Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, you consistenly miss my point. Your bias contiuously skews your judgment.

Once again, here's my point: your own subject, Keith Gilbert plainly confirmed key parts of Harry Dean's main story, namely:

.1. That Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald.

.2. That Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were also connected with the Minutemen in Southern California.

Why don't you respond to this important FACT?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 5, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, you consistenly miss my point. Your bias contiuously skews your judgment.

Once again, here's my point: your own subject, Keith Gilbert plainly confirmed key parts of Harry Dean's main story, namely:

.1. That Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald.

.2. That Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were also connected with the Minutemen in Southern California.

Why don't you respond to this important FACT?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

1. I did not miss any point of yours.

2. As I have previously pointed out, you constantly use lowest-common-denominator (LCD) reasoning and you then demand that all of us accept your ASSUMPTIONS from that LCD.

3. A major theme of your original message was that it was "splitting hairs" to distinguish between the MM and the JBS. That is a FALSEHOOD which was based upon your false LCD reasoning. As I pointed out:

I made no "mistake". I merely read your words where you attempted to assert that differences between the JBS and MM were only a matter of "splitting hairs" and that, in reality, the MM and JBS were "very closely related". You then pretended that you had specific factual knowledge about the demographic makeup of both the MM and the JBS to support your assumptions.

4. It is important for everyone to see how your mind works. You routinely "connect dots" based upon very flimsy or non-existent factual evidence and you then demand that we all accept your fallacious LCD and logic.

5. And, incidentally, you immediately accept as factual what Keith Gilbert wrote -- NOT because you had performed any careful research into his assertions -- but, instead, because you think his statements support Harry's narrative. This is another take-away which illustrates your poor ability as a researcher. This is what Larry Hancock correctly observed was the method by which one starts by selecting a villain and then one works backward to concoct a story-line about their purported activities, behavior, and motives -- which you then claim "confirms" your pre-existing narrative.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

As a matter of personal privilege:

1. Paul Trejo constantly accuses me of "bias". Of course, he totally exempts himself from any such defect.

2. Significantly, however, Paul never bothers to explain precisely what my supposed "bias" is. However, if you go back and search every message in this thread (all 1067 of them) where the word "bias" has been used by Paul -- there is a very specific and indisputable pattern.

3. It is Paul Trejo's contention that ANYBODY who disagrees with his beliefs is, ipso facto, revealing their "bias" which "skews" their ability to perceive reality.

4. In other words, Paul maintains that there are no significant factual disputes with respect to Harry's story. NONE WHATSOEVER! If you think differently, then you are "biased".

5. Let's be very clear and precise about the meaning of the word "bias". The definition of bias is:

prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

6. Paul is asking readers to believe that I am prejudiced against Harry in an unfair manner. But Paul never bothers to explain what my motive would be for such alleged prejudice. Unlike Paul Trejo, I have nothing invested in either Harry's story or in any other story. Paul has repeatedly stated that he is Harry's "friend", "ally" and "#1 defender". BUT Paul does NOT consider such admissions to be any evidence of HIS "bias" in favor of Harry.

7. After reviewing the 1067 previous messages in this thread, keep in mind the following indisputable FACTS:

(1) Paul has never provided one shred of new factual evidence to support any statement he has made about Harry. Instead, Paul just repeats, word for word, whatever Harry tells Paul.

(2) Prior to my posting scanned copies of actual documents in this thread (and/or summaries of documents contained in FBI files) -- Paul Trejo had never seen ANY of that evidence. Harry did not even have copies of his own correspondence to JFK, to J. Edgar Hoover, or to the Los Angeles field office.

(3) Paul Trejo has admitted several times in this thread, that he has seen more documentary evidence regarding Harry's narrative from ME than he previously had ever seen from anybody else (including Harry!).

(4) Neither Paul or Harry ever had the curiosity to pursue FBI or CIA documents through FOIA requests prior to publication (October 2013) of their eBook.

(5) The ONLY indisputable factual errors which have been presented and verified in this thread have been the result of MY research -- not Paul's and not Harry's. Even Paul recently acknowledged that those factual errors were so materially significant that they require Paul to publish a second edition of his eBook in order to correct them. In other words, if I had not presented indisputable contradictory FACTUAL evidence here --- then Paul and Harry would have continued to present their false statements and assertions in perpetuity!!

(6) Consequently (and in summary), Paul's constant claims of "bias" (prejudice which unfairly or adversely impacts statements and conclusions made) can easily be applied to PAUL'S HISTORY in this thread because there is an abundance of evidence to support such an analysis and conclusion. Which is why I again point out that Paul has a habit of accusing his critics or perceived opponents of the very unpleasant qualities or intellectual defects which his own behavior reveals.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

This afternoon, I updated my webpage on Harry to reflect additional information concerning my FOIA requests on him and related subject matters (copied below for interested researchers):

FOR INTERESTED RESEARCHERS RE: HARRY DEAN

I am listing below the current status of all my FOIA requests pertaining to Harry or pertain to related subject matters. An updated version of this list will be posted on my Harry Dean webpage in approximately 3-4 weeks as I receive additional information or actual releases.

This list includes specific files which I have requested along with individual serials that mention Harry in files about some other subject. The individual serials listed are shown on FBI Name Check Unit “search slips” in Harry’s HQ and Los Angeles files.

