Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Would this be called an ad hominum attack?

Paul B: Are you referring to my message above yours? If your answer is "yes" --- then, obviously, you do not know the definition of what ad hominem means in terms of logical fallacies.

An ad hominem argument does not present specific evidence which addresses the issues under scrutiny. INSTEAD, it substitutes a personal attack on the person who is presenting the evidence.

I showed by both DIRECT QUOTATION and by including a link to Adam Fairclough's original article (which Paul Trejo used as the basis for his description of Fairclough) that Paul Trejo deliberately mis-represented the conclusions made by Fairclough. At no time, and in no forum, has Fairclough EVER declared or even hinted that MLK Jr was (as Paul Trejo falsely claimed) "a Communist". Nor was Fairclough presenting "biased nonsense".

BUT DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR THAT.

Contact ANY historian of YOUR choice and ask them!

If you do not respect Pulitzer-prize winning historians like Dr. David Garrow -- then how about somebody like Taylor Branch -- another Pulitzer prize winning historian who authored a 3-volume history of MLK Jr and our civil rights movement? [Keep in mind that both Garrow and Branch were and are hostile toward Hoover's FBI and both were and are admirers of MLK Jr.] OR --- if you do not want to review their writings or contact them -- then how about Stanford University's MLK Jr. Research and Education Institute -- since they have a major chunk of MLK Jr.'s personal papers. http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/liberation_curriculum/encyclopedia/

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie, I think you are legitimately attacking the message but also being a little too aggressive in attacking the messenger.

Also, would you respond to my query about Newman's lengthy study of the CIA files as they relate to Oswald? It would seem to be right up your alley. I am reading it now, and think that Newman did incredible in depth research for this book. The CIA, and other intelligence agencies, made the work of the Warren Commission and the HSCA, not to mention independent researchers, very difficult. Trying to figure out what secrets are being withheld legitimately to protect sources and methods, and which are deliberate obfuscations is the central theme of the book. The work that went into it is prodigious, and considering that the footprints of intelligence surround Oswald for several years before his arrest, it is both important and fascinating research.

[Ernie Lazar]

Since Harry's 11-19-63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover has been the subject of considerable speculation -- I attach a copy of the entire letter. As can be seen, when the FBI-Los Angeles field office excerpted a portion of Harry's 1963 letter and quoted it in their March 6, 1964 summary re: Dean, they quoted it accurately. They did insert ellipses (i.e. three dots) to indicate when they were skipping over sections in order to present a synopsis of Harry's original comments.

Contrary to what Paul Trejo has suggested in his message to Harry (above) there was no "doctoring" by the FBI. FBI-Los Angeles merely excerpted Harry's long letter as is common practice when dealing with lengthy stuff and they inserted an ellipsis to indicate when they were skipping over certain sections and moving on to Harry's key points in his letter.

<snip>

Ernie, whatever our differences, I sincerely appreciate that you can supply these FBI documents to our Forum thread.

I appreciate your sentiment. I am not trying to be argumentative with you Paul -- I just think you have your head screwed-on wrong ---and I am sure you have comparable feelings about me.

All the same, you're posted many accusations all at once, and I don't have time to respond to all of them in one night -- however, I'm happy to take them one at a time.

So, thanks for supplying the full letter which the FBI claims was written by Harry Dean (who is currently reading this thread) to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963. This letter was written 3 days before the JFK assassination.

Well, in the interest of absolute clarity, Harry's letter was DATED 11/19/63. I do not know for certain when he wrote it and I also do not know for certain if Harry used the correct date on his letter -- but I will assume all this for purposes of our discussion. [i'm not being facetious here -- I know from my own experience that I sometimes forget the correct date. Just this morning I responded to an email from a company by claiming that I sent an email to them "yesterday" [sunday] but, in reality, my email to them was SATURDAY night.]

The context, according to Harry Dean, is that he informed the FBI in September 1963 that WW2 war-hero General Edwin Walker, Congressman John Rousselot, WW2 war-hero Guy Gabaldon, also two honorably discharged US military men, Loran Hall and Larry Howard (all closely associated with the Southern California John Birch Society and Minutemen) were involved in a JFK conspiracy involving Lee Harvey Oswald.

Paul -- we need to proceed with extreme caution here. "The context" which you describe is

(-a-) subject to skepticism because we currently have no documentary evidence to corroborate it -- at least from FBI records and

(-b-) oddly, Harry does not mention one word about that September "context" in his November 1963 letter to Hoover.

Furthermore, from 1959-1961 Harry Dean was a Secretary of the Communist organization named, Fair Play for Cuba Committee (just as Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with this group) and Harry claimed that he gave a lot of information to the Chicago FBI about the Communists in Chicago as well.

I have no reason to doubt that Harry did call FBI-Chicago on several occasions and he obviously did provide them with information about FPCC as well as people involved with the J26M.

In fact there are FBI memos which include a detailed list of document photostats which Harry provided to the FBI and as the memo reports, Harry "made available correspondence and literature concerning his past activities, and furnished photostats of the following items" -- whereupon the FBI memo lists numerous letters, memos, receipts, etc. which Harry gave to the FBI.

One FBI memo also states that:

"DEAN said he was fully aware that his associations with the J26M and the FPCC were initiated and continued on his own volition. He said that he never intended furnishing any information to the FBI for other than patriotic feelings and for that reason had never expected any money for his information and in fact never received any. He said that he never considered himself to be an undercover agent of the FBI or as one authorized to act for it in any capacity and that he had never intended claiming any such relationship with it.." ...

You provided the letter in a PDF file, Ernie; however that copy is smudgy in parts and is difficult to read. So, I took the time to type out the entire letter for the Forum, because I think this thread has real energy. (I typed it in all capital letters because that is how this PDF file presented the letter.)

Yes, unfortunately, my current scanner software does not give me the option of "cleaning up" overly dark (or light) copies. In fact, I cannot even use my OCR to produce a searchable document because of the imperfect original copy.

Harry Dean suspected (based on the bits and pieces of this letter which the FBI reported in a separate memo) that the FBI may have 'doctored' this memo. So it truly helps the thread along when we can all see the full memo that the FBI claims Harry Dean actually wrote.

We're fortunate to have Harry Dean with us on the Forum, so we can ask him directly. So I hereby ask Harry Dean to please read this letter and kindly tell us if this is word-for-word what he actually wrote to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963.

I note that the FBI version of this letter that Ernie Lazar shared with this thread is ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Did Harry Dean type the letter all in capital letters? Did the FBI re-type this letter entirely in capital letters, using Harry's handwriting? If so, did the FBI make any mistakes in the re-typing? Did the FBI omit anything; add anything or invent anything? Harry Dean is the only person who can answer these questions for us today.

I note for the record that:

(1) The FBI did not use typewriters which had the particular font that you see used in the November 1963 letter. At FBI HQ, they used very identifiable different type fonts -- one of which was cursive (and absolutely rotten to read).

(2) Harry's December 1964 letter to the Director of the Joe Pyne Show was ALSO written in ALL CAPS and appears to be using the same font. In fact, I noticed that Harry's address on both letters (18109 Atina Drive) substitutes a capital I for the number one -- so they both say I8I09 Atina Drive instead of 18109 Atina Drive. Consequently, for your supposition to be correct you would have to conclude that BOTH letters were composed and typed by the FBI (one at HQ and one in Los Angeles? or both in same place?) and BOTH were typed using the same typewriter and the same stylistic qualities?

(3) Does Harry have a copy of ANYTHING he typed circa 1963-1964 so we could compare something which is indisputably his typewriter to documents appearing in FBI files?

------------------- Start of Letter from the FBI allegedly written by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover ---------------------

FBI DIRECTOR 18109 ATINA DR

J.E HOOVER LA PUENTE, CALIF

WASHINGTON DC NOV. 19 1962

213-964-5111

DEAR SIR,

FROM APPROXIMATELY, JULY 22 1960 TO JULY 14, 1961 I WAS A MEMBER OF THE FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE, AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME. DURING THIS TIME I GAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION TO FBI AGENTS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

WHEN I FIRST CONTACTED YOUR PEOPLE VIA PHONT THEY STATED THEY WERE UNAWARE THAT THIS FRONT HAD STARTED IN CHICAGO, AND ASKED THAT I CONTINUE IN THIS POSITION, AND ADVISED ME IN MANY NECESSARY DETAILS AND CAUTIONS.

