Harry Dean: Memoirs

Ernie Lazar · November 25, 2013

<snip>

I have never made FOIA requests on LHO nor do I intend to do so.

<snip>

WHAT?? You may have submitted more FOIA requests to the FBI than anybody else in America, and yet you never once inquired about Lee Harvey Oswald??

Also, you never intend to make an FOIA request to the FBI about Lee Harvey Oswald??

Do you have no sense of curiosity at all, Ernie? Is all your flailing about the FOIA and FBI procedure merely idle, academic interest?

The most important possession that the FBI holds today -- in the eyes of most readers of this Forum, and perhaps most historians of the US Cold War period -- is their secret cache of files on Lee Harvey Oswald.

How could any objective person remain disinterested in those files?

Not only is the FBI hiding something BIG here, I must now suspect that Ernie Lazar is withholding something.

Get with the program, Ernie. Submit an FOIA request to the FBI about Lee Harvey Oswald, and let us know what they tell you. That would redeem your grandstanding around here in the eyes of many.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- there is nothing about LHO that pertains to my research project so, no, I don't plan to request and pay for God-knows how many documents that have no relevance to me. At present, I have about 600,000 pages of FBI documents (paper or on CDROM). I have posted tens of thousands of those pages online -- and they are available at no cost to everybody who has interest in them. [i also have lots of documents that originated within other agencies including: CIA, military intelligence agencies, U.S. Dept of State, etc.]

I also have donated a set of 4 dual-layer DVD's containing hundreds of FBI files to Marquette University, University of California-Berkeley, and University of Kansas -- along with several organizations who are interested in the subject matters which I have pursued for 33 years through FOIA requests.

In addition, I have donated CDROM's containing specific FBI files to University of Mississippi (Citizens Councils and States Rights Movement files) and New York University (Communist Party USA files).

In addition, I am currently arranging to donate DVD sets of my collection to several other universities.

ALL OF THIS has been done ENTIRELY at my own expense. I have never asked for or received a single penny for any of this.

IF and WHEN you can report anything remotely comparable about yourself --- THEN and ONLY THEN will anybody be interested in your childish opinions.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

Paul Trejo · November 26, 2013

Paul -- there is nothing about LHO that pertains to my research project so, no, I don't plan to request and pay for God-knows how many documents that have no relevance to me. At present, I have about 600,000 pages of FBI documents (paper or on CDROM). I have posted tens of thousands of those pages online -- and they are available at no cost to everybody who has interest in them. [i also have lots of documents that originated within other agencies including: CIA, military intelligence agencies, U.S. Dept of State, etc.]

I also have donated a set of 4 dual-layer DVD's containing hundreds of FBI files to Marquette University, University of California-Berkeley, and University of Kansas -- along with several organizations who are interested in the subject matters which I have pursued for 33 years through FOIA requests.

In addition, I have donated CDROM's containing specific FBI files to University of Mississippi (Citizens Councils and States Rights Movement files) and New York University (Communist Party USA files).

In addition, I am currently arranging to donate DVD sets of my collection to several other universities.

ALL OF THIS has been done ENTIRELY at my own expense. I have never asked for or received a single penny for any of this.

IF and WHEN you can report anything remotely comparable about yourself --- THEN and ONLY THEN will anybody be interested in your childish opinions.

Ernie, your arrogance is sometimes intolerable, yet I'm willing to overlook your attitude because I believe your life work might one day become useful around here.

Those locked-up FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald are among the shining cultural icons of 20th century America. With all your experience in obtaining FBI records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) you might actually become among the first to obtain those records.

SInce you cannot be ignorant of the fact that the majority of readers on this thread (and in the JFK Forum generally) have remain focused upon the locked-up FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald for 49 years, why not take an interest in Lee Harvey Oswald?

Actually, this is a question I'm sure many of us on this thread already have -- you're a virtual expert on the FBI -- and yet you have no interest in the FBI's secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald? How is that even possible?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 26, 2013 by Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · November 26, 2013

Paul -- there is nothing about LHO that pertains to my research project so, no, I don't plan to request and pay for God-knows how many documents that have no relevance to me. At present, I have about 600,000 pages of FBI documents (paper or on CDROM). I have posted tens of thousands of those pages online -- and they are available at no cost to everybody who has interest in them. [i also have lots of documents that originated within other agencies including: CIA, military intelligence agencies, U.S. Dept of State, etc.]

I also have donated a set of 4 dual-layer DVD's containing hundreds of FBI files to Marquette University, University of California-Berkeley, and University of Kansas -- along with several organizations who are interested in the subject matters which I have pursued for 33 years through FOIA requests.

In addition, I have donated CDROM's containing specific FBI files to University of Mississippi (Citizens Councils and States Rights Movement files) and New York University (Communist Party USA files).

In addition, I am currently arranging to donate DVD sets of my collection to several other universities.

ALL OF THIS has been done ENTIRELY at my own expense. I have never asked for or received a single penny for any of this.

IF and WHEN you can report anything remotely comparable about yourself --- THEN and ONLY THEN will anybody be interested in your childish opinions.

Ernie, your arrogance is sometimes intolerable, yet I'm willing to overlook your attitude because I believe your life work might one day become useful around here.

Those locked-up FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald are among the shining cultural icons of 20th century America. With all your experience in obtaining FBI records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) you might actually become among the first to obtain those records.

SInce you cannot be ignorant of the fact that the majority of readers on this thread (and in the JFK Forum generally) have remain focused upon the locked-up FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald for 49 years, why not take an interest in Lee Harvey Oswald?

Actually, this is a question I'm sure many of us on this thread already have -- you're a virtual expert on the FBI -- and yet you have no interest in the FBI's secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald? How is that even possible?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul --- There is no arrogance on my part. The basic problem is that you are committed to one specific viewpoint and you have no interest in any information which contradicts that viewpoint so if anybody challenges your assumptions. theories, and conclusions, you interpret that as arrogance.

I have already answered the question in your final paragraph. For example: I also have never requested FBI files on the Mafia, or the Atlanta Child Murders, or on Clark Gable, or on Ernest Hemingway or on thousands of other subjects -- because they are outside the scope of my research project.

As I have explained repeatedly, I became a member of this website in order to discover information about Harry Dean because I received emails from people who asked me if I was familiar with his JBS-plot story and, if so, what did I think about Harry's assertions? I did not become a member because I share your specific interest in LHO files.

All of us have finite resources (time, money, energy). I recognize that you are obsessed with what you think are "secret FBI files on LHO" -- but I am not. I do not believe that you will discover anything in those files which will help you resolve the questions and issues we have been debating in this thread.

As I have patiently attempted to explain to you (without success), there are many different ways to find data which is archived in FBI files. It makes no difference if some documents or files were originally (or still are) "classified" -- because even "classified" material is now often subject to mandatory declassification review.

You have created an impenetrable self-sealing argument. Every time you confront something which does not conform to your present JBS-plot theory or which contradicts or raises doubts about Harry's story --- then you regurgitate "secret FBI files" as your all-purpose, omnipresent escape hatch. The rest of us mortals are constrained by actual verifiable factual evidence -- not your fictional narratives and fictional assumptions.

As I mentioned in a previous message, over the past five decades various malcontents have accused the Birch Society of being created/controlled/dominated by a wide variety of supposedly noxious characters or influences --- ranging from Jews to Catholics to Mormons to the Rockefeller family to the Soviet intelligence services.

When I read your eBook, I noticed that Harry made categorical statements which I know are absolutely false. You obviously do not recognize those statements.

One wonders, however, how your current theory might be affected if you discovered and publicly acknowledged that Harry is not a reliable source of information about everything he claims to have witnessed or participated in or written?

In other words, if you had to dissociate yourself from Harry -- then what would become of your "JBS-plot" theory? Would you look for other sources which lend support to your theory OR would you question its fundamental predicates and assumptions?

Based upon my experience with you in this thread -- I suspect you would search for bits and pieces of "evidence" and blow it up into cosmic truth proportions.

Obviously, there is no further point in discussing FBI files (or CIA files) with you. First of all, you are convinced that the really pertinent data is contained in "secret" files -- which NOBODY currently has access to. Second, the intrinsic logic and dynamics of your conspiracy argument are such that when LHO or other material is released (by 2017) and you cannot find what you currently think is in that material --- then, obviously, you will declare that those files were "purged" or "modified" or documents were "forged" to "cover up" the "real" story. So nothing will EVER be satisfactorily resolved for you.

As previously stated, our problem is not me "evading" evidence, or having "blind faith" and "hero worship" about the FBI, or not having sufficient "curiosity" -- or whatever other put-down words and phrases you want to throw at me. Our ultimate problem always has been, and continues to be, epistemological. You and I have profound and apparently irreconcilable differences about how to go about discovering and verifying information -- AND -- how to apply normal rules of logic and evidence to whatever data we discover. You argue for "exceptionalism" -- which is a standard ploy with ALL conspiracy narratives. You want everybody to totally discard all accumulated human knowledge about the FBI (or any other agency). You want everybody to totally discard all accumulated human knowledge about customary human behavior and motives. You want to substitute a specific fictional narrative which you have meticulously created and then you expect everyone to interpret ALL available data based upon acceptance of your unproven predicates. If they refuse to do that, then they are "biased", or lack "curiosity", or are "evading" what the "evidence" clearly shows, etc.

