not considering all the possibilities -- because of your bias.

There are other ways, I already explained, to explain why the Chicago FBI would lie to Harry Dean about their investigation of the Chicago FPCC, including:

(1) The clerk patronized Harry Dean because he had no respect for Harry. (We already saw that in the insulting comments of FBI Agent William McCauley in his own handwriting on FBI documents about Harry Dean.)

(2) Harry spoke with a clerk or an intern on the phone who had not yet been briefed on the issue of the FPCC.

(3) Harry spoke with a clerk or an intern who was willing to lie to a caller and potential information source, in order to protect and conceal any information the FBI had about the FPCC.

Of course, there are many other possibilities -- but they don't occur to you, Ernie, because of the fatal flaw of bias in your logic.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Every one of your comments is sheer unadulterated FICTION.

You don't even recognize what Harry wrote to JFK/Hoover. He did not speak to any "clerk". Harry claims FBI Agents told him. "Clerks" do not answer incoming phone calls from the public. Agents do.

More importantly, FBI employees do not discuss ANY investigative matters with total strangers (or ANY non-authorized individual) -- particularly someone like Harry.

The most typical response would be some non-committal statement such as: "We would be happy to accept any information you would like to provide to us". But no FBI employee would discuss anything about their activities or investigative interests with some person over the phone.

Paul -- it is this sort of rank stupidity on your part which totally discredits you as any kind of objective or intelligent analyst.

Lastly, you managed to miss the entire point: FBI-Chicago opened their file on FPCC long before Harry contacted them -- as you would expect since many of the individuals involved with the Chicago chapter were on the FBI's Security Index.

[Ernie Lazar]

I received a document today which contains some pertinent information about a matter which I previously mentioned, i.e. Harry's claim that the FBI in Chicago told him in August 1960 that they were not even aware that FPCC existed in Chicago.

<snip>

8. SO.....in order to believe Harry's story -- you have to believe that the Chicago field office of the FBI was so totally and criminally incompetent that ...

(1) they disobeyed explicit instructions from HQ to open an investigation into FPCC,

(2) they totally ignored all of the Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party members who were key figures within the local Chicago chapter of FPCC, and

(3) that FBI-Chicago invented, from whole cloth, the information about FPCC-Chicago chapter which they sent to 3 military intelligence agencies in Chicago PRIOR TO when Harry first contacted the FBI in Chicago (by phone) in August 1960.

9. You also have to believe that the local FBI field office was so criminally incompetent that they shared information about the status of their investigations with a total stranger who called them on the phone.

It is these sorts of absolute absurdities which make Harry's story so obviously fictional.

Once again Ernie, your bias against Harry Dean is self-evident.

The problem with your three criteria to criticize the Chicago FBI is that they are incomplete. You're not considering all the possibilities -- because of your bias.

There are other ways, I already explained, to explain why the Chicago FBI would lie to Harry Dean about their investigation of the Chicago FPCC, including:

(1) The clerk patronized Harry Dean because he had no respect for Harry. (We already saw that in the insulting comments of FBI Agent William McCauley in his own handwriting on FBI documents about Harry Dean.)

(2) Harry spoke with a clerk or an intern on the phone who had not yet been briefed on the issue of the FPCC.

(3) Harry spoke with a clerk or an intern who was willing to lie to a caller and potential information source, in order to protect and conceal any information the FBI had about the FPCC.

Of course, there are many other possibilities -- but they don't occur to you, Ernie, because of the fatal flaw of bias in your logic.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Why do you suppose the Chicago FBI clerk or intern had, as you say, "no respect for Harry" ?

--Tommy

Harry's letter to JFK (June 1961) praised the FBI Agents he dealt with in Chicago.

Now, Paul, wants to claim that Chicago FBI Agents made a comparable evaluation of Harry as did the FBI Agents in Los Angeles 2 or 3 years later -- but Paul does not want to accept the logical conclusion about why different Agents in different locations in different years supposedly came to the same derogatory conclusions about Harry.

