Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Thomas Graves]

--Tommy

And by the way-- Regarding one of your earlier posts, Antonio Veciana met Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of "Bishop" (yes, I know-- David Atlee Phillips) not, as you said, "only days before" the assassination, but two or three months before it.

[edited by T. Graves]

Well, Tommy, two or three months amounts to 60 or 90 "days".

So there.

--Paul Trejo

Dear Word Twister Trejo,

Not only do we not see eye to eye, but we're literally not even on the same page as unfortunately once again you've replied to a post while I was still editing it.

Note that in the above-mentioned edit, I inserted the word "only" in my post to more accurately reflect what you had written when you wrote "only days before".

It's interesting that you didn't correct me in your reply by saying, "Well actually, Tommy, I didn't say Veciana met Oswald with 'Bishop' 'days before' the assassination, I said they met 'only days before' it." I totally understand why you didn't correct me, though, because doing so would have weakened your "rebuttal" even more!

Although the time period "two or three months" is indeed comprised of days, it is also comprised of seconds, minutes, hours, and, oh yeah I almost forgot, weeks.

My point is that 60 to 90 days (two or three months) do not equate to your "only days before." One quarter of a year (ninety days) or even two months (60 days) isn't "only days before."

An intellectually honest person would have said "several weeks before" or "a couple of months before."

He wouldn't say "several days before," nor "days before," and especially not your ridiculous "only days before."

Gosh, you know, maybe I'm being way too hard on you. You could have (under) exaggerated it even more than you did.

You could have said "only hours before."

And when I "called you" on that (an be assured that I would), you could try to "rebut" me by leaving out your original word "only" and then saying, "Well, Tommy, you know two months [cleverly leaving out "three months"] is made up of hours. So there."

So there "yourself."

All The Best Regards,

--Tommy

PS I'm truly starting to feel sorry for you because I'm coming to realize that you just can't help it.

You just can't stop twisting words and facts to suit your purpose, that is. You've been doing it for so long that it's become "second nature" to you. Totally unconscious....

But then again, perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt. You may not have even known (or remembered?) that Veciana met Oswald with "Bishop" (David Atlee Phillips) in August or September of 1963, two or three months before the assassination (November 22, 1963) !

In other words, maybe you're just too lazy or too busy putting out your "Unified Field Theory" fires on this forum (and pedantically lecturing us with assassination factoids) to do much basic fact checking before you post, and you make up for your lack of knowledge and inaccuracies by always "giving yourself the benefit of the doubt," i.e. by always under-exaggerating or over-exaggerating, and / or twisting and spinning words and phrases and even "facts," whenever you deem it necessary to do so.

So which is it, Trejo-- 1) Unconscious "second nature" word-and-fact-twisting on your part, or 2) A conscious decision to be lazy, cleverly turned to your advantage by over-exaggerating or under-exaggerating and by using remedial, approximating words and phrases (which technique, ironically, always seems to work to your "advantage," even if only temporarily, as in this case) ?

You know, you really should read an article about cognitive dissonance.

Here's a good one:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/benghazi_nuts_anti_vaxxers_birthers_do_they_really_buy_their_own_nonsense/

Edited May 17, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Ernie Lazar]

I got an email asking me to scan and post the FBI document which refers to the remark by Herbert Philbrick which I cited in my previous message. I thought his comment was common knowledge. For those interested in it, check out page 39 of Bill Sloan's book, Last Dissenting Witness (link below) -- I will post Philbrick's entire FBI file online later this year.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BPKo3kC3YtIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=last+dissenting+witness,+bill+sloan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xit3U9T3HI6JogSbk4GAAg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=philbrick&f=false

[Thomas Graves]

I got an email asking me to scan and post the FBI document which refers to the remark by Herbert Philbrick which I cited in my previous message. I thought his comment was common knowledge. For those interested in it, check out page 39 of Bill Sloan's book, Last Dissenting Witness (link below) -- I will post Philbrick's entire FBI file online later this year.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BPKo3kC3YtIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=last+dissenting+witness,+bill+sloan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xit3U9T3HI6JogSbk4GAAg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=philbrick&f=false

Being a conspiracy theorist who wants to believe that Oswald was not wittingly a part of the assassination, I hope it's only ironic that Oswald's favorite TV show was, allegedly, Philbrick's "I Led Three Lives."

--Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

All The Best Regards,

--Tommy

PS I'm truly starting to feel sorry for you because I'm coming to realize that you just can't help it.

...

You know, you really should read an article about cognitive dissonance.

Well, Tommy, you've finally reached the point where your posts are merely useless. I'm justified in setting my FORUM filter to "Ignore" all your posts. It's clearly no loss at all.

Warmest regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I think I must have missed this along the way. Could you run past me the information from Walkers files circa April 63 of his interest in Lee Harvey Oswald...that would

be appreciated.

Also for yet more clarification:

"As for your works on Walker, Larry, I do appreciate them -- very much. I'm surprised that you consider him to be virtually untouchable by a JFK murder team -- because of his homosexuality -- when actually this did not prevent that same murder team from using such assets as Clay Shaw or David Ferrie (among others) in New Orleans."