Paul Trejo · November 26, 2013

<snip>

One wonders, however, how your current theory might be affected if you discovered and publicly acknowledged that Harry is not a reliable source of information about everything he claims to have witnessed or participated in or written?

In other words, if you had to dissociate yourself from Harry -- then what would become of your "JBS-plot" theory? Would you look for other sources which lend support to your theory OR would you question its fundamental predicates and assumptions?

Based upon my experience with you in this thread -- I suspect you would search for bits and pieces of "evidence" and blow it up into cosmic truth proportions.

Obviously, there is no further point in discussing FBI files (or CIA files) with you.

<snip>

Ernie,

I continue to maintain that Harry Dean is a reliable source of information. His details of time, place and personnel continue to ring true in continuing research.

Nothing you have said in the past two years has convinced me otherwise -- and I have an open mind. More to the point, many of the things you've said have confirmed parts of Harry's story. You've supplied more FBI files on Harry Dean than I've ever seen before -- and their overall effect (despite a few minor bumps) is to confirm Harry's story.

Now, you ask a reasonable question -- if, for the sake of argument, I entirely set aside Harry's story -- what would become of my theory that places General Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society (JBS) immediately next to the plot against JFK that involved Lee Harvey Oswald?

The answer is extremely clear -- perhaps you didn't know this -- but before I ever encountered Harry Dean, I already amassed lots of information about the John Birch Society and General Edwin Walker that placed them close to Lee Harvey Oswald and an assassination plot in Dallas in 1963.

Where did this information come from? Well, it started with the Warren Commission. General Walker's name appears more than 500 times in those volumes. It is difficult to find anyone today who recalls that General Walker was a suspect among clear-thinking Americans in 1963 and 1964. But he was.

The connections are clear, but General Walker already proved that he could lie under oath when he lied before a Mississippi Grand Jury in January, 1963, and told them that he was at the Ole Miss riots in September, 1962, in order to bring calm to the rioters. After the Grand Jury believed him and acquitted him of all charges, he went out and sued all the American newspapers who printed the truth about him -- that he actually started those riots.

Well, Walker won a few court cases and amassed $3 million in judgments -- but they appealed to the Supreme Court and in 1967 the Supreme Court reversed all those decisions -- Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren knew that General Walker lied under oath (not only to the Grand Jury in 1963, but also to the Warren Commission in 1964).

General Walker tried to resign from the Army in 1959, the year that he joined the JBS, because the JBS taught him that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST. (Ike rejected Walker's resignation.) Like the semi-literate person that he was, General Edwin Walker actually believed the JBS lie, and he went around poisoning the 10,000 troops under his command with that same lie.

The JBS (as you admitted) injects poison into the bloodstream of America. It was even more influential in 1963 than it is today.

I also agree that there is no further point in discussing your clear biases regarding FBI files. Every objective reader accepts that there really is pertinent data within the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald. Otherwise, why keep them secret 50 years after Oswald was shot dead?

I also agree that we have sharp differences about how to process data. You rely on mediocre philosophers like Karl Popper. I use logic as it is in-itself, based on the law of contradiction. Also, you take the word of the FBI, no matter how tortured the logic.

I also think we should cease the "'Tis" and "'Taint" banter of the past month, and let the readers here have a break. We can at least agree to disagree -- you say I'm biased and I say you're biased.

Yet I'm also astounded that you lack the curiosity of inquiring about the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald. It simply astounds me that you evade the question and do not wish to see what the evidence truly shows.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 26, 2013 by Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · November 26, 2013

<snip>

One wonders, however, how your current theory might be affected if you discovered and publicly acknowledged that Harry is not a reliable source of information about everything he claims to have witnessed or participated in or written?

In other words, if you had to dissociate yourself from Harry -- then what would become of your "JBS-plot" theory? Would you look for other sources which lend support to your theory OR would you question its fundamental predicates and assumptions?

Based upon my experience with you in this thread -- I suspect you would search for bits and pieces of "evidence" and blow it up into cosmic truth proportions.

Obviously, there is no further point in discussing FBI files (or CIA files) with you.

<snip>

Ernie,

I continue to maintain that Harry Dean is a reliable source of information. His details of time, place and personnel continue to ring true in continuing research.

Nothing you have said in the past two years has convinced me otherwise -- and I have an open mind. More to the point, many of the things you've said have confirmed parts of Harry's story. You've supplied more FBI files on Harry Dean than I've ever seen before -- and their overall effect (despite a few minor bumps) is to confirm Harry's story.

Now, you ask a reasonable question -- if, for the sake of argument, I entirely set aside Harry's story -- what would become of my theory that places General Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society (JBS) immediately next to the plot against JFK that involved Lee Harvey Oswald?

The answer is extremely clear -- perhaps you didn't know this -- but before I ever encountered Harry Dean, I already amassed lots of information about the John Birch Society and General Edwin Walker that placed them close to Lee Harvey Oswald and an assassination plot in Dallas in 1963.

Where did this information come from? Well, it started with the Warren Commission. General Walker's name appears more than 500 times in those volumes. It is difficult to find anyone today who recalls that General Walker was a suspect among clear-thinking Americans in 1963 and 1964. But he was.

The connections are clear, but General Walker already proved that he could lie under oath when he lied before a Mississippi Grand Jury in January, 1963, and told them that he was at the Ole Miss riots in September, 1962, in order to bring calm to the rioters. After the Grand Jury believed him and acquitted him of all charges, he went out and sued all the American newspapers who printed the truth about him -- that he actually started those riots.

Well, Walker won a few court cases and amassed $3 million in judgments -- but they appealed to the Supreme Court and in 1967 the Supreme Court reversed all those decisions -- Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren knew that General Walker lied under oath (not only to the Grand Jury in 1963, but also to the Warren Commission in 1964).

General Walker tried to resign from the Army in 1959, the year that he joined the JBS, because the JBS taught him that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST. (Ike rejected Walker's resignation.) Like the semi-literate person that he was, General Edwin Walker actually believed the JBS lie, and he went around poisoning the 10,000 troops under his command with that same lie.

The JBS (as you admitted) injects poison into the bloodstream of America. It was even more influential in 1963 than it is today.

I also agree that there is no further point in discussing your clear biases regarding FBI files. Every objective reader accepts that there really is pertinent data within the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald. Otherwise, why keep them secret 50 years after Oswald was shot dead?

I also agree that we have sharp differences about how to process data. You rely on mediocre philosophers like Karl Popper. I use logic as it is in-itself, based on the law of contradiction. Also, you take the word of the FBI, no matter how tortured the logic.

I also think we should cease the "'Tis" and "'Taint" banter of the past month, and let the readers here have a break. We can at least agree to disagree -- you say I'm biased and I say you're biased.

Yet I'm also astounded that you lack the curiosity of inquiring about the secret FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald. It simply astounds me that you evade the question and do not wish to see what the evidence truly shows.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul: You obviously do not even understand the common plain English meaning of words in the English language. Once again -- you claim that I "evade" some question. To evade means avoid something or not answer. Instead of "evading" anything which you have presented, I have spent tens of thousands of words explicitly answering the points which you have raised. In fact, I have spent so much time and so many words that you have criticized me for doing so. You cannot have it both ways -- i.e. I can't be "evading" something while simultaneously spending too much time and too many words discussing it.

You declare that you consider Harry to be a "reliable source of information" --- but based upon what criteria? Whenever something comes up that is inconvenient to Harry's story you just immediately declare that it is worthless evidence and part of a scheme to "discredit" Harry or characterize him as an "insane criminal" OR even part of some elaborate scheme of forgery.

No wonder you believe Harry! It is because you are hostile toward anything which might raise serious questions about Harry's story. And you do not even acknowledge the plain meaning of what Harry has written in his own handwriting -- i.e. that the FBI told him in June 1961 that his assistance was no longer required because they discovered derogatory background.information about him.

For ideologues such as yourself, everything is ALWAYS (as you wrote) "extremely clear". There are no ambiguities or inconsistencies or outstanding questions.

Then, YET AGAIN, you make an entirely FALSE assertion. You claim that Gen. Walker attempted to resign from the Army in 1959 "because the JBS taught him that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST. (Ike rejected Walker's resignation.) Like the semi-literate person that he was, General Edwin Walker actually believed the JBS lie, and he went around poisoning the 10,000 troops under his command with that same lie."

There is absolutely no evidence that Walker ever told his troops in Germany that Eisenhower was a Communist. That assertion was NOT part of Walker's so-called "Pro-Blue" troop education program. In fact, it was not (at that time) even officially part of JBS propaganda.