Paul's entire argument is based upon ONE impenetrable delusional predicate: Harry is always telling the truth and he is always recollecting people and events and dates correctly and accurately (50 years after the fact).

Under no circumstances will Paul EVER admit fundamental flaws in Harry's story. Instead, Paul prefers to INVENT whatever fabrications he thinks will rationalize discrepancies and defects in Harry's story - while accusing EVERY critic of being "biased".

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

Why do you suppose the Chicago FBI clerk or intern had, as you say, "no respect for Harry" ?

--Tommy

Well, Tommy, the problem of social arrogance and insult is as old as the human species, evidently -- and there could be hundreds of reasons why a given person with the FBI would treat a caller with arrogance.

One can speculate, of course, but perhaps one can also make educated guesses.

For example, Harry called the FBI and promptly began speaking about the FPCC in 1960. This was only a few months after the FBI had begun a serious investigation into the FPCC.

One reasonable guess regarding why this FBI employee lied to Harry Dean, claiming that "this is the first we've heard about the FPCC," after Harry raised the topic, is simply this -- Harry caught that FBI employee by surprise; then he, whoever he was, composed himself and as calmly as possibly 'played stupid.' He probably said something like, "Gee, Mr. Dean, this is the first we at the FBI have ever heard of the FPCC."

It isn't difficult to accept Harry Dean's story -- it isn't wild fiction. It's a consistent and cohesive account of real events that correspond to actual events of American history -- the Cuba Crisis, the FPCC episode, the rise of the JBS and General Walker, and the confusion over Civil Rights -- this is the mess with which America lived in the early 1960's.

Harry simply said that an FBI Agent told him that Harry's report about the FPCC was "the first he heard about it." Obviously, however, the FBI had heard about the FPCC before Harry called them.

Ernie Lazar is too quick to presume that Harry Dean is inventing "fiction." This proves his bias. Actually, there are many other explanations for this simple chain of events.

One explanation is that the FBI employee was sarcastically dismissing Harry, as I suggested above. Another explanation is that the FBI employee was stunned, and then tried to hide and protect FBI data about its on-going investigations -- as I also suggested above.

By the way -- I don't accuse all of Harry Dean's critics of bias -- but Ernie's bias is self-evident to all.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Here's one of the key factors that convinces me of the reliability of Harry Dean's memoirs. They are 49 years old.

If Harry had waited to tell his story until after Oliver Stone came out with his movie, JFK, then I would admit a higher chance of invention and fiction.

For example, Ricky Don White waited until 1991 to tell his story to Bud Fensterwald and Gary Shaw.

For example, Ron Lews waited until 1993 to tell his story in FLASHBACK.

For example, James Earl Files waited until 1994 to tell his story in I SHOT JFK.

For example, Judyth Vary Baker waited until 2011 to tell her story in ME & LEE.

Harry Dean came out with his story in January 1965, on The Joe Pyne Show, soon after the Warren Report was published, in protest of the "fiction" told by the Warren Commission.

Even though Harry Dean's story was not a sophisticated tome like that of our earliest Warren Commission critics, such as Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, Vincent Salandria, and Ed Epstein -- nevertheless, Harry's story is as early as their works.

Harry Dean's story is also independent of their works -- Harry never changed his story to include information that these scholarly writers published (and that's hard to claim about accounts published after 1990).

Harry emphasizes people that the others don't emphasize -- Harry Dean stuck to his story after nearly half a century, neither adding nor subtracting from it. Harry has remained committed to telling his truth, no matter how intense the opposition against him.

This is only one of the key reasons I find Harry Dean's memoirs to be reliable. Other key reasons include the historical validiity of the events he describes, and the political positions of the JBS, Edwin Walker, Loran Hall and Gabby Gabaldon in 1963.

One would need to be a genius in history and fiction to invent something so plausible and detailed as the memoirs of Harry Dean. I never said Harry Dean was a genius. My only claim is that Harry Dean is telling the TRUTH.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 29, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Here's one of the key factors that convinces me of the reliability of Harry Dean's memoirs. They are 49 years old.

