Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

... The reason I alluded to hegelian dialectics was to hint at magical thinking. Anyway these are my ideas on various things. re the JBS in the assassination context it's really about the extreme elements of the minutemen, which inevitably brings in kkk elements. ...

John, any allusion to Hegelian dialectics should grasp its basics. It is proposed as a formal system of logic. I'm a student of formal logic of the kind proposed by Bertrand Russell.and developed by others such as Quine, C. Lewis, Goedel, Kripke, D. Lewis and Priest, in varieties such as normal modal logic, intuitionist logic and first degree entailment. Hegelian dialectics is approached in a formal field known as fuzzy logic -- which has its own rules, axioms and paradoxes.

It isn't related to Marxism, although non-experts tend to presume that it is. Scholars know that Marx rejected Hegel's dialectics, and said he would "turn Hegel on his head." Marx was against everything that Hegel stood for, including private property, Christianity and the Free Republic.

So, there's no "magic thinking" in Hegelian dialectics -- as least as far as scholars are concerned. It's really a matter of nuances -- of avoiding the simple-minded method of Either/Or thinking that leads to extremism.

It is true that my background in Hegelian dialectics makes all the works of Marx (translated into English) seem simple as pie, and I can tell at a glance that Lee Harvey Oswald was not really a Marxist (and that Ernie Lazar is an amateur when it comes to Marxist theory), It is equally true that Marxism strikes me as muddle-headed nonsense, and any Communist experiment is always doomed to failure (e.g. the USSR).

The pathos of the 20th century is that the reasonable opposition to Communism grew so feverish that it spawned such monsters as Adolf Hitler and other fascists, and gave them a voice in the technological age.

You and I did agree that the radical right-wing is the likely the root of the JFK assassination. I don't think we had much more to talk about though, so this dig about magical thinking is puzzling. Did you want to start up another conversation with me?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

What an assinine last paragraph--but typical of what we now expect from you!

Ernie, whatever your opinions, there is no excuse for this sort of insult.

Sincerely,

--Paul

It was not an insult but an accurate descriptive comment. How do you justify in your own mind making a preposterous comment about my career just because you disagree with my comments about Harry Dean or about FBI policies and procedures or FBI history? What is the logical progression that controls your thought process?

Do you make that comment to everyone who disagrees with you about Harry or about any comments you make regarding Hoover or the FBI? In other words, EVERYBODY becomes an FBI "apologist" in your scheme of things if they dare to disagree with you about anything?

Shall I now make an equally silly (and irrelevant) comment about YOUR possible career or occupation?

As I have repeatedly stated, you JUMP to pejorative conclusions and attribute things to me which are totally FALSE. How many times do you think you can get away with that without somebody bringing attention to your malodorous debate tactic?

Incidentally, in message #385, I made comments which someone like yourself could interpret as being friendly toward (or defending) the JBS. Will you now accuse me of "working for" the JBS?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

... The reason I alluded to hegelian dialectics was to hint at magical thinking. Anyway these are my ideas on various things. re the JBS in the assassination context it's really about the extreme elements of the minutemen, which inevitably brings in kkk elements. ...

John, any allusion to Hegelian dialectics should grasp its basics. It is proposed as a formal system of logic. I'm a student of formal logic of the kind proposed by Bertrand Russell.and developed by others such as Quine, C. Lewis, Goedel, Kripke, D. Lewis and Priest, in varieties such as normal modal logic, intuitionist logic and first degree entailment. Hegelian dialectics is approached in a formal field known as fuzzy logic -- which has its own rules, axioms and paradoxes.

It isn't related to Marxism, although non-experts tend to presume that it is. Scholars know that Marx rejected Hegel's dialectics, and said he would "turn Hegel on his head." Marx was against everything that Hegel stood for, including private property, Christianity and the Free Republic.

So, there's no "magic thinking" in Hegelian dialectics -- as least as far as scholars are concerned. It's really a matter of nuances -- of avoiding the simple-minded method of Either/Or thinking that leads to extremism.