This reveals YET AGAIN how you FABRICATE FROM WHOLE CLOTH statements which you think will advance your larger argument. You are NEVER satisfied with literal truth. You always feel compelled to deliberately misrepresent the actual facts. So, no wonder you think Harry "is a reliable source".

Then you declare that I have a "bias" because I have no particular interest in LHO files. What "bias" could there be? If the LHO files are (as you claim) "secret", then, by definition, you do not have any idea what is contained in them. Nevertheless, you now pretend that you not only know the actual content, you also claim that the data is "really pertinent" -- despite the inherent contradiction. Something which is "secret", is, by definition, unknown so you could not possibly conclude that there is or isn't "pertinent data" in the file -- UNTIL you see the documents.

You then claim that I "rely on mediocre philosophers like Karl Popper". What an astonishing and arrogant dismissal of one of the great minds of the 20th century! Moreover, I do not "rely" upon Popper. I merely suggested that you consider his axiom about how truth cannot be discovered only from looking for confirmations because in the universe of available data there will ALWAYS be confirmations. In other words,Popper's axiom is merely a starting point for how to use reasoning skills. His common-sense observation is taught in most high school and college logic courses -- which apparently you have never taken.

And, once again, you deliberately LIE (no you didn't make a "mistake", you LIED) by claiming that I "take the word of the FBI, no matter how tortured the logic". I always seek out multiple independent sources wherever possible. Which is why I devoted an entire message to demonstrating that a CIA document corresponds to data contained in FBI files. And both of those sources correspond to what Harry wrote in letters to JFK and to Hoover. It is YOU who always takes the word of Harry -- instead of explaining the contradictions which are apparent in his testimony.

At some point, it will become clear (even to you) that there is no confirming factual evidence to support Harry's story. If I am still alive when that day arrives -- it will be interesting to see what new excuses you will invent to explain your gravely defective reasoning skills!

Edited November 26, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

Paul Trejo · November 26, 2013

Ernie, you are not only prone to blind spots in your reasoning, but to emotional outbursts. It is very difficult to calm you down for a rational conversation, but I'll keep trying -- miracles can happen.

You misrepresent my position over and over again, and evidently wonder why I just brush it off my shoulder like so many leaves. You really must learn to calm down.

Now, as for Walker resigning from the Army during 1959, when Eisenhower was President, we have his documented evidence. Yet you approach this historical fact with surprising naivete. You don't bother to ask WHY a Major General of the US Army, a war hero of WW2, would be the first and only US General to resign in the 20th century.

This is a historical curiosity of the first order, and you show no sense of curiosity toward it at all. Your emotions blind you to the basics.

General Edwin Walker, war-hero of both WW2 and the Korean War -- the Commander who took Pork Chop Hill -- was rewarded for his heroism in 1957 when President Eisenhower entrusted him with the command over the federal troops sent to Little Rock, Arkansas, to racially integrate the high school there.

General Walker did a fine job -- officially. Internally, Walker squawked like a mad hen. The radical (racist) right went to work on General Walker the moment he got into Little Rock, and John Birch Societey went to work on him as soon as they could. By the end of 1959, Edwin Walker joined the John Birch Society and became the first and only US General to resign in the 20th century.

If you can't connect those dots, Ernie, then there's something wrong with your sense of logic.

In his resignation letter to President Eisenhower, General Walker cited "a fifth column conspiracy," and he was too cowardly to expand upon that for his Commander in Chief. (I don't say that this great war hero was always a coward -- but that he became one after being infected by the JBS.)

But a "fifth column conspiracy" means a foreign conspiracy. Why and how would a "foreign conspiracy" lead a US General to resign his post?

Anybody who knows JBS literature Ernie (and I'm sure you do) knows that in 1959 the JBS published Robert Welch's Black Book, and in that book are direct accusations that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST and guilty of TREASON.

Do the math. That book came out in mid-1959. General Walker resigned in late 1959.

If you can't connect those dots, Ernie, then there's something seriously wrong with your sense of logic.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 26, 2013 by Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · November 27, 2013

Ernie, you are not only prone to blind spots in your reasoning, but to emotional outbursts. It is very difficult to calm you down for a rational conversation, but I'll keep trying -- miracles can happen.

You misrepresent my position over and over again, and evidently wonder why I just brush it off my shoulder like so many leaves. You really must learn to calm down.

Now, as for Walker resigning from the Army during 1959, when Eisenhower was President, we have his documented evidence. Yet you approach this historical fact with surprising naivete. You don't bother to ask WHY a Major General of the US Army, a war hero of WW2, would be the first and only US General to resign in the 20th century.

This is a historical curiosity of the first order, and you show no sense of curiosity toward it at all. Your emotions blind you to the basics.

General Edwin Walker, war-hero of both WW2 and the Korean War -- the Commander who took Pork Chop Hill -- was rewarded for his heroism in 1957 when President Eisenhower entrusted him with the command over the federal troops sent to Little Rock, Arkansas, to racially integrate the high school there.

General Walker did a fine job -- officially. Internally, Walker squawked like a mad hen. The radical (racist) right went to work on General Walker the moment he got into Little Rock, and John Birch Societey went to work on him as soon as they could. By the end of 1959, Edwin Walker joined the John Birch Society and became the first and only US General to resign in the 20th century.

If you can't connect those dots, Ernie, then there's something wrong with your sense of logic.

In his resignation letter to President Eisenhower, General Walker cited "a fifth column conspiracy," and he was too cowardly to expand upon that for his Commander in Chief. (I don't say that this great war hero was always a coward -- but that he became one after being infected by the JBS.)

But a "fifth column conspiracy" means a foreign conspiracy. Why and how would a "foreign conspiracy" lead a US General to resign his post?

Anybody who knows JBS literature Ernie (and I'm sure you do) knows that in 1959 the JBS published Robert Welch's Black Book, and in that book are direct accusations that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST and guilty of TREASON.

Do the math. That book came out in mid-1959. General Walker resigned in late 1959.

If you can't connect those dots, Ernie, then there's something seriously wrong with your sense of logic.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul: I realize that part of your debate tactic when responding to a critic is to claim that the critic is "emotional" or has "blind spots" in their reasoning and they need to "calm down" but those ploys do not advance your argument when so much of what you write is clearly based upon false predicates and defective logic. [see details below for yet another example].

You claim that I "misrepresent" your position "over and over again" -- but, as is your custom, you just ATTRIBUTE that problem to me without giving an example so we can just dismiss your comment as your normal debate tactic.

Walker attempted to resign from the Army in August 1959 after his experience in Little Rock. On several occasions, he protested to Eisenhower that it was against his personal beliefs to use the armed forces of the United States to enforce integration. Given Walker's subsequent behavior and association with explicitly racist organizations, it comes as little surprise that he wanted to resign -- however, Ike merely transferred him to Germany.

I have no clue why you think you have superior knowledge about this when Walker's reasons for attempting to resign have never been in dispute. In any event, let us remember that your original statement was false. Walker did not attempt to indoctrinate his troops in Germany with the alleged JBS position regarding Eisenhower because (1) at that time, Welch's position on Eisenhower was NOT an official part of JBS ideology. In fact, several JBS National Council members were on record stating that they totally disagreed with Welch's conclusions about Ike and (2) the entire National Council issued a public statement declaring that Welch's 1954 manuscript was NOT part of JBS beliefs and (3) the "pro-Blue" indoctrination program used by Walker in Germany did not comment upon Eisenhower.

Some of Walker's "Pro-Blue" troop education program was based upon the American Bar Association's 1958 report by its Special Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives. https://ia600407.us.archive.org/27/items/CommunistTacticsStrategyObjectivesReportOfTheAmericanBarAssociation/CSTO.pdf

However, Walker made a public comment in 1961 about Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman which resulted in JFK relieving him of his command and admonishing him for violation of the Hatch Act.

As is your custom, you make conclusions about me and what I supposedly do and do not know without bothering to ask a single question. I guess you now assert that you have telepathic powers. Let me be very blunt Paul: This relentless attempt by you at intellectual bullying may work on less-informed people but you are merely digging yourself a deeper hole every time you make false statements. The literal truth is never good enough for you (or Harry for that matter). You always seem to need to embellish or grossly exaggerate well-known historical facts in order to make your best case. That may work on some people -- but you do not impress or intimidate me. [OK---now you can reply with one of your "calm down" messages.] The problem with your "connect the dots" advice, is that, often, you INVENT the dots which you want us to connect.

Now this comment by you (is VERY revealing):

Anybody who knows JBS literature Ernie (and I'm sure you do) knows that in 1959 the JBS published Robert Welch's Black Book, and in that book are direct accusations that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST and guilty of TREASON.