....my remark had nothing to do with Walkers homosexuality per se but everything to do with the fact that it was reportedly well known among elements of the DPD including its subversives unit - where my source served - that was because at the time they considered it a potential exposure to blackmail so they monitored those who circulated in those circles as general surveillance. My point is simply that sort of known visibility/surveillance would discourage anyone from tactical connection to Walker. In that same vein, I personally do not feel that the tactical team who carried out the attack in Dallas had any contact with either Shaw or Ferrie. What gossip either man may have heard about plans to attack Kennedy - there that gossip was widespread in many circles - either before or after is another story entirely. Gerry Hemming made an interesting comment to that effect (paraphrased) when he said that afterwards many people began to wonder if they had some connection to the attack because of remarks they had heard prior to it. Some apparently even tried to collect money from ultra right figures like Hunt whose sons had been talking about bounties on JFK, taking credit after the fact.

Larry, I agree with most of what you say here. Walker was open to blackmail, but so were Clay Shaw and David Ferrie. To deal with this, however, you seem to divorce the Dallas plotters from the New Orleans plotters.

I'm a bit perplexed about your divorce of the New Orleans plotters from the Dallas plotters. Are you suggesting that the enormous project of sheep-dipping Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, from July 1963 through September 1963, was completely unrelated to the Dallas plot to murder JFK?

Jim Garrison found many connections, e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard, to name a few. Also, the connections of Jack Ruby in New Orleans resonate with Carlos Marcello, G, Wray Gill, David Ferrie and Guy Banister.

Is it possible that your hypothetical Dallas hit squad remains abstract, and remains to be re-connected to the actual street-work in which Lee Harvey Oswald operated, both in New Orleans and in Dallas?

Yet I do agree with the possibility within your theory that Ex-General Edwin Walker may have only heard gossip about a JFK murder.

That remains plausible. It also remains plausible that Walker heard only gossip about using Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy in the JFK murder. (In which case, this might suggest that Harry Dean only heard gossip about it from the JBS circles in Southern California).

I cannot argue with the plausibility that gossip would have been widespread among the ultra-right. This could also explain the fears of former FBI Agent Don Adams, who directly confronted Joseph Milteer (ultra-rightist) about his claim that JFK would be shot from a high building with a high-powered rifle, and having a patsy on hand to be picked up almost immediately after the murder. In other words, Milteer might have simply been relaying gossip.

This could also explain the concerns of former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen, who heard from a "reliable" Cuban Exile named "Ramon" that the CIA, Cuban Exiles and the Mafia would murder JFK in Dallas. In other words, "Ramon" might have simply been relaying gossip.

Harry Dean, Don Adams and Wes Swearingen, by the way, all claim that they reported this gossip to the FBI before the JFK murder.

Nor can I argue with Gerry Patrick Hemming's observation that since so many Cuban Exiles and mercenaries offered to kill JFK for cash (like Loran Hall, Larry Howard and others inside Interpen, Alpha 66, DRE and so on), and since so many rich ultra-rightists gave so many of them lots of money -- that after JFK was really murdered, none of these donors could be certain which Team actually made the hit!

That is why Gerry Patrick Hemming never wanted to be known as the man who would talk to the Press -- because even if his friends in Interpen would not kill him, he had no guarantee that some petty Mafioso in New Jersey wouldn't panic and have Hemming killed, for fear of being exposed (because of his false belief that his chosen Hit Team made the hit).

Speaking of gossip, it is likely that more people have taken credit for the murder of JFK in the past 20 years than did the deed. This makes it more difficult to get at the Truth, because we must wade through the stories of James Files, for example, and Ricky White, son of Roscoe White, and so on.

At the same time, each of these people might also have a piece of the Truth (like the blind men touching one part of an elephant). Roscoe White was part of the ultra-right. James Files was a part of the Mafia. There were evidently both in Dallas on the day that JFK was murdered.

I won't belabor the point any further. My question to you is about your rationale (as I read it) for divorcing the New Orleans plot from the Dallas plot.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

This does seem like it could go on forever Paul so let me try and be succinct. You keep referring to my hypothetical Dallas team as abstract, since you have read SWHT you know that I actually name at least three people who I present as having gone to Dallas for the attack, with proof they were in Dallas. In SWHT and NEXUS I laid out the entire generation of the plot from its instigation by Angleton, passed through Harvey to Morales and Robertson. In addition to that on my web site and in SWHT I've identified two likely candidates to have impersonated Oswald in various places - although that would have been held compartmentalized from the tactical team doing the shooting. In SWHT I also identity at least two possible suspects that Ruby might have connected the team with for peripheral tasks, both were in the DPD. I also name perhaps half a dozen Cuban exiles associated with JMWAVE operations who could have been recruited, but what I have no way of knowing is exactly who was on the sniper team organized to attack Castro in 1963. Therefore there is no way for me to boil this down to a set of exact names - and frankly that's not really critical to understanding the conspiracy. I also spell out the names of at least three individuals who very likely do/did know the names of at least some of them and I presented the premise that de Torres acted as a trip wire and cover in Florida, certainly he knew some details.

As to New Orleans, again in SWHT I lay out the scenario of how Oswald was used in an anti-FPCC counter intel and propaganda effort, jointly by the FBI and CIA and then by Phillips alone. What happened in NO was classic stuff that had been used in other ops against the FPCC, that's in SWHT as well. What was particularly dangerous in the Garrison investigation - as seen in internal CIA memos - was the number of folks who in NO who had connections to prior, BOP and later CIA ops against Cuba. The Agency was very worried about details of covert ops those guys might spill - not talking about Ferrie here, talking about at least one guy Garrison identified who was a real CIA boat guide for infiltration missions. The FBI was equally worried about exposure to their contacts with Oswald. So both groups torpedoed Garrison. But outside that, having nothing to do with either, Mr. de Torres intercepted Garrisons people in Miami early on when Garrison was looking for Oswald/Cuban exile connections and totally interdicted that investigation as well as exposing the whole thing to the press....all that is in SWHT as well.