It is true that my background in Hegelian dialectics makes all the works of Marx (translated into English) seem simple as pie, and I can tell at a glance that Lee Harvey Oswald was not really a Marxist (and that Ernie Lazar is an amateur when it comes to Marxist theory), It is equally true that Marxism strikes me as muddle-headed nonsense, and any Communist experiment is always doomed to failure (e.g. the USSR).

The pathos of the 20th century is that the reasonable opposition to Communism grew so feverish that it spawned such monsters as Adolf Hitler and other fascists, and gave them a voice in the technological age.

You and I did agree that the radical right-wing is the likely the root of the JFK assassination. I don't think we had much more to talk about though, so this dig about magical thinking is puzzling. Did you want to start up another conversation with me?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

If Paul really believes that my previous comments about Marxism, Marxists, and communism/communists are amateurish and riddled with errors, then I encourage Paul to contact ANY prominent scholar(s) of his choice and present them with the text of Paul's recent comments in this thread, Then ask them to evaluate Paul's comments with respect to factual accuracy. Then, let us know the result.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Until withheld reports re; connections between H. Dean and US. Intelligence become available,

consider reading the e Book Harry Dean's Confessions... located at SMASHWORDS.com, by

Paul Trejo [and me]

That continues to be my position, too, Harry. Americans can expect to see a major shift in JFK research in 2017 when the FBI finally releases its files on Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, I believe American culture will change noticeably.

Many of the books published about the JFK assassination today continue to be defenses of the Lone Nut theory -- and this completely contradicts the findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA, 1979, which is the latest and most official conclusion of the US government, anyway), or else they propose wild speculations about LBJ or Nixon or Bush -- based on the same sort of innuendo and lack of eye-witness guesswork that condemned Lee Harvey Oswald.

We are only two days away from the anniversary date of the 50th anniversay of the JFK assassination, Harry. You and I gave it out best shot to tell your eye-witness account about Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination on Smashwords at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/367550

However, we didn't even sell enough copies to buy a single airplane ticket to Dallas for the JFK convention. Oh, well, we tried.

After our exercise this year, I now appreciate the sort of suppression that you've lived under for 48 years, trying to break your ties with the FBI (which some people consider the American Gestapo), who are experts in disinformation, character assassination, illegal phone and wire-tapping, and other shameful practices that embarrass this great nation.

All I can say is that we tried. The event in Dallas in two more days promises to be a sell-out event. We can bet that Mark Lane will be there, along with Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Lamar Waldron, Anthony Summers, David Lifton, James DiEugenio -- and on the opposing side, perhaps Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and Bill O'Reilly.

Because coverage is likely to be heavy, we'll probably be able to catch highlights on Youtube.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 20, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Harry J.Dean]

Re; assigned code(s)/symbol numbers were never handed to individual informants,

they were for office Bureau identification only. They are discovered if and when

such information is released and or FOIA requested

[Harry J.Dean]

Yes Paul, The HSCA also failed to dint some armor.

[John Dolva]

No, that's ok Paul, thanks for asking.

[Ernie Lazar]

Re; assigned code(s)/symbol numbers were never handed to individual informants,

they were for office Bureau identification only. They are discovered if and when

such information is released and or FOIA requested

It could be possible for an informant to discover his/her symbol number. For example, when an informant testified at administrative hearings or executive sessions which were closed to the public, an informant would be sometimes be asked to verify the accuracy of the content of specific FBI documents which contained the alleged text of their reports to the FBI-- so when the informant reviewed such documents they could see their symbol number - or, for that matter, the informant's case agent might have told the informant.

The eBook description of Wesley Grapp's alleged comments to you 6 weeks after the assassination suggests that Grapp was sharing exceptionally confidential information with you which not even other FBI Special Agents were privvy to.

That still leaves the question of whether or not you signed off on the documents used by the FBI to transcribe your oral reports onto written documents. Did you initial them or orally approve them? Thus indicating that the substantive content conformed to what you told your case agents in Chicago and Los Angeles?