In some cases, I can identify the subject matter of a particular file. In other cases, there is no identifying data. In a few cases, the specific files containing serials may not actually be on our Harry Dean because the FBI Name Check Unit did not perform any research to confirm the identity of the “Harry Dean” mentioned in the serial.

1. THESE FILES/SERIALS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO NARA

· Chicago 100-18080 (Richard L. Criley / FPCC--Chicago)

· Chicago 100-37454 (Fair Play For Cuba Committee)

· HQ 2-1693 [Loran Eugene Hall]

· HQ 65-19763, serial #12X

· HQ 100-3-4, serial #1594 (HQ 100-3 is the FBI main file on the Communist Party USA. The -4 suffix refers to a specific field office location (perhaps Chicago).

· HQ 100-201103, serial #35

· HQ 100-284892 (Florence Criley, FPCC--Chicago)

· Los Angeles 100-60840 (Edgar Swabeck, FPCC--Chicago)

· HQ 105-4212, #1

· HQ 105-78016 [Loran Eugene Hall]

· HQ 105-114542 (J.U.R.E.)

· HQ 105-127490

· Los Angeles 100-15311, #782 (on “Harold Dean”)

· Los Angeles 105-13351 (Alpha 66/SNFE)

2. THESE FILES/SERIALS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED

If FBI provided date when destroyed, I have provided that info as “D=(date)”

· Chicago 105-6033 (Anti-Castro Activities) D=2013

· HQ 9-51846 (Loran Eugene Hall) D=8/22/07

· HQ 140-18902, serial #2 (Classification 140 pertains to “Security of Government Employees” matters, i.e. persons suspected of being risks to national security) D=2/5/09

· HQ 87-111598 [Loran Eugene Hall] D=2/16/91

· Los Angeles 9-2343, serial #2 [Classification 9 pertains to “Extortion” matters] D-but no date specified

· Los Angeles 25-8000, #4836 thru #4838 [Classification 25 pertains to “Selective Service Act” matters] = D-but no date specified

· Los Angeles 65-101, serial #1768 (Classification 65 pertains to “Espionage” matters. D-but no date specified

· Los Angeles 94-250, serial #904 [Classification 94 pertains to “Research Matters” which the Bureau used as a catch-all category for answering incoming correspondence from the public, from law enforcement agencies, from the media, and for all general public relations matters]. D-but no date specified

· Los Angeles 100-0-20989 [Classification 100 pertains to “Domestic Security” matters, including sabotage, treason, espionage, and general subversive activities]. D-but no date specified

· Los Angeles 100-1488 D=09/74

3. THESE FILES/SERIALS ARE STILL BEING PROCESSED – BUT STATUS MAY CHANGE TO “NARA” or “DESTROYED” AFTER FBI ANALYSTS COMPLETE THEIR RESEARCH

· Chicago 134-1540 [Classification 134 pertains to reports from FBI informants or confidential sources; this file number was listed as a cross-reference on one memo in Harry’s Los Angeles file and probably refers to some source who provided information about Harry]

· Dallas 105-1280 [This is Dallas main file on Minutemen – estimated at 4729pp]

· HQ personnel file (file number unknown) on Special Agent Ferd J. Rapp Jr. [Rapp had several contacts with Harry.]

· HQ personnel file (file number unknown) on Los Angeles SAC Wesley G. Grapp [estimated to be 2931pp].

· HQ main file on Richard L. Criley (FPCC)

· HQ 61-7559, serial #11881 [This is the Communist Party USA, General Activities main file)

· HQ 62-3907, serials #75, #85, #91, #100, #101 [Classification 62 pertains to “Administrative Inquiries – Miscellaneous Subversive and Non-Subversive”

· HQ 62-57092, serial #3

· HQ 62-104401 [This is HQ main file on John Birch Society – estimated at 10,050pp]

· HQ 62-107261 [This is HQ main file on Minutemen – estimated as 8500pp]

· HQ 97-3382 [Classification 97 pertains to “Foreign Agents Registration Act”]

· HQ 97-4196 [FBI HQ main file on FPCC; estimated to be 9500pp for entire file]

· HQ 97-4196-9 [FBI HQ main file on FPCC-Chicago chapter; estimated as 1750pp for years 1960-1961]

· HQ 97-4196-26 [FBI HQ main file on FPCC-Los Angeles chapter]

· HQ 97-4362 [Joaquin Freire, former Cuban Counsel in Chicago who defected]

· HQ 100-363991 [Edward Gourfain, FPCC--Chicago]

· HQ 105-94423 [Juan Del Rosario, FPCC-Chicago)

· HQ 105-112098 {Alpha 66/SNFE = estimated at 2681 pages for 7/61 thru 12/63]

· HQ 122-190, serial #17 [Classification 122 pertains to “Sensitive Positions in the United States Government” which includes FBI loyalty investigations of persons accepting employment or fellowships including State Department officials and some judicial appointments.]

· Los Angeles 42-27545 [Classification 42 pertains to military “Deserters”]

· Los Angeles 62-2469, serial #92

· Los Angeles 62-5101 [This is Los Angeles main file on Minutemen]

· Los Angeles 67-30, serial #991

· Los Angeles 87-776, #257 [Classification 87 pertains to “Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property” matters.]

· Los Angeles 98-0-2219 [Classification 98 pertains to “Sabotage” matters.]

· Los Angeles 98-97

· Los Angeles 100-13364, serial #1632

· Los Angeles 105-0-820 [Classification 105 pertains to “Foreign Counterintelligence” matters.]