If Harry had waited to tell his story until after Oliver Stone came out with his movie, JFK, then I would admit a higher chance of invention and fiction.

For example, Ricky Don White waited until 1991 to tell his story to Bud Fensterwald and Gary Shaw.

For example, Ron Lews waited until 1993 to tell his story in FLASHBACK.

For example, James Earl Files waited until 1994 to tell his story in I SHOT JFK.

For example, Judyth Vary Baker waited until 2011 to tell her story in ME & LEE.

Harry Dean came out with his story in January 1965, on The Joe Pyne Show, soon after the Warren Report was published, in protest of the "fiction" told by the Warren Commission.

Even though Harry Dean's story was not a sophisticated tome like that of our earliest Warren Commission critics, such as Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, Vincent Salandria, and Ed Epstein -- nevertheless, Harry's story is as early as their works.

Harry Dean's story is also independent of their works -- Harry never changed his story to include information that these scholarly writers published (and that's hard to claim about accounts published after 1990).

Harry emphasizes people that the others don't emphasize -- Harry Dean stuck to his story after nearly half a century, neither adding nor subtracting from it. Harry has remained committed to telling his truth, no matter how intense the opposition against him.

This is only one of the key reasons I find Harry Dean's memoirs to be reliable. Other key reasons include the historical validiity of the events he describes, and the political positions of the JBS, Edwin Walker, Loran Hall and Gabby Gabaldon in 1963.

One would need to be a genius in history and fiction to invent something so plausible and detailed as the memoirs of Harry Dean. I never said Harry Dean was a genius. My only claim is that Harry Dean is telling the TRUTH.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Almost every week, you can read a newspaper report or listen to a TV news report concerning a miscarriage of justice regarding some individual who was released after spending 20 or 30 years in prison for a crime (often murder) which he/she did not commit.

In almost all of these cases, the original "eyewitnesses" DID NOT recant their testimony.

Instead, technological improvements with respect to DNA testing established the innocence of the person(s) involved OR subsequent new evidence was developed. See for example work done by such organizations as the California Innocence Project, The Arizona Justice Project, and the national Innocence Project.

Our best fiction authors (such as, for example, Tom Clancy) have stated that the reason their fictional novels are so credible (and well received) such as his book and the subsequent movie, "Hunt For Red October", is because authors like Clancy do exhaustive research into the subject matters of their books and they often contact experts in specialized fields of knowledge (chemistry, physics, engineering, military matters, etc.) As Clancy said during one interview: "Read relevant books, interview people in the line of work you're writing about, and have experts in the field review your technical details for accuracy."

In other words, the best FICTION, contains kernels of truth -- which is what makes the fiction so alluring and believable.

What Paul Trejo has never understood (and apparently never will) is that eyewitness testimony is entirely based upon subjective recollections and interpretations and OFTEN memory is inaccurate, incomplete, grossly exaggerated, false, or otherwise deficient.

This has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not somebody is "lying". Paul always presents us with these bogus "either/or" choices which are NOT applicable to our discussion. As previously mentioned, in logic, Paul's defect is described as the "fallacy of the excluded middle" aka "false dilemma".

When Paul confronts inconvenient factual evidence, he ALWAYS trots out his all-purpose intellectual escape hatch -- i.e. "bias". Paul presents himself as a paragon of reason --- sort of an intellectual Super Man totally exempt from any conceivable defects in understanding or interpretation.

Nevertheless, the only indisputable, proven FALSEHOODS which have been demonstrated in this thread were authored by, or defended by, Paul Trejo and by Harry. Shall we quickly review some of the major ones?