Also, still waiting to learn from you if the letter you wrote to the Director of the Joe Pyne program which Paul typed into this thread is your letter or do you claim that is also a forgery?

[Paul Trejo]

Re; assigned code(s)/symbol numbers were never handed to individual informants,

they were for office Bureau identification only. They are discovered if and when

such information is released and or FOIA requested

...Also, still waiting to learn from you if the letter you wrote to the Director of the Joe Pyne program which Paul typed into this thread is your letter or do you claim that is also a forgery?

Ernie, your Either/Or method of thinking distorts the question. There are more possibilities than the two you offered to Harry Dean. It is possible that Harry Dean wrote the letter, and that the FBI faithfully re-typed it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. It is possible that Harry Dean wrote such a letter, and that the FBI later changed a few words when they re-typed it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. It is also possible that Harry Dean wrote such a letter, and the FBI added and deleted paragraphs liberally, when they re-typed it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

Your question to Harry Dean left out the mystery of the CAPITAL LETTERS. Did Harry Dean write in that way?

We saw a different FBI document allegedly by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover, written on 19 November 1963, and it is also written IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Harry flatly denies that he wrote that letter. The letter he wrote to Hoover on that date was about a half-page long (as shown by Bill Kelly on this thread) while the letter the FBI proposed to show (IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS) required two pages to complete.

These are nuances that you're evading that address the open question about whether Harry Dean tended to write to the FBI using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Re; assigned code(s)/symbol numbers were never handed to individual informants,

they were for office Bureau identification only. They are discovered if and when

such information is released and or FOIA requested

...Also, still waiting to learn from you if the letter you wrote to the Director of the Joe Pyne program which Paul typed into this thread is your letter or do you claim that is also a forgery?

Ernie, your Either/Or method of thinking distorts the question. There are more possibilities than the two you offered to Harry Dean. It is possible that Harry Dean wrote the letter, and that the FBI faithfully re-typed it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. It is possible that Harry Dean wrote such a letter, and that the FBI later changed a few words when they re-typed it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. It is also possible that Harry Dean wrote such a letter, and the FBI added and deleted paragraphs liberally, when they re-typed it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

Your question to Harry Dean left out the mystery of the CAPITAL LETTERS. Did Harry Dean write in that way?

We saw a different FBI document allegedly by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover, written on 19 November 1963, and it is also written IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Harry flatly denies that he wrote that letter. The letter he wrote to Hoover on that date was about a half-page long (as shown by Bill Kelly on this thread) while the letter the FBI proposed to show (IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS) required two pages to complete.

These are nuances that you're evading that address the open question about whether Harry Dean tended to write to the FBI using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

(1) I am not "evading" anything --- which is why I am asking questions.

(2) You seem to forget that the FBI did not receive the original copy of Harry's letter to the Joe Pyne program. They received a xerox copy of it from the Executive Producer of the Pyne program (Bob Hayward).

(3) If you are now suggesting that the FBI re-typed the letter they received from Hayward in all CAPS -- one naturally has to ask, WHY would they do that? For what purpose?

(4) You still have not presented any plausible reason for why the FBI wanted to re-type the 11/63 letter to Hoover. As previously mentioned, there is nothing in the supposed forgery that disadvantages Harry in any way or that benefits the FBI. The substance of both letters is essentially benign information which does not add to, or subtract from, anything which Harry has already acknowledged.

(5) You still have not identified where the redacted (short) version of that 11/63 Hoover letter came from, i.e. where did Bill Kelly find it? How do we know it is authentic?

(6) Since Harry states that he does not have any original copies (xerox or carbon copies) of any of these letters, there is no way to compare documents.

(7) The flyer which Harry produced in 1966 for his publication "I Confess" (which appears to be some sort of bi-weekly newsletter) also contains a major section typed in ALL CAPS. Does Harry now claim that his flyer is ALSO a forgery?

(8) As previously mentioned, the FBI in Los Angeles and at HQ was not using typewriters with the type of font visible on both the 11/63 Hoover letter and the subsequent 12/64 letter (Pyne)

(9) Lastly, it is particularly ironic that YOU accuse ME of either/or thinking since your position is now, and always has been, that ....

(1) either Harry is lying OR the FBI is telling the truth and

(2) either I must be a current or former FBI employee OR I am willfully ignorant and "evading" critical evidence,

(3) either the FBI "accepted and recorded" Harry's information -- which means Harry is telling the truth OR the FBI told Harry that his assistance was not required

(4) either we accept your predicate that there are secret classified files which will corroborate Harry's story OR the absence of such files means we cannot form accurate conclusions about Harry's assertions

(5) either all of Harry's FBI files have been transferred to NARA OR they have been "combined" with LHO files and thus are classifed "top secret",

(6) either my FOIA public interest disclosure justification for Harry's FBI files is "weak" or I cannot even provide a public interest explanation that would be accepted by the FBI because my interest is private and I "don't speak for the public interest"

(7) either I accept your every syllable about the validity of "new evidence" recently discussed OR I am "minimizing" its importance and refusing to admit that I am mistaken

(8) either we accept your profound ignorance about what MLK Jr believed about Marxist economic theory OR we must be accusing MLK Jr of being a communist

(9) either we accept your understanding about Marxism/Communism OR we are amateurs

(10) either we accept as indisputable every word that originates from your brain OR we are "working for the FBI" and "beating a drum for the FBI"

Edited November 20, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

I don't know if these docs are at Mary Ferrell or not, and have not revisited this in years, but I did locate a few redacted documents that I pulled out of Harry's file a few years ago to ask him about it - and got sidetracked.

In any case, here's one document from Harry's file that I pulled and wanted to ask him about.

Harry, did you write this letter or is it someone else who wrote it and your name is written in at the bottom for some other reason? And who redacted it? Thanks - BK

18109 xitina Dr.

La Puente Calif.

Nov. 19, 1963

Director J. E. Hoover

F.B.I.

Washington D.C.

Dear Sir,

[REDACTED] 1960 [REDACTED] the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [REDACTED] information [REDACTED] local Chicago office of the Bureau. My present assignments [REDACTED] Los Angeles office [REDACTED] has this information.

[REDACTED] undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago [REDACTED] done in June 1961 because Eastland’s Committee was issuing subpoenas to hold hearing on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the 26th of July Movement ([REDACTED] moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time [REDACTED] I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports [REDACTED] released [REDACTED] making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] groups limiting my effectiveness.

[REDACTED] name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee’s report no.96465 part 2 pages 84 and 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level [REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact.

[REDACTED] that you will see to this urgent matter, [REDACTED]

J.R.

[REDACTED]

Harry J. Dean

Bill, I think this letter has a high importance in the current context. Do you remember your source for this version of the letter?

If your source is Harry's Crosstrails manuscript, that entails one set of premises.

If your source is an FBI FOIA request, that entails a different set of premises.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

If the redacted version of Harry's 11/19/63 letter which was shared with us by Bill Kelly was released as a result of an FOIA request, then each individual redaction or each section/paragraph containing redactions would have the appropriate FOIA exemption code specified in the margin of the document so that recipients would know why the document they received was redacted. So what does Bill mean by "Harry's file" and WHERE did Bill Kelly obtain his redacted copy?

Let's take a closer look at

(1) the Los Angeles FBI office unredacted one-paragraph excerpt presented in their LHM (letterhead memorandum) dated 3/6/64 – and compare it to

(2) the Kelly redacted short version of Harry’s letter to Hoover

(3) the full version of Harry's 11/19/63 letter to Hoover contained in Harry’s FBI HQ main file [HQ 62-109068,serial #1]

In what follows, I will use (1) (2) and (3) to reflect the text from each source specified above in #1 thru #3. When applicable, I will present my personal analysis/comment as item #4.

To expedite matters, I will not insert every punctuation error made by Harry nor will I capitalize the entire text.

However, I would like to mention that FBI clerk/typists typed what they called a “true copy” of an incoming letter (but that was normally done only when they received HAND-WRITTEN correspondence). In those cases the FBI did type all grammatical, spelling, punctuation and typo errors in the “true copy” just as they appeared in the original handwritten document.