· Los Angeles 105-6561 [This file is on “Anti-Castro Activities”]

· Los Angeles 105-8734 [This file is on FPCC-Los Angeles chapter; estimated as 4062pp for 7/61 thru 12/63]

· Los Angeles 105-16378 [This file is on Frank Vega]

· Los Angeles 105-16406 [This file is on J.U.R.E.]

· New York City 97-1792 [This file is on FPCC-New York City chapter]

· Guy Louis Galbadon [HQ, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Miami, New Orleans, San Diego.]

· Gerald Patrick Hemming Jr. and Interpen [HQ, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami]

4. MISCELLANEOUS OTHER

· Chicago 100-38257 [Harry’s Chicago field main file was destroyed in May 1990].

· HQ 62-109068 [most of HQ file on Harry is posted on Mary Ferrell website; this HQ file incorporates HQ 62-109217]

· HQ 94-54427 [summary serial re: Cong. John Rousselot inquiry about Harry posted on Mary Ferrell website.]

· HQ 134-9602, serial #6 [The FBI stated that this serial is exempt from release. I have appealed their denial. The denial reason is almost certainly because the 134-prefix refers to information which the FBI received about Harry from a security informant or confidential source.]

· Los Angeles 105-12933 [Harry’s Los Angeles field main file = 265 pages released; see details re: each serial here along with scanned copies of key serials]: https://sites.google.com/site/xrt013/harrydean

[Thomas Graves]

As a matter of personal privilege:

1. Paul Trejo constantly accuses me of "bias". Of course, he totally exempts himself from any such defect.

2. Significantly, however, Paul never bothers to explain precisely what my supposed "bias" is. However, if you go back and search every message in this thread (all 1067 of them) where the word "bias" has been used by Paul -- there is a very specific and indisputable pattern.

3. It is Paul Trejo's contention that ANYBODY who disagrees with his beliefs is, ipso facto, revealing their "bias" which "skews" their ability to perceive reality.

4. In other words, Paul maintains that there are no significant factual disputes with respect to Harry's story. NONE WHATSOEVER! If you think differently, then you are "biased".

5. Let's be very clear and precise about the meaning of the word "bias". The definition of bias is:

prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

6. Paul is asking readers to believe that I am prejudiced against Harry in an unfair manner. But Paul never bothers to explain what my motive would be for such alleged prejudice. Unlike Paul Trejo, I have nothing invested in either Harry's story or in any other story. Paul has repeatedly stated that he is Harry's "friend", "ally" and "#1 defender". BUT Paul does NOT consider such admissions to be any evidence of HIS "bias" in favor of Harry.

7. After reviewing the 1067 previous messages in this thread, keep in mind the following indisputable FACTS:

(1) Paul has never provided one shred of new factual evidence to support any statement he has made about Harry. Instead, Paul just repeats, word for word, whatever Harry tells Paul.

(2) Prior to my posting scanned copies of actual documents in this thread (and/or summaries of documents contained in FBI files) -- Paul Trejo had never seen ANY of that evidence. Harry did not even have copies of his own correspondence to JFK, to J. Edgar Hoover, or to the Los Angeles field office.

(3) Paul Trejo has admitted several times in this thread, that he has seen more documentary evidence regarding Harry's narrative from ME than he previously had ever seen from anybody else (including Harry!).

(4) Neither Paul or Harry ever had the curiosity to pursue FBI or CIA documents through FOIA requests prior to publication (October 2013) of their eBook.

(5) The ONLY indisputable factual errors which have been presented and verified in this thread have been the result of MY research -- not Paul's and not Harry's. Even Paul recently acknowledged that those factual errors were so materially significant that they require Paul to publish a second edition of his eBook in order to correct them. In other words, if I had not presented indisputable contradictory FACTUAL evidence here --- then Paul and Harry would have continued to present their false statements and assertions in perpetuity!!

(6) Consequently (and in summary), Paul's constant claims of "bias" (prejudice which unfairly or adversely impacts statements and conclusions made) can easily be applied to PAUL'S HISTORY in this thread because there is an abundance of evidence to support such an analysis and conclusion. Which is why I again point out that Paul has a habit of accusing his critics or perceived opponents of the very unpleasant qualities or intellectual defects which his own behavior reveals.

Ernie,

Just because Paul Trejo fervently believes (and preaches) that Loran Hall 1) must have been actually using the benzadrine that was found in his car on October 16, 1963 while he and William Seymour were towing a trailer full of weapons and medical supplies, and 2) that Hall's supposed temporary using of said "bennies" must have caused him to weigh only 165 pounds while allegedly visiting Sylvia Odio with 5'11", 200 pound Larry "Fatso" Howard and Lee Harvey Oswald (instead of the 200 pounds that Hall one year later told the FBI that he had weighed at the time, or the 215 pounds that Hall actually did weigh in October of 1964) does not mean that Paul is biased, even though he has no evidence that Hall weighed as little as one-hundred-and-sixty pounds.

LOL

--Tommy

Edited May 6, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Just because Paul Trejo fervently believes (and preaches) that Loran Hall 1) must have been actually using the benzadrine that was found in his car on October 16, 1963 while he and William Seymour were towing a trailer full of weapons and medical supplies, and 2) that Hall's supposed temporary using of said "bennies" must have caused him to weigh only 160 pounds while allegedly visiting Sylvia Odio with 5'11", 200 pound Larry "Fatso" Howard and Lee Harvey Oswald (instead of the 200 pounds that Hall one year later told the FBI that he had weighed at the time, or the 215 pounds that Hall actually did weigh in October of 1964) does not mean that Paul is biased, even though he has no evidence that Hall weighed as little as one-hundred-and-sixty pounds.