Once again, you are just FACTUALLY WRONG. First of all, the Birch Society never published the Black Book aka The Politician in 1959. The first PUBLISHED edition of The Politician was in 1963. The earliest editions (1954 thru June 1958) were PRIVATELY printed by Robert Welch -- not by the JBS--which did not even exist at that time. [The founding meeting of the JBS was in December 1958; The first chapters were created in February 1959.]

PRIOR TO 1963, The Politician was a manuscript which Welch originally wrote as a "private letter" starting in 1954 to several friends and he then periodically updated it through June 1958. This version was not publicly known until July 1960 when a Chicago newspaperman (Jack Mabley of the Chicago Daily News) obtained a copy of it from a functionary of Fred Schwarz (of Christian Anti-Communism Crusade). Coincidentally, Mabley's articles about Welch's private letter manuscript were published at the exact time when the GOP National Convention was in Chicago to nominate its 1960 Presidential candidate. It was, obviously, sensational news.

The last version of that private manuscript was produced circa August 1958. It was NOT sold. It was LOANED to specific individuals (and mailed by certified, return receipt requested). Each copy was numbered and then it was returned to Welch. The cover letter which Welch attached to his manuscript was addressed to "Dear Reader" and it declared that the manuscript was “on loan to you, for your eyes only, until it is returned.” Welch stated that the persons receiving a copy of TP “have been very carefully selected—for reasons which will become obvious” and “I hope you will consider the contents as strictly confidential.”

I have a complete copy of that original manuscript....which is NOT available in any U.S. library. Do you have it?

When Welch decided to publish the first edition of The Politician in 1963, he edited it to eliminate several portions of the private letter version which explicitly called Eisenhower (and others---including Ike's brother Milton) Communist traitors. There is a footnote in that first published edition pertaining to one excised section from the original manuscript version where Welch explains why he excised 3 paragraphs:

"At this point in the original manuscript there was one paragraph in which I expressed my own personal belief as to the most likely explanation of the events and actions with this document had tried to bring into focus. In a confidential letter, neither published nor offered for sale, and restricted to friends who were expected to respect the confidence but offer me in exchange their own points of view, this seemed entirely permissible and proper. It does not seem so for an edition of the letter that is now to be published and given, probably, fairly wide distribution. So that paragraph, and two explanatory paragraphs, connected with it, have been omitted here. And the reader is left entirely free to draw his own conclusions."

I have chosen to provide this level of detail because it illustrates, YET AGAIN, that you claim to be knowledgeable about specific matters when, in reality, you are abysmally ignorant of those matters. The problem we have with you Paul, is that you demand that we "connect the dots" -- when YOU are FABRICATING the dots!

Edited November 27, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

Paul Trejo · November 27, 2013

<snip>

I have no clue why you think you have superior knowledge about this when Walker's reasons for attempting to resign have never been in dispute. In any event, let us remember that your original statement was false. Walker did not attempt to indoctrinate his troops in Germany with the alleged JBS position regarding Eisenhower because (1) at that time, Welch's position on Eisenhower was NOT an official part of JBS ideology. In fact, several JBS National Council members were on record stating that they totally disagreed with Welch's conclusions about Ike and (2) the entire National Council issued a public statement declaring that Welch's 1954 manuscript was NOT part of JBS beliefs and (3) the "pro-Blue" indoctrination program used by Walker in Germany did not comment upon Eisenhower.

However, Walker made a public comment in 1961 about Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman which resulted in JFK relieving him of his command and admonishing him for violation of the Hatch Act.

<snip>

Now this comment by you (is VERY revealing):

Anybody who knows JBS literature Ernie (and I'm sure you do) knows that in 1959 the JBS published Robert Welch's Black Book, and in that book are direct accusations that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST and guilty of TREASON.

Once again, you are just FACTUALLY WRONG. First of all, the Birch Society never published the Black Book aka The Politician in 1959. The first PUBLISHED edition of The Politician was in 1963. The earliest editions (1954 thru June 1958) were PRIVATELY printed by Robert Welch -- not by the JBS--which did not even exist at that time. [The founding meeting of the JBS was in December 1958; The first chapters were created in February 1959.]

<snip>

Ernie,

When you claim that Walker never attempted to indoctrinate his troops in Gemany with Robert Welch's published position that Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST, you are merely relying on the official charges that the court brought to Walker. Those charges do not mention Eisenhower, but say that Walker told his troops that Harry Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt were "Communist influenced."

Walker was a JBS fanatic, but he wasn't so foolish to think that he could openly call a sitting President a COMMUNIST and avoid harsh military consequences. Yet it stands to reason that Walker would share his new opinions with select individuals.

Knowing that General Walker submitted his resignation in 1959 after exposure to Robert Welch's BLACK BOOK which targeted Eisenhower as a COMMUNIST (a resignation which Eisenhower rejected) and then to imagine that Walker simply kept this to himself -- that stretches credibilty more than anything I've suggested.

You are copping out, Ernie, when you admit on the one hand that Robert Welch, founder and leader of the JBS, published his opinion in 1959 that Ike was Red, and then on the other hand you feebly add that "several JBS National Council members" disagreed with Welch on that point. Big deal. The cat was out of the bag.

Also, you cop out when you admit that Robert Welch wrote his opinion in 1959 that Ike was Red, but that the JBS published a different edition in 1963. Every objective reader sees through your attempts to squirm out of this.

The detail that you provided only works against your case, Ernie. It shows that I do know what I'm talking about with regard to the JBS and to General Walker. On the contrary, you need to shift and squirm to make your points today.

You CAN connect the dots if you want to, Ernie, but you simply REFUSE to do so. That's now clear for everybody to see.

In any case, getting back to the theme of this thread about Harry Dean's memoirs, it is vital to remember that Harry Dean is the final living witness (to the best of my knowledge) who can link General Edwin Walker with Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination. This is what remains valuable about Harry Dean's memoirs -- no matter how many attacks are leveled against Harry by the FBI or their quislings.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 27, 2013 by Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · November 27, 2013

<snip>

I have no clue why you think you have superior knowledge about this when Walker's reasons for attempting to resign have never been in dispute. In any event, let us remember that your original statement was false. Walker did not attempt to indoctrinate his troops in Germany with the alleged JBS position regarding Eisenhower because (1) at that time, Welch's position on Eisenhower was NOT an official part of JBS ideology. In fact, several JBS National Council members were on record stating that they totally disagreed with Welch's conclusions about Ike and (2) the entire National Council issued a public statement declaring that Welch's 1954 manuscript was NOT part of JBS beliefs and (3) the "pro-Blue" indoctrination program used by Walker in Germany did not comment upon Eisenhower.

However, Walker made a public comment in 1961 about Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman which resulted in JFK relieving him of his command and admonishing him for violation of the Hatch Act.

<snip>

Now this comment by you (is VERY revealing):

Anybody who knows JBS literature Ernie (and I'm sure you do) knows that in 1959 the JBS published Robert Welch's Black Book, and in that book are direct accusations that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST and guilty of TREASON.

Once again, you are just FACTUALLY WRONG. First of all, the Birch Society never published the Black Book aka The Politician in 1959. The first PUBLISHED edition of The Politician was in 1963. The earliest editions (1954 thru June 1958) were PRIVATELY printed by Robert Welch -- not by the JBS--which did not even exist at that time. [The founding meeting of the JBS was in December 1958; The first chapters were created in February 1959.]

<snip>

Ernie,

When you claim that Walker never attempted to indoctrinate his troops in Gemany with Robert Welch's published position that Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST, you are merely relying on the official charges that the court brought to Walker. Those charges do not mention Eisenhower, but say that Walker told his troops that Harry Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt were "Communist influenced."

Walker was a JBS fanatic, but he wasn't so foolish to think that he could openly call a sitting President a COMMUNIST and avoid harsh military consequences. Yet it stands to reason that Walker would share his new opinions with select individuals.

Knowing that General Walker submitted his resignation in 1959 after exposure to Robert Welch's BLACK BOOK which targeted Eisenhower as a COMMUNIST (a resignation which Eisenhower rejected) and then to imagine that Walker simply kept this to himself -- that stretches credibilty more than anything I've suggested.

You are copping out, Ernie, when you admit on the one hand that Robert Welch, founder and leader of the JBS, published his opinion in 1959 that Ike was Red, and then on the other hand you feebly add that "several JBS National Council members" disagreed with Welch on that point. Big deal. The cat was out of the bag.

Also, you cop out when you admit that Robert Welch wrote his opinion in 1959 that Ike was Red, but that the JBS published a different edition in 1963. Every objective reader sees through your attempts to squirm out of this.

The detail that you provided only works against your case, Ernie. It shows that I do know what I'm talking about with regard to the JBS and to General Walker. On the contrary, you need to shift and squirm to make your points today.

You CAN connect the dots if you want to, Ernie, but you simply REFUSE to do so. That's now clear for everybody to see.