1. Paul's tortured psychiatric analysis of what he claimed was a "forged" version of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover (which Paul based entirely upon Harry's defective recollection and upon Paul's own systematic bias and hatred toward the FBI as an institution and against Hoover as a person)

2. Paul's repeated falsehoods about FBI filing practices and FBI procedures pertaining to its informants

3. Paul's tortured and false interpretation of what Wesley Swearingen supposedly believed about both Harry's narrative and about Joseph Milteer

4. Paul's deliberate falsehoods about what Edwin Walker supposedly taught his troops in Germany about U.S. Presidents

5. Paul's deliberate falsehoods about what "the Birch Society" supposedly "published" and taught its members in 1959-1962 about President Eisenhower or other Presidents

6. Paul's entirely false account of Harry's meetings with Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963

7. Paul's entirely false accusations against me such as claiming that I "continued" to "misrepresent" Paul's or Harry's position about some matter or I made statements which, in reality, I never made (such as me supposedly claiming that Harry and Paul had stated they had "proof" of Harry's meetings with Grapp -- when I never made any such statement and despite repeated challenges by me to provide substantiation for his false accusation, Paul refused to do so (for obvious reasons).

There is an entirely plausible explanation for Harry's story which does not necessarily involve "lying". Part of that explanation requires understanding the inherent problems one encounters with respect to "eyewitness" recollections. Another part of that explanation requires understanding how the human mind subjectively interprets evidence, i.e. how, sometimes, people put 2+2 together and get 5 or 6. Or how they "connect the dots" which their own minds have fabricated but dots which do not, in reality, exist. Another part of the explanation has to do with WHY people become involved with radical movements and causes -- i.e. the personal psychological factors which make them susceptible or receptive to radical ideas and beliefs.

BUT all of these factors require objective analysis of available factual data. However, Paul Trejo has declared that he is Harry's "#1 defender" and "ally" and "friend" -- so, obviously, we cannot expect Paul to rely upon objective analysis. Instead, Paul will ALWAYS attempt to rationalize or deflect. de-value, and dismiss inconvenient factual evidence which undermines Harry's story.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Update re: My FOIA Requests

Received letters today from the FBI stating that I am the only person who sent the FBI a request for Harry's Chicago and Los Angeles field files (Chicago 100-38257 and Los Angeles 105-12933).

So that means that with respect to all of Harry's primary FBI main files (HQ, Chicago, Los Angeles) I have been the only person to submit an FOIA request for them. However, there could still be files (or cross-references) in other locations (such as Detroit, Legat-Ottawa, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis) which pertain to Harry.

[Paul Trejo]

1. Paul's tortured psychiatric analysis of what he claimed was a "forged" version of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover (which Paul based entirely upon Harry's defective recollection and upon Paul's own systematic bias and hatred toward the FBI as an institution and against Hoover as a person)

2. Paul's repeated falsehoods about FBI filing practices and FBI procedures pertaining to its informants

3. Paul's tortured and false interpretation of what Wesley Swearingen supposedly believed about both Harry's narrative and about Joseph Milteer

4. Paul's deliberate falsehoods about what Edwin Walker supposedly taught his troops in Germany about U.S. Presidents

5. Paul's deliberate falsehoods about what "the Birch Society" supposedly "published" and taught its members in 1959-1962 about President Eisenhower or other Presidents

6. Paul's entirely false account of Harry's meetings with Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963

7. Paul's entirely false accusations against me such as claiming that I "continued" to "misrepresent" Paul's or Harry's position about some matter or I made statements which, in reality, I never made (such as me supposedly claiming that Harry and Paul had stated they had "proof" of Harry's meetings with Grapp -- when I never made any such statement and despite repeated challenges by me to provide substantiation for his false accusation, Paul refused to do so (for obvious reasons).

OK, I will deal with each of Ernie Lazar's false charges by the number:

1. Ernie's use of the word "tortured" indicates exaggeration, which is Ernie's strong suit. When Ernie has a weak argument (which is most of the time) he uses exaggeration to push it through. Harry and I were mistaken about the 11/1963 letter, and we admitted it. That admission would be enough for normal people to accept, but obviously it's not enough for the obsessively biased.