The only real plot we know about in NO is the plot that the exiles pretending to be Cuban agents put together using Oswald and that was targeted for the DC area in September. It aborted primarily because Nagell showed up, tried to push his way in to collect information, was way to obvious...we know from Nagell that he tried to warn of that plot but we have no confirmation of where the warning reached - what we do know is the FBI was obviously watching some exiles who they felt dangerous to JFK and when those guys went to Chicago before his visit there they even warned the Secret Service...perhaps Nagell's warning had actually made it to somebody. .

-- which is about all I have to say, the rest of the detail is in the books... Larry

Edited May 17, 2014 by Larry Hancock

[Ernie Lazar]

STATUS OF MY DEAN-RELATED FOIA REQUESTS

At the present time, the FBI claims that their processing times for new FOIA requests are as follows:

SMALL TRACK (up to 500 pages) = 5 months from time assigned to analyst

MEDIUM TRACK (501-2500 pages) = 9 months from time assigned to analyst

LARGE TRACK (over 2500 pages) = approx. 418 days from time assigned to analyst

What follows is a list of my pending FOIA requests related to Harry Dean. The codes used are:

S = small track

M = medium track

L = large track

As the FBI continues to process each request, the appropriate code may change to those listed below. By the end of June I should know the status of all my pending requests.

A = Appealed because request initially denied or documents released appealed for redactions

D = file or documents destroyed & date if known

N = Transferred to NARA (I’m not sure how many of these I will ultimately request due to cost involved)

? = track not currently known (number of responsive pages currently unknown)

PID = Public Interest Disclosure request justification still being evaluated by FBI

UTL = FBI unable to locate file or serial

With respect to the listings below for “Dean-related xrefs” – it is not certain that every serial listed is actually about our Harry Dean but the FBI Name Check Unit listed these serials on its search slips as being potentially on Harry Dean.

CODE……….SUBJECT………………………….LOCATION………………(Pages if known)

M…………….Alpha 66/SNFE…………………..HQ 105-112098…………….(2452pp 7/61 thru 12/63)

N.....…………Alpha 66/SNFE…………………..Los Angeles 105-13351

D 2013………Anti-Castro Activities…………...Chicago 105-6033

?....................Anti-Castro Activities……………Los Angeles 105-6516

N……………Criley, Florence…………………...Chicago 100-284892

N……………Criley, Richard L………………….Chicago 100-18080

?.…………….Criley, Richard L………………….HQ (1960-1961)

PID...............Dean, Harry……………………….Detroit, Indianapolis, Miami, Oklahoma City, Legat-Ottawa, San Diego, Washington field

D 1990………Dean, Harry……………………….Chicago 100-38257

N…………….Dean, Harry……………………….HQ 62-109068……………….(200pp)

N…………….Dean, Harry……………………….Los Angeles 105-12933……..(265pp)

N…………….Dean, Harry……………………….HQ 94-54427…………………( 8pp)

A…………….Dean, Harry xref.............................Chicago 134-1540

S……………..Dean, Harry xref………………….HQ 61-7559, #11881

S……………..Dean, Harry xref…………………HQ 62-3907, #75, #85, #91, #100-#101

S……………..Dean, Harry xref…………………HQ 62-57092, #4

N...…………..Dean, Harry xref…………………HQ 65-19763, #12X

S…………......Dean, Harry xref…………………HQ 97-3382 (years 1960-1961)

N…………….Dean-related xref…………………HQ 100-201103, #35

N…………….Dean-related xref (CPUSA)……...HQ 100-3-4, #1594

N…………….Dean-related xref…………………HQ 105-4212, #1

N…………….Dean-related xref…………………HQ 105-127490

S.…………….Dean-related xref…………………HQ 122-190, #17

A…………….Dean-related xref………………….HQ 134-9602, #6

D 2/5/09…...Dean-related xref…………………HQ 140-18902, #2

D…………….Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 9-2343, #2

D…………….Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 25-8000, #4836-#4838

?....................Dean-related xref………………….Los Angeles 42-27545 (7/61-5/65)

S……………..Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 62-2469, #92

D…………….Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 65-101, #1768

S……………..Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 67-30, #991

S……………..Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 87-776, #257

D…………….Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 94-250, #904

?……………..Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 98-0-2219 (7/61-5/65)

UTL…………Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 98-97 (7/61-6/65)

D…………….Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 100-0-20989

D 9/74………Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 100-1488, #1

UTL………….Dean-related xref………………...Los Angeles 100-1490, #1

S……………..Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 100-13364, #1632 (re: Harold Dean)

N…………….Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 100-15311, #782 (re: Harold Dean)

D…………….Dean-related xref…………………Los Angeles 105-0-820 (7/61-5/65)

?....................Del Rosario, Juan…………………HQ 105-94423 (6/60-7/61)

M…………….FPCC-HQ on Chicago chapter.….HQ 97-4196-9, 1960-1961……….(1750pp)

N……………..FPCC-Chicago……………………Chicago 100-37454

L……………...FPCC-HQ…………………………HQ 97-4196………………………(9500pp)

L……………...FPCC-Los Angeles……………….Los Angeles 105-8734 (8/61-9/63)…(3483pp)

?......................FPCC-HQ on Los Angeles………HQ 97-4196-26 (7/61-12/63)

L………………FPCC-New York City……………NYC 97-1792 (1960-1961 = 8000pp)

?......................Freire, Joaquin……………………HQ 97-4362 (6/60-7/61)

?......................Galbadon, Guy L…………………HQ, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Miami, New Orleans, San Diego