In any case, getting back to the theme of this thread about Harry Dean's memoirs, it is vital to remember that Harry Dean is the final living witness (to the best of my knowledge) who can link General Edwin Walker with Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination. This is what remains valuable about Harry Dean's memoirs -- no matter how many attacks are leveled against Harry by the FBI or their quislings.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- apparently you have some kind of amnesia problem concerning your own words. This was your original statement:

"General Walker tried to resign from the Army in 1959, the year that he joined the JBS, because the JBS taught him that President Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST. (Ike rejected Walker's resignation.) Like the semi-literate person that he was, General Edwin Walker actually believed the JBS lie, and he went around poisoning the 10,000 troops under his command with that same lie."

Let's break this down point-by-point....

1. You stated that Walker tried to resign from the Army in 1959 -- the same year he joined the JBS.

[incidentally, he joined the JBS in May 1959 after attending a recruitment meeting in Chicago (at which Robert Welch spoke) which was held at the Union League Club].

2. Your next statement is that he wanted to resign from the Army "because the JBS taught him that President Eisenhower was a Communist"

BUT the JBS was not teaching anybody in 1959 that Ike was a Communist because that proposition was NOT part of JBS ideology. It was the personal opinion of Robert Welch which he circulated in a private letter starting in the year 1954.

The Birch Society, as an organization, never adopted that conclusion about Eisenhower during its formative years. In fact, the overwhelming majority of JBS members never even heard about that Welch conclusion until (at the earliest) the summer of 1960 when the Chicago Daily News broke the story. However, MOST of the publicity concerning Welch's statements regarding Ike were published starting in APRIL 1961. Only at that time was the story picked up by major newspapers and wire services (AP and UPI and others). [incidentally, those 1961 news reports were quite shocking to many JBS members. One chapter leader in Wisconsin contacted JBS HQ to inquire if the news reports were accurate. After he was informed about what Welch had written in his private letter, that chapter leader and his entire chapter resigned from the JBS.]

3. Then, you state that Walker began "poisoning the 10,000 troops under his command with that same lie."

Do you have verifiable FACTUAL evidence to support your contention -- such as comments made by any of his 10,000 troops which confirm that Walker tried to get them to accept the idea that Eisenhower was a Communist or Communist agent?

Are you referring to the "Pro-Blue" indoctrination program which Walker authorized while he commanded the 24th Infantry Division in Germany starting in January 1960? OR are you ONCE AGAIN just INVENTING something in order to manipulate readers into accepting the narrative which pre-exists in your head?

4. In your current message you write that I am relying upon the "official charges that the court brought to Walker"?

What "court" are you referring to? Are you referring to the 4-week investigation conducted by Lt. Gen. Frederic J. Brown which produced 992 pages of testimony?

Walker did not state that Eleanor Roosevelt and Truman were "Communist influenced" [you used quotation marks to indicate you are attributing verbatim words to Walker himself as a quotation. What Walker actually did is describe Eleanor and Harry as "pink".]

5. Then you subtly change your original contention by observing: "Walker was a JBS fanatic, but he wasn't so foolish to think that he could openly call a sitting President a COMMUNIST and avoid harsh military consequences. Yet it stands to reason that Walker would share his new opinions with select individuals."

So, now we see one of your debate tactics.

-1- First you start out by making a totally false statement, i.e. that Walker "went around poisoning the 10,000 troops under his command with that same lie" [which is your reference to the "JBS lie" that Ike was a Communist -- when the JBS made no such statements---but Robert Welch did in his private 1950's manuscript]

-2- Then you retreat from your categorical statement about how Walker was actively working to get his 10,000 troops to believe the JBS lie. You qualify your original comment by stating that Walker was "not so foolish that he could openly call a sitting President a COMMUNIST..."

-3- And, now, your original comment is reduced to "it stands to reason that Walker would share his new opinions with select individuals"

-4- Here, again, we see how you deliberately embellish and grossly exaggerate in order to manipulate readers into accepting your THEORIES and SPECULATIONS i.e. what you think "stands to reason" with respect to what Walker might have done as opposed to what you can actually prove.

But instead of just honestly stating that you have a personal opinion or some speculation about what MIGHT have occurred, you deliberately mis-represent the actual evidence available. So the original categorical statement about what Walker supposedly DID becomes a watered-down "maybe" statement based upon your speculation.

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

6. Then you write that Walker "submitted his resignation in 1959 after exposure to Robert Welch's BLACK BOOK which targeted Eisenhower as a COMMUNIST..."

Please tell us Paul -- how did you determine that time-line? Please be specific. .

Walker joined the Birch Society in May 1959

Walker submitted his Army resignation on August 4, 1959

So when are you claiming that Walker received his copy of the Black Book, aka The Politician -- and how did you come upon whatever date you specify?

7. Then you write that: "You are copping out, Ernie, when you admit on the one hand that Robert Welch, founder and leader of the JBS, published his opinion in 1959 that Ike was Red, and then on the other hand you feebly add that "several JBS National Council members" disagreed with Welch on that point. Big deal. The cat was out of the bag."

No, Paul, Welch did not "publish his opinion in 1959". The dictionary definition of "publish" is as follows:

a : to make generally known

b : to make public announcement of

c : to disseminate to the public

Welch circulated copies of his private letter to trusted friends and people recommended to him by his friends. As I previously mentioned, every copy which Welch produced of that private letter version was numbered. So far, the highest number I have been able to find is #89 -- which means that at any one time there could have been a maximum of 89 copies in circulation until they were returned and circulated to somebody new.

As far as I know, all of the JBS National Council members were aware of Welch's private letter but, as a group (with the exception of Revilo Oliver) they insisted that Welch make it clear that the JBS as an organization did not endorse Welch's personal views. In fact, several of those Council members had worked for Eisenhower's re-election in 1956 and several of them were appointed by Eisenhower to positions in his Administration. Some of those Council members were major financial contributors to both of Eisenhower's campaigns and/or they held major positions in their state GOP -- while working to elect and re-elect Eisenhower.

Again -- you want to pretend that all JBS members (and particularly the National Council) was fully supportive of Welch's personal opinions regarding Eisenhower -- but you are totally mistaken. In fact, I will share something not generally known -- but you may see the internal communications about this on my "JBS Documentary History" webpage. AFTER Welch's personal opinions regarding Eisenhower became widely known due to publicity in the Spring of 1961 -- there was an effort within the JBS National Council to convince Welch to step down as head of the JBS. Among the persons who led that effort was the former Dean of the Notre Dame University Law School (Clarence Manion -- who worked in the Eisenhower Administration) along with T. Coleman Andrews (former IRS Commissioner under Eisenhower) and Dr. Granville Knight, Spruille Braden, Rev. Richard Ginder and other members of the Council.

There was also a major controversy within the National Association of Manufacturers because Welch and several JBS National Council members had been officers of NAM. In September 1960 NAM put out a statement unanimously agreed upon by a committee which included 3 JBS National Council members. The statement read:

"NAM believes completely in the loyalty and integrity of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and further believes he courageously and forthrightly has guided the foreign and domestic policies of the United States in the direction in which in his judgment the best interests of this country lie. NAM as an organization does not and will not knowingly be associated with any individual or be a party to any organization that questions the loyalty or integrity of President Eisenhower or attempts to degrade the fundamental respect due him and his high office.”

8. SQUIRMING OUT?

Paul -- what your comment reveals is that you have NO RESPECT for factual evidence. If something is ambiguous or subject to different interpretations, you immediately declare that ONLY your position is acceptable and credible.

Nor did I "admit" (as you write) "that the JBS published a different edition in 1963" of The Politician. I clearly stated in plain English that the JBS DID NOT publish that 1963 edition. Robert Welch self-published it. See--this is yet another example of your congenital inability to accurately summarize factual information as well as your chronic inability to accurately paraphrase what your critics write.

With respect to this comment by you:

"The detail that you provided only works against your case, Ernie. It shows that I do know what I'm talking about with regard to the JBS and to General Walker. On the contrary, you need to shift and squirm to make your points today."

Only in your warped mind does what I have written demonstrate that you know what you are talking about --- as my replies presented above clearly reveal.

With respect to this comment by you:

"In any case, getting back to the theme of this thread about Harry Dean's memoirs, it is vital to remember that Harry Dean is the final living witness (to the best of my knowledge) who can link General Edwin Walker with Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination. This is what remains valuable about Harry Dean's memoirs -- no matter how many attacks are leveled against Harry by the FBI or their quislings."

As I have previously written, you are nothing but a shill for Harry. You do not engage ANY of your critical faculties when dealing with his "evidence". You just swallow WHOLE everything he writes or says.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

Paul Trejo · November 27, 2013

Ernie, you are completely biased and struggling with some animus somewhere in your past.

My points are based on facts that you block out of your mind. Occasionally I might use a metaphor, or figure of speech, and this to you is LYING, WARPED, ASININE and a dozen other insulting terms.

You over-react in your trademark emotional outbursts, and you imagine you've made an argument. But you haven't. You're simply negating and negative.