LOL

--Tommy

However, Tommy, the only evidence you have that "Leopoldo" weighed 160 pounds is the random guess of Sylvia Odio who admitted she was just guessing. If you counter that she guessed the height and weight of Lee Harvey Oswald correctly, I could counter that Lee Harvey Oswald was the most infamous person in the world at that time, with countless articles in the news and press, including a full description -- so perhaps she read it somewhere.

My point to you was that we have more evidence to support Harry Dean's belief that "Leopoldo" was Loran Hall than other evidence that "Leopoldo" was Bernardo De Torres.

Angelo Murgado claimed that that "Leopoldo" was Bernardo De Torres, and that he was "Angelo" during the visit to Sylvia Odio's that day. However, he also said that he and Bernardo did not have a third person with them. He also said that Lee Harvey Oswald was already in the living room with Sylvia Odio when Bernardo and he arrived.

Clearly Angelo Murgado was thinking of a different visit. Firstly, Sylvia Odio was already familiar with Bernardo De Torres in Cuba, yet she stated clearly that the three men at her doorstep during the final week of September 1963 were strangers to her.

Secondly, Sylvia Odio explicitly said that she refused to let the three strangers into her home.

Thirdly, Angelo said that he was the one who had business with Sylvia Odio, so he shook the hand of the visitor with Sylvia, but Angelo did not speak with him; he only spoke with Sylvia at length. However, Sylvia said that "Leopoldo" did most of the talking, and "Angelo" only said "Hello".

Fourthly, Sylvia Odio plainly stated that the two Latinos gave her their "war names" and of course Angelo Murgado's first name was really "Angelo," and not a "war name."

So, I have no doubt that Angelo Murgado and Bernardo De Torres visited Sylvia Odio in Dallas sometime -- but the person in her living room was somebody else than Lee Harvey Oswald, without any doubt. Angelo Murgado is simply mistaken about that visitor, and I think you should recognize that.

As for Ernie -- he continually evades the simple FACT that Keith Gilbert plainly testified to exactly the same two points that Harry Dean has always promoted, namely:

.1. Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald.

.2. Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were both connected with the Minutemen in Southern California.

Why doesn't Ernie respond to this important FACT? You're only encouraging him to evade facts, Tommy, when you egg him on that way.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 6, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Just because Paul Trejo fervently believes (and preaches) that Loran Hall 1) must have been actually using the benzadrine that was found in his car on October 16, 1963 while he and William Seymour were towing a trailer full of weapons and medical supplies, and 2) that Hall's supposed temporary using of said "bennies" must have caused him to weigh only 160 pounds while allegedly visiting Sylvia Odio with 5'11", 200 pound Larry "Fatso" Howard and Lee Harvey Oswald (instead of the 200 pounds that Hall one year later told the FBI that he had weighed at the time, or the 215 pounds that Hall actually did weigh in October of 1964) does not mean that Paul is biased, even though he has no evidence that Hall weighed as little as one-hundred-and-sixty pounds.

LOL

--Tommy

However, Tommy, the only evidence you have that "Leopoldo" weighed 160 pounds is the random guess of Sylvia Odio who admitted she was just guessing. If you counter that she guessed the height and weight of Lee Harvey Oswald correctly, I could counter that Lee Harvey Oswald was the most infamous person in the world at that time, with countless articles in the news and press, including a full description -- so perhaps she read it somewhere.

My point to you was that we have more evidence to support Harry Dean's belief that "Leopoldo" was Loran Hall than other evidence that "Leopoldo" was Bernardo De Torres.

Angelo Murgado claimed that that "Leopoldo" was Bernardo De Torres, and that he was "Angelo" during the visit to Sylvia Odio's that day. However, he also said that he and Bernardo did not have a third person with them. He also said that Lee Harvey Oswald was already in the living room with Sylvia Odio when Bernardo and he arrived.

Clearly Angelo Murgado was thinking of a different visit. Firstly, Sylvia Odio was already familiar with Bernardo De Torres in Cuba, yet she stated clearly that the three men at her doorstep during the final week of September 1963 were strangers to her.

Secondly, Sylvia Odio explicitly said that she refused to let the three strangers into her home.

Thirdly, Angelo said that he was the one who had business with Sylvia Odio, so he shook the hand of the visitor with Sylvia, but Angelo did not speak with him; he only spoke with Sylvia at length. However, Sylvia said that "Leopoldo" did most of the talking, and "Angelo" only said "Hello".

Fourthly, Sylvia Odio plainly stated that the two Latinos gave her their "war names" and of course Angelo Murgado's first name was really "Angelo," and not a "war name."

So, I have no doubt that Angelo Murgado and Bernardo De Torres visited Sylvia Odio in Dallas sometime -- but the person in her living room was somebody else than Lee Harvey Oswald, without any doubt. Angelo Murgado is simply mistaken about that visitor, and I think you should recognize that.

As for Ernie -- he continually evades the simple FACT that Keith Gilbert plainly testified to exactly the same two points that Harry Dean has always promoted, namely:

.1. Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald.

.2. Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were both connected with the Minutemen in Southern California.