2. Ernie likes to boast about how much he knows about FBI filing practices and FBI procedures for informants. This charge merely amounts to Ernie's continual bragging.

3. Again -- the word "tortured" shows Ernie's use of exaggeration. In fact, Wes Swearingen's own words -- shared with the entire Forum -- showed that he keeps an open mind with regard to both Don Adams and Harry Dean. But the closed-minded Ernie Lazar still fails to grasp how anybody can be open-minded -- and so he resorts to one-sided exaggeration yet again.

4. The details about what General Edwin Walker taught his troops in 1960-1961 through his Pro-Blue program are well-documented by the US Army itself in a 660 page report from Lt. Gen. F.J. Brown dated 22May61. Investigating Edwin Walker, the US Army found Walker guilty of preaching to thousands of troops that First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and former President Harry Truman were "definitely pink."

Further, Walker violated the Hatch Act by trying to influence his troops to vote the way that he preferred. There is more. The 660 page report shows that Walker was a disgrace to his uniform, and the US Army rightly dismissed him from his command over the 24th Infantry Division in Augsburg, Germany in April 1961. Yet because of the politics of Robert Welch, Kent Courtney, the JBS and so on, Walker was welcomed as a right-wing hero when he quit the Army in November 1961.

5. Anybody who knows the well-publicized views of the John Birch Society regarding all US Presidents since FDR know very well that these paranoid Americans believed that these US Presidents were Communists and Communist-controlled. Those who doubt that historical fact deserve the smirks they receive.

6. As for Harry's meeting with Wesley Grapp, it was in 1964, not 1963. Furthermore, Ernie Lazar is in no position to jump to any conclusion that Harry's (and my) account is "entirely false" until all FBI records about Harry are in hand. Ernie still lacks some of those records, yet his mind is made up, and he wants you to close your minds, too, dear readers.

7. These false charges from Ernie Lazar today are themselves sufficient proof that Ernie continues to misrepresent Harry's position (and mine) regarding the murder of JFK. I still don't know what Ernie advocates -- all we can tell so far is what Ernie is against -- Harry and Paul. Why? We still don't know.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

1. Paul's tortured psychiatric analysis of what he claimed was a "forged" version of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover (which Paul based entirely upon Harry's defective recollection and upon Paul's own systematic bias and hatred toward the FBI as an institution and against Hoover as a person)

2. Paul's repeated falsehoods about FBI filing practices and FBI procedures pertaining to its informants

3. Paul's tortured and false interpretation of what Wesley Swearingen supposedly believed about both Harry's narrative and about Joseph Milteer

4. Paul's deliberate falsehoods about what Edwin Walker supposedly taught his troops in Germany about U.S. Presidents

5. Paul's deliberate falsehoods about what "the Birch Society" supposedly "published" and taught its members in 1959-1962 about President Eisenhower or other Presidents

6. Paul's entirely false account of Harry's meetings with Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963

7. Paul's entirely false accusations against me such as claiming that I "continued" to "misrepresent" Paul's or Harry's position about some matter or I made statements which, in reality, I never made (such as me supposedly claiming that Harry and Paul had stated they had "proof" of Harry's meetings with Grapp -- when I never made any such statement and despite repeated challenges by me to provide substantiation for his false accusation, Paul refused to do so (for obvious reasons).

OK, I will deal with each of Ernie Lazar's false charges by the number:

1. Ernie's use of the word "tortured" indicates exaggeration, which is Ernie's strong suit. When Ernie has a weak argument (which is most of the time) he uses exaggeration to push it through. Harry and I were mistaken about the 11/1963 letter, and we admitted it. That ad;mission would be enough for normal people to accept, but obviously it's not enough for the obsessively biased.

2. Ernie likes to boast about how much he knows about FBI filing practices and FBI procedures for informants. This charge merely amounts to Ernie's continual bragging.