You've conflated skepticism with logic, Ernie. Now, while there may be some overlap in the two methods, they remain entirely distinct.

One of these days you might want to say what you actually stand for, so that you can take a break from smashing others down.

Nonetheless -- you claim that I'm "nothing but a shill for Harry" Dean, and you remain completley mistaken today as you have been all year long.

Too bad, Ernie. Your many talents and potentials are clearly underused.

In any case -- despite our many differences, I extend to you and to all of the readers of this thread --

H A P P Y T H A N K S G I V I N G !!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 27, 2013 by Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · November 28, 2013

Ernie, you are completely biased and struggling with some animus somewhere in your past.

My points are based on facts that you block out of your mind. Occasionally I might use a metaphor, or figure of speech, and this to you is LYING, WARPED, ASININE and a dozen other insulting terms.

You over-react in your trademark emotional outbursts, and you imagine you've made an argument. But you haven't. You're simply negating and negative.

You've conflated skepticism with logic, Ernie. Now, while there may be some overlap in the two methods, they remain entirely distinct.

One of these days you might want to say what you actually stand for, so that you can take a break from smashing others down.

Nonetheless -- you claim that I'm "nothing but a shill for Harry" Dean, and you remain completley mistaken today as you have been all year long.

Too bad, Ernie. Your many talents and potentials are clearly underused.

In any case -- despite our many differences, I extend to you and to all of the readers of this thread --

H A P P Y T H A N K S G I V I N G !!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

And, of course, Paul Trejo is not, and never has been, "biased" -- right? You are Perfect, "Calm", "Non-Emotional" Reason and Logic incarnate!

What, exactly, have I written to you that is "emotional"? I have quoted you verbatim and then presented extensive FACTUAL evidence to refute what you wrote. How is THAT "emotional"?? I note for the record that you do not bother to acknowledge your factual errors -- even when they are obvious.

What do I "stand for"? I stand for truth and accuracy and respect for normal rules of evidence and logic. YOU stand for "exceptionalism" -- i.e. your position is that we must discard normal rules of evidence and logic and instead accept your assumptions and false predicates (and self-sealing circular arguments).

In one of your previous messages (I think it was addressed to Harry) you stated that you have not been able to sell many copies of your eBook. Perhaps you should consider why nobody wants to purchase it -- or, for that matter, why you could not find an actual book publisher -- particularly when you consider how much interest there has been in the JFK assassination as a result of the 50-year anniversary.

Several very prominent historians have published new books in recent weeks and months about this subject and, significantly, none of them even bother to mention Harry's story. You are fond of constantly asserting that Harry is (or may be) the "last" living "eyewitness" to the events he and you discuss in your eBook. I have not seen Harry;s previous 1990 book (Crosstrails) but I suspect that it also has no footnotes or bibliography or corroborating testimony from anybody mentioned in that book. THAT is the problem with self-serving memoirs. They do NOT employ standard methodologies used by historians when they research and write historical narratives.

All genuine history texts must have verifiable factual statements, Obviously, readers and students of the subject can disagree about the significance or importance of, and the proper interpretation of, those facts. That is normal and expected.

But the problem which ANY reader immediately confronts when reading your eBook is that there is no way to verify any statement or assertions made in it. There are, as you admit, no living persons to corroborate Harry's story. There are no documents to support Harry's assertions -- BUT we DO have voluminous documentary evidence (in contemporaneous CIA and FBI files) which REFUTE Harry's assertions.

Obviously, this presents a huge problem for any REAL historian. But your "solution" to all of that inconvenient data is breathtakingly simple and typical of how conspiracy narratives are constructed!

(1) The documents are forgeries AND

(2) There are "secret" files which nobody has ever seen

Sorry, Paul, but there are very few rational individuals who are prepared to accept your arguments. And during our debate in this thread, it has become painfully clear that you constantly are using false predicates and circular arguments to advance your narrative and sell your eBook.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

Ernie Lazar · November 30, 2013

UPDATE REGARDING SEARCH FOR REDACTED VERSION OF HARRY'S 11-19-63 LETTER TO HOOVER

In message #409, I shared the results of my exhaustive search of Mary Ferrell's website -- which produced nothing to indicate that the redacted version of Harry's letter to J. Edgar Hoover originated on Ferrell's website. However, Ferrell's website is not a definitive archive.

Consequently, today, I spent several hours searching NARA's online archive. This was a much more labor-intensive process because my search produced 2208 "hits" on the name Harry Dean. However, NARA uses literal search terms so those 2208 results included anything which had the name "Harry" or "Dean" or "Harry Dean".

I can now report that there is nothing in the NARA archive which matches the alleged redacted 3-paragraph version of Harry's 11-19-63 letter to Hoover which Bill Kelly posted in his message here.

SO.....since we have now eliminated Mary Ferrell's website (which includes HSCA, CIA, FBI and other documents) and we also have now eliminated the much larger NARA archive, the logical inference is that Bill Kelly's redacted version is not authentic -- because no reference to it exists in the two most likely places where it could appear.

Thus, the burden of proof now falls on Bill Kelly.

Absent very specific details (such as Bill answering the questions which I posed to him previously), OR Bill (or someone else) scanning and posting an actual copy of whatever document Bill put into his "file" on Harry Dean, we can reasonably conclude that the redacted version is not genuine.

ON A SEPARATE MATTER

During the course of my research today, I came across a book which, perhaps, many of you already have read. It is Dick Russell's 2008 book entitled "On The Trail of JFK's Assassins".

The reason this book caught my eye is because it contains an entire chapter (albeit small) devoted to Harry Dean. More significantly, according to Russell, both he and Harry tape-recorded their conversation -- presumably so that there would be no dispute about what was said.

Historians (and law enforcement professionals) know that witnesses whose reports or testimony contain significant discrepancies over time usually is a sign that those persons are either not telling the truth OR their recollections are not trustworthy --- which is why they cannot tell the same story at different points in time.

I was struck by Russell's summary of how Harry got involved with the Birch Society -- which seems different from the story that Harry has told elsewhere. In particular, I was struck by Russell quoting Harry as saying that the FBI "instructed" Harry to "convince the Bircher fanatics that he was so ashamed of his work for Castro that he'd now do anything to rectify himself..." Then Russell quotes Harry stating that he was "not terribly successful" because the Birchers "never really trusted him" and eventually Harry had "gotten the boot".

But according to Paul Trejo and the Trejo/Dean eBook plus various comments made by Harry here in EF -- he joined the JBS as a true-believer. In other words, he did not need any "instructions" from the FBI.

And, according to Harry, the senior JBS plotters (particularly Galbadon) were spilling out their guts to Harry about their plans to kill JFK. So doesn't seem like Birchers did not trust him.

AND, Harry says that after JFK was murdered, the JBS plotters stopped communicating with him and Harry decided to just stop participating in his local JBS chapter. At no time has Harry ever claimed that he "got the boot" from the JBS (as Russell contends).

Just another indication that there is something not quite right about all the stories which Harry tells.

Paul Trejo · November 30, 2013

<snip>

There are no documents to support Harry's assertions -- BUT we DO have voluminous documentary evidence (in contemporaneous CIA and FBI files) which REFUTE Harry's assertions.

Obviously, this presents a huge problem for any REAL historian. But your "solution" to all of that inconvenient data is breathtakingly simple and typical of how conspiracy narratives are constructed!

(1) The documents are forgeries AND

(2) There are "secret" files which nobody has ever seen

Sorry, Paul, but there are very few rational individuals who are prepared to accept your arguments. And during our debate in this thread, it has become painfully clear that you constantly are using false predicates and circular arguments to advance your narrative and sell your eBook.

<snip>

Sorry, Ernie, but you're mistaken yet again.

Actually, you've supplied plenty of documents from the FBI that confirm parts of Harry's story.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed work for Fidel Castro, the 26th of July Movement and the FPCC.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about all this activity.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed write to JFK himself about this scenario in 1961.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed interact with the John Birch Society (JBS) in Southern California from 1961-1963.

The FBI documents that you yourself produced confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about his activities with suspicious *individuals* of the JBS.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed enrage the FBI by going public on the Joe Pyne show in early 1965, attempting to alert the world to what he saw regarding Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination.

Further, that two-page letter in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS which the FBI claims Harry Dean wrote to J. Edgar Hoover, and which Harry himself disputes, cannot be used until you prove that Harry is mistaken about it, which you have so far failed to do. Hint: your emotionally hostile attitude toward Harry is not very helpful in this regard.

Further, if you don't believe that the FBI has "secret" files, then you're living in a dream world.

Further, you don't speak for anybody else on this thread except yourself, Ernie. I don't see anybody here speaking up for your emotional outbursts. I suspect several Forum members avoid this thread because you try to overwhelm your debaters with volume and emotion, and you lack the social graces for consistently polite conversation. (Perhaps it is because of my commitment to exceptionalism that I'm willing to look beyond your rude manners to thank you for providing all these FBI documents that paradoxically weaken your case.)