Why doesn't Ernie respond to this important FACT? You're only encouraging him to evade facts, Tommy, when you egg him on that way.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- since I am the person who provided Keith Gilbert's comments, it is certainly odd that you accuse me of "evading" them. And, yet again, you need a dictionary. "FACT" is something proven to be true -- i.e. reality. What Gilbert wrote was a recollection or an anecdote, or hearsay -- but not "FACT".

You obviously do not understand the different between assertions and proven verifiable facts.

[Paul Trejo]

...As for Ernie -- he continually evades the simple FACT that Keith Gilbert plainly testified to exactly the same two points that Harry Dean has always promoted, namely:

.1. Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald.

.2. Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were both connected with the Minutemen in Southern California.

Why doesn't Ernie respond to this important FACT? You're only encouraging him to evade facts, Tommy, when you egg him on that way.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- since I am the person who provided Keith Gilbert's comments, it is certainly odd that you accuse me of "evading" them. And, yet again, you need a dictionary. "FACT" is something proven to be true -- i.e. reality. What Gilbert wrote was a recollection or an anecdote, or hearsay -- but not "FACT".

You obviously do not understand the different between assertions and proven verifiable facts.

You miss my point, Ernie. It is precisely because you were the one who provided Keith Gilbert's remarks on this thread that makes this whole situation drip with irony!

Did you also miss the connection of what you were promoting in Keith GIlbert's remarks with what you are opposing in Harry Dean's remarks?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 6, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...As for Ernie -- he continually evades the simple FACT that Keith Gilbert plainly testified to exactly the same two points that Harry Dean has always promoted, namely:

.1. Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald.

.2. Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were both connected with the Minutemen in Southern California.

Why doesn't Ernie respond to this important FACT? You're only encouraging him to evade facts, Tommy, when you egg him on that way.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- since I am the person who provided Keith Gilbert's comments, it is certainly odd that you accuse me of "evading" them. And, yet again, you need a dictionary. "FACT" is something proven to be true -- i.e. reality. What Gilbert wrote was a recollection or an anecdote, or hearsay -- but not "FACT".

You obviously do not understand the different between assertions and proven verifiable facts.

You miss my point, Ernie. It is precisely because you were the one who provided Keith Gilbert's remarks on this thread that makes this whole situation drip with irony!

Did you also miss the connection of what you were promoting in Keith GIlbert's remarks with what you are opposing in Harry Dean's remarks?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- your message reveals, with clarity, the problem with your intellect.

1. I was not "promoting" anything which Keith Gilbert wrote.

2. I clearly introduced my comment by pointing out that I came across his comment in my notes so I decided to share it because Gilbert presented an alternative interpretation of the responsibility for the murder of JFK -- i.e. not primarily JBS - but, instead, Minutemen.

3. As this example proves, you are NOT CAPABLE of recognizing the significance of what is being presented. Instead, you ALWAYS filter data through your own prejudices and biases. You believe Gilbert's comments ONLY because you think you can use them to "confirm" something which you already believe about Harry's story.

4. You have no interest whatsoever in actual research. Instead, you cherry-pick ANY data which you think conforms to some point which you already believe and then you instantaneously elevate that data to cosmic truth.

[Thomas Graves]

[...] Tommy, the only evidence you have that "Leopoldo" weighed 160 pounds is the random guess of Sylvia Odio who admitted she was just guessing.

Awww ... Bull Pucky!

When you estimate the height, weight, and/or age of a person who standing a few feet away from you for several minutes, is it fair to say that you do so by just making "random guesses?"

Of course not.

Nobody does.

And despite what you say, Sylvia Odio never said she was "just guessing." Liebler prompted her twice, by using the word "guess", to estimate the weight of "Leopoldo" and the height of "Angelo," so it could be said that he tried to put that word in her mouth but she didn't take the bait. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/pdf/WH11_Odio.pdf

Recap: Sylvia Odio never said she was "just guessing" about Leopoldo's weight, as you claim.

Her use of words like "about" and "something like that" several times in her WC testimony is not tantamount to her admitting that she was "just guessing" about anything, but rather an indication of her honesty and forthrightness and basic accuracy about the heights, weights, and ages of the three men .

Everyone, even Paul Trejo, estimates another person's height, weight, and age based on comparisons of such with their own height, weight, and age and also, perhaps, with those of close friends or relatives whose height, weight, and age they know and can remember.

Call it part of 'life experience" if you want to, but don't call it "random guessing."

LOL

When Sylvia Odio said that Leopoldo was "very tall and slim", "must be six feet tall" , weighed "about 165 pounds" , and looked "about 34 years old," she is not making random guesses.

She is making comparative and informed estimates which are, as you know, very different than just "random guesses."

You make her sound like she was wearing a blindfold while meeting with the three men and met with them for only thirty seconds and therefore had to make random guesses of their respective heights, weights, and ages based solely on how they sounded.

LOL

Why do you twist words and facts so, Trejo?

Examples:

1) Calling Leopoldo's "thin" build an "athletic" one in an attempt to convince us that this "Leopoldo" must have been Loran Hall whom we already know was an "athletic" 200 lbs on a 5'11.5" frame -- a lot more "athletic" than the skinny, six-foot plus, 165 pound "Leopoldo" that Sylvia Odio saw. (I mistakenly suggested that Sylvia said that Leopoldo was "160 lbs" in an earlier post, but what's interesting is not only that you didn't catch my mistake, but that what she really said, 165 lbs, indicates that Sylvia was confident of her memory and willing and able to be very precise by using 5-pound increments! (Bernaro De Torres perfectly matches Sylvia Odio's description of Leopoldo's being "very tall and slim" and weighing "about 165 lbs." Bernardo De Torres was 6' 2" and weighed only 164 lbs. Therefore, it's very likely that Sylvia missed "Leopoldo's" true weight by only one pound!