3. Again -- the word "tortured" shows his use of exaggeration. In fact, Wes Swearingen's own words -- shared with the entire Forum -- showed that he keeps an open mind with regard to both Don Adams and Harry Dean. But the closed-minded Ernie Lazar still fails to grasp how anybody can be open-minded -- and so he resorts to one-sided exaggeration yet again.

4. The details about what General Edwin Walker taught his troops in 1960-1961 through his Pro-Blue program are well-documented by the US Army itself in a 660 page report from Lt. Gen. F.J. Brown dated 22May61. Investigating Edwin Walker, the US Army found Walker guilty of preaching to thousands of troops that First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and former President Harry Truman were "definitely pink."

Further, Walker violated the Hatch Act by trying to influence his troops to vote the way that he preferred. There is more. The 660 page report shows that Walker was a disgrace to his uniform, and the US Army rightly dismissed him from his command over the 24th Infantry Division in Augsburg, Germany in April 1961. Yet because of the politics of Robert Welch, Kent Courtney, the JBS and so on, Walker was welcomed as a right-wing hero when he quit the Army in November 1961.

5. Anybody who knows the well-publicized views of the John Birch Society regarding all US Presidents since FDR know very well that these paranoid Americans believed that these US Presidents were Communists and Communist-controlled. Those who doubt that historical fact deserve the smirks they receive.

6. As for Harry's meeting with Wesley Grapp, it was in 1964, not 1963. Furthermore, Ernie Lazar is in no position to jump to any conclusion that Harry's (and my) account is "entirely false" until all FBI records about Harry are in hand. Ernie still lacks some of those records, yet his mind is made up, and he wants you to close your minds, too, dear readers.

7. These false charges from Ernie Lazar today are themselves sufficient proof that Ernie continues to misrepresent Harry's position (and mine) regarding the murder of JFK. I still don't know what Ernie advocates -- all we can tell so far is what Ernie is against -- Harry and Paul. Why? We still don't know.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

1. You were not just "mistaken". You INVENTED a massively false "explanation" for which there was not one scintilla of factual evidence and, even worse, at that time you insisted that anybody who challenged your explanation was mentally and morally defective.

2. "Tortured" was not an "exaggeration". It accurately describes your entire reasoning process which simply discards all relevant facts and then fabricates a story line to accommodate your extreme bias and irrationality. "Intelligent and courageous" (your words) Wesley Swearingen arrived at the same conclusion about the statements made by both you and Harry. He even suggested that Harry needed professional intervention. Swearingen was not "open minded" about Harry's narrative. He discredited it.

3. Nobody is "bragging" about anything. The incontestable FACT is that you are abysmally ignorant of the subjects which you discuss. And when someone knows more than you (which is often), you always attempt to discredit them by trashing their character and integrity. Of course, you do not recognize this pitiful defect in yourself. Instead, you attribute all failings to your perceived opponents.

4. The report by Lt. Gen. Frederic Brown does NOT support your contentions regarding what Walker's Pro-Blue program taught. If you had such evidence, you would have QUOTED from it. But, instead, as is your custom, you merely ATTRIBUTE statements and positions to people which you think support your arguments but which are nothing more than your deliberate LIES. Significantly, there has never once been a soldier under Walker's command in Germany who has come forward to agree with your claims. By contrast, I have contacted many of those soldiers and they uniformly deny your statements. Have you contacted ANY of those soldiers?

5. JBS position about U.S. Presidents: Once again you rely upon your selective amnesia about your own statements. According to YOU, the Birch Society (as an organization) published statements about Eisenhower and FDR which stated that they were "Communists". That is simply NOT factually accurate. The Blue Book of the JBS gives the OFFICIAL position of the JBS at the time of its inception and continuing through the early 1960's. The reason why you NEVER QUOTE from their publications is because you know you are LYING.

6. Harry did not "meet with" Grapp in 1964. Another lie by you for which you have not one scintilla of verifiable factual evidence.

7. There are no "false charges" being made by me. You have never supported ANY of your accusations with verifiable factual evidence.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Ernie Lazar