?......................Gourfain, Edward………………..HQ 100-363991 (6/60-7/61)

L………………Grapp, Wesley G…………………HQ………………………………...(2681pp)

N………………Hall, Loran Eugene………………HQ 105-78016

N………………Hall, Loran Eugene………………HQ 2-1693

D 2/16/91……Hall, Loran Eugene………………HQ 87-111598

D 8/22/07……Hall, Loran Eugene………………HQ 9-51846

M………………Hemming Jr., Gerald P……….….HQ, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami

?........................Interpen (Hemming)……………..HQ, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami

N…….…………J.U.R.E………………………….….HQ 105-114543

?........................J.U.R.E………………………….…Los Angeles 105-16406 (7/61-12/63)

N……………….Milteer, Joseph Adams………….HQ 157-1223

L…….………….Minutemen……………………….Dallas 105-1280 (sections 5-16)……..(4729pp)

N…….…………Minutemen……………………….Dallas 105-1280 (sections 1-4)

L…….………….Minutemen……………………….HQ 62-107261

L……….……….Minutemen……………………….Kansas City 62-7797

L…….………….Minutemen……………………….Los Angeles 62-5101

N…….…………Minutemen……………………….San Diego 100-12461

M…….…………Rapp Jr., Ferd J…………………..HQ

N……………….Swabeck, Edgar…………………HQ 100-381850

N……………….Swabeck, Edgar…………………Chicago 100-22764

N……………….Swabeck, Edgar…………………Los Angeles 100-60840

?........................Vega, Frank……………………..Los Angeles 105-16378

Edited May 17, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY

This morning, I added considerable new material to my Documentary History of the JBS which has documents which have never previously been publicly available and I have re-organized the material into 5 sections as follows:

CHAPTER…..Time Period……………….URL

JBS 9-1 / 01/58 thru 08/11/60 = https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241/

JBS 9-2 / 09/60 thru 12/15/61 = https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241a/

JBS 9-3 / 01/62 thru 12/31/64 = https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241b/

JBS 9-4 / 01/65 thru 12/31/65 = https://sites.google.com/site/jbs9004/

JBS 9-5 / 01/66 thru current = https://sites.google.com/site/jbs9005a/

Additional material will be added over the course of the next few months.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Thomas Graves]

DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY

This morning, I added considerable new material to my Documentary History of the JBS which has documents which have never previously been publicly available and I have re-organized the material into 5 sections as follows:

CHAPTER…..Time Period……………….URL

JBS 9-1 / 01/58 thru 08/11/60 = https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241/

JBS 9-2 / 09/60 thru 12/15/61 = https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241a/

JBS 9-3 / 01/62 thru 12/31/64 = https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241b/

JBS 9-4 / 01/65 thru 12/31/65 = https://sites.google.com/site/jbs9004/

JBS 9-5 / 01/66 thru current = https://sites.google.com/site/jbs9005a/

Additional material will be added over the course of the next few months.

Excellent work, Ernie!

I'd be personally interested in reading the FBI files on the Minutemen in San Diego which you indicated in your previous post have already been transferred to NARA. I wonder how much that would cost me?

--Tommy

Edited May 18, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Ernie Lazar]

DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY

This morning, I added considerable new material to my Documentary History of the JBS which has documents which have never previously been publicly available and I have re-organized the material into 5 sections as follows:

CHAPTER…..Time Period……………….URL

JBS 9-1 / 01/58 thru 08/11/60 = https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241/

JBS 9-2 / 09/60 thru 12/15/61 = https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241a/

JBS 9-3 / 01/62 thru 12/31/64 = https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241b/

JBS 9-4 / 01/65 thru 12/31/65 = https://sites.google.com/site/jbs9004/

JBS 9-5 / 01/66 thru current = https://sites.google.com/site/jbs9005a/

Additional material will be added over the course of the next few months.

Excellent work, Ernie!

I'd be personally interested in reading the FBI files on the Minutemen in San Diego which you indicated in your previous post have already been transferred to NARA. I wonder how much that would cost me?

--Tommy

NARA charges 80 cents per page -- which some investigative reporter should write an article about since no other agency gets away with such exorbitant reproduction fees!

You can send an inquiry to NARA and ask them how many pages there are in San Diego file 100-12461 (actually I just noticed that in my 1998 notes, the San Diego Minutemen file became 157-1798 -- and it was 239 pages so obtaining it from NARA would cost $191.20 -- if they did not add more documents after I received it from the FBI back in 1998.

[Paul Trejo]

This does seem like it could go on forever Paul so let me try and be succinct. You keep referring to my hypothetical Dallas team as abstract, since you have read SWHT you know that I actually name at least three people who I present as having gone to Dallas for the attack, with proof they were in Dallas. In SWHT and NEXUS I laid out the entire generation of the plot from its instigation by Angleton, passed through Harvey to Morales and Robertson. In addition to that on my web site and in SWHT I've identified two likely candidates to have impersonated Oswald in various places - although that would have been held compartmentalized from the tactical team doing the shooting. In SWHT I also identity at least two possible suspects that Ruby might have connected the team with for peripheral tasks, both were in the DPD. I also name perhaps half a dozen Cuban exiles associated with JMWAVE operations who could have been recruited, but what I have no way of knowing is exactly who was on the sniper team organized to attack Castro in 1963. Therefore there is no way for me to boil this down to a set of exact names - and frankly that's not really critical to understanding the conspiracy. I also spell out the names of at least three individuals who very likely do/did know the names of at least some of them and I presented the premise that de Torres acted as a trip wire and cover in Florida, certainly he knew some details.

As to New Orleans, again in SWHT I lay out the scenario of how Oswald was used in an anti-FPCC counter intel and propaganda effort, jointly by the FBI and CIA and then by Phillips alone. What happened in NO was classic stuff that had been used in other ops against the FPCC, that's in SWHT as well. What was particularly dangerous in the Garrison investigation - as seen in internal CIA memos - was the number of folks who in NO who had connections to prior, BOP and later CIA ops against Cuba. The Agency was very worried about details of covert ops those guys might spill - not talking about Ferrie here, talking about at least one guy Garrison identified who was a real CIA boat guide for infiltration missions. The FBI was equally worried about exposure to their contacts with Oswald. So both groups torpedoed Garrison. But outside that, having nothing to do with either, Mr. de Torres intercepted Garrisons people in Miami early on when Garrison was looking for Oswald/Cuban exile connections and totally interdicted that investigation as well as exposing the whole thing to the press....all that is in SWHT as well.

The only real plot we know about in NO is the plot that the exiles pretending to be Cuban agents put together using Oswald and that was targeted for the DC area in September. It aborted primarily because Nagell showed up, tried to push his way in to collect information, was way to obvious...we know from Nagell that he tried to warn of that plot but we have no confirmation of where the warning reached - what we do know is the FBI was obviously watching some exiles who they felt dangerous to JFK and when those guys went to Chicago before his visit there they even warned the Secret Service...perhaps Nagell's warning had actually made it to somebody. .

-- which is about all I have to say, the rest of the detail is in the books... Larry

Larry,

If this seems like it could go on forever -- the blame rests with those Federal agencies that have refused to release all the official documents about the JFK murder for a half-century.

Until the Feds finally release all the records (hopefully in 2017) there will always be a doubt for any conclusion made without reference to these documents.

We are speculating -- and I appreciate all speculation and debate made in the past half-century. There is a chance that the Federal government will refuse to release all the records in 2017 as promised (or claim that they were destroyed). I think that continuing diligence and vigilance will be rewarded in the long run.

(1) You say that in SWHT/2010 that you named "at least three people" as present inside Dallas for the JFK murder, along with proofs. I will review SWHT/2010 with that in mind, and will post those names on this thread.

(2) Your discussion of CIA leaders: James Jesus Angleton, William Harvey, David Morales and Rip Robertson, was insightful. The hatred expressed by Harvey and Morales for RFK and JFK is well-documented.

(3) I will also review SWHT/2010 to name the two DPD officers that you allege are connected with Ruby.

(4) I will also review SWHT/2010 to name the few Cuban Exiles with JM/WAVE that you think are suspicious, including Bernardo de Torres.

(5) Where we differ, IMHO, Larry, is that you you suggest that "to boil this down to a set of exact names" is "not really critical to understanding the conspiracy."

The tendency in JFK research literature to focus on the "big picture" merely leads to a plethora of theories at the "big picture" level. (The "big picture" remains high-level and abstract; it is not the Whole Picture.) To narrow down the most plausible theories, we must have recourse to the ground-crew.

Only naming the ground-crew will clearly identify the nature of the plot -- was it CIA Rogues who killed JFK, or CIA official business? This can't be answered until we can name the ground-crew.

(6) I also believe that the preponderance of evidence pointing to Ex-General Edwin Walker -- evidence which caused the Warren Commission volumes to mention Walker by name more than 500 times during its investigations -- is seriously underestimated by the vast majority of JFK researchers.

For example, Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener once obtained a home movie from young Minuteman, John Martin, Jr. who filmed his trip to the Dallas home of Edwin Walker, to show the bullet holes in his home; and then his trip to New Orleans to film Lee Harvey Oswald in the act of handing out FPCC leaflets.

Weisberg and Schoener spent weeks analyzing the film -- trying to identify the people on the street with Lee Harvey Oswald. It never occurred to them to question how a young follower of Edwin Walker in August 1963 would fly to Dallas to meet Walker, film his bullet holes, and then immediately fly to New Orleans to film Oswald posing as an FPCC radical.

Today Gary Schoener wishes he had pursued his relationship with John Martin, Jr. Today, Gary Schoener wonders how this material film can connect Edwin Walker with Lee Harvey Oswald in sixty seconds. When they obtained this film in 1968 -- and for the 44 years since then, Edwin Walker wasn't on their radar. Today Gary Schoener wishes that he and Weisberg had connected these dots.

Nor was Edwin Walker on the radar of the HSCA. Here was a witness of great interest to the Warren Commission, yet the HSCA had no interest in him. They should have noted well Walker's connection with George De Mohrenschildt, who wrote of his hatred (and fomenting Oswald's hatred) for Edwin Walker in his booklet, "I'm A Patsy, I'm A Patsy," before George (allegedly) committed suicide.

They should have noted well Walker's connection to Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Carlos Bringuier -- all of whom they interviewed. But they missed the opportunity.

(7) In SWHT/2010 you do explain that Oswald's involvement in the FPCC was an Anti-FPCC scenario. Many had an interest in this -- including Guy Banister and the FBI, and later the CIA and David Atlee Phillips. Your careful research of that detail for the sake of history is duly noted and appreciated.

(8) You're very careful, Larry, to accept only the facts with a high-level of authorization, e.g. Nagell's story and Martino's story. These are both CIA-linked eye witnesses at a street level. Yet the troubles with Nagell (I think you might agree) are that he bowed out of the story in early September, and also he was a double-agent, making his story ambiguous on many levels.

The trouble with Martino, IMHO, is that his connections with the CIA are mainly official, so his knowledge about ROGUE players was arguably limited.

In my view, Nagel and Martino (like Swearingen's "Ramon" and Adams' "Milteer") provide eye-witness information at the level of the blind men touching the elephant. Each one saw one small part of the JFK murder plot, but not one of them saw the Whole Picture.

That is why I have little trouble including Harry Dean in their number. Harry Dean, like one of the blind men, also saw one small part of the JFK murder plot. Even Harry Dean didn't see the whole picture. Yet it is only human nature to try to draw conclusions on our incomplete evidence.

What is needed, IMHO, is a Unified Field theory of JFK research, that attempts to harmonize as many JFK theories as possible.

(9) I'm going to review SWHT/2010 once again, Larry. It remains one of the very best books on the JFK murder available to the 21st century reader.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, in your quest for names I would refer you to NEXUS, Its last few chapters and the epilogue get relatively specific, it consolidates much of what is spread throughout SWHT. I would also refer you to the documents and photos available at www.larry-hancock.com If they are still there and somebody hasn't hacked the site again this week, honestly I don't check it that often.

I also need to correct you in regard to John Martino, who was never connected to the CIA in any fashion. He was tightly connected to a number of activist Cuban exiles, particularly to those in Alpha 66. He helped bring their personnel on to the TILT mission...which was supported by JMWAVE but only at the behest and pressure of William Pawley. Martino had a limited knowledge of the conspiracy, which he himself made stressed, however he was exactly the type of compartmentalized field team person - acting as a courier to Dallas - that represents the "street" level in the Dallas attack. As to Nagell, his story is truly complex but again I have to make the point very clear. He knew about Cuban exiles representing themselves as Castro agents contacting Oswald in New Orleans and recruiting him for some action in September in the Washington area. That is all he knew and I make no use of him as a source on the attack in Dallas, only on the initial identification of Oswald as a potential patsy by Cuban exiles. Those individuals and that action may not have translated to the Dallas attack at all, but it does indicate that Oswald was a known factor to Cuban exiles in Miami, as does the Parrot Jungle incident.

-- Larry

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, in your quest for names I would refer you to NEXUS, Its last few chapters and the epilogue get relatively specific, it consolidates much of what is spread throughout SWHT. I would also refer you to the documents and photos available at www.larry-hancock.com If they are still there and somebody hasn't hacked the site again this week, honestly I don't check it that often.

I also need to correct you in regard to John Martino, who was never connected to the CIA in any fashion. He was tightly connected to a number of activist Cuban exiles, particularly to those in Alpha 66. He helped bring their personnel on to the TILT mission...which was supported by JMWAVE but only at the behest and pressure of William Pawley. Martino had a limited knowledge of the conspiracy, which he himself made stressed, however he was exactly the type of compartmentalized field team person - acting as a courier to Dallas - that represents the "street" level in the Dallas attack. As to Nagell, his story is truly complex but again I have to make the point very clear. He knew about Cuban exiles representing themselves as Castro agents contacting Oswald in New Orleans and recruiting him for some action in September in the Washington area. That is all he knew and I make no use of him as a source on the attack in Dallas, only on the initial identification of Oswald as a potential patsy by Cuban exiles. Those individuals and that action may not have translated to the Dallas attack at all, but it does indicate that Oswald was a known factor to Cuban exiles in Miami, as does the Parrot Jungle incident.

-- Larry

I have what I guess you might describe as a multi-part philosophical question which I invite everybody to respond to.

As I have previously acknowledged here, I have not spent a lot of time researching all of the various JFK assassination theories or the specific persons mentioned in those theories so what I am about to ask may seem rather rudimentary to those of you who have spent a lot of time and energy on these matters.

1. During the past 40+ years, I have spent considerable time and resources researching hundreds of people and organizations and publications and controversies that pertain to the history of the right-wing in our country.

Several years ago, I created a webpage which was intended to help other researchers discover where they might find the huge amount of primary source material that pertains to my research interests.

In particular, I compiled a list which I posted online, of the various educational institutions and state historical societies which archive the personal papers of significant figures in the conservative and extreme right movements in our postwar history. Significantly, many of the people and organizations which were controversial from the 1930's thru the 1970's donated their personal papers to some institution.

2. So my first question is this: why do you think that so few of the figures who purportedly were involved in various JFK assassination theories ever bothered to donate their personal papers (either before or after their death) to any institution for future researchers?

3. My second question may seem a bit naive: why do you think that so few of the people whom JFK conspiracy theorists think had foreknowledge of the plot OR who helped facilitate the plot have ever "confessed" their involvement -- EVEN IF it was done with the stipulation that their "confession" could not be made public until AFTER their death (for example by tape recording or oral history interview transcript or through an unpublished manuscript where they admit their involvement and spell out the details?)

4. My third question concerns how JFK conspiracy researchers separate fact from fiction.

Shortly before his death, John Martino reportedly told his friend and business associate (Fred Claasen) and a Newsday newspaper reporter (John Cummings) that he (Martino) had fabricated stories which he circulated in earlier years concerning Oswald's connection to JFK's murder. If I recall correctly, Martino admitted that his previous comments alleging that Castro paid Oswald to commit the murder and that Oswald had made a phone call to Cuba from Miami were both lies. Instead, Martino reportedly declared (at the end of his life) that the actual people responsible for JFK's murder were anti-Castro Cuban exiles.

I have a two-part question:

(1) Why do you think Martino lied about these matters in the first place?

(2) When a supposed major figure or "eyewitness" or enabler in a conspiracy theory ultimately admits their dishonesty --- why should we believe that their other statements or assertions are accurate and truthful?

Edited May 20, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Larry Hancock]

Ernie, I'm thinking you have not read SWHT but just in case...the answer to number 1 is quite easy. Martino's early statements were made specifically to tie Fidel Castro to Lee Oswald and for that matter to Jack Ruby. He wanted to point the thread of conspiracy to Castro and initially the FBI and Director Hoover were very interested in that connection. The problem was that Martino was working after the fact, the plan to tie Oswald to Castro more tightly had aborted in Dallas with Oswald's capture. So Martino and others were doing their best to make up for that, it was a pick up effort lacking any hard data and when Martino could not provide that, the FBI lost interest. From that point on Martino just shut up about the whole thing, only revealing a small part of his involvement to family members early on. He provided further detail - still quite limited - to two long time friends not long before his death. Clearly he never intended it to go further, they both described his remarks more in the nature of a reminiscence. If the HSCA had not come along and one of them determine to share the information anonymously, nothing more would ever have been heard of his remarks.

As to number two, for me the best explanation for me is being able to determine the context of the difference between the two statements, the situational effect. If I can clearly define two separate sets of motives for the statements, each related strictly to the timing and context of the statement, then I can reach a subjective conclusion. I would also caution that Martino himself was an eyewitness to only his activities, self admittedly had only a very limited view of the conspiracy plus a bit of gossip he no doubt heard - he was in no way a major figure in the conspiracy or the actual attack.

Note, I qualify the my both my criteria and intepretation as subjective. My view of what is accurate and truthful is specifically my own, I share it but have no interest in evangelizing it nor spending too much time arguing the logic or my interpretations....the qualification is not to appear to be difficult, but merely to be forthright, Larry

[Ernie Lazar]

This does seem like it could go on forever Paul so let me try and be succinct. You keep referring to my hypothetical Dallas team as abstract, since you have read SWHT you know that I actually name at least three people who I present as having gone to Dallas for the attack, with proof they were in Dallas. In SWHT and NEXUS I laid out the entire generation of the plot from its instigation by Angleton, passed through Harvey to Morales and Robertson. In addition to that on my web site and in SWHT I've identified two likely candidates to have impersonated Oswald in various places - although that would have been held compartmentalized from the tactical team doing the shooting. In SWHT I also identity at least two possible suspects that Ruby might have connected the team with for peripheral tasks, both were in the DPD. I also name perhaps half a dozen Cuban exiles associated with JMWAVE operations who could have been recruited, but what I have no way of knowing is exactly who was on the sniper team organized to attack Castro in 1963. Therefore there is no way for me to boil this down to a set of exact names - and frankly that's not really critical to understanding the conspiracy. I also spell out the names of at least three individuals who very likely do/did know the names of at least some of them and I presented the premise that de Torres acted as a trip wire and cover in Florida, certainly he knew some details.

As to New Orleans, again in SWHT I lay out the scenario of how Oswald was used in an anti-FPCC counter intel and propaganda effort, jointly by the FBI and CIA and then by Phillips alone. What happened in NO was classic stuff that had been used in other ops against the FPCC, that's in SWHT as well. What was particularly dangerous in the Garrison investigation - as seen in internal CIA memos - was the number of folks who in NO who had connections to prior, BOP and later CIA ops against Cuba. The Agency was very worried about details of covert ops those guys might spill - not talking about Ferrie here, talking about at least one guy Garrison identified who was a real CIA boat guide for infiltration missions. The FBI was equally worried about exposure to their contacts with Oswald. So both groups torpedoed Garrison. But outside that, having nothing to do with either, Mr. de Torres intercepted Garrisons people in Miami early on when Garrison was looking for Oswald/Cuban exile connections and totally interdicted that investigation as well as exposing the whole thing to the press....all that is in SWHT as well.

The only real plot we know about in NO is the plot that the exiles pretending to be Cuban agents put together using Oswald and that was targeted for the DC area in September. It aborted primarily because Nagell showed up, tried to push his way in to collect information, was way to obvious...we know from Nagell that he tried to warn of that plot but we have no confirmation of where the warning reached - what we do know is the FBI was obviously watching some exiles who they felt dangerous to JFK and when those guys went to Chicago before his visit there they even warned the Secret Service...perhaps Nagell's warning had actually made it to somebody. .

-- which is about all I have to say, the rest of the detail is in the books... Larry

Larry,

If this seems like it could go on forever -- the blame rests with those Federal agencies that have refused to release all the official documents about the JFK murder for a half-century.

Until the Feds finally release all the records (hopefully in 2017) there will always be a doubt for any conclusion made without reference to these documents.

We are speculating -- and I appreciate all speculation and debate made in the past half-century. There is a chance that the Federal government will refuse to release all the records in 2017 as promised (or claim that they were destroyed). I think that continuing diligence and vigilance will be rewarded in the long run.

(1) You say that in SWHT/2010 that you named "at least three people" as present inside Dallas for the JFK murder, along with proofs. I will review SWHT/2010 with that in mind, and will post those names on this thread.

(2) Your discussion of CIA leaders: James Jesus Angleton, William Harvey, David Morales and Rip Robertson, was insightful. The hatred expressed by Harvey and Morales for RFK and JFK is well-documented.

(3) I will also review SWHT/2010 to name the two DPD officers that you allege are connected with Ruby.

(4) I will also review SWHT/2010 to name the few Cuban Exiles with JM/WAVE that you think are suspicious, including Bernardo de Torres.

(5) Where we differ, IMHO, Larry, is that you you suggest that "to boil this down to a set of exact names" is "not really critical to understanding the conspiracy."

The tendency in JFK research literature to focus on the "big picture" merely leads to a plethora of theories at the "big picture" level. (The "big picture" remains high-level and abstract; it is not the Whole Picture.) To narrow down the most plausible theories, we must have recourse to the ground-crew.

Only naming the ground-crew will clearly identify the nature of the plot -- was it CIA Rogues who killed JFK, or CIA official business? This can't be answered until we can name the ground-crew.

(6) I also believe that the preponderance of evidence pointing to Ex-General Edwin Walker -- evidence which caused the Warren Commission volumes to mention Walker by name more than 500 times during its investigations -- is seriously underestimated by the vast majority of JFK researchers.

For example, Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener once obtained a home movie from young Minuteman, John Martin, Jr. who filmed his trip to the Dallas home of Edwin Walker, to show the bullet holes in his home; and then his trip to New Orleans to film Lee Harvey Oswald in the act of handing out FPCC leaflets.

Weisberg and Schoener spent weeks analyzing the film -- trying to identify the people on the street with Lee Harvey Oswald. It never occurred to them to question how a young follower of Edwin Walker in August 1963 would fly to Dallas to meet Walker, film his bullet holes, and then immediately fly to New Orleans to film Oswald posing as an FPCC radical.

Today Gary Schoener wishes he had pursued his relationship with John Martin, Jr. Today, Gary Schoener wonders how this material film can connect Edwin Walker with Lee Harvey Oswald in sixty seconds. When they obtained this film in 1968 -- and for the 44 years since then, Edwin Walker wasn't on their radar. Today Gary Schoener wishes that he and Weisberg had connected these dots.

Nor was Edwin Walker on the radar of the HSCA. Here was a witness of great interest to the Warren Commission, yet the HSCA had no interest in him. They should have noted well Walker's connection with George De Mohrenschildt, who wrote of his hatred (and fomenting Oswald's hatred) for Edwin Walker in his booklet, "I'm A Patsy, I'm A Patsy," before George (allegedly) committed suicide.

They should have noted well Walker's connection to Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Carlos Bringuier -- all of whom they interviewed. But they missed the opportunity.

(7) In SWHT/2010 you do explain that Oswald's involvement in the FPCC was an Anti-FPCC scenario. Many had an interest in this -- inluding Guy Banister and the FBI, and later the CIA and David Atlee Phillips. Your careful research of that detail for the sake of history is duly noted and appreciated.

(8) You're very careful, Larry, to accept only the facts with a high-level of authorization, e.g. Nagell's story and Martino's story. These are both CIA-linked eye witnesses at a street level. Yet the troubles with Nagell (I think you might agree) are that he bowed out of the story in early September, and also he was a double-agent, making his story ambiguous on many levels.

The trouble with Martino, IMHO, is that his connections with the CIA are mainly official, so his knowledge about ROGUE players was arguably limited.

In my view, Nagel and Martino (like Swearingen's "Ramon" and Adams' "Milteer") provide eye-witness information at the level of the blind men touching the elephant. Each one saw one small part of the JFK murder plot, but not one of them saw the Whole Picture.

That is why I have little trouble including Harry Dean in their number. Harry Dean, like one of the blind men, also saw one small part of the JFK murder plot. Even Harry Dean didn't see the whole picture. Yet it is only human nature to try to draw conclusions on our incomplete evidence.

What is needed, IMHO, is a Unified Field theory of JFK research, that attempts to harmonize as many JFK theories as possible.

(9) I'm going to review SWHT/2010 once again, Larry. It remains one of the very best books on the JFK murder available to the 21st century reader.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul's comment that "Yet it is only human nature to try to draw conclusions on our incomplete evidence" -- is exceptionally significant but I don't think Paul truly recognizes the full meaning or applicability of his statement.

I can remember (when I was in high school) being shown a brief film excerpt (about 3 minutes in length) which was meant to be an educational tool to test our perceptions. The film showed a brief snapshot of events which appeared to be some sort of criminal activity involving various men and women.

Then we students were asked to interpret what we had just seen -- i.e. we were asked to propose what Paul might describe as a "unified field theory" to explain what each actor in the film was doing and we were supposed to deduce their motives (i.e. figure out who were the good guys versus the bad guys).

Virtually everybody in my class made what turned out to be false assumptions. We definitely were "drawing conclusions from incomplete evidence."

Some of those assumptions were (I think) based upon racial stereotypes which regrettably were common at that time (i.e. adverse assumptions made about black or hispanic individuals in the film and positive assumptions about white policemen or other white individuals depicted in the film.)

After we had our class discussion, the entire film was shown and we then realized how utterly wrong most of us had been in our analysis and interpretation.

As I have written many times in this thread, eyewitness testimony is universally recognized as being the most susceptible to subjective factors which distort perceptions and subsequent conclusions reached. This phenomenon does not mean that anybody deliberately "lied" -- but it is also true that human beings are routinely susceptible to cognitive dissonance as well as perception and memory deficiencies. It is also true that human beings often exaggerate or misunderstand the significance of certain events or data.

I have my own "unified field theory" regarding Harry's story. My theory does not require me to invent or assume anything. Instead, I can simply use all currently available documentary evidence (including Harry's own words and writings) to propose an entirely reasonable explanation -- which, incidentally, "harmonizes" well with what has happened in other cases where other individuals claimed to have an ongoing relationship with the FBI or with other federal or state or local government entities.