2) Calling a two month lapse of time "immediate." (The two months of course are the two months you thought were between the date that Loran Hall was "picked up" by the FBI and the date that Sylvia Odio informed the authorities about the strange visit by three men.) The point is that two months is not "immediate." (Nor is nine months, for that matter, "almost immediate.")

3) Calling Sylvia Odio's comparative and informed estimates just "random guesses"

4) Claiming that Sylvia Odio admitted in her WC testimony to "just guessing" when in reality she did no such thing although Liebler tried to insinuate that she was.

Bull Pucky.

One again, why do you twist words and facts so, Trejo?

Are you so desperate to get us to see things your way that you must, so darn often, twist words and facts and spin them to what you think is your "advantage?"

LOL

--Tommy

PS:

Get it straight, Trejo. I didn't say "William F. Buckley."

I said "Bull Pucky"

But I fully expect that you will go ahead and make out of it what you george f------- will.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

Why do you twist words and facts so, Trejo?

Examples:

1) Calling Leopoldo's "thin" build an "athletic" one in an attempt to convince us that this "Leopoldo" must have been Loran Hall whom we already know was an "athletic" 200 lbs on a 5'11.5" frame -- a lot more "athletic" than the skinny, six-foot plus, 165 pound "Leopoldo" that Sylvia Odio saw. (I mistakenly suggested that Sylvia said that Leopoldo was "160 lbs" in an earlier post, but what's interesting is not only that you didn't catch my mistake, but that what she really said, 165 lbs, indicates that Sylvia was confident of her memory and willing and able to be very precise by using 5-pound increments! (Bernaro De Torres perfectly matches Sylvia Odio's description of Leopoldo's being "very tall and slim" and weighing "about 165 lbs." Bernardo De Torres was 6' 2" and weighed only 164 lbs. Therefore, it's very likely that Sylvia missed "Leopoldo's" true weight by only one pound!

2) Calling a two month lapse of time "immediate." (The two months of course are the two months you thought were between the date that Loran Hall was "picked up" by the FBI and the date that Sylvia Odio informed the authorities about the strange visit by three men.) The point is that two months is not "immediate." (Nor is nine months, for that matter, "almost immediate.")

3) Calling Sylvia Odio's comparative and informed estimates just "random guesses"

4) Claiming that Sylvia Odio admitted in her WC testimony to "just guessing" when in reality she did no such thing although Liebler tried to insinuate that she was.

Bull Pucky.

One again, why do you twist words and facts so, Trejo?

Are you so desperate to get us to see things your way that you must, so darn often, twist words and facts and spin them to what you think is your "advantage?"

LOL

--Tommy

<snip>

Well, Tommy, I deny that I "twist" words and facts deliberately. If I make a mistake and its shown to me, then I'll apologize, as you know.

(1) My objection to your claims about "Leopoldo" have less to do with the height and weight of Loran Hall (as you noted) than with the notion that estimated height and weight are as important as you make them.

I myself cannot accurately guess the height or weight of people. I really can't. I once saw a Carnival barker who could guess anybody's height and weight within one inch and one pound -- and I was truly amazed. I thought there had to be a trick to it.

My denial that Bernardo De Torres was "Leopoldo" is that Sylvia Odio first and foremost claimed that these three men at her doorstep were strangers to her. Yet Bernardo and Sylvia had seen each other in Cuba (says Joan Mellen). Also, Angelo Murgado knew people in Sylvia Odio's family -- did he not?

So, on that basis alone, it is utterly impossible that Bernardo De Torres could be "Leopoldo". I've already explained why it is utterly impossible for Angelo Murgado to be "Angelo."

You are quite right to note that Bernardo De Torres matches Sylvia's "estimated" height and weight for "Leopoldo," and if those facts (and the receding hairline) were her only descriptions, then you'd have a match.

Yet, since Sylvia knew Bernardo -- there is no possibility of a match.

If one wants to be totally LITERAL about it, then of course we don't have any match at all -- nobody we know matches "Leopoldo" exactly as Sylvia Odio described him. The FBI showed Sylvia many, many photographs, and she denied that any one of them was "Leopoldo" or "Angelo".

HOWEVER -- the FBI *eventually* picked up Loran Hall -- and at that time Loran Hall confessed that yes, it was he himself, Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) and Larry Howard (alias Alonzo Escruido) who visited Sylvia Duran during the final week of September 1963.

That is the evidence that theorists must explain.

I think that you make entirely too much of the heights and weights given by Sylvia Odio -- and because I myself find it so difficult to guess people's height and weight, you'll have to do a lot more than repeat yourself to convince me.

(2) I've already apologized for calling a two month lapse of time "immediate." It was an exaggeration that was intended to draw attention to my point. I wasn't aware that confessed exaggerations were unforgivable around here.

(3) I will apologize today for calling Sylvia Odio's height and weight estimates just "random guesses." That again was an exaggeration. I should have said, "estimates."

