Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Brancato]

And to be clear, since for unknown reason I keep injecting myself into your argument, I find Walker a suspect, but agree with Ernie that you have trouble answering a straight question. Now Paul T., since you made an assertion in your last post that Walker was obsessed with Oswald from the attempt on Walker's life onwards. Yes or no - do Walker's papers mention Oswald by name before the assassination of JFK?

And no, my 'theory' remains unshattered by you Paul, for the simple reason that my main suspects rise to the same level of perfidy as Walker. When you plainly state that it is your belief that someday it will be accepted fact that Hoover heroically saved the U.S. from a civil war, I realize how wide the gulf is. So Walker and his buddies murder the president and then Hoover covers up that truth for the good of the American people. That's your theory in it's plainest terms. Well then, in that case, why are you so interested in proving your point? After all, the right thing was done. Can you not see that JFK's death, and the lies that ensued, together constitute the biggest stain, the worst blow, to American democracy in our history? If you don't believe that, then for you this is all an intellectual pursuit, a who done it on a massive scale, with no repercussions on our past present and future history.

So - why do you care who the ground crew was? And why do you so consistently try to draw a line in the sand between your ground crew and the governmental and intelligence bodies that hid the truth? What are you afraid of?

Well, in some way, as Salandria said so long ago, we are all somewhat afraid of the truth, and would prefer to argue amongst ourselves than face the reality of, as Peter Dale Scott calls it, the Deep State, and our apparent powerlessness.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- when somebody asks you a question which requires only a yes or no answer -- you should answer it YES or NO.

Well, Ernie, it seems you have this major misconception of yourself as a prosecuting attorney. It's amusing to watch your arrogance continue to expand without limits.

You've presented NOTHING at all to disprove Harry Dean's story to the world, and yet you fool yourself and a few other people have you have.

You've only produced the ABSENCE of materials TO THIS DATE. And yet you want to foreclose the discussion TODAY and declare yourself the winner.

But the evidence isn't on your side. All you have is NOTHINGNESS. Yet you charge OTHERS with having the NOTHINGNESS that you have.

Who can afford such arrogance?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- when somebody asks you a question which requires only a yes or no answer -- you should answer it YES or NO.

Well, Ernie, it seems you have this major misconception of yourself as a prosecuting attorney. It's amusing to watch your arrogance continue to expand without limits.

You've presented NOTHING at all to disprove Harry Dean's story to the world, and yet you fool yourself and a few other people have you have.

You've only produced the ABSENCE of materials TO THIS DATE. And yet you want to foreclose the discussion TODAY and declare yourself the winner.

But the evidence isn't on your side. All you have is NOTHINGNESS. Yet you charge OTHERS with having the NOTHINGNESS that you have.

Who can afford such arrogance?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, everybody participating in this thread (including yourself) is basically acting as a prosecuting attorney in the sense that when we attempt to determine whom is responsible for a major crime, questions must be asked (and answered) and evidence is presented - and the object of all those questions is determining (clearly) the identity of the party or parties responsible for planning, financing, executing, and concealing the crime.

With respect to disproving Harry's story -- that depends entirely upon what you consider material evidence. For example: when a witness contradicts previous testimony or cannot provide proof for his statements (aka independent confirmation) -- then, at a minimum, that person is usually not considered reliable. In law and morality, the "absence of materials" (to use your phrase) is compelling evidence.

But, again, you are totally mistaken about my motives. I am NOT trying to "foreclose the discussion" either today or any other time. THAT is why I keep asking questions -- even when you or Harry will NOT answer them. THAT is why I continue to search for EVIDENCE. Why can't you distinguish between somebody who comes to a different conclusion from the one YOU prefer, from a person who is not even seeking evidence?

Once again: I CHALLENGE you to provide us with EVIDENCE -- not your personal opinions, not your ridicule, not your ad hominem attacks. EVIDENCE which all of us can verify.

THAT is why I asked you at least FOUR TIMES to tell us what you saw in Walker's papers about Harry Dean, about Guy Galbadon, and about a "JBS plot".

Everybody here saw that you REFUSED to answer -- because YOU have "nothingness" to report.

[Paul Trejo]

...THAT is why I asked you at least FOUR TIMES to tell us what you saw in Walker's papers about Harry Dean, about Guy Galbadon, and about a "JBS plot".

Everybody here saw that you REFUSED to answer -- because YOU have "nothingness" to report.

Yet I DID answer your questions, Ernie. My answers were good and concrete. But you continue to keep your hands over your ears, singing, La la la la.

You don't want a genuine discussion -- you've made it clear over YEARS of activity here that your purpose is to insult, to bully, to harass. I've shown plenty of evidence:

1. Walker's connection with Gerry Patrick Hemming is solid as a rock.

2. Walker's obsession with the JBS is solid as a rock.

3. Walker's obsession with Lee Harvey Oswald since April 1963 is solid as a rock.

Yet you remain conspicuously silent on those vital points. Your bias is evidently your own obsession.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...THAT is why I asked you at least FOUR TIMES to tell us what you saw in Walker's papers about Harry Dean, about Guy Galbadon, and about a "JBS plot".

Everybody here saw that you REFUSED to answer -- because YOU have "nothingness" to report.

Yet I DID answer your questions, Ernie. My answers were good and concrete. But you continue to keep your hands over your ears, singing, La la la la.

You don't want a genuine discussion -- you've made it clear over YEARS of activity here that your purpose is to insult, to bully, to harass. I've shown plenty of evidence:

1. Walker's connection with Gerry Patrick Hemming is solid as a rock.

2. Walker's obsession with the JBS is solid as a rock.

3. Walker's obsession with Lee Harvey Oswald since April 1963 is solid as a rock.

Yet you remain conspicuously silent on those vital points. Your bias is evidently your own obsession.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- do me a favor.

Copy and paste the answer you gave to me regarding whether or not there were any documents in Walker's papers regarding Harry Dean, Guy Galbadon, or the JBS plot.

The three numbered points you listed in your reply (above) are NOT what I asked you.

My interest is in evidence which pertains to Harry's specific story -- which, as you know, is focused, primarily, upon what he allegedly told Grapp about the alleged JBS plotters and Harry specifically mentioned Galbadon as being a (or "the") major actor.

Consequently, THAT is why I asked you if there are ANY documents in Walker's papers about HARRY DEAN or GUY GALBADON?

And I have asked you (now) SIX TIMES but you keep changing the subject to Hemming, and to what Walker thought about LHO or what he thought about the JBS (exclusive of the murder plot).

You cannot possibly be that obtuse?

Here is how I suggest that you reply -- because one of each of these answers would be responsive to what I asked you SIX TIMES:

1. Yes, Ernie, I DID find documents in Walker's papers regarding Harry Dean.

2. No, Ernie, I DID NOT find any documents in Walker's papers regarding Harry Dean.

3. Yes. Ernie, I DID find documents in Walker's papers regarding Guy Galabdon.

4. No, Ernie, I DID NOT find any documents in Walker's papers regarding Guy Galabdon

5. Yes, Ernie, I DID find documents in Walker's papers regarding the "JBS plot" to murder JFK

6. No, Ernie, I DID NOT find any documents in Walker's papers regarding the "JBS plot" to murder JFK

AND -- if you really want to be helpful, -- IF you answer "YES" to any of the questions above -- I would appreciate learning which box number of Walker's papers contains the documents so that I may request copies from UoT. If you want, I will send you their 12-page finding aid and you can specify which box code contains the documents about Galabdon, Dean, or the JBS plot.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

And pleSe answer my lone question - is there anything in Walker's papers dated before the assassination that mentions LHO?

[Tom Hume]

Paul T,

And what about the John T Martin film that could possibly establish a pre-assassination link between Walker and Oswald? Were you ever able to get a copy of it?

Tom

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T,

And what about the John T Martin film that could possibly establish a pre-assassination link between Walker and Oswald? Were you ever able to get a copy of it?

Tom

Tom, there is a claim by the SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM in Dallas that they have a copy of the Jack Martin film, and they've displayed it online.

That film is a 1963 home movie by a young Minuteman from Minnesota named Jack Martin who flies to Dallas (and shows the wing of the airplane) and arrives at the home of Edwin Walker, where he films the bullet holes in his home. Then, later in the film, Jack Martin flies to New Orleans, and films Lee Harvey Oswald near Canal Street, being arrested by police for street fighting with Carlos Bringuier over his FPCC fliers. As the police car rides away, the final frame focuses on an FPCC flier in the gutter.

Anyway, that's how Gary Schoener described the film to me, which he and Harold Weisberg first received directly from Jack Martin in 1968. Further, Gary Schoener told me that he and Harold Weisberg spent hours studying each and every face on that final street scene, seeking clues.

However, when I saw the alleged Jack Martin film online, it had MAYBE one second's worth of footage of the acclaimed Lee Harvey Oswald scene -- and I couldn't make out a single face. So, I believe that the copy that the SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM possesses has been tampered with.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Agree with that Kathy.

[Paul Trejo]

After 100 pages, this thread seems to be going around in circles.

I think it would be a good idea to take a 72 hour break, formulate some sort of summary, post it, and be done.

Sorry, Kathy, but I disagree. My reasoning is that this thread keeps growing year after year because it has its own energy.

There are people who believe it should be shut down with great haste -- but they tend to be partisans in the argument.

There is no summary today, Kathy, since there is still evidence that is coming up to make Harry Dean's prime suspect, namely, Ex-General Edwin Walker, even more suspicious.

I'll give you a foretaste. Next year sometime, Dr. Jeffrey Caufield will publish a 400+ page book on the relationship of Edwin Walker to the JFK murder.

Although Dr. Caufield (like me) rejects Harry Dean's opinion that the LDS was the leader of the JBS, nevertheless, Dr. Caufield (like me) accepts Harry Dean's eye-witness (and ear-witness) claim that Ex-General Edwin Walker, in cooperation with Loran Hall and Larry Howard, and others associated with the John Birch Society in Southern California -- made plans to murder JFK and named Lee Harvey Oswald by name as the patsy.

The joke of that meeting was that they were going to use one Communist to kill another Communist. They had a big laugh.

Furthermore, Dr. Caufield has allowed me to have a tiny preview of some of his data -- which will be relevant to this thread in the coming months. (So you see, it is still too early to shut this thread down).

For example, Dr. Caufield will show material evidence that the prime suspect of former FBI Agent, Don Adams, was in frequent contact with Edwin Walker and Robert Allen Surrey in Dallas throughout 1963, including November 1963.

For those who may not know, the prime suspect of FBI Agent Don Adams in 1963 was JOSEPH MILTEER.

This is a completely new slant on the topic -- it is new evidence, and it is being slowly filtered to me for my benefit, and of course I'm willing to share everything I learn about Edwin Walker with this JFK Forum.

I hope you can see my reasoning, Kathy.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Burnham]

[...]

I hope you can see my reasoning, Kathy.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

What reasoning? Reason is exactly what is missing from your methodology.

[Mark Knight]

Paul, please notice that Kathy is an adminstrator of the forum. For that reason, if for no other, I would suggest you pay particular attention to her "suggestion."

Not only you, but everyone else. Take a "chill" for a few days, as the thread is covering NO new ground. No one is "winning," no one is "losing," so let it rest for now. If there is any newly-discovered information, that might change things; but for now, rewarmed (re)hash is becoming unappetizing.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, please notice that Kathy is an adminstrator of the forum. For that reason, if for no other, I would suggest you pay particular attention to her "suggestion."

Not only you, but everyone else. Take a "chill" for a few days, as the thread is covering NO new ground. No one is "winning," no one is "losing," so let it rest for now. If there is any newly-discovered information, that might change things; but for now, rewarmed (re)hash is becoming unappetizing.

OK, Mark, I didn't notice that Kathy was an administrator here. Of course I'll take a 72 hour break.

Nor is there any question of anybody "winning" or "losing" here -- but simply of sharing relevant information. Still, if the administrators of the Forum request as 72 hour break, then by all means, I'll cooperate.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

No one is getting anywhere.

Once again, I suggest a 72 hour break, and a summary formulated and posted, if you wish, and then be done.

Kathy,

I think you should let "Professor" Trejo have the last word (which he will insist upon having, anyway), and then close the thread.

But don't be surprised when he starts two or three new ones to replace it!

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited October 29, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[James R Gordon]

Mark,

Thank you for reminding Paul of Kathy’s status. Kathy is not just an administrator, she is also voicing the opinion of the other administrators on this issue.

I would add that although I have no reason to believe it would happen, however all the administrators would be disappointed were a member, after the “chill period”, to either:

(a) Continue this debate.

OR

b Create replacement threads which effectively allows the continuation of this present discussion.

James