Typically, when the Bureau copied the text from incoming communications into an FBI memo or report (from a letter, memo, telegram, etc) any errors appearing in the original text were included in their typed version but they were underlined.

For example, in the Los Angeles excerpt the word “quite” is typed with the last letter (e) underlined to indicate that is how Harry wrote his original text – when he meant to write “quit”.

#1 = 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 F.B.I. Agents in Chicago Illinois...”

#2 = Dear Sir: [REDACTED] 1960 [REDACTED] the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [REDACTED] information [REDACTED] local Chicago office of the Bureau."

#3 = 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 F.B.I. agents in Chicago Illinois.

#4 = There is something suspect about the redactions shown in this first example.

One has to ask the obvious questions here:

-1- Under what circumstances would the FBI (or any other agency) want to redact a date?

-2- Under what FOIA exemption would an agency choose to, and then be able to justify, redacting a month and a day from the opening part of a sentence but then leave the year unredacted?

-3- Under what FOIA exemption would an agency choose to, and then be able to justify, redacting the ENTIRE DATE i.e. month, day, and year from the next part of the very same sentence?

-4- Normally, FOIA redactions are made with brutal and maddening consistency – in the sense that if one date is redacted then all dates are redacted – particularly if they appear in the same sentence!

In other words, what potential harm could (hypothetically) possibly come from allowing somebody to see either one or both of those dates?

This becomes even more weird when you consider that the #2 version redacts the CRITICAL CONTEXT, i.e. the self-acknowledgement by Harry that he was a member and officer of FPCC AND he claims that he was giving information to the FBI in Chicago. So absent that context, the dates are just numbers which have no reference point to make them intelligible.

But, let’s continue – although here is where we have a major discrepancy because a major chunk of text is omitted from the Los Angeles excerpt.

AND

The next paragraph of the Kelly redacted version does not contain any references to what appears next in the non-redacted version appearing in the FBI HQ main file on Dean.

#1 = I used only the telephone method in all my dealings with Agents, only near the end of my activities…did I meet with them…At this time they began investigating me…Prior to hearings held on this front, by the Senate Subcommittee in July 1961, I was told to quite giving information to the F.B.I…The thing I would like to bring to your attention, with the hope of being cleared, is that, my name appears in the Senate Subcommittee Report No. 96465 Part No. 2 Pages 84 and 85 as an officer of the Red Front (Fair Play For Cuba Committee.)

#2 = no comparable text – until next to last paragraph which discusses Senate Subcommittee report.

[REDACTED] name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee’s report no.96465 part 2 pages 84 and 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level [REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact.

#3 = When I first contacted your people via phone they stated they were unaware that this front had started in Chicago and ask that I continue in this position and advised me in many nessasary details and cautions. For several months, I used only the telephone method in all my dealings with Agents. Only near the end of my act-ivities (not anticipated) did I meet with them, and at their kind insistence prior to this it was my own wish to rely 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 no. They called me on several occasions for information, and to advise me in details in this area. On one occasion an agent stated (quote) this is the best one man undercover operation, we have seen. 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.

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 I96I, I was told to quite giving information to the F.B.I., by two agents, whom I met on Chicago’s north side, in a street corner meeting prearranged of course, They made in clear that I was finished by reason 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.

[At this point in the HQ file letter, Harry goes into personal background information about his previous “mistakes” and he praises the FBI agents in Chicago whom he says he “dealt with” – and he then expresses his “hope of being cleared” because his name appears in the Senate Subcommittee report as an officer of FPCC.

#4 = Let’s use a little basic logic here:

If YOU were going to write a letter to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (instead of just contacting your local FBI field office) to express your “hope of being cleared” -- does it not make sense that you would want to give Hoover sufficient background information about your situation so that he (or the subordinate whom he instructed to reply to your letter) would be inclined to produce a favorable response to your request?

In Bill Kelly’s redacted version, Harry closes with a plea that Hoover will “see to this urgent matter”.

In the version that appears in Harry’s FBI-HQ main file, Harry closes his letter with this comment:

“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”

WHAT IS the “urgent matter” to which Harry refers? Is it not Harry’s fervent “hope to be cleared”?

Look again at Kelly’s redacted version. Does it seem logical to you (based upon the context of what is presented) that this 3-paragraph redacted version contains sufficient detail to favorably impact a decision by the head of our nation’s primary internal security agency?

OR does the lengthy explanatory letter appearing in Harry’s FBI-HQ main file seem more like the type of document somebody would write in order to request “urgent” attention to the type of personal matter which motivated Harry to write directly to Hoover instead of just contacting his local FBI office (and, incidentally, Harry claims that he was on a first-name basis with the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI-Los Angeles field office. Furthermore, according to Harry, that SAC personally traveled to Harry’s home at least twice to talk with Harry!) If YOU had that sort of special relationship with your local SAC, why would you need to write to Hoover to request a “clearance”?

Harry could have asked ANYBODY at the Los Angeles field office and they would have instantly told Harry that the FBI does not issue clearances. [Harry was interviewed by at least FOUR different Special Agents from Los Angeles field office!]

Lastly -- we are back to my previous questions:

WHY would the FBI go to all the trouble of fabricating an entirely different version of this 11/63 letter from Harry to Hoover? There is absolutely NOTHING in the alleged "forged" version which reflects adversely upon Harry. There is no information in the alleged "forged" version which adds to, or subtracts from, Harry's story as it is told in the new Dean/Trejo eBook. There is no information in the alleged "forged" version which would cause anybody to suspect Harry's veracity -- when the text is compared to the other versions we are discussing. There is no advantage or benefit for the FBI, there is no disadvantage or adverse consequence to Harry. The ENTIRE purpose of forgeries is to deceive -- and usually the forgery is either intended to produce some kind of monetary benefit OR it is intended to harm the reputation and character of the person(s) discussed in the forgery. But no such qualities exist in Harry's letter -- no matter which version you believe is genuine! So we are still left with the basic question: WHY BOTHER fabricating a letter which does NOT advance any purpose or objective?

AND -- as previously mentioned, people who fabricate forgeries do so with GREAT CARE because they do not want them easily discovered. The FBI knew that Harry was a PUBLIC figure who had been interviewed on widely syndicated radio/TV programs such as Joe Pyne's show. The FBI knew that Harry had been interviewed by newspapers in southern California. The FBI knew that Harry was attempting to find a publisher for a proposed book. So, obviously, the FBI could not know how many copies of his 11/63 letter were in circulation -- i.e. to whom Harry sent copies. Which means that the FBI could be severely embarrassed (as was the case during the 1970's when anonymous activists revealed the FBI's domestic spying program as a result of stealing documents at FBI office in Media PA ).

If 2 or 3 independent sources (including news media organizations and perhaps Harry's Congressman) produced their copies of Harry's original 11/63 letter to Hoover (which Harry gave to them personally or mailed to them) -- then the FBI would have reaped the whirlwind if it attempted to deny the accuracy of the original Harry letter and the FBI could never adequately explain how a forged copy wound up in FBI HQ files.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kelly’s redacted version

Dear Sir,

[REDACTED] 1960 [REDACTED] the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [REDACTED] information [REDACTED] local Chicago office of the Bureau. My present assignments [REDACTED] Los Angeles office [REDACTED] has this information.

[REDACTED] undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago [REDACTED] done in June 1961 because Eastland’s Committee was issuing subpoenas to hold hearing on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the 26th of July Movement ([REDACTED] moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time [REDACTED] I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports [REDACTED] released [REDACTED] making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] groups limiting my effectiveness.

[REDACTED] name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee’s report no.96465 part 2 pages 84 and 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level [REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact.

[REDACTED] that you will see to this urgent matter, [REDACTED]

J.R.
[REDACTED]
Harry J. Dean

Edited November 21, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

If the redacted version of Harry's 11/19/63 letter which was shared with us by Bill Kelly was released as a result of an FOIA request, then each individual redaction or each section/paragraph containing redactions would have the appropriate FOIA exemption code specified in the margin of the document so that recipients would know why the document they received was redacted. So what does Bill mean by "Harry's file" and WHERE did Bill Kelly obtain his redacted copy?

<snip>

…So we are still left with the basic question: WHY BOTHER fabricating a letter which does NOT advance any purpose or objective?[/b][/u]

<snip>

Ernie, your one-sided analysis of Harry Dean's letter (and alleged letter) to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963 leaves out one very important fact, namely, that Harry Dean has already told this Forum that the letter supplied by the FBI (two pages in ALL CAPS) is NOT the one that he wrote to J. Edgar Hoover.

Yet you're still treating it as though it was.

Also, you keep grasping at straws, for example, you argue:

"Look again at Kelly’s redacted version. Does it seem logical to you that this 3-paragraph redacted version contains sufficient detail to favorably impact a decision by the head of our nation’s primary internal security agency?"

The self-contradiction in that question is obvious -- we can't make a logical conclusion on material that has been redacted, because we don't know the CONTENT of the information that has been redacted!

Therefore, all your speculations above are pointless -- except, of course, for your final question:

"WHY BOTHER fabricating a letter which does NOT advance any purpose or objective?"

A more objective approach to the problem would recognize that you've already answered the question, as follows. The letter that you wish to pin on Harry Dean contains text that you describe as follows:

"At this point in the HQ file letter, Harry goes into personal background information about his previous 'mistakes' and he praises the FBI agents in Chicago whom he says he 'dealt with' – and he then expresses his 'hope of being cleared'."

You're digging for dirt about Harry Dean in an FBI document that the FBI claims was written by Harry Dean, but that Harry Dean never wrote, according to Harry Dean himself.

That's the central logical flaw in all your work above.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 21, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

If the redacted version of Harry's 11/19/63 letter which was shared with us by Bill Kelly was released as a result of an FOIA request, then each individual redaction or each section/paragraph containing redactions would have the appropriate FOIA exemption code specified in the margin of the document so that recipients would know why the document they received was redacted. So what does Bill mean by "Harry's file" and WHERE did Bill Kelly obtain his redacted copy?

<snip>

…So we are still left with the basic question: WHY BOTHER fabricating a letter which does NOT advance any purpose or objective?[/b][/u]

<snip>

Ernie, your one-sided analysis of Harry Dean's letter (and alleged letter) to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963 leaves out one very important fact, namely, that Harry Dean has already told this Forum that the letter supplied by the FBI (two pages in ALL CAPS) is NOT the one that he wrote to J. Edgar Hoover.

Yet you're still treating it as though it was. Therefore, all your speculations above are pointless -- except, of course, for your final question:

"WHY BOTHER fabricating a letter which does NOT advance any purpose or objective?"

A more objective approach to the problem would recognize that you've already answered the question, as follows. The letter that you wish to pin on Harry Dean contains text that you describe as follows:

"At this point in the HQ file letter, Harry goes into personal background information about his previous 'mistakes' and he praises the FBI agents in Chicago whom he says he 'dealt with' – and he then expresses his 'hope of being cleared'."

You're digging for dirt about Harry Dean in an FBI document that the FBI claims was written by Harry Dean, but that Harry Dean never wrote, according to Harry Dean himself.

That's the logical flaw in all your work above.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- your blind faith in Harry and your one-sided analysis is touching but irrelevant. When there is a disputed document, independent thought is required -- not robot acceptance of whatever you are told.

Would you please explain your thought process? How am I "digging for dirt about Harry Dean"? Is THAT how you approach EVERY dispute regarding authenticity of a document? In other words, if somebody asks questions, then they are "digging for dirt"? So, for example, when the "Hitler Diaries" were first released, everybody who questioned their authenticity was "digging for dirt" because they did not just immediately accept claims about their authenticity?

We now see how vapid your intellect is.

You still have not confronted the questions regarding how to explain that other documents written by Harry were also typed in CAPS (the Pyne letter and a major portion of Harry's 1966 flyer advertising his publication, I Confess).

You still have not confronted the main issue -- i.e. WHERE did Bill Kelly obtain his redacted copy? If that is NOT an original document which can be verified, then there is no factual evidence (other than Harry's self-serving statement) that the all CAPS version was not written by Harry.

Don't you think it is significant that everything we discuss about Harry (whether his letters or his recollections regarding what transpired during his time in Chicago and Los Angeles) are all subject to question because we have ONLY Harry's word when there are disputed items?

What are YOUR criteria for determining what is factual? You have a master's degree in history? How could that be possible if this is your standard for analysis or proof, i.e. you just mindlessly accept whatever you are told!

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- your blind faith in Harry and your one-sided analysis is touching but irrelevant. When there is a disputed document, independent thought is required -- not robot acceptance of whatever you are told.

Would you please explain your thought process? How am I "digging for dirt about Harry Dean"? Is THAT how you approach EVERY dispute regarding authenticity of a document? In other words, if somebody asks questions, then they are "digging for dirt"? So, for example, when the "Hitler Diaries" were first released, everybody who questioned their authenticity was "digging for dirt" because they did not just immediately accept claims about their authenticity?

We now see how vapid your intellect is.

You still have not confronted the questions regarding how to explain that other documents written by Harry were also typed in CAPS (the Pyne letter and a major portion of Harry's 1966 flyer advertising his publication, I Confess).

You still have not confronted the main issue -- i.e. WHERE did Bill Kelly obtain his redacted copy? If that is NOT an original document which can be verified, then there is no factual evidence (other than Harry's self-serving statement) that the all CAPS version was not written by Harry.

Don't you think it is significant that everything we discuss about Harry (whether his letters or his recollections regarding what transpired during his time in Chicago and Los Angeles) are all subject to question because we have ONLY Harry's word when there are disputed items?

What are YOUR criteria for determining what is factual? You have a master's degree in history? How could that be possible if this is your standard for analysis or proof, i.e. you just mindlessly accept whatever you are told!

Ernie, your insults continue to be out of place, yet you seem to be oblivious to your lack of manners, and so you may deserve our pity.

In any case, here is additional detail regarding your faulty logic in your post above:

ERNIE WROTE: “There is absolutely NOTHING in the alleged "forged" version which reflects adversely upon Harry.”

Incorrect. The allegedly forged version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover portrays an ATTITUDE that does not belong to Harry, namely, an attitude of seeking Hoover's forgiveness for past actions.

ERNIE WROTE: “There is no information in the alleged "forged" version which adds to, or subtracts from, Harry's story as it is told in the new Dean/Trejo eBook.”

Incorrect. Harry’s memoirs suggest no ATTITUDE of seeking Hoover's forgiveness.

ERNIE WROTE: “There is no information in the alleged "forged" version which would cause anybody to suspect Harry's veracity -- when the text is compared to the other versions we are discussing.”

Incorrect. Insofar as criminality is subtly implied, then Harry’s veracity is also questioned.

ERNIE WROTE: “There is no advantage or benefit for the FBI, there is no disadvantage or adverse consequence to Harry.”

Incorrect. The FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover presumes an advantage and benefit for the FBI by painting Harry Dean as an unreliable witness. This puts Harry Dean at a disadvantage by the method of character assassination.

ERNIE WROTE: “The ENTIRE purpose of forgeries is to deceive...intended to harm the reputation and character of the person discussed in the forgery. But no such qualities exist in Harry's letter -- no matter which version you believe is genuine!”

Incorrect. First, you continue to refer to the FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover as "Harry's letter," which shows your massive bias. Then, you blind yourself to the digs and jabs at Harry's character there. There are major differences between the letters, and you haven't scratched the surface.

Your bias against Harry Dean amounts to a blind spot in your vision, Ernie. Your lack of objectivity is probably obvious to everybody on this thread except yourself.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 21, 2013 by Paul Trejo