(4) I will also apologize today for saying that Sylvia Odio admitted to "just guessing" in her WC testimony, when actually the words she used were, "about" and "something like that." While one cannot obtain precision from that sort of language, I admit today that this is not the same as "just guessing."

All right, Tommy? I've apologized where I used exaggeration. I hope you're satisfied with an apology.

Also, I'm not in the slightest desperate for anybody to see things my way -- and I obtain no "advantage" one way or another.

Despite an occasional error on my part (usually due to exaggeration or a figure of speech) the points I make about history and about evidence in the JFK murder case tends to be stronger than most.

For example -- in the case of Bernardo De Torres being "Leopoldo," I think your case, Tommy, is decidedly weak.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 7, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

<snip>

Why do you twist words and facts so, Trejo?

Examples:

1) Calling Leopoldo's "thin" build an "athletic" one in an attempt to convince us that this "Leopoldo" must have been Loran Hall whom we already know was an "athletic" 200 lbs on a 5'11.5" frame -- a lot more "athletic" than the skinny, six-foot plus, 165 pound "Leopoldo" that Sylvia Odio saw. (I mistakenly suggested that Sylvia said that Leopoldo was "160 lbs" in an earlier post, but what's interesting is not only that you didn't catch my mistake, but that what she really said, 165 lbs, indicates that Sylvia was confident of her memory and willing and able to be very precise by using 5-pound increments! (Bernaro De Torres perfectly matches Sylvia Odio's description of Leopoldo's being "very tall and slim" and weighing "about 165 lbs." Bernardo De Torres was 6' 2" and weighed only 164 lbs. Therefore, it's very likely that Sylvia missed "Leopoldo's" true weight by only one pound!

2) Calling a two month lapse of time "immediate." (The two months of course are the two months you thought were between the date that Loran Hall was "picked up" by the FBI and the date that Sylvia Odio informed the authorities about the strange visit by three men.) The point is that two months is not "immediate." (Nor is nine months, for that matter, "almost immediate.")

3) Calling Sylvia Odio's comparative and informed estimates just "random guesses"

4) Claiming that Sylvia Odio admitted in her WC testimony to "just guessing" when in reality she did no such thing although Liebler tried to insinuate that she was.

Bull Pucky.

One again, why do you twist words and facts so, Trejo?

Are you so desperate to get us to see things your way that you must, so darn often, twist words and facts and spin them to what you think is your "advantage?"

LOL

--Tommy

<snip>

Well, Tommy, I deny that I "twist" words and facts deliberately. If I make a mistake and its shown to me, then I'll apologize, as you know.

(1) My objection to your claims about "Leopoldo" have less to do with the height and weight of Loran Hall (as you noted) than with the notion that estimated height and weight are as important as you make them.

I myself cannot accurately guess the height or weight of people. I really can't. I once saw a Carnival barker who could guess anybody's height and weight within one inch and one pound -- and I was truly amazed. I thought there had to be a trick to it.

My denial that Bernardo De Torres was "Leopoldo" is that Sylvia Odio first and foremost claimed that these three men at her doorstep were strangers to her. Yet Bernardo and Sylvia had seen each other in Cuba (says Joan Mellen). Also, Angelo Murgado knew people in Sylvia Odio's family -- did he not?

So, on that basis alone, it is utterly impossible that Bernardo De Torres could be "Leopoldo". I've already explained why it is utterly impossible for Angelo Murgado to be "Angelo."

You are quite right to note that Bernardo De Torres matches Sylvia's "estimated" height and weight for "Leopoldo," and if those facts (and the receding hairline) were her only descriptions, then you'd have a match.

Yet, since Sylvia knew Bernardo -- there is no possibility of a match.

If one wants to be totally LITERAL about it, then of course we don't have any match at all -- nobody we know matches "Leopoldo" exactly as Sylvia Odio described him. The FBI showed Sylvia many, many photographs, and she denied that any one of them was "Leopoldo" or "Angelo".

HOWEVER -- the FBI *eventually* picked up Loran Hall -- and at that time Loran Hall confessed that yes, it was he himself, Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) and Larry Howard (alias Alonzo Escruido) who visited Sylvia Duran during the final week of September 1963.

That is the evidence that theorists must explain.

I think that you make entirely too much of the heights and weights given by Sylvia Odio -- and because I myself find it so difficult to guess people's height and weight, you'll have to do a lot more than repeat yourself to convince me.

(2) I've already apologized for calling a two month lapse of time "immediate." It was an exaggeration that was intended to draw attention to my point. I wasn't aware that confessed exaggerations were unforgivable around here.

(3) I will apologize today for calling Sylvia Odio's height and weight estimates just "random guesses." That again was an exaggeration. I should have said, "estimates."

(4) I will also apologize today for saying that Sylvia Odio admitted to "just guessing" in her WC testimony, when actually the words she used were, "about" and "something like that." While one cannot obtain precision from that sort of language, I admit today that this is not the same as "just guessing."

All right, Tommy? I've apologized where I used exaggeration. I hope you're satisfied with an apology.

Also, I'm not in the slightest desperate for anybody to see things my way -- and I obtain no "advantage" one way or another.

Despite an occasional error on my part (usually due to exaggeration or a figure of speech) the points I make about history and about evidence in the JFK murder case tends to be stronger than most.

For example -- in the case of Bernardo De Torres being "Leopoldo," I think your case, Tommy, is decidedly weak.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Trejo,

Why do you "spin" and "twist" words and facts so?