As for selling the eBook that Harry and I published last month, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK, which is available on Smashbooks, you're right that we've sold very few copies. Aside from family and friends, only a handful of Forum members have purchased it.

Yet perhaps that is because the world is not yet aware of it. We have only told our family and friends and the members of this Forum and are only now developing an advertising strategy. After all, Smashwords is a relatively new branch of Amazon.com.

So, we haven't given up hope. The good news for Harry is that when people ask him about his story, he can quickly give them all the details he has ever shared, by directing people to his eBook.

Finally, Ernie, although I'm sure that lots of people have stopped reading this thread because your posts are hostile, long and repetitive, I'm willing to entertain your nonsense a little while longer because I think you can ultimately be useful for this thread and for JFK research. Your expertise in FBI documents gives you an advantage in addressing a burning question on this Forum -- namely -- why is it that the FBI continues to keep secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald, fifty years after he was shot on national television?

Why do you suppose that is, Ernie?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo, MA

Edited November 30, 2013 by Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · November 30, 2013

<snip>

There are no documents to support Harry's assertions -- BUT we DO have voluminous documentary evidence (in contemporaneous CIA and FBI files) which REFUTE Harry's assertions.

Obviously, this presents a huge problem for any REAL historian. But your "solution" to all of that inconvenient data is breathtakingly simple and typical of how conspiracy narratives are constructed!

(1) The documents are forgeries AND

(2) There are "secret" files which nobody has ever seen

Sorry, Paul, but there are very few rational individuals who are prepared to accept your arguments. And during our debate in this thread, it has become painfully clear that you constantly are using false predicates and circular arguments to advance your narrative and sell your eBook.

<snip>

Sorry, Ernie, but you're mistaken yet again.

Actually, you've supplied plenty of documents from the FBI that confirm parts of Harry's story.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed work for Fidel Castro, the 26th of July Movement and the FPCC.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about all this activity.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed write to JFK himself about this scenario in 1961.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed interact with the John Birch Society (JBS) in Southern California from 1961-1963.

The FBI documents that you yourself produced confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about his activities with suspicious *individuals* of the JBS.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed enrage the FBI by going public on the Joe Pyne show in early 1965, attempting to alert the world to what he saw regarding Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination.

Further, that two-page letter in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS which the FBI claims Harry Dean wrote to J. Edgar Hoover, and which Harry himself disputes, cannot be used until you prove that Harry is mistaken about it, which you have so far failed to do. Hint: your emotionally hostile attitude toward Harry is not very helpful in this regard.

Further, if you don't believe that the FBI has "secret" files, then you're living in a dream world.

Further, you don't speak for anybody else on this thread except yourself, Ernie. I don't see anybody here speaking up for your emotional outbursts. I suspect several Forum members avoid this thread because you try to overwhelm your debaters with volume and emotion, and you lack the social graces for consistently polite conversation. (Perhaps it is because of my commitment to exceptionalism that I'm willing to look beyond your rude manners to thank you for providing all these FBI documents that paradoxically weaken your case.)

As for selling the eBook that Harry and I published last month, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK, which is available on Smashbooks, you're right that we've sold very few copies. Aside from family and friends, only a handful of Forum members have purchased it.

Yet perhaps that is because the world is not yet aware of it. We have only told our family and friends and the members of this Forum and are only now developing an advertising strategy. After all, Smashwords is a relatively new branch of Amazon.com.

So, we haven't given up hope. The good news for Harry is that when people ask him about his story, he can quickly give them all the details he has ever shared, by directing people to his eBook.

Finally, Ernie, although I'm sure that lots of people have stopped reading this thread because your posts are hostile, long and repetitive, I'm willing to entertain your nonsense a little while longer because I think you can ultimately be useful for this thread and for JFK research. Your expertise in FBI documents gives you an advantage in addressing a burning question on this Forum -- namely -- why is it that the FBI continues to keep secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald, fifty years after he was shot on national television?

Why do you suppose that is, Ernie?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo, MA

Paul:

The FBI documents which "confirm parts of Harry's story" are documents about matters that are not, and have never been, in dispute. One wonders, however, why you accept those documents as being authentic and reliable? Is it because, in your scheme of things, anything which supports your argument is, by definition, reliable and authentic whereas anything that does NOT support your argument is, by definition, false and unreliable?

Now with respect to your comment that FBI documents "confirm" that Harry "did indeed interact with the JBS in southern California from 1961-1963" -- please tell us WHICH SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS you are referring to? I do not recall any documents which I produced that provided such "confirmation", so please refresh my memory.

Also, which specific documents that I produced "confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about his activities with suspicious individuals of the JBS"? I do not recall any documents which I produced that provided such "confirmation", so please refresh my memory.

With respect to your comment that FBI documents that I discovered confirm that the FBI was enraged by Harry going public on the Pyne show -- please QUOTE something to substantiate your characterization. The only documents I have found about that matter reflect that the FBI was contacted by the Executive Producer of the Pyne show and he wanted to know if Harry's story was accurate (i.e. that he was an FBI informant) and the FBI responded with a firm "no". Those sorts of matter-of-fact inquiries and replies were very common. I can produce for you DOZENS of comparable inquiries about other individuals who claimed to have a "relationship" with the FBI -- and the Bureau then responded to those inquiries -- but how does that convert, in YOUR scheme of things, to the Bureau being "enraged"? ONCE AGAIN, this reveals your penchant for GROSS exaggeration and embellishment because you are never satisfied with literal truth. Instead, you ALWAYS feel compelled to twist whatever facts are available to conform to your larger argument.

The real issue here is very simple Paul and you should stop misrepresenting it. The FBI did not want its reputation compromised by every political extremist or charlatan, or con artist, or self-serving weirdo who at one time or another MIGHT have provided raw information to their local FBI field office.

What you seem to be totally missing is the FBI always was concerned about the background of individuals who attempted to latch onto the FBI to promote their own interests, i.e. the potential for embarrassment to the Bureau and the potential for discrediting the FBI as a professional law enforcement entity.

THAT is why the FBI routinely conducted inquiries into, and was sensitive about, the background of such people (what you describe as "smear jobs"). THAT is why the FBI concluded very quickly that Harry Dean was NOT the type of person who would be a desirable prospect as an informant. THAT is why when you review the files of ACTUAL FBI informants, you will see the protocols which all FBI field offices used with respect to their actual informants.

With respect to this comment by you:

Further, that two-page letter in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS which the FBI claims Harry Dean wrote to J. Edgar Hoover, and which Harry himself disputes, cannot be used until you prove that Harry is mistaken about it, which you have so far failed to do. Hint: your emotionally hostile attitude toward Harry is not very helpful in this regard.

No, Paul, you have it exactly backwards! (Why is that not surprising?) The burden of proof is upon HARRY. Since both you and Harry have stated that there are no copies of that letter in Harry's possession (carbon or xerox) and no copies which he sent to anybody else -- then the only known copy to exist is in in Harry's FBI file.

Furthermore, I am not aware of (and correct me if I am mistaken), any historian or political scientist who has ever found an example of the FBI fabricating a letter and placing a copy of that FBI-forged letter into FBI files -- to be used EXCLUSIVELY for internal discussions within the FBI by its senior employees. As I keep reminding you (to no avail), you have not come up with any plausible reason for why FBI Supervisors, Section Chiefs, and Assistant Directors would want to invent a totally new version of an incoming letter from Harry -- particularly when that alleged forgery does NOT disadvantage Harry or benefit the FBI in any material way.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE would the FBI want to create the supposed "additional text" which appears in what you claim is the forged version of Harry's letter (as compared to the Bill Kelly redacted version which nobody has yet even seen!!) And then, FOR WHAT PURPOSE would the FBI want to use ALL CAPS on their alleged forgery? What PURPOSE would hypothetically be accomplished to justify all that effort? Particularly when you review/analyze THE ADDITIONAL TEXT which you claim is in dispute.

* The additional text REPEATS some of what Harry wrote to JFK two years earlier (June 1961).

* The additional text CONFIRMS what Harry told JFK in June 1961 with respect to the FBI rejecting Harry as an informant.

* The additional text CONFIRMS what Harry told JFK in June 1961 with respect to Harry's "past mistakes"

* The additional text CONFIRMS what Harry told JFK in June 1961 about the Judiciary Subcommittee report

* The additional text ADDS MORE DETAIL to what appears in Kelly's redacted version with respect to Harry's association with FPCC but it does NOT change Harry's story [For example: the alleged "forged" version spends more time discussing how Harry interacted with the Chicago FBI field office]

Paul---every legitimate forgery is devised to accomplish a specific and obvious purpose.

The two most common purposes are (1) monetary and (2) discrediting.

* The monetary purpose is accomplished when a forgery can be sold to unsuspecting parties, i.e. passed off as genuine (such as forged currency, bonds, stock certificates, paintings or jewelry).