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS I USED ONLY THE TELEPHONE METHOD IN ALL MY DEALINGS WITH AGENTS. ONLY NEAR THE END OF MY ACTIVITIES (not anticipated) DID I MEET WITH THEM, AND AT THEIR KIND INSISTANCE PRIOR TO THIS IT WAS MY OWN RISK TO RELY ONLY ON THE PHONE METHOD OF CONTACT.

AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE UNDER SUSPICION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE FRONT PEOPLE. I LATER GAVE THE AGENTS MY HOME PHONE NUMBER. THEY CALLED ME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FOR INFORMATION AND TO ADVISE ME IN DETAILS IN THIS AREA.

ONE ONE OCCASION AN AGENT STATED, "THIS IS THE BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER OPERATION WE HAVE SEEN." THIS PAID MY EFFORTS MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY. FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL OUR ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

I HAVE MADE MANY ERRORS IN MY TIME, AS A YOUNGER AND UNMARRIED MAN, AND UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING MY INSIDE INFORMATION SUFFICED, BUT AT THIS TIME THEY BEGAN INVESTIGATING ME.

A SHORT TIME LATER, JUST PRIOR TO HEARINGS HELD ON THIS FRONT BY THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE IN JULY 1961, I WAS TOLD TO QUIT GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, BY TWO AGENTS WHOM I MET ON CHICAGO'S NORTH SIDE, IN A STREET CORNER MEETING, PREARRANGED OF COURSE.

THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT I WAS FINISHED BY REASONS OF THEIR FINDINGS CONCERNING MY PAST, MOST OF WHICH I WOULD HAVE GLADLY RELATED TO THEM THE YEAR BEFORE WHEN I FIRST POINTED THE FINGER AT PROVEN, ACTIVE, COMMUNISTS IN, AND WORKING AGAINST OUR COUNTRY.

THE VERY FACT OF THE MISTAKES I HAD MADE IN MY YOUNGER DAYS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO PUT MYSELF, SO TO SPEAK, UNDER THE THUMB OF THE ENEMY. AS PROOF I TOLD THEM OF MY SHADY CHARACTER, AND ADDED MANY THINGS TO SUPPORT THE STORY. THAT WAS PART OF MY METHOD OF OPERATING.

THIS PUT ME UNDER A [THUMB] FROM THEM, AND I PLAYED ALONG. BECAUSE OF THIS, AND THE FACT THAT I WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ENEMY ONE OF THE MOST DEVOTED, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST STOOGES, THE FRONT MAN AT THIER DISPOSAL, ALSO HELPED. I PLAYED THE PART AS THOUGH I WERE THE BEST OF THEM.

I KNOW THESE [FBI] AGENTS, ALL WHOM I DEALT WITH, WERE MY KIND OF PEOPLE. THEY WENT BY THE BOOK, THEY WERE PATRIOTS. WHEN THEY GAVE ME THE WORD TO NEVER MENTION ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES, OR THEIR NAMES, AND THAT I COULD NO LONGER CONTINUE AS AN UNDERCOVER AGENT, I WAS SADDENED TO TEARS.

THE FACT THEY WERE SORRY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING TURNING OUT AS IT DID MADE ME REALIZE, THEY ARE NOT ONLY HUMAN BUT ALSO DEDICATED TO THE SAME PRINCIPLES AS ARE WE.

THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT NO. 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE). MANY PEOPLE THAT I ASSOCIATE WITH ARE AWARE OF THIS FACT.

BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD: HAD I BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY IN 1961 I COULD HAVE BLOWN THE CASE FOR THE ENEMY, WHOM I HAD WORKED AGAINST FOR SO LONG. I DO NOT QUESTION WHY. THE REASONS ARE OBVIOUS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT ALL AMERICANS WERE CALLED TO WORK AGAINST SUCH AN AGENT THAT IS AN ENEMY OF US ALL.

I CONTINUE THE FIGHT, DAY AND NIGHT, ALONG WITH OTHERS WHO ARE INFORMED OF THIS DEVILISH INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY, WITH WHICH I AM SO WELL AWARE: OUR GREAT WORK IN THIS BATTLE, INSPIRES MANY OF US.

IT IS MY PRAYER THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS.

VERY TRULY YOURS

FOR A STRONG AMERICA

HARRY DEAN

------------------- End of Letter from the FBI allegedly written by Harrdy Dean to J. Edgar Hoover --------------------

What do you say, Harry? Is this the actual letter that you wrote to J. Edgar Hoover fifty years ago?

This is the key issue today -- whether the FBI got this right or got it wrong. We can deal with all the other issues only after we conclude on this current issue. Thanks, Harry.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, I am inserting my comments INTO your original message --- but I will use BLUE FONT for my comments.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

In one of his earlier messages, Paul Trejo maligned a fine, decent, and respected historian (Adam Fairclough) by claiming that Fairclough wrote "biased nonsense" and Fairclough believed and wrote in his article "that MLK was a Communist".

In fact, Fairclough explictly stated the precise OPPOSITE in his article. He declared that MLK Jr was a democratic socialist (not a communist) -- but he agreed that MLK Jr. accepted basic Marxist precepts about how capitalist societies operate and need to be reformed. Many democratic socialists accept Marxian economic analysis as a starting point for discussions of capitalist society.

<snip>

At some point we have to ask why Paul has this problem?

Ernie, this one is easy to answer. Adam Fairclough was really a sneaky type of writer. Although he would "excuse" Martin Luther King of Communism with one hand, he would take it back with the other. I'm suprised you missed that nuance (or you deliberately ignored it).

Here's my clear evidence -- the very last sentence in that same article about MLK written by Adam Fairclough is the following:

King nevertheless showed every intention of going ahead. In the midst of the preparations for the campaign he went to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers in their fight for union recognition. 'In a sense', he told a reporter shortly before his assassination there, 'you could say we are engaged in the class struggle, yes'."

Anybody who knows the history of Marxism knows that Fairclough is accusing Martin Luther King of Marxism -- the purest form of Communism. So it is Adam Fairclough's writing style of "smiling in your face with a knife for your back" that influences my final opinion about his screed.

For purposes of this thread, I also found this sort of covert hostility to be a key feature of John Birch Society literature generally -- they knew how to appear as good guys to the American people, while in secret rooms they plotted evil against the US government.

Harry Dean is a living witness of the excesses and covert hostility of the JBS and their culture.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you could not be more mistaken with your false syllogism.

For purposes of discussion, here is the problem:

1. All Communists are Marxists

2. But not all Marxists are Communists

.

3. Many (probably even most) socialists accept basic Marxist precepts about the nature of capitalist societies.

4. All democratic socialists REJECT Communist doctrines regarding the inevitable necessity for violent revolution or for any "dictatorship of the proletariat".

5. Most (perhaps all) socialists accept basic Marxist ideas about "class struggle" or "class warfare" or "class conflict" -- because it is basic to their understanding of how competing socioeconomic interests drives people's behavior

6. However, Communists have a totally different understanding of how such conflicts and socioeconomic interests will develop over time -- and what they will "inevitably" lead to.

7. Adam Fairclough is an admirer of Martin Luther King Jr -- as are other historians (I have previously mentioned). Fairclough would NEVER accuse MLK of subscribing to "communism" and his books and articles go into considerable detail to explain why MLK Jr. REJECTED Communist dogma -- because, in particular, King's religious beliefs and values were TOTALLY IRRECONCILABLE with such doctrines.

I'm sorry Paul -- but your analysis or interpretation of this matter is GRAVELY flawed -- and only reveals that you have NO serious knowledge about this matter -- i.e. not about King's beliefs and not about the profound differences between socialists and communists.

IN FACT -- the very first reports to come out of Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution with respect to violations of human rights, terror campaigns, repression of democratic parties and religious groups, and various other crimes against humanity (including gulags and famine used as a form of political control) --- came from democratic socialists -- many of whom left Russia as a consequence because they correctly saw the handwriting on the wall.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - have you read Newman's book Oswald and the CIA? I think you might enjoy it, and if you have read it I would be curious to know what you thought of it.

No -- I have never read it

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul T.

Hopefully I use the correct word when saying this is a, composite letter, it contains much that I at sometime wrote, but also

has questionable items that I did not write. Someone has mixed this letter and certainly added to it for whatever purpose

The only letter I wrote to Hoover is on page 31 chapter 2 of the 1990 MS/Book.

Harry -- Please give us two specific examples of what you mean, i.e. please specify two sentences or phrases which you DID NOT type and which you claim were added into what you actually typed and sent to Hoover by letter dated 11-19-63.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, I think you are legitimately attacking the message but also being a little too aggressive in attacking the messenger.

Also, would you respond to my query about Newman's lengthy study of the CIA files as they relate to Oswald? It would seem to be right up your alley. I am reading it now, and think that Newman did incredible in depth research for this book. The CIA, and other intelligence agencies, made the work of the Warren Commission and the HSCA, not to mention independent researchers, very difficult. Trying to figure out what secrets are being withheld legitimately to protect sources and methods, and which are deliberate obfuscations is the central theme of the book. The work that went into it is prodigious, and considering that the footprints of intelligence surround Oswald for several years before his arrest, it is both important and fascinating research.

I respond appropriately to whomever posts falsehoods about my beliefs, my values, or my history. It is one thing if someone ASKS ME QUESTIONS and then wants to offer his/her conclusion or some criticism about what I have written. It is entirely another thing if somebody just ASSUMES something from malice or ignorance about what I believe or what I have written (often repeatedly)

To be totally honest, I have no particular interest in "CIA files" about Oswald. I do have CIA documents in my collection because, often, FBI files contain CIA documents which are then referred to CIA before they can be released to me. In fact, I just received one such document (after waiting over a year for it to be processed!)

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul T.

Comparison of the two different letters mentioned and my post above about them is the answer.

Let us face the direct fact that for urgent personal reasons I decided to cut-off further connections

as a political informant to any concerned federal or state agency,being fully aware of the penalty.

The reward for blabbing publicly about that past were, threats, endless complicated exposure and

denial of efforts on their behalf, especially from the Federal level. In any case I cannot be of further

help beyond this, or that displayed in the eBook, Confessions...

Harry

Fair enough, Harry. Unless somebody beats me to the punch, after work today I'll make a detailed comparison of the FBI version of your letter to J. Edgar Hoover, with the letter to Hoover that you yourself published in 1990 on page 31 chapter 2 of your MS/Book, CROSSTRAILS.

This promises to be interesting.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- Have you seen a copy of the ORIGINAL document which you say was published by Harry in 1990 (page 31, chapter 2) --OR-- are your relying exclusively upon Harry's memory?

If this is going in the direction which I am afraid it is going -- we have a major problem which gets back to my previous point about epistemological differences between us.

1. On the one hand, we have an actual document appearing in FBI files. The copy in FBI files is dated-stamped received from Harry Dean as a contemporaneous document in November 1963.

2. We have another document (also a contemporaneous document) -- which Harry sent to the Director of the Joe Pyne show in Hollywood California by letter dated 12/10/64.

3. But if we do not have a photostat or a carbon copy which Harry kept of his ORIGINAL letters from 1963 and 1964 --- then all we have is what Harry claims (50 years later) regarding whatever he wrote.

Now, I know what you are thinking -- and I know what you will write in reply to me, i.e. Harry Dean is more credible than anything which the FBI has in its files.

IF THAT is your ultimate argument -- then there is no point in even continuing this entire discussion because you have created an air-tight self-sealing argument which no amount of contradictory evidence can EVER penetrate.

Because every time you confront some kind of discrepancy between what Harry says or recollects versus what is contained in FBI (or other) files -- you will ALWAYS use the all-purpose omnipresent escape hatch -- namely, the FBI (or another agency) cannot be trusted but Harry and his memory are always trustworthy -- even when he has no documentary evidence to support whatever he claims.

[Ernie Lazar]

Since Harry's 11-19-63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover has been the subject of considerable speculation -- I attach a copy of the entire letter. As can be seen, when the FBI-Los Angeles field office excerpted a portion of Harry's 1963 letter and quoted it in their March 6, 1964 summary re: Dean, they quoted it accurately. They did insert ellipses (i.e. three dots) to indicate when they were skipping over sections in order to present a synopsis of Harry's original comments.

Contrary to what Paul Trejo has suggested in his message to Harry (above) there was no "doctoring" by the FBI. FBI-Los Angeles merely excerpted Harry's long letter as is common practice when dealing with lengthy stuff and they inserted an ellipsis to indicate when they were skipping over certain sections and moving on to Harry's key points in his letter.

<snip>

Ernie, whatever our differences, I sincerely appreciate that you can supply these FBI documents to our Forum thread.

All the same, you're posted many accusations all at once, and I don't have time to respond to all of them in one night -- however, I'm happy to take them one at a time.

So, thanks for supplying the full letter which the FBI claims was written by Harry Dean (who is currently reading this thread) to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963. This letter was written 3 days before the JFK assassination.

The context, according to Harry Dean, is that he informed the FBI in September 1963 that WW2 war-hero General Edwin Walker, Congressman John Rousselot, WW2 war-hero Guy Gabaldon, also two honorably discharged US military men, Loran Hall and Larry Howard (all closely associated with the Southern California John Birch Society and Minutemen) were involved in a JFK conspiracy involving Lee Harvey Oswald.

Furthermore, from 1959-1961 Harry Dean was a Secretary of the Communist organization named, Fair Play for Cuba Committee (just as Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with this group) and Harry claimed that he gave a lot of information to the Chicago FBI about the Communists in Chicago as well.

You provided the letter in a PDF file, Ernie; however that copy is smudgy in parts and is difficult to read. So, I took the time to type out the entire letter for the Forum, because I think this thread has real energy. (I typed it in all capital letters because that is how this PDF file presented the letter.)

Harry Dean suspected (based on the bits and pieces of this letter which the FBI reported in a separate memo) that the FBI may have 'doctored' this memo. So it truly helps the thread along when we can all see the full memo that the FBI claims Harry Dean actually wrote.

We're fortunate to have Harry Dean with us on the Forum, so we can ask him directly. So I hereby ask Harry Dean to please read this letter and kindly tell us if this is word-for-word what he actually wrote to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963.

I note that the FBI version of this letter that Ernie Lazar shared with this thread is ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Did Harry Dean type the letter all in capital letters? Did the FBI re-type this letter entirely in capital letters, using Harry's handwriting? If so, did the FBI make any mistakes in the re-typing? Did the FBI omit anything; add anything or invent anything? Harry Dean is the only person who can answer these questions for us today.

------------------- Start of Letter from the FBI allegedly written by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover ---------------------

FBI DIRECTOR 18109 ATINA DR

J.E HOOVER LA PUENTE, CALIF

WASHINGTON DC NOV. 19 1962

213-964-5111

DEAR SIR,

FROM APPROXIMATELY, JULY 22 1960 TO JULY 14, 1961 I WAS A MEMBER OF THE FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE, AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME. DURING THIS TIME I GAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION TO FBI AGENTS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

WHEN I FIRST CONTACTED YOUR PEOPLE VIA PHONT THEY STATED THEY WERE UNAWARE THAT THIS FRONT HAD STARTED IN CHICAGO, AND ASKED THAT I CONTINUE IN THIS POSITION, AND ADVISED ME IN MANY NECESSARY DETAILS AND CAUTIONS.

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS I USED ONLY THE TELEPHONE METHOD IN ALL MY DEALINGS WITH AGENTS. ONLY NEAR THE END OF MY ACTIVITIES (not anticipated) DID I MEET WITH THEM, AND AT THEIR KIND INSISTANCE PRIOR TO THIS IT WAS MY OWN RISK TO RELY ONLY ON THE PHONE METHOD OF CONTACT.

AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE UNDER SUSPICION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE FRONT PEOPLE. I LATER GAVE THE AGENTS MY HOME PHONE NUMBER. THEY CALLED ME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FOR INFORMATION AND TO ADVISE ME IN DETAILS IN THIS AREA.

ONE ONE OCCASION AN AGENT STATED, "THIS IS THE BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER OPERATION WE HAVE SEEN." THIS PAID MY EFFORTS MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY. FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL OUR ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

I HAVE MADE MANY ERRORS IN MY TIME, AS A YOUNGER AND UNMARRIED MAN, AND UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING MY INSIDE INFORMATION SUFFICED, BUT AT THIS TIME THEY BEGAN INVESTIGATING ME.

A SHORT TIME LATER, JUST PRIOR TO HEARINGS HELD ON THIS FRONT BY THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE IN JULY 1961, I WAS TOLD TO QUIT GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, BY TWO AGENTS WHOM I MET ON CHICAGO'S NORTH SIDE, IN A STREET CORNER MEETING, PREARRANGED OF COURSE.

THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT I WAS FINISHED BY REASONS OF THEIR FINDINGS CONCERNING MY PAST, MOST OF WHICH I WOULD HAVE GLADLY RELATED TO THEM THE YEAR BEFORE WHEN I FIRST POINTED THE FINGER AT PROVEN, ACTIVE, COMMUNISTS IN, AND WORKING AGAINST OUR COUNTRY.

THE VERY FACT OF THE MISTAKES I HAD MADE IN MY YOUNGER DAYS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO PUT MYSELF, SO TO SPEAK, UNDER THE THUMB OF THE ENEMY. AS PROOF I TOLD THEM OF MY SHADY CHARACTER, AND ADDED MANY THINGS TO SUPPORT THE STORY. THAT WAS PART OF MY METHOD OF OPERATING.

THIS PUT ME UNDER A [THUMB] FROM THEM, AND I PLAYED ALONG. BECAUSE OF THIS, AND THE FACT THAT I WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ENEMY ONE OF THE MOST DEVOTED, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST STOOGES, THE FRONT MAN AT THIER DISPOSAL, ALSO HELPED. I PLAYED THE PART AS THOUGH I WERE THE BEST OF THEM.

I KNOW THESE [FBI] AGENTS, ALL WHOM I DEALT WITH, WERE MY KIND OF PEOPLE. THEY WENT BY THE BOOK, THEY WERE PATRIOTS. WHEN THEY GAVE ME THE WORD TO NEVER MENTION ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES, OR THEIR NAMES, AND THAT I COULD NO LONGER CONTINUE AS AN UNDERCOVER AGENT, I WAS SADDENED TO TEARS.

THE FACT THEY WERE SORRY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING TURNING OUT AS IT DID MADE ME REALIZE, THEY ARE NOT ONLY HUMAN BUT ALSO DEDICATED TO THE SAME PRINCIPLES AS ARE WE.

THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT NO. 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE). MANY PEOPLE THAT I ASSOCIATE WITH ARE AWARE OF THIS FACT.

BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD: HAD I BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY IN 1961 I COULD HAVE BLOWN THE CASE FOR THE ENEMY, WHOM I HAD WORKED AGAINST FOR SO LONG. I DO NOT QUESTION WHY. THE REASONS ARE OBVIOUS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT ALL AMERICANS WERE CALLED TO WORK AGAINST SUCH AN AGENT THAT IS AN ENEMY OF US ALL.

I CONTINUE THE FIGHT, DAY AND NIGHT, ALONG WITH OTHERS WHO ARE INFORMED OF THIS DEVILISH INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY, WITH WHICH I AM SO WELL AWARE: OUR GREAT WORK IN THIS BATTLE, INSPIRES MANY OF US.

IT IS MY PRAYER THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS.

VERY TRULY YOURS

FOR A STRONG AMERICA

HARRY DEAN

------------------- End of Letter from the FBI allegedly written by Harrdy Dean to J. Edgar Hoover --------------------

What do you say, Harry? Is this the actual letter that you wrote to J. Edgar Hoover fifty years ago?

This is the key issue today -- whether the FBI got this right or got it wrong. We can deal with all the other issues only after we conclude on this current issue. Thanks, Harry.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I would like to add for absolute clarity, so that we all are operating upon the exact same information, that Paul Trejo's transcription of Harry's letter is NOT verbatim.

Paul cleans up some of Harry's spelling mistakes and Paul changed some of Harry's stylistic preferences. Some of these things might seem like nitpicking, BUT if we get around to comparing documents, we need to be aware of such matters.

1. For example, I already mentioned that in his letter to Hoover, when Harry typed the number "one" (in a date or in an address or in a phone number), he used a letter not a numeral. He used a capital I (eye) instead of the actual numeral 1. However, in Paul's transcription, he always uses numerals.

2. Another example -- in the paragraph which begins with "As you know..." -- Paul types out the phrase "phone number" whereas Harry used "PHONE NO." - and he included the period after the abbreviation for number.

3. Another example: When Harry refers to a comment which he claims an FBI Agent made to him. In Harry's letter he wrote that this "...AGENT STATED (QUOTE) THIS IS THE BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER OPERATION, WE HAVE SEEN." Paul deleted Harry's use of the word "(QUOTE)" in parentheses and just used quotation marks.

4. Another example: Just after the "quote" mentioned in #3, Harry wrote

"THIS PAYED MY EFFORTS, MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY, FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL HER ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC."

Paul changed that to:

THIS PAID MY EFFORTS MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY. FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL OUR ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

So Paul changed two words (PAYED) and (HER) and he changed punctuation. The word "her" might have been so blurry that Paul saw "our"

5. Another example: In his letter, Harry refers to the F.B.I. Paul changed that to FBI (without periods)

6. It is also significant that when Harry typed this letter he did so without paragraphs. In other words there is no spacing between paragraphs. In one case he indents a new thought -- but only that one time. And there are numerous periods or commas where none should appear.

Again, these stylistic matters could be important later if and when we review or compare actual documents because even mistaken spellings or punctuation or grammatical errors can be "tells" when somebody has "modified" a document.

As Paul frequently reminds us -- Harry is not a well-educated person. One would, therefore, not be surprised to see a lot of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors in whatever he wrote. ALSO: If Harry was not proficient with respect to use of a typewriter -- that also would be significant information to know because if we compare something to what is in FBI files -- and the comparison produces a flawless document without such errors -- one would naturally question how that would be possible.

LASTLY -- and this is VERY important. We have not even established yet whether or not Harry typed all his own correspondence OR if he asked his wife (or someone else) to type correspondence from notes or draft copies he hand-wrote or perhaps even from verbal instruction.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

I would like to add for absolute clarity, so that we all are operating upon the exact same information, that Paul Trejo's transcription of Harry's letter is NOT verbatim.

Paul cleans up some of Harry's spelling mistakes and Paul changed some of Harry's stylistic preferences. Some of these things might seem like nitpicking, BUT if we get around to comparing documents, we need to be aware of such matters.

1. For example, I already mentioned that in his letter to Hoover, when Harry typed the number "one" (in a date or in an address or in a phone number), he used a letter not a numeral. He used a capital I (eye) instead of the actual numeral 1. However, in Paul's transcription, he always uses numerals.

2. Another example -- in the paragraph which begins with "As you know..." -- Paul types out the phrase "phone number" whereas Harry used "PHONE NO." - and he included the period after the abbreviation for number.

3. Another example: When Harry refers to a comment which he claims an FBI Agent made to him. In Harry's letter he wrote that this "...AGENT STATED (QUOTE) THIS IS THE BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER OPERATION, WE HAVE SEEN." Paul deleted Harry's use of the word "(QUOTE)" in parentheses and just used quotation marks.

4. Another example: Just after the "quote" mentioned in #3, Harry wrote

"THIS PAYED MY EFFORTS, MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY, FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL HER ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC."

Paul changed that to:

THIS PAID MY EFFORTS MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY. FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL OUR ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

So Paul changed two words (PAYED) and (HER) and he changed punctuation. The word "her" might have been so blurry that Paul saw "our"

5. Another example: In his letter, Harry refers to the F.B.I. Paul changed that to FBI (without periods)

6. It is also significant that when Harry typed this letter he did so without paragraphs. In other words there is no spacing between paragraphs. In one case he indents a new thought -- but only that one time. And there are numerous periods or commas where none should appear.

Again, these stylistic matters could be important later if and when we review or compare actual documents because even mistaken spellings or punctuation or grammatical errors can be "tells" when somebody has "modified" a document.

As Paul frequently reminds us -- Harry is not a well-educated person. One would, therefore, not be surprised to see a lot of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors in whatever he wrote. ALSO: If Harry was not proficient with respect to use of a typewriter -- that also would be significant information to know because if we compare something to what is in FBI files -- and the comparison produces a flawless document without such errors -- one would naturally question how that would be possible.

LASTLY -- and this is VERY important. We have not even established yet whether or not Harry typed all his own correspondence OR if he asked his wife (or someone else) to type correspondence from notes or draft copies he hand-wrote or perhaps even from verbal instruction.

Well, you're right, Ernie, you are nitpicking. The discrepancies that I seek will not be these minor spelling or grammatical errors, but MAJOR differences.

All other questions must take second place to this vital question -- how close was Harry Dean's original text to J. Edgar Hoover 50 years ago compared with this offering by the FBI?

It is an urgent question, because if there are MAJOR differences, then the FBI stands accused of FORGERY. This would be a material crime performed in the interest of National Security, no doubt, but a crime nonetheless. I'm not saying it's a forgery yet. I'm only now beginning my analysis.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 12, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

One brief addendum to my last message.

We need to be aware of the big picture here, i.e. why Harry Dean wrote to J. Edgar Hoover (and to JFK in 1961).

It is clear that Harry was concerned about the fact that he was never called to testify during the July 1961 hearings before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws [Castro's Network in the United States: Fair Play For Cuba Committee].

It appears from all available evidence that Harry saw that potential testimony as being his best opportunity to neutralize whatever adverse conclusions could be drawn by anybody who saw his name listed as the Secretary of the Chicago chapter of FPCC on pages 84-85 of those hearings. Harry's name also appears in Volume 1 of that Subcommittee's 21-year "Cumulative Index" to its hearings and reports which was published in August 1972.

Harry's interest in a "clearance" from the FBI (which he mentions in his 1963 letter to Hoover) or a "pardon" as he mentions in his 1961 letter to JFK) is discussed in one FBI document which observes that Harry wanted that Subcommittee reference "removed" because "this reference has harmed him from getting further jobs."

This was a VERY common concern for people whose names appeared in government documents which discuss "subversive" organizations because many unsophisticated or low-information Americans believed that the mere listing of somebody's name was something deserving of suspicion or much worse.

I think Harry's situation helps us confirm what I have maintained all along during this debate.

1. Unlike official FBI informants, Harry had no "plan B" to fall back on to "clear" his name. Legitimate FBI informants could always ask the Bureau to provide them with a letter stating the time period during which they provided information to the Bureau -- and the FBI usually complied with such a request.

2. Even if the informant did not ask for such a letter, the FBI routinely answered incoming inquiries about their informants by providing such details -- as I have previously quoted the letter which they sent out regarding Julia Brown.

3. But we know from FBI documentary evidence AND from Harry's own correspondence -- that he was explicitly told that his background precluded the FBI from using him as an informant. [This is what Harry described as his "shady character", and "my past difficulty with the law" and "my outstanding debts which are many".

4. Consequently, there was no avenue for Harry to "clear" his name -- except by his own explanations.

5. Let us also remember what Harry acknowledges in his eBook -- and Paul Trejo does not dispute these FACTS:

-a- Harry joined radical left and radical right groups -- BOTH of which believed our national politicians and leaders were terrible people

-b- He joined these groups because he believed their narratives about our country and its problems and the grave deficiencies of our leaders (including, but not limited to, their supposed lack of patriotism or loyalty to our country's best interests)

-c- Guy Galbadon (as described by Harry) had a long history of thinking his personal political and policy preferences should always prevail -- no matter what our national leaders thought. Furthermore, Gabby was totally ok with employing what we now call "second amendment remedies" to our "problems".

-d- When Gabby first broached the idea that JFK deserved to be murdered -- what did Harry do? Did he run home and call the FBI or his local police? Nope! He agreed to drive Gabby to a meeting with Rousselot (if you believe Harry's recollections) so that they could arrange the details for JFK's murder.

-e- After Gabby returned to Harry's car after that meeting, what did Harry do? Did he THEN run home and call the FBI or his local police? Did he tell Gabby that he no longer wanted to be part of Gabby's conspiracy? Nope! According to Harry, he agreed to drive Gabby back to see Rousselot again (the next day I think it was) -- to pick up the $10,000 which Gabby supposedly claimed he needed to bring JFK's murder to fruition.

One has to ask a basic first-principles question here.

To everyone reading this thread.....WHAT WOULD YOU DO if a friend of yours casually tells you in your or his living room that he plans to murder the Mayor of your city, or the Governor of your state, or your Congressperson, or your U.S. Senator, or the President of the U.S?

Would you calmly listen to every detail of the plot and then agree to meet with your friend again to hear more exciting details? And then drive him to a meeting so he could get money to carry out his plot?

There are some stories in life which just are not plausible. Obviously, I do not expect to convince anybody here.

All that I ask you to consider, is the internal illogic of Harry's story.

In June 1961 Harry writes to President JFK because he wants a pardon and he tells JFK he is an informant for the FBI and he supposedly joined FPCC in the summer of 1960 "in order to inform the FBI of its activities upon finding communist books and material in the box containing fair play literature given me the night I was elected by other officers of the organization."

Then Harry calls the FBI in Chicago -- but FBI records indicate that he never identified himself during his first contact. Later he calls again and does identify himself and he gives the FBI more info.

So, at this point, we are asked to believe that Harry is now back to being a Full Patriot -- who loves his country and wants to protect it against all enemies.

But, then he joins the Birch Society (and Minutemen) -- because (as Harry admits) he thought they offered indisputable correct explanations for all our problems. And central to the JBS (and Minutemen) paradigm was their predicate that virtually all of our national leaders during the 20th century, were traitors, or Communists, or Communist agents or dupes.

Quoting Robert Welch's explanation regarding the "3 stages by which Communists came to control the U.S. Presidency"...

In stages 1 and 2, FDR and Truman were “used” by Communists. In Truman’s case, according to Welch, he was used “with his knowledge and acquiescence, as the price he consciously paid for their making him President.”

Then, with respect to Eisenhower,

“In the third stage the Communists have installed in the Presidency a man who, for whatever reasons, appears intentionally to be carrying forward Communist aims…With regard to this third man, Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.” …

The quote above is from page 279 of the 1963 published edition of Welch's book, The Politician. However, the original formulation of this comment from the unpublished 1950’s manuscript of The Politician is as follows:

"In the third stage, in my own firm opinion, the Communists have one of their own actually in the Presidency. For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 268.].

So...what happened to Harry Dean, our reconstructed Patriot who wrote to JFK in June 1961?

All of this material concerning what Welch believed and wrote about FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower was public knowledge as early as July 1960 and especially during March and April 1961.

In fact, when Harry was living in Chicago, the FIRST major publicity about Welch's views regarding Eisenhower was published on July 25 and 26th,1960 in the Chicago Daily News and then picked up by wire services and plastered all over midwest newspapers -- because a Chicago reporter (Jack Mabley) got hold of a copy of Welch's then-unpublished manuscript!

Oh, by the way, in July 1960, the GOP was holding its National Convention in Chicago to select their next Presidential nominee! So this was PAGE ONE news in Chicago (while Harry lived there)!

It just seems VERY odd that Harry lived in the very city which broke the national news about Welch's views in his book-length private letter -- but Harry decided to join the JBS anyway! And then he writes President JFK (whom the JBS considered yet another traitor -- "Wanted For Treason") for a pardon.

And then Harry calmly listens to details of a murder plot against our President and offers to drive Gabby Galbadon to not one but TWO meetings so he can perfect the plot ... while simultaneously Harry wants us to believe he suddenly became a patriot again and went to the FBI (Wesley Grapp) to report on JBS members he had contacts with.

[Ernie Lazar]

I would like to add for absolute clarity, so that we all are operating upon the exact same information, that Paul Trejo's transcription of Harry's letter is NOT verbatim.

Paul cleans up some of Harry's spelling mistakes and Paul changed some of Harry's stylistic preferences. Some of these things might seem like nitpicking, BUT if we get around to comparing documents, we need to be aware of such matters.

1. For example, I already mentioned that in his letter to Hoover, when Harry typed the number "one" (in a date or in an address or in a phone number), he used a letter not a numeral. He used a capital I (eye) instead of the actual numeral 1. However, in Paul's transcription, he always uses numerals.

2. Another example -- in the paragraph which begins with "As you know..." -- Paul types out the phrase "phone number" whereas Harry used "PHONE NO." - and he included the period after the abbreviation for number.

3. Another example: When Harry refers to a comment which he claims an FBI Agent made to him. In Harry's letter he wrote that this "...AGENT STATED (QUOTE) THIS IS THE BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER OPERATION, WE HAVE SEEN." Paul deleted Harry's use of the word "(QUOTE)" in parentheses and just used quotation marks.

4. Another example: Just after the "quote" mentioned in #3, Harry wrote

"THIS PAYED MY EFFORTS, MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY, FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL HER ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC."

Paul changed that to:

THIS PAID MY EFFORTS MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY. FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL OUR ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

So Paul changed two words (PAYED) and (HER) and he changed punctuation. The word "her" might have been so blurry that Paul saw "our"

5. Another example: In his letter, Harry refers to the F.B.I. Paul changed that to FBI (without periods)

6. It is also significant that when Harry typed this letter he did so without paragraphs. In other words there is no spacing between paragraphs. In one case he indents a new thought -- but only that one time. And there are numerous periods or commas where none should appear.

Again, these stylistic matters could be important later if and when we review or compare actual documents because even mistaken spellings or punctuation or grammatical errors can be "tells" when somebody has "modified" a document.

As Paul frequently reminds us -- Harry is not a well-educated person. One would, therefore, not be surprised to see a lot of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors in whatever he wrote. ALSO: If Harry was not proficient with respect to use of a typewriter -- that also would be significant information to know because if we compare something to what is in FBI files -- and the comparison produces a flawless document without such errors -- one would naturally question how that would be possible.

LASTLY -- and this is VERY important. We have not even established yet whether or not Harry typed all his own correspondence OR if he asked his wife (or someone else) to type correspondence from notes or draft copies he hand-wrote or perhaps even from verbal instruction.

Well, you're right, Ernie, you are nitpicking. The discrepancies that I seek will not be these minor spelling or grammatical errors, but MAJOR differences.

All other questions must take second place to this vital question -- how close was Harry Dean's original text to J. Edgar Hoover 50 years ago compared with this offering by the FBI?

It is an urgent question, because if there are MAJOR differences, then the FBI stands accused of FORGERY. This would be a material crime performed in the interest of National Security, no doubt, but a crime nonetheless. I'm not saying it's a forgery yet. I'm only now beginning my analysis.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

No. Paul, you are missing the larger picture. If we have to compare documents to determine which is legitimate and which is bogus -- then, obviously, we must be aware of ANYTHING which would help us determine the truth of the matter.

Here again you are missing my point. if one letter has no spelling or grammatical errors but the other letter has numerous such errors -- then one HAS to wonder why that would be the case AND it would be CRITICAL to know which one corresponds most closely to the NORMAL pattern of speech and typing by the supposed author of the letter.

If you do not understand that -- then please contact ANY forensic specialist of your choice and ask HIM/HER what they look for when they have to determine whether or not a document is genuine. For example: I am sure you have read about historical documents which have been falsified because when forensic specialists examined them they found things which made it obvious that it was a forgery. Such things as a type font which did not exist at the time the letter was typed. Or a type of paper or ink used which was not available at the time the document supposedly was created. Also, specialists can even determine if a specific model of typewriter was used (and compare that model to a list when those models first came out.)

You may see the relevance of this type of "nitpicking" in the so-called Pumpkin Letters controversy between Whitakker Chambers and Alger Hiss:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/pumpkinp.html

[Paul Trejo]

One brief addendum to my last message.

We need to be aware of the big picture here, i.e. why Harry Dean wrote to J. Edgar Hoover (and to JFK in 1961).

It is clear that Harry was concerned about the fact that he was never called to testify during the July 1961 hearings before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws [Castro's Network in the United States: Fair Play For Cuba Committee].

It appears from all available evidence that Harry saw that potential testimony as being his best opportunity to neutralize whatever adverse conclusions could be drawn by anybody who saw his name listed as the Secretary of the Chicago chapter of FPCC on pages 84-85 of those hearings. Harry's name also appears in Volume 1 of that Subcommittee's 21-year "Cumulative Index" to its hearings and reports which was published in August 1972.

Harry's interest in a "clearance" from the FBI (which he mentions in his 1963 letter to Hoover) or a "pardon" as he mentions in his 1961 letter to JFK) is discussed in one FBI document which observes that Harry wanted that Subcommittee reference "removed" because "this reference has harmed him from getting further jobs."

This was a VERY common concern for people whose names appeared in government documents which discuss "subversive" organizations because many unsophisticated or low-information Americans believed that the mere listing of somebody's name was something deserving of suspicion or much worse.

I think Harry's situation helps us confirm what I have maintained all along during this debate.

1. Unlike official FBI informants, Harry had no "plan B" to fall back on to "clear" his name. Legitimate FBI informants could always ask the Bureau to provide them with a letter stating the time period during which they provided information to the Bureau -- and the FBI usually complied with such a request.

2. Even if the informant did not ask for such a letter, the FBI routinely answered incoming inquiries about their informants by providing such details -- as I have previously quoted the letter which they sent out regarding Julia Brown.

3. But we know from FBI documentary evidence AND from Harry's own correspondence -- that he was explicitly told that his background precluded the FBI from using him as an informant. [This is what Harry described as his "shady character", and "my past difficulty with the law" and "my outstanding debts which are many".

4. Consequently, there was no avenue for Harry to "clear" his name -- except by his own explanations.

5. Let us also remember what Harry acknowledges in his eBook -- and Paul Trejo does not dispute these FACTS:

-a- Harry joined radical left and radical right groups -- BOTH of which believed our national politicians and leaders were terrible people

-b- He joined these groups because he believed their narratives about our country and its problems and the grave deficiencies of our leaders (including, but not limited to, their supposed lack of patriotism or loyalty to our country's best interests)

-c- Guy Galbadon (as described by Harry) had a long history of thinking his personal political and policy preferences should always prevail -- no matter what our national leaders thought. Furthermore, Gabby was totally ok with employing what we now call "second amendment remedies" to our "problems".

-d- When Gabby first broached the idea that JFK deserved to be murdered -- what did Harry do? Did he run home and call the FBI or his local police? Nope! He agreed to drive Gabby to a meeting with Rousselot (if you believe Harry's recollections) so that they could arrange the details for JFK's murder.

-e- After Gabby returned to Harry's car after that meeting, what did Harry do? Did he THEN run home and call the FBI or his local police? Did he tell Gabby that he no longer wanted to be part of Gabby's conspiracy? Nope! According to Harry, he agreed to drive Gabby back to see Rousselot again (the next day I think it was) -- to pick up the $10,000 which Gabby supposedly claimed he needed to bring JFK's murder to fruition.

One has to ask a basic first-principles question here.

To everyone reading this thread.....WHAT WOULD YOU DO if a friend of yours casually tells you in your or his living room that he plans to murder the Mayor of your city, or the Governor of your state, or your Congressperson, or your U.S. Senator, or the President of the U.S?

Would you calmly listen to every detail of the plot and then agree to meet with your friend again to hear more exciting details? And then drive him to a meeting so he could get money to carry out his plot?

There are some stories in life which just are not plausible. Obviously, I do not expect to convince anybody here.

All that I ask you to consider, is the internal illogic of Harry's story.

In June 1961 Harry writes to President JFK because he wants a pardon and he tells JFK he is an informant for the FBI and he supposedly joined FPCC in the summer of 1960 "in order to inform the FBI of its activities upon finding communist books and material in the box containing fair play literature given me the night I was elected by other officers of the organization."

Then Harry calls the FBI in Chicago -- but FBI records indicate that he never identified himself during his first contact. Later he calls again and does identify himself and he gives the FBI more info.

So, at this point, we are asked to believe that Harry is now back to being a Full Patriot -- who loves his country and wants to protect it against all enemies.

But, then he joins the Birch Society (and Minutemen) -- because (as Harry admits) he thought they offered indisputable correct explanations for all our problems. And central to the JBS (and Minutemen) paradigm was their predicate that virtually all of our national leaders during the 20th century, were traitors, or Communists, or Communist agents or dupes.

Quoting Robert Welch's explanation regarding the "3 stages by which Communists came to control the U.S. Presidency"...

In stages 1 and 2, FDR and Truman were “used” by Communists. In Truman’s case, according to Welch, he was used “with his knowledge and acquiescence, as the price he consciously paid for their making him President.”

Then, with respect to Eisenhower,

“In the third stage the Communists have installed in the Presidency a man who, for whatever reasons, appears intentionally to be carrying forward Communist aims…With regard to this third man, Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.” …

The quote above is from page 279 of the 1963 published edition of Welch's book, The Politician. However, the original formulation of this comment from the unpublished 1950’s manuscript of The Politician is as follows:

"In the third stage, in my own firm opinion, the Communists have one of their own actually in the Presidency. For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 268.].

So...what happened to Harry Dean, our reconstructed Patriot who wrote to JFK in June 1961?

All of this material concerning what Welch believed and wrote about FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower was public knowledge as early as July 1960 and especially during March and April 1961.

In fact, when Harry was living in Chicago, the FIRST major publicity about Welch's views regarding Eisenhower was published on July 25 and 26th,1960 in the Chicago Daily News and then picked up by wire services and plastered all over midwest newspapers -- because a Chicago reporter (Jack Mabley) got hold of a copy of Welch's then-unpublished manuscript!

Oh, by the way, in July 1960, the GOP was holding its National Convention in Chicago to select their next Presidential nominee! So this was PAGE ONE news in Chicago (while Harry lived there)!

It just seems VERY odd that Harry lived in the very city which broke the national news about Welch's views in his book-length private letter -- but Harry decided to join the JBS anyway! And then he writes President JFK (whom the JBS considered yet another traitor -- "Wanted For Treason") for a pardon.

And then Harry calmly listens to details of a murder plot against our President and offers to drive Gabby Galbadon to not one but TWO meetings so he can perfect the plot ... while simultaneously Harry wants us to believe he suddenly became a patriot again and went to the FBI (Wesley Grapp) to report on JBS members he had contacts with.

Ernie, as I mentioned before, your faith in the truthfulness of the FBI is touching. Let's see if they can really live up to your hero-worship. I'm going to post my comparison of Harry Dean's letter (which he published in 1990 in his self-published book, Crosstrails, with the FBI memo that you shared with us this week.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 12, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Contrary to what Paul Trejo has suggested in his message to Harry (above) there was no "doctoring" by the FBI. FBI-Los Angeles merely excerpted Harry's long letter as is common practice when dealing with lengthy stuff and they inserted an ellipsis to indicate when they were skipping over certain sections and moving on to Harry's key points in his letter.

<snip>

Case closed.

Ernie, the case is far from closed. I found a ton of discrepancies comparing the FBI memo that you shared with the letter of the same date that Harry Dean published publicly in 1990 (which is the same as the FBI memo that Bill Kelly shared with us last week in post #253). There is only one letter that Harry Dean sent to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963, and there are so many differences that they cannot both be the real letter. Let's take a good look.

Point 1: The original memo by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover was written in sentence case, that is, it was not all UPPER CASE or CAPITAL LETTERS. This is a MAJOR difference. Therefore, the first item to notice is that this memo that Ernie Lazar kindly provided to us from the Mary Ferrell website was typed by the FBI and not by Harry Dean.

Point 2: Harry Dean's memo as published in his CROSSTRAILS manuscript/book on page 31 of chapter 2, is heavily redacted using a heavy black marker. So I will only be able to (i) compare the words we can read; and (ii) estimate a word count for the words that we cannot read.

Point 3: I compared the word count of words we can read in both. In the FBI memo we can read ~750 words. In Harry Dean's published memo, we can read ~175 words. That's a very wide margin, but we should now count, by approximation, the blacked-out words.

Point 4: To count words that are entirely blacked out, I estimated ten words per line (the average number of words in a line that we can fully read in Harry's letter) and approximately 5.5 inches per line. I measured approximately 40 inches of blanked out words, giving an approximate count of ~75 blacked out words. That is not precise, but given the circumstances, one is unlikely to find a hugely different count by some other measurement.

Point 5: Adding 175 readable words to 75 blanked-out words will total 250 words in Harry Dean's original memo to J. Edgar Hoover. Here is a MAJOR difference: the FBI proposes that Harry Dean wrote a memo of about 750 words, and Harry Dean claims that he wrote a memo of about 250 words. This immediately suggests that somebody is lying. It is now possible that the FBI added 500 words to Harry's original memo, MINIMUM. I say MINIMUM, because I don't yet know how much of Harry's original memo the FBI actually left intact.

Point 6: In the text that follows I will trace the 25 lines of Harry Dean's version of his memo.

FIRST LINE: The FBI version has three words and a number before the number, 1960. Harry Dean's version has one word before the number, 1960.

SECOND LINE: The FBI version follows the words, "FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE" with "AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME." Harry Dean's version omits that second clause.

THIRD LINE: Harry's version has the phrase, "local Chicago office of the Bureau." The FBI version lacks that phrase.

FOURTH LINE: Harry's version has the phrase, "present assignments." The FBI version lacks that phrase.

FIFTH LINE: Harry's version of the 5th line is entirely blacked out.

SIXTH LINE: Harry's version of the 6th line uses the phrase, "has this information." The FBI version lacks that phrase.

SEVENTH LINE: Harry's version of the 7th line uses the phrase, "undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago". The FBI version lacks anything like that phrase.

EIGHTH LINE: Harry's version of the 8th line reads, "done in June 1961 because Eastland's Committee was issuing", while the FBI version lacks anything like that text.

NINTH LINE: Harry's version of the 9th line reads, "subpoenas to hold hearings on the Fair Play for", while the FBI version lacks anything like that text.

TENTH LINE: Harry's version of the 10th line reads, "Cuba Communists and the 26th of July Movement [REDACTED]." The FBI version lacks anything like that text.

ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH LINES: Harry's 11th and 12th lines are almost entirely blacked out - except for the phrase "moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time", while the FBI version lacks any strings matching that text.

THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH LINES: Harry's 13th and 14th lines begin with three inches of blanked-out text, and then reads, "I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports". However, the FBI version lacks any four sequential words from that phrase.

FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH LINES: Harry's 15th and 16th lines contain the phrase, "making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] limiting my effectiveness". However, the FBI version lacks any three sequential words from that phrase.

SEVENTEENTH THROUGH NINETEENTH LINES: Harry's 17th, 18th and 19th lines read almost in full, "name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee's report no. 96465 part 2 pages 84 & 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level". Finally we have a partial match with the FBI document. In this case the FBI semi-matching lines read as follows: "THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT NO. 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE)." We can see that 18 words match in the same sequence, yet another 18 words clearly fail to match. Insofar as this is an alteration of Harry's original memo, it should cause alarms to go off.

TWENTIETH THROUGH TWENTY-SECOND LINES: Harry's 20th, 21st and 22nd lines are partly redacted, but read, "[REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure, live to regret this fact." Again we have a partial match with the FBI document. In this case the FBI semi-matching lines read as follows: "BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD." Again, we can see that 11 words match in sequence, but another 16 words fail to match. Again, one may argue that the FBI has altered Harry's text.

TWENTY-THIRD THROUGH TWENTY-FIFTH LINES: Harry's 23rd, 24th and 25th lines are almost entirely blanked-out, except for this phrase, "that you will see to this urgent matter." For the first time we have a very close match as the FBI document reads, "IT IS MY PRAYER THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS.

Point 7: Of course, we cannot comment on the blanked-out lines of Harry's memo, except to say that there are only about 75 words blanked out, and the FBI has at least 500 additional words to account for.

In conclusion, given that Harry Dean is telling the truth, then the FBI has clearly forged this document that Ernie Lazar presents as a "case closed." This is what I meant when I said last week (when Bill Kelley shared Harry Dean's original memo with the Forum) that there is a "divergence" early in the memo that does not seem to return. In my results tonight, I find that fewer than 50 words match in sequence between the two memos. That is, the FBI must account for about 700 words that they present as Harry Dean's writing, which Harry Dean today denies is his writing.

It therefore appears to me that the FBI has conducted a well-orchestrated smear campaign against Harry Dean regarding Harry Dean's claims about the JFK assassination.

The FBI has not only accused Harry Dean of being "certified insane" and "committed" with a criminal record (i.e. all together that means 'criminally insane,' which is folly to anybody who knows Harry Dean), but they have evidently, by Harry Dean's claim this week -- put up to 700 words into Harry Dean's mouth, in order to influence gullible readers to regard Harry's witness as a "case closed."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 12, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

One brief addendum to my last message.

We need to be aware of the big picture here, i.e. why Harry Dean wrote to J. Edgar Hoover (and to JFK in 1961).

It is clear that Harry was concerned about the fact that he was never called to testify during the July 1961 hearings before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws [Castro's Network in the United States: Fair Play For Cuba Committee].

It appears from all available evidence that Harry saw that potential testimony as being his best opportunity to neutralize whatever adverse conclusions could be drawn by anybody who saw his name listed as the Secretary of the Chicago chapter of FPCC on pages 84-85 of those hearings. Harry's name also appears in Volume 1 of that Subcommittee's 21-year "Cumulative Index" to its hearings and reports which was published in August 1972.

Harry's interest in a "clearance" from the FBI (which he mentions in his 1963 letter to Hoover) or a "pardon" as he mentions in his 1961 letter to JFK) is discussed in one FBI document which observes that Harry wanted that Subcommittee reference "removed" because "this reference has harmed him from getting further jobs."

This was a VERY common concern for people whose names appeared in government documents which discuss "subversive" organizations because many unsophisticated or low-information Americans believed that the mere listing of somebody's name was something deserving of suspicion or much worse.

I think Harry's situation helps us confirm what I have maintained all along during this debate.

1. Unlike official FBI informants, Harry had no "plan B" to fall back on to "clear" his name. Legitimate FBI informants could always ask the Bureau to provide them with a letter stating the time period during which they provided information to the Bureau -- and the FBI usually complied with such a request.

2. Even if the informant did not ask for such a letter, the FBI routinely answered incoming inquiries about their informants by providing such details -- as I have previously quoted the letter which they sent out regarding Julia Brown.

3. But we know from FBI documentary evidence AND from Harry's own correspondence -- that he was explicitly told that his background precluded the FBI from using him as an informant. [This is what Harry described as his "shady character", and "my past difficulty with the law" and "my outstanding debts which are many".

4. Consequently, there was no avenue for Harry to "clear" his name -- except by his own explanations.

5. Let us also remember what Harry acknowledges in his eBook -- and Paul Trejo does not dispute these FACTS:

-a- Harry joined radical left and radical right groups -- BOTH of which believed our national politicians and leaders were terrible people

-b- He joined these groups because he believed their narratives about our country and its problems and the grave deficiencies of our leaders (including, but not limited to, their supposed lack of patriotism or loyalty to our country's best interests)

-c- Guy Galbadon (as described by Harry) had a long history of thinking his personal political and policy preferences should always prevail -- no matter what our national leaders thought. Furthermore, Gabby was totally ok with employing what we now call "second amendment remedies" to our "problems".

-d- When Gabby first broached the idea that JFK deserved to be murdered -- what did Harry do? Did he run home and call the FBI or his local police? Nope! He agreed to drive Gabby to a meeting with Rousselot (if you believe Harry's recollections) so that they could arrange the details for JFK's murder.

-e- After Gabby returned to Harry's car after that meeting, what did Harry do? Did he THEN run home and call the FBI or his local police? Did he tell Gabby that he no longer wanted to be part of Gabby's conspiracy? Nope! According to Harry, he agreed to drive Gabby back to see Rousselot again (the next day I think it was) -- to pick up the $10,000 which Gabby supposedly claimed he needed to bring JFK's murder to fruition.

One has to ask a basic first-principles question here.

To everyone reading this thread.....WHAT WOULD YOU DO if a friend of yours casually tells you in your or his living room that he plans to murder the Mayor of your city, or the Governor of your state, or your Congressperson, or your U.S. Senator, or the President of the U.S?

Would you calmly listen to every detail of the plot and then agree to meet with your friend again to hear more exciting details? And then drive him to a meeting so he could get money to carry out his plot?

There are some stories in life which just are not plausible. Obviously, I do not expect to convince anybody here.

All that I ask you to consider, is the internal illogic of Harry's story.

In June 1961 Harry writes to President JFK because he wants a pardon and he tells JFK he is an informant for the FBI and he supposedly joined FPCC in the summer of 1960 "in order to inform the FBI of its activities upon finding communist books and material in the box containing fair play literature given me the night I was elected by other officers of the organization."

Then Harry calls the FBI in Chicago -- but FBI records indicate that he never identified himself during his first contact. Later he calls again and does identify himself and he gives the FBI more info.

So, at this point, we are asked to believe that Harry is now back to being a Full Patriot -- who loves his country and wants to protect it against all enemies.

But, then he joins the Birch Society (and Minutemen) -- because (as Harry admits) he thought they offered indisputable correct explanations for all our problems. And central to the JBS (and Minutemen) paradigm was their predicate that virtually all of our national leaders during the 20th century, were traitors, or Communists, or Communist agents or dupes.

Quoting Robert Welch's explanation regarding the "3 stages by which Communists came to control the U.S. Presidency"...

In stages 1 and 2, FDR and Truman were “used” by Communists. In Truman’s case, according to Welch, he was used “with his knowledge and acquiescence, as the price he consciously paid for their making him President.”

Then, with respect to Eisenhower,

“In the third stage the Communists have installed in the Presidency a man who, for whatever reasons, appears intentionally to be carrying forward Communist aims…With regard to this third man, Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.” …

The quote above is from page 279 of the 1963 published edition of Welch's book, The Politician. However, the original formulation of this comment from the unpublished 1950’s manuscript of The Politician is as follows:

"In the third stage, in my own firm opinion, the Communists have one of their own actually in the Presidency. For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 268.].

So...what happened to Harry Dean, our reconstructed Patriot who wrote to JFK in June 1961?

All of this material concerning what Welch believed and wrote about FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower was public knowledge as early as July 1960 and especially during March and April 1961.

In fact, when Harry was living in Chicago, the FIRST major publicity about Welch's views regarding Eisenhower was published on July 25 and 26th,1960 in the Chicago Daily News and then picked up by wire services and plastered all over midwest newspapers -- because a Chicago reporter (Jack Mabley) got hold of a copy of Welch's then-unpublished manuscript!

Oh, by the way, in July 1960, the GOP was holding its National Convention in Chicago to select their next Presidential nominee! So this was PAGE ONE news in Chicago (while Harry lived there)!

It just seems VERY odd that Harry lived in the very city which broke the national news about Welch's views in his book-length private letter -- but Harry decided to join the JBS anyway! And then he writes President JFK (whom the JBS considered yet another traitor -- "Wanted For Treason") for a pardon.

And then Harry calmly listens to details of a murder plot against our President and offers to drive Gabby Galbadon to not one but TWO meetings so he can perfect the plot ... while simultaneously Harry wants us to believe he suddenly became a patriot again and went to the FBI (Wesley Grapp) to report on JBS members he had contacts with.

Ernie, as I mentioned before, your faith in the truthfulness of the FBI is touching. Let's see if they can really live up to your hero-worship. I'm going to post my comparison of Harry Dean's letter (which he published in 1990 in his self-published book, Crosstrails, with the FBI memo that you shared with us this week.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul --- once again you are falsely characterizing my position. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "hero worship". It is a question of available EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

YOUR position is that anything in FBI files which contradicts whatever Harry Dean says or writes is, by definition, FALSE or FORGED.

MY position is that we must employ common sense and respect normal rules of evidence and logic to make determinations about whether or not there is anything suspect in FBI files.

ALSO: There is a difference between INTERNAL FBI DOCUMENTS appearing in multiple FBI files versus memos, reports, or letters sent OUTSIDE the Bureau.

As I previously told you, I am not aware of any historian or political scientist who has ever made the claim which YOU are making here, namely, that INTERNAL FBI documents (memos, reports, copies of correspondence received from the public and Bureau file copies of their replies to such inquiries (and Bureau memos which discuss whether and how to reply to them), etc. have been "modified" or "forged" or "fabricated".

Again -- keep in mind.....everything we are discussing with respect to Harry's story occurred many years BEFORE the advent of the Freedom of Information Act so nobody inside the FBI had even the remotest concern about FBI documents or files ever being released to the public or to news media. Furthermore, I am not aware of any FBI employee (clerical, technical, or Special Agent) who during the 1960's has ever claimed that INTERNAL Bureau documents were altered or forged -- such as, for example, editing and then re-typing an incoming letter and substituting that edited version for the original.

So, again, this has nothing to do with MY "hero worship" or your previous put-down comment "blind faith". This is a question of VERIFIABLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

The more messages that you post, the more it seems that you suffer from the psychological condition known as "projection", i.e. you attribute to ME the qualities or intellectual deficiencies which, in reality, are revealed in YOUR messages.

It is YOU that has "blind faith" in whatever Harry tells you.

It is YOU that fawns over Harry as a form of "hero worship"

It is YOU that believes ANYTHING derogatory about the FBI or its filing practices - if you think it supports your eBook narrative