(The correct answer: To try to stay "on the offensive" by using damage control!)

You grudgingly apologized for calling a two month period of time "immediate" only after you tried to avoid the issue altogether by saying that your "time track" had gotten "scrambled" and you "apologized" for not realizing that what was at issue was a nine month period of time - not two months - and just leaving it at that.

When I "called" you on that you wrote:

Yes, Tommy, I already admitted that I over-spoke on that point. As you say, it was mere rhetoric.

"Over spoke"? LOL. What the heck is that? Sounds like Trejo Speak (highly creative damage control) to me. Are you saying that you said too much, or that you exaggerated? Is it just your way of saying "I intentionally under-exaggerated two months down to "immediate"; I lied"?

And get something else straight, Trejo: I never used the word "mere." Nor did I imply anything that the word "mere" denotes. So should forum members consider this just another example of your habitual "over speaking," or would it be more correct to say that it was a sneaky attempt by you to put words in my mouth?

And, by the way, Trejo, my using of the word "rhetorically" in the earlier post was my polite attempt to suggest that a previous question by you was "devious" in nature!

I retract that statement -- it was not an "immediate" jump from Sylvia's testimony to picking up Loran Hall.

That was a gross exaggeration. It was two months as measured from her Warren Commission testimony, and it was nine months as measured from her first FBI interview.

Finally! But then, immediately, you're back to your old ways:

I was mistaken. I admit it.

You were mistaken about two months being "immediate?" That doesn't make sense. How can anyone be "mistaken" about the difference between two months and "immediate?" It looks like you're sneakily retracting your apology for having intentionally and grossly under-exaggerated "two months." Instead of saying "I was mistaken, I admit it" shouldn't you be saying, "I lied, I admit it"??

So -- can we please return to my main two questions regarding the "Leopoldo and Angel" episode[?]

I can certainly understand why you would like to leave this subject. I must be very embarrassing for you!

After all, not only were you unaware that the FBI had questioned Sylvia Odio nine months before they "picked up" Loran Hall, but even worse, you intentionally and grossly under exaggerated (i.e., lied) your mistaken two months down to "immediate."

IMHO it takes way too much time and energy to "debate" you because of your lackadaisical approach to research and fact checking and, more importantly, your devious nature and willingness to intentionally "grossly exaggerate" (which is a form of lying), as exhibited multiple times on this forum's pages.

So like Greg Burnham and others, I'm finished with you.

You've exhausted me.

All The Best Regards,

--Tommy

Edited May 8, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

OK, so Tommy refuses to deal with the two most urgent questions about "Leopoldo," namely, (1) why the FBI picked up Loran Hall about Silvia Odio's story; and (2) why Loran Hall originally confessed to being "Leopoldo" and identifying Larry Howard as "Angel."

Instead, Tommy will escape from the pressures.

It proves that the question is a strong one.

It also speaks to the deposition of Keith Gilbert that Ernie Lazar shared above -- which also links Loran Hall (Lorenzo Pacillo) with Lee Harvey Oswald, and both of them to the Southern California Minutemen.

The words of Keith Gilbert accidentally supported the claims of Harry Dean -- but will the debaters here also AVOID THIS ISSUE?

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 8, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

OK, so Tommy refuses to deal with the two most urgent questions about "Leopoldo," namely, (1) why the FBI picked up Loran Hall about Silvia Odio's story; and (2) why Loran Hall originally confessed to being "Leopoldo" and identifying Larry Howard as "Angel."

Instead, Tommy will escape from the pressures.

It proves that the question is a strong one.

It also speaks to the deposition of Keith Gilbert that Ernie Lazar shared above -- which also links Loran Hall (Lorenzo Pacillo) with Lee Harvey Oswald, and both of them to the Southern California Minutemen.

The words of Keith Gilbert accidentally supported the claims of Harry Dean -- and Ernie Lazar doesn't know how to deal with that fact, either -- so like Tommy, Ernie will resort to ad hominem attacks -- AND AVOID THE ISSUE.

Typical.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Where did a post an "ad hominem attack" on you, Trejo?

All I've done is painstakingly point out that you, sir, are not only a lackadaisical researcher who does not do enough fact-checking, but also an habitual and intentional exaggerator (a form of lying), and a world-class lexical "spin doctor" and "twist master," as well.

(Ever noticed how no one ever comes to you defense?)

"All The Best,"

--Tommy

Edited May 8, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Ernie Lazar]

OK, so Tommy refuses to deal with the two most urgent questions about "Leopoldo," namely, (1) why the FBI picked up Loran Hall about Silvia Odio's story; and (2) why Loran Hall originally confessed to being "Leopoldo" and identifying Larry Howard as "Angel."

Instead, Tommy will escape from the pressures.

It proves that the question is a strong one.

It also speaks to the deposition of Keith Gilbert that Ernie Lazar shared above -- which also links Loran Hall (Lorenzo Pacillo) with Lee Harvey Oswald, and both of them to the Southern California Minutemen.

The words of Keith Gilbert accidentally supported the claims of Harry Dean -- but will the debaters here also AVOID THIS ISSUE?

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

There is no "issue" other than your willingness to believe, or invent, anything which you think advances Harry's narrative.

Since you now want to use Keith Gilbert, please let us know what contacts you have had with Keith and what questions you asked him and what were his answers? In other words, how did you determine that Keith was presenting accurate, truthful, factual information?

Edited May 8, 2014 by Ernie Lazar