* The discrediting purpose is accomplished via malice when a forgery depicts a person, organization, or business in highly derogatory terms -- for the purpose of defamation. In fact, in American law, malice is defined as "reckless disregard for truth" arising from evil intent and a desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering.

Obviously, there can be an overlap here with monetary purpose in the sense that malice might have the secondary effect of causing financial harm to the intended target. [Example: a forged document which presents a company in such highly derogatory terms that, subsequently, causes its stock to decline in value dramatically.]

SO, PAUL, UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU CAN COME UP WITH A PLAUSIBLE SCENARIO TO EXPLAIN HOW THE ALLEGED "FBI-FORGED" VERSION OF HARRY'S LETTER ACCOMPLISHES SOME PURPOSE -- YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT CRUMBLES FROM ABSURDITY. There is absolutely NOTHING in the alleged "forged" version which "defames" Harry and absolutely nothing which could cause financial harm to Harry --- PARTICULARLY when you consider that this document existed SOLELY inside an FBI file. It was NOT circulated to somebody outside the Bureau. BY DEFINITION, a forgery (to be successful) MUST be circulated outside its originating source!

With respect to this comment by you:

"Further, if you don't believe that the FBI has "secret" files, then you're living in a dream world."

Paul, do you even bother to read any of my messages? Have I ever disputed that the FBI has "secret files"? NO! For the 200th time, the problem here is your MISTAKEN conception of what "secret files" means -- particularly in terms of the multiple ways in which classified files can, nevertheless, be identified. MANY of the documents appearing on the Mary Ferrell website and on the NARA website (JFK assassination records) were originally "secret" and "top secret". So what?

With respect to this comment by you:

"Further, you don't speak for anybody else on this thread except yourself, Ernie. I don't see anybody here speaking up for your emotional outbursts. I suspect several Forum members avoid this thread because you try to overwhelm your debaters with volume and emotion, and you lack the social graces for consistently polite conversation. (Perhaps it is because of my commitment to exceptionalism that I'm willing to look beyond your rude manners to thank you for providing all these FBI documents that paradoxically weaken your case.)"

I don't see anyone speaking up for you either Paul. However, so far, I have received three private emails from individuals who are following our debate and they have described you in highly unflattering terms.

The problem here is what you consider "polite conversation". In your scheme of things, it is entirely ok (and "polite") to constantly mis-represent what I believe (OR entirely ok (and "polite") for you to FALSELY attribute beliefs and positions to me) and I should remain forever silent about your deliberate mis-representations.

Take for example your recent comment above about "secret files". I have never disputed that there are "secret" files. Nevertheless, once again, you regurgitate that phrase as if it covers ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you present. But, by definition, something which is "secret" means that neither you or I knows the substantive content of what is in those files --correct? So I object to your constant unrelenting use of that term as your all-purpose EXCUSE for not presenting verifiable factual evidence to substantiate your argument. I could use "secret files" against you! I could claim that there is indisputable factual evidence in "secret" FBI and CIA files which "proves" that Harry Dean is NOT credible. But that would be an intellectually dishonest debate tactic!

Edited November 30, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

Ernie Lazar · November 30, 2013

<snip>

There are no documents to support Harry's assertions -- BUT we DO have voluminous documentary evidence (in contemporaneous CIA and FBI files) which REFUTE Harry's assertions.

Obviously, this presents a huge problem for any REAL historian. But your "solution" to all of that inconvenient data is breathtakingly simple and typical of how conspiracy narratives are constructed!

(1) The documents are forgeries AND

(2) There are "secret" files which nobody has ever seen

Sorry, Paul, but there are very few rational individuals who are prepared to accept your arguments. And during our debate in this thread, it has become painfully clear that you constantly are using false predicates and circular arguments to advance your narrative and sell your eBook.

<snip>

Sorry, Ernie, but you're mistaken yet again.

Actually, you've supplied plenty of documents from the FBI that confirm parts of Harry's story.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed work for Fidel Castro, the 26th of July Movement and the FPCC.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about all this activity.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed write to JFK himself about this scenario in 1961.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed interact with the John Birch Society (JBS) in Southern California from 1961-1963.

The FBI documents that you yourself produced confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about his activities with suspicious *individuals* of the JBS.

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed enrage the FBI by going public on the Joe Pyne show in early 1965, attempting to alert the world to what he saw regarding Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination.

Further, that two-page letter in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS which the FBI claims Harry Dean wrote to J. Edgar Hoover, and which Harry himself disputes, cannot be used until you prove that Harry is mistaken about it, which you have so far failed to do. Hint: your emotionally hostile attitude toward Harry is not very helpful in this regard.

Further, if you don't believe that the FBI has "secret" files, then you're living in a dream world.

Further, you don't speak for anybody else on this thread except yourself, Ernie. I don't see anybody here speaking up for your emotional outbursts. I suspect several Forum members avoid this thread because you try to overwhelm your debaters with volume and emotion, and you lack the social graces for consistently polite conversation. (Perhaps it is because of my commitment to exceptionalism that I'm willing to look beyond your rude manners to thank you for providing all these FBI documents that paradoxically weaken your case.)

As for selling the eBook that Harry and I published last month, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK, which is available on Smashbooks, you're right that we've sold very few copies. Aside from family and friends, only a handful of Forum members have purchased it.

Yet perhaps that is because the world is not yet aware of it. We have only told our family and friends and the members of this Forum and are only now developing an advertising strategy. After all, Smashwords is a relatively new branch of Amazon.com.

So, we haven't given up hope. The good news for Harry is that when people ask him about his story, he can quickly give them all the details he has ever shared, by directing people to his eBook.

Finally, Ernie, although I'm sure that lots of people have stopped reading this thread because your posts are hostile, long and repetitive, I'm willing to entertain your nonsense a little while longer because I think you can ultimately be useful for this thread and for JFK research. Your expertise in FBI documents gives you an advantage in addressing a burning question on this Forum -- namely -- why is it that the FBI continues to keep secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald, fifty years after he was shot on national television?

Why do you suppose that is, Ernie?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo, MA

Paul:

I just went back to review every message I have ever posted in this thread that included an attachment which pertained to FBI (or other agency) documents concerning Harry Dean.

I did this because of YOUR two previous comments which I now copy below:

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed interact with the John Birch Society (JBS) in Southern California from 1961-1963.

The FBI documents that you yourself produced confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about his activities with suspicious *individuals* of the JBS.

I will now itemize each and every document which I posted here -- in order to prove, BEYOND DISPUTE, that you YET AGAIN deliberately mis-represented what I have done in this forum.

Message #...Date Posted....Page Of Thread.......Description

259...........11/6/13......18...............

I scanned and posted 3 documents:

(1) 6/16/65 DeLoach memo re: article about Harry Dean by Bill Capps appearing in LaPuente CA newspaper. MEMO CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO JBS.

(2) J. Edgar Hoover 10/18/66 reply to inquiry about Harry Dean from Sen. George Murphy of California. LETTER CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO JBS.

(3) J. Edgar Hoover 5/10/76 memo to SAC Dallas and SAC Memphis regarding Morris book, "The Man Behind the Guns". One brief reference to what MORRIS claimed in HIS book about the JBS.

261...........11/6/13......18

I scanned and posted copy of Harry's 6/28/61 letter to JFK. LETTER CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO JBS.

270...........11/6/13......18

I scanned and posted

(1) 3/6/64 Los Angeles memo containing summary of background info on Harry--including his rap sheet. MEMO CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO JBS.

(2) 1/6/65 SAC Los Angeles memo to J. Edgar Hoover MEMO CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO JBS and

(3) 12/18/64 SAC Los Angeles memo to Hoover MEMO CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO JBS and

(4) 6/24/65 memo from D.C. Morrell to Cartha DeLoach regarding Valley Journal newspaper article. MEMO CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO JBS.

277...........11/6/13......19

I scanned and posted copy of 12/10/64 letter from Harry Dean to "Director" of Joe Pyne program. LETTER CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO JBS--even though Harry was summarizing his "associations".

316...........11/10/13.....22

I scanned and posted copy of Harry's 11/19/63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover. LETTER CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO JBS.

365...........11/15/13.....25

I scanned and posted copy of OSI traces re: Harry. OSI SUMMARY CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO JBS.

So, given this summary of all references...perhaps you would care to explain for all of our readers, your two comments (repeated again below):

The FBI documents that you yourself discovered confirm that Harry did indeed interact with the John Birch Society (JBS) in Southern California from 1961-1963.

The FBI documents that you yourself produced confirm that Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about his activities with suspicious *individuals* of the JBS.

Isn't this just YET ANOTHER example of how you FABRICATE evidence which you THEN FALSELY attribute to me? And then you demand we "connect the dots" which YOU FABRICATED?

OK, now you can post another message where you whine and moan about me not being "polite" or which refers to my "bias" and "blind spots".

Edited November 30, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

Harry Dean: Memoirs

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements