Ernie Lazar Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Ernie, thanks for the update of this list of FBI files on Harry Dean. NARA has identified 63 files so far. There are probably more, but let's just sort through what you've shared so far. 1962 -- There are four FBI files from 1962, with a total of 7 pages. The files start with July 18th and stop at September 28th. They aren't "files". They are serials appearing in one file (Los Angeles 105-12933) This corresponds to the first year that Harry Dean moved to Los Angeles from Chicago. Actually this was only a few weeks after Harry settled in town, since he moved in June, 1962 on the same day he wrote to JFK and then drove his family from Chicago to Los Angeles. Harry did not move to Los Angeles (as you wrote) in "June 1962". He moved in late June 1961 and his letter to JFK was not in June 1962. It was June 28, 1961. So, we see that within a few weeks the FBI made some sort of file on Harry Dean. Why? Did Harry initiate the contact? Harry's Confessions say that the FBI initiated the contact, asking about people involved with Fidel Castro's Cuba. Harry said that he cooperated with the FBI at that time. We look forward to seeing these four files. No, the FBI did not open their Los Angeles file (as you claim) within "a few weeks". They opened their file on Harry 13 months AFTER Harry arrived in Los Angeles. In your eBook, Harry claims that: "Not long after we arrived in Los Angeles, Wesley Grapp of the local FBI contacted me out of the blue." So we already have a time-line anomaly. Having lived and worked in Chicago myself -- and having driven across country from Chicago to California several times myself, if (as Harry and you state) he and his family left Chicago on June 28, 1961, then they probably arrived in California (1744 miles) within 3 or 4 days (unless they stopped along the way to sight-see or something like that) which means Harry would have arrived in California circa July 1, 1961. IF, as Harry contends, Wesley Grapp contacted him "not long after we arrived in Los Angeles", asking for Harry's assistance, one would expect the Los Angeles file on Harry to be opened sometime in July 1961 --- not in July 1962 (a year later!). 1963 -- There are five FBI files from 1963, with a total of 8 pages. The first file is from April 1963. Perhaps this was also about Castro, but we should wait to read it. There are six serials, not five. The next four files are more interesting, because they begin with November 22, 1963 which is the day JFK was assassinated. The next file appears four days later; and in six days the next file; and in eight more days the final file of the year. I think we can safely say that all of these four files on Harry Dean were about the JFK assassination. (We may remember, too, that Harry said that he met with FBI SAC Wesley Grapp around this time, so it will be interesting to see what these FBI files contain.) 1964 -- There are fourteen FBI files from 1964, with a total of 81 pages. There are apparently three groups -- the first group starts in January and ends in March. The second group contains only two files (the first in May, the second in October) but one is by far the largest file, with 23 pages all by itself. The third group starts in late November and ends in December. There are 16 serials (not 14) and there are 2 more serials without dates shown by NARA but whose NARA accession number makes it likely that they also are November and December 1964 serials because they are sequential to serials which were in that date range. As we know, 1964 was the year of the Warren Commission hearings. I think we might reasonably presume that the first group of FBI files on Harry Dean in 1964 has to do with the JFK assassination on some level. The second group (one large file in May) occurs in the middle of the Warren Commission sessions, and might be a summary of Harry Dean's story for the Commission -- it will be interesting to see. The third group interests me more, because it appears after the Warren Commission was finished, so has nothing to do with it. Further, it is mainly concentrated in December, the final month of the year. Harry's Confessions suggest that this was when he was in negotiations with the Joe Pyne Show to tell the world his story about General Walker, the JBS and all the rest of it. The FBI was very much against Harry's actions at this time. My guess is that section will consist largely of hostile reports and actions against Harry Dean for breaking his silence. If Harry was an FBI informant he would have been required to sign a confidentiality (non-disclosure) affidavit. If Harry then revealed his status without prior notification to the Bureau, then, obviously, the FBI would have terminated him as an informant (and, incidentally, that is exactly what happened with Karl Prussion when he revealed his informant status without Bureau authorization to a San Francisco newspaper reporter). FBI documents already released in 1985 to Mark Allen make it very clear that employees of the Joe Pyne program along with reporters and publishers from several southern California newspapers contacted the FBI to inquire if Harry was (as he claimed) an "agent of the FBI" who was an undercover operative for the Bureau. There were no "hostile reports" by the FBI (your deliberate mischaracterization). Instead, the FBI simply answered inquiries about Harry and they made it clear that he had never been asked or instructed or encouraged by the FBI to perform any service for them. And, in fact, there are FBI memos which state that even Harry himself acknowledged to the FBI that he falsely described himself when he made contacts with some of these programs or journalists -- because he was trying to interest them in his story. 1965 -- There are twenty-one FBI files from 1965, with a total of 45 pages. The files begin at the end of March and are fairly evenly dispersed through the end of October. There are more FBI files about Harry Dean in 1965 than in any other year. The reason is unclear -- all we know at this point is that Harry Dean has already broken his silence about General Walker and the John Birch Society and has been telling his story in the public media in 1965, and that FBI was displeased with this behavior. Yet with the end of October, 1965, the files suddenly stop. The FBI was not "displeased" that Harry told his story in the public media. The FBI's problem with Harry was his false description of his relationship to the FBI. If, for example, Harry had told the exact same story about Walker, Rousselot, Galbadon and the other "JBS plot" characters and the exact same story about his association with FPCC, and his trip to Cuba, etc. -- then that would have been fine. The problem (from the FBI perspective) was that Harry was falsely linking himself to the FBI. Have YOU ever considered what type of comment the FBI (or any other agency) should make if somebody falsely claimed to be associated with that agency? In other words, suppose Paul Trejo claims in writing and in speeches that he was (or is) an employee or "agent" working for some federal government agency -- but that is NOT true. Suppose, further, that the agency involved issues a press release or writes a letter stating that Paul Trejo was NOT then, nor was he ever, their employee or agent. Would you then characterize all such denials as "hostile reports" just because the agency told the truth based upon its internal records concerning Paul Trejo? OR would you prefer that the agency lie about what their internal records reveal? Intellectually honest reporters do not insert their personal opinions into a narrative nor do they append their subjective emotional adjectives into describing evidence, especially when those adjectives are calculated to prejudice readers and manipulate them into accepting ONLY ONE interpretation of evidence. INSTEAD, an intellectually honest writer accurately summarizes (in context) what documentary evidence reflects and then lets his/her readers interpret it and determine its significance or value. ALTERNATIVELY, the honest author/writer clearly separates his own editorial opinions from the body of the narrative -- in much the same way that a newspaper puts commentary and editorial opinions and letters-to-the-editor on separate pages from its news reports and it clearly identifies those categories as NOT being factual news reports. 1966 -- There are only five FBI files from 1966, with a total of 15 pages. The files begin at the in mid-October and end in early December. The reason for this FBI interest is hard to guess. Wrong analysis. By comparing the Los Angeles file to the subject matters discussed in the HQ main file (during that time period), one can make a reasonable conclusion regarding what all these 1966 serials were about. 1967 -- There were six FBI files from 1967, with a total of 8 pages. Again, it is unclear what interest the FBI might have had in Harry Dean in 1967. Wrong again. It is easy to figure out what Los Angeles was doing when you review the subject matters discussed in HQ main file serials during this time period. After 1967 there is apparently no FBI interest in Harry Dean until 1975, when Harry is somehow relevant to the William Atwood Testimony in one file. Then in 1977 there is one file. In 1990 there is one file. Also, there are five FBI files that are undated, so we must catalog those later. The "undated" serials were given NARA accession numbers which placed them in chronological sequence with other dated serials so one can surmise that the dates were November 1964, December 1964, June 1965, and August 1965. The sub-A file serials (undated) refers to public source material (such as newspaper articles) and those articles (54 pages) probably covered the entire time period of the file What is clear from this report from NARA is that the Los Angeles FBI was clearly interested in Harry Dean from 1962 through 1967 with a whopping 55 files (holding 164 pages) about Harry Dean in less than six years. The interest we have revolves around the question -- WHY? You are making hyperbolic assumptions here which available evidence does not support. If you review the HQ main file serials in the same time frame as the serials in the Los Angeles file, there are many instances when the HQ serial reflects that a copy of their memo or airtel or report was sent to Los Angeles (or Chicago or other field offices). I'll give you one example: HQ frequently instructed Los Angeles to contact Harry Dean and tell him to desist from claiming that he was an FBI "agent" or "undercover operative". Los Angeles was instructed to notify HQ when its Agents had contacted Dean and report back on what transpired. In addition, HQ instructed both Chicago and Los Angeles to provide HQ with a summary of information in their files regarding Harry. The incident involving Bill Capps (the "Valley Journal" newspaper reporter who was considering writing an article about Dean after interviewing him) produced a slew of serials (back and forth from Los Angeles to HQ and vice versa) and then there were even more serials because the publisher of the Valley Journal was also contacting the FBI). So much of the "interest" in Dean (by Los Angeles field) arises from the numerous attempts by Dean to obtain publicity for his story and the controversies which developed over Harry's mis-representation of himself. What do I think will be the greatest value in receiving the Los Angeles file? 1. There may be copies of Chicago field memos that are not contained in the HQ main file docs on Mary Ferrell's website 2. There may be more details regarding Harry's alleged contacts with Los Angeles Special Agents -- including Wesley Grapp 3. There may be copies of letters which Harry wrote to Los Angeles FBI (or to other parties) OR copies of contact forms which Los Angeles Agents filled out to summarize their contacts with Harry 4. There may be some kind of specific reference to Harry reporting info to Los Angeles on Minutemen, Alpha 66, JBS, etc. -- or, if not, then that too would be significant 5. Lastly, there may be references to OTHER FBI file numbers that contain references to Harry Regards, --Paul Trejo My comments appear underneath yours. Edited February 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 When do we get to see the files? I will purchase the Los Angeles file from NARA but I am not planning to purchase the HQ main file on Harry because I don't think it would be worth spending $160 for it since it appears that almost everything from the HQ file has already been posted online by Mary Ferrell (released as a result of Mark Allen's FOIA request 30 years ago). I have almost reached the EF limit with respect to total size of files which can be uploaded here. After I get the Los Angeles file, I will attempt to save it as a "reduced size" dcument with my Adobe software. If it still exceeds what MB I have left here, perhaps I can send it to somebody and you can post it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) ... They aren't "files". They are serials appearing in one file (Los Angeles 105-12933) ... Harry did not move to Los Angeles (as you wrote) in "June 1962". He moved in late June 1961 and his letter to JFK was not in June 1962. It was June 28, 1961. ... Ernie, (1) First, thanks for the correction on dates. Harry indeed moved to Los Angeles in June 1961 (not 1962) and so it was 13 months before the first FBI serial was filed about him. That was my mistake. Still, in the absence of further information, I stand by Harry's claim that FBI SAC Wesley Grapp contacted Harry "out of the blue" in July of 1961. The fact that we see no FBI files released from the Los Angeles FBI in this cache of records will remain mysterious for me until we see more information. (2) I acknowledge your remarks about the FBI serials of 1964, namely, that if Harry was an FBI informant we should expect to see a non-disclosure affidavit by him. I personally expect to see that, eventually. Harry also claims that he gave the FBI plenty of notice before he came forward on the Joe Pyne Show with his story involving Walker, the John Birch Society and the FBI. (3) If anybody misunderstood Harry to claim that he was an "agent of the FBI," their misunderstanding cannot be blamed on Harry. The Joe Pyne Show executives did contact the FBI to alert them that they were going ahead with that program. At no time in that program did Harry claim to be an FBI agent. (4) Ernie, you say that there were "no hostile reports by the FBI," but actually we haven't seen those FBI serials yet, so how can you be so sure? Since we haven't seen the FBI serials yet, you don't really know what's in them, and so your conclusions are hasty and therefore unreliable. Also, if the FBI did ask Harry for information (and if we get documented confirmation of that) and if the FBI later denies that they asked Harry for that service, then I am fully justified in calling that denial "a hostile report." We must simply wait and see the actual FBI serials themselves, to know the full truth. (5) As for your claim that "there are FBI memos which state that even Harry himself acknowledged to the FBI that he falsely described himself when he made contacts," we should demand proof. We cannot tell if these are truthful accounts by the FBI or not until we see all of the FBI serials in question. So, don't be hasty. (6) You claim that, "the FBI's problem with Harry was his false description of his relationship to the FBI." You keep claiming that, but you haven't yet seen all the evidence. Wait until the evidence is in, Ernie, before you make a hasty judgment. (7) You ask me, Ernie, if I ever thought about what the FBI *should* say to announce that somebody falsely claimed to be associated with them? The answer is, yes! The first thing the FBI should do is PROVE that the person actually said that! But I've seen zero proof from the FBI that Harry ever said that. It's all hearsay, allegation and innuendo! Show me the proof! Show me one place where Harry himself (and not the FBI) wrote that Harry was an FBI agent! The FBI was hostile because Harry broke his silence! I have repeatedly asked you for this proof, Ernie, and you keep promising it, yet you never deliver! Show me the proof! I don't mean to show me the FBI allegations -- I've seen them! I mean show me the proof that Harry himself claimed this! Anybody can make allegations -- even (or especially) the FBI. (8) My opinions and reports are intellectually honest. I continue to question the veracity of the FBI with regard to Harry Dean. Your continued faith in the FBI's veracity is touching, but proves nothing much. (9) You say that "an intellectually honest writer accurately summarizes (in context) what documentary evidence reflects," so then, I say, let's see the documentary evidence and settle this once and for all! (10) You charge me with making "hyperbolic assumptions" but in fact all I did was summarize the fact that there are at least 55 FBI serials about Harry Dean with at least 164 pages, files by the FBI from 1962-1967, and I demanded to know WHY! What's so hyperbolic about that? It's a simple fact. Do you object because I pointed out that this is a lot of interest in somebody who is allegedly just a gadfly claiming to be an FBI agent? Nonsense. Again, with regard to your examples, you only show the FBI allegations about Harry, and you don't seek to verify proof (i.e a document from Harry Dean in which he clearly claims to be a paid FBI agent). That's your enduring mistake. You never show it, but you keep the faith -- you're sure it must exist because the FBI said so. Yet I reserve the right to doubt the FBI in the case of Harry Dean. Finally, if you need somebody on the EF to help post your FBI serials, Ernie, I'll volunteer to do that. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited February 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) ... They aren't "files". They are serials appearing in one file (Los Angeles 105-12933) ... Harry did not move to Los Angeles (as you wrote) in "June 1962". He moved in late June 1961 and his letter to JFK was not in June 1962. It was June 28, 1961. ... Ernie, (1) First, thanks for the correction on dates. Harry indeed moved to Los Angeles in June 1961 (not 1962) and so it was 13 months before the first FBI serial was filed about him. That was my mistake. Still, in the absence of further information, I stand by Harry's claim that FBI SAC Wesley Grapp contacted Harry "out of the blue" in July of 1961. The fact that we see no FBI files released from the Los Angeles FBI in this cache of records will remain mysterious for me until we see more information. Frankly, I have always wondered how Grapp allegedly found Harry so quickly. Remember that Harry was supposedly so disgusted (ultimately) by his "FBI informant" experience that, just prior to moving to California, he considered changing his name. Presumably, Harry did not tell anybody at the FBI-Chicago office about his new California address and, in fact, when Harry wrote his letter to JFK, he used his Sheridan Road address in Chicago as his return address. [incidentally, I also lived on Sheridan Road, a few blocks from the border with Evanston---the last time I lived in Chicago]. Small world! (2) I acknowledge your remarks about the FBI serials of 1964, namely, that if Harry was an FBI informant we should expect to see a non-disclosure affidavit by him. I personally expect to see that, eventually. Harry also claims that he gave the FBI plenty of notice before he came forward on the Joe Pyne Show with his story involving Walker, the John Birch Society and the FBI. Well, FBI documents we have thus far seen do not reflect that "notice". I also received one file on Joe Pyne and it does not reflect anything new -- nor are there any references in FBI files on Walker or the JBS. But perhaps the L.A. file will have something pertinent. (3) If anybody misunderstood Harry to claim that he was an "agent of the FBI," their misunderstanding cannot be blamed on Harry. The Joe Pyne Show executives did contact the FBI to alert them that they were going ahead with that program. At no time in that program did Harry claim to be an FBI agent. This is where we have a major disagreement. Very often, Harry's comments have been vague or cryptic and subject to multiple interpretations. In fact, in some ways, Harry's speech or thought patterns are similar to Edwin Walker in the sense they are sometimes incoherent sentence fragments or otherwise un-decipherable. BUT, it is VERY clear that Harry described himself as an "agent of the FBI". For example: The transcript of the Tom Snyder interview of Harry (when Harry was known as "Mr. X") reflects that Snyder asked Harry this question: SNYDER: "You were an agent of the FBI infiltrating into the John Birch Society, and there, you learned of the plans to assassinate John F. Kennedy?" HARRY: "That's right" In a subsequent question, Snyder asked Harry a question which began with this premise about Harry's relationship with the FBI: "...that you as an employee of the government of the United States of America..." and Harry accepted that premise without correcting Snyder's description. And there are several FBI memos which reflect that Harry personally acknowledged to FBI Special Agents that he had referred to himself as an "agent" of the FBI and Harry told them he would not do that again -- not to mention all the different newspaper accounts based upon their interviews with Harry. For example, see 1/6/65 Los Angeles memo to Hoover which reported that: "Harry Dean was recontacted by Bureau agents at La Puente, California on 1/5/65, and told to stop making false claims about his relationship with the FBI. Dean admitted representing himself as an 'undercover agent' for the FBI in talks with representatives of television station KTTV, Los Angeles in order to be selected for a guest spot on the Joe Pyne Show." (4) Ernie, you say that there were "no hostile reports by the FBI," but actually we haven't seen those FBI serials yet, so how can you be so sure? Since we haven't seen the FBI serials yet, you don't really know what's in them, and so your conclusions are hasty and therefore unreliable. If your premise is accurate (i.e. "we have not seen those FBI serials yet"), then how can YOU make definitive declarations that there ARE such "hostile reports"? A "hostile report" is not something which the FBI has ever previously hidden if they decided to share it outside the FBI. I recently posted a serial where Hoover described Walker as "nuts" -- and there are serials in Walker's file which state that the FBI shared their "hostile" evaluation of Walker with various people. In many cases, the FBI made such "hostile reports" (in the sense of sharing highly derogatory information from its files on a confidential basis with Bureau-friendly sources) but those reports are specifically acknowledged and described in FBI serials -- sometimes by handwritten comments referring to a phone contact by a Supervisor at FBI HQ and sometimes in typed memos submitted to HQ by field office Agents. What is particularly striking about Harry's FBI file documents is that the FBI kept the most derogatory information about Harry (from his rap sheet) confidential -- within the Bureau itself instead of giving it to sources who could then circulate it publicly without the FBI's fingerprints on it. Even Bureau-friendly politicians (like George Murphy) received very circumspect answers to their inquiries about Harry's status. In fact, all Murphy was told "for your confidential information" is that Harry was never authorized to represent or act in any official capacity for the FBI and the Bureau had to contact Harry several times to tell him to desist from making such claims. But nothing was shared with Murphy re: Harry's background---which is what the FBI would do if they ACTUALLY DID want to discredit somebody. The file copy notation on the Bureau copy of the Murphy letter also points out that Harry "continued to make such claims to a newspaper and television station and was again contacted on 1/6/65 and admonished emphatically to desist from his claims". The file copy notation refers to several different occasions when the FBI tried to get Harry to stop making such claims: 6/7/61, 12/2/63, 1/5/65. Also, if the FBI asked Harry for information (and if we get documented confirmation of that) and if the FBI does deny that they asked Harry for that service, then I am fully justified in calling that denial "a hostile report." Paul, I suppose you can dumb-down the word "hostile" to make it mean or apply to anything you want but anybody with even superficial knowledge about FBI history and FBI practices knows what the FBI was capable of doing when they actually had a desire to share "hostile reports". Also, I continue to object to your lowest-common-denominator use of the phrase "asked Harry for information". You simply do not want to acknowledge that there is a HUGE difference between accepting unsolicited information OR answering routine questions versus becoming a genuine FBI informant. Actual FBI informants were subject to rigorous protocols outlined in the Bureau's "Manual of Instructions" AND when an individual became an FBI informant, the FBI created a NEW control file to archive the reports made by that informant and to archive all related material -- including, for example, requests by the field office to continue using their informant, along with their reports to HQ regarding degree of reliability of information provided by their informant, reports regarding what was done with the information provided, requests to HQ for any payments to the informant (expenses or services), etc. OFTEN, such an informant file number (in the early 1960's) would begin with a 66-prefix and later those files were converted to 134-prefix files. VERY significantly, we have seen no references anywhere to any file number on Harry that begins with either 66 or 134. Instead, the ONLY file numbers we know about re: Harry are the following prefixes (aka classification codes): 62 = Administrative Inquiry (Miscellaneous Subversive and Non-Subversive) Typical subjects in a 62-prefix file include: misconduct investigations so-called "nut files" census matters domestic police cooperation fair credit reporting act kickback racket act congressional inquiries (constituent referrals) civil suits against the government conspiracy criminal informants freedom of information act requests 94 = Research Matters Typical subjects in a 94-prefix file include: general correspondence with the public, organizations, law enforcement groups Bureau speeches and press releases general public relations matters (how the Bureau was perceived by public) 100 = Domestic Security Typical subjects in a 100-prefix file include: sabotage treason espionage subversive activities of known or suspected communists, fascists, nazis 105 = Internal Security / Foreign Intelligence Typical subjects in a 105-prefix file include: foreign country activities in the United States (including pro and anti-Castro groups) activities of domestic political and social groups FBI methods and techniques (such as electronic surveillance; mail covers) COINTELPRO operations against violence prone groups, black extremist groups, anti-war groups We must simply wait and see the actual FBI serials themselves, to know the full truth. No problem with waiting to see -- but given your previous (and current) comments, I cannot, for the life of me, believe that you think you will ever discover "the full truth" in ANY FBI file because you have such a low regard for their integrity as an institution -- particularly during the years we are focused upon. For example: see your comments in next paragraph, #5 If we cannot believe that FBI serials accurately report the substance of their Special Agent contacts with individuals whom they interviewed -- then why even bother relying upon ANYTHING contained in FBI files? This brings us back to the comments made by Dr. Athan Theoharis which I recently posted. Not even the most severe (hostile) critics of the FBI have made the accusation which you continue to make (or I should describe as your relentless insinuations which function as your all-purpose intellectual escape hatch). I am totally confident that if you do not find what you want to find in the Los Angeles file -- you will offer yet more pejorative insinuations. (5) As for your claim that "there are FBI memos which state that even Harry himself acknowledged to the FBI that he falsely described himself when he made contacts," we should demand proof. We cannot tell if these are truthful accounts by the FBI or not until we see all of the FBI serials in question. So, don't be hasty. See comments above. (6) You claim that, "the FBI's problem with Harry was his false description of his relationship to the FBI." You keep claiming that, but you haven't yet seen all the evidence. Wait until the evidence is in, Ernie, before you make a hasty judgment. It is certainly correct that I have not seen "all the evidence". But your comment is comparable to you declaring that I must drink an entire gallon of sour milk before I can make a reasonable conclusion about the quality or taste of that milk. (7) You ask me, Ernie, if I ever thought about what the FBI *should* say to announce that somebody falsely claimed to be associated with them? The answer is, yes! The first thing the FBI should do is PROVE that the person actually said that! But I've seen zero proof from the FBI that Harry ever said that. It is all hearsay, allegation and innuendo! What would constitute "proof" in your scheme of things? You have never explained or described what sort of "proof" you expect to find in an FBI file. Show me the proof! Show me one place where Harry himself wrote (and not the FBI) that Harry was an FBI agent! The FBI was hostile because Harry broke his silence! I have repeatedly asked you for this proof, and you keep promising it and never deliver! Show me the proof! I just did in my answer above to your item #3 -- regarding the Tom Snyder interview. But I must remark upon your criterion. As I have previously stated, there are different categories of "proof" or of credible evidence. There is, for example, "preponderance of evidence". You want an absolute indisputable and definitive admissions by, or statements by, Harry himself, i.e. no third party evidence and no accumulation of other evidence. But that is not how historical research proceeds. Obviously, the person who is the subject of one's research or scrutiny is not the only reliable or credible source. If that were the case, we would NEVER convict anybody of ANY crime and we would NEVER write ANY history books. I don't mean to show me the FBI allegations -- I've seen them! I mean show me the proof that Harry himself claimed this! Anybody can make allegations -- even the FBI (or especially the FBI). But you do not apply that same standard to HARRY DEAN! Instead, as you admit, you prefer giving him "the benefit of the doubt" even though there is not even ONE document or ONE person whom corroborates Harry's story. ALL of your assertions in your eBook (a memoir which contains not even ONE footnote, not even ONE scanned document, not even ONE transcript of an interview) is based upon YOUR (and Harry's) ALLEGATIONS! So where does this sudden inexplicable desire for indisputable "proof" come from? Up to now, you have been perfectly ok with relying upon your "theories" or "allegations" or "insinuations". (8) My opinions and reports are intellectually honest. I continue to question the veracity of the FBI with regard to Harry Dean. Your continued faith in the FBI's veracity is touching, but proves nothing much. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my "faith" in the FBI. As I have repeatedly stated (and you continually ignore this), nobody that I know of has ever made the accusations which you are making about FBI documentary evidence or about FBI files or about FBI Special Agent interviews. OK--you question the veracity of the FBI -- but based upon what evidence? NOTHING but Harry's word! As I have repeatedly stated, (unlike you) I have nothing invested in either Harry or the FBI. Whatever is true -- is true. Period. But there are MOUNTAINS of primary source documentary evidence in FBI files which reveal standard FBI procedures and policies with respect to how they dealt with actual FBI informants and you have provided NOTHING whatsoever to refute the FACT that the FBI categorically denies that Harry was ever an informant or confidential source. Furthermore, you have found NOTHING WHATSOEVER in FBI files to raise any question about the veracity of FBI Special Agents. You merely ASSERT or INSINUATE that they cannot be trusted (IF they present something which is inconvenient to your preferred narrative). (9) You say that "an intellectually honest writer accurately summarizes (in context) what documentary evidence reflects," so then, I say, let's see the documentary evidence and settle this once and for all! I have provided considerable documentary evidence. What have YOU provided? Did I miss something in the previous 600+ messages in this thread? (10) You charge me with making "hyperbolic assumptions" but in fact all I did was summarize the fact that there are at least 55 FBI serials about Harry Dean with at least 164 pages, files by the FBI from 1962-1967, and I demanded to know WHY! Why WHAT? Why were there 164 pages? Why were there "at least 55 serials" (you meant 65). Are you insinuating something again? What's so hyperbolic about that? It's a simple fact. Do you object because I pointed out that this is a lot of interest in somebody who is allegedly just a gadfly claiming to be an FBI agent? Nonsense. Your comment is total nonsense. The FBI was generally a passive entity with respect to Harry Dean. Virtually everything contained in Harry's files was produced when OUTSIDE sources inquired about Harry's status, i.e. contacts from television programs, from newspaper reporters, from Congressmen or Senators (Rousselot and Murphy for example), from other agencies (CIA and police departments for example). In many cases, those inquiries included enclosures of many documents -- including copies of material which HARRY sent to them or copies of newspaper articles which discussed Harry. So, obviously, there are files on Harry and each of those files contains varying quantities of documents such as copies of memos or letters which originated from other agencies (such as CIA or police departments) or from other FBI offices or from FBI HQ. Sometimes, there are copies of proposed telegrams or proposed memos and then the final authorized typed version which was sent out. So what is YOUR problem? Incidentally, you have actually touched on something (unintentionally) which is very significant. Harry claims that he was an FBI informant for several years (in some communications he says 1960-1965) and he allegedly made reports to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles) about many different persons and organizations. IF that was true, then his FBI files should be MUCH larger than the ones we know about. As I have previously told you, I have obtained the files on dozens of FBI informants and there is not even one of them whose HQ or field office file is a paltry 150-250 pages -- especially for someone who supposedly was providing information for 5 years! When the FBI was required by Mark Allen's successful FOIA lawsuit to release ALL documents which the FBI sent in response to inquiries from the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the result was over 500,000 pages of documents released! If you spend some time reviewing those documents which appear on History Matters and the Mary Ferrell websites, you will see that the FBI created TENS OF THOUSANDS of memos on God-knows how many different persons, organizations, and subjects. They ran down virtually every cock-a-mamie rumor they heard about [i previously mentioned the report they received about comments made by Dr. Fernando Penabaz -- which, it turns out, the comments by Penabaz were totally discredited but it took the FBI several interviews to run it all down. ] There are HUNDREDS of references in FBI files to Loran Hall, Eladio del Valle, Laurence Howard, Gerald Patrick Hemming, Edwin Walker and "all the usual suspects" in your "plot" theory -- but, oddly, no references to any report from Harry Dean! Again, with regard to your examples, you only show the FBI allegations about Harry, and you don't seek to verify proof (i.e a document from Harry Dean in which he clearly claims to be a paid FBI agent). That's your enduring mistake. You never show it, but you keep the faith -- you're sure it must exist because the FBI said so. Yet I reserve the right to doubt the FBI in the case of Harry Dean. I never claimed Harry was a "paid FBI agent" -- another one of YOUR fictions -- which is why you NEVER QUOTE anything I have actually written! HOWEVER: Harry has stated that he was paid "expenses" by "U.S. intelligence agencies". For example: see memorandum by HSCA investigator Kenneth D. Klein regarding his interview of Harry. Klein reports that Harry stated about the FBI that: "All he received was expenses and he was always paid in cash." Also see Harry's message #101 in this thread (on page 7) confirming that he was paid "expenses". Incidentally, that comment by Harry that he was always paid in cash -- is VERY suspect. And, BTW, have you ever asked Harry if he reported the "expenses" he was paid on his income tax returns (as he was required by law to do)??? Finally, if you need somebody on the EF to help post your FBI serials, Ernie, I'll volunteer to do that. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Paul -- my replies to your comments appear underneath yours. I cannot let you get away with one HUGE whopper (see my replies). Edited February 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Ernie, I read your replies, and there was no WHOPPER exposed. I say that you fail to provide PROOF of Harry claiming to be an FBI agent. I stand by that. You ask what I claim to be PROOF, and I already said it, but I'll say it again; hopefully you'll pay attention this time. You must show a document from Harry Dean himself, claiming to be an FBI Agent. PERIOD. Nothing more, and nothing less. As for those ALLEGED transcripts from the Tomorrow Show that you cited, even if they are accurate (which is highly debatable if W.R. Morris was in any way involved) then they are still easily explained by a simple misunderstanding, especially under the pressure of a live TV program. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You need to show PROOF before you harp on and on about these allegations that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent. You cite HEARSAY and mostly from FBI sources. That's not good enough! Thank goodness that 55+ FBI serials are going to be released soon to hopefully enable us to get down to the bottom of this problem. Yet without PROOF, what you're alleging amounts to -- at the very mildest, an INSULT, and at the worst, well, let's just say there's a legal term for that. So, please be careful, Ernie, and suspend your judgment until you've seen all the facts. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited February 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Someone sent me an email stating that he/she did not think all of the back and forth between me and Paul Trejo was helping to resolve anything being disputed. This person then asked me to produce a list of specific questions which, if answered, I think would go a long way to figuring out how much of Harry’s story is accurate and credible. So in that spirit here are the questions I would ask Harry to answer (in no particular order of importance): BIRCH SOCIETY-RELATED 1. Did you join the Birch Society using your own name? If not, what name did you use? 2. What was the code name of your JBS chapter? Did you belong to more than one chapter (if you changed addresses? If so, what were the other chapter code names?) 3. What were the name(s) of your JBS chapter leader(s)? 4. What were the name(s) of your JBS section leader(s)? 5. What were the name(s) of your JBS Coordinators? 6. Did you normally attend JBS chapter meetings? If so, approximately how many times during which specific years? 7. Approximately how many different reports did you make to FBI-Los Angeles regarding the JBS as an organization – such as reporting what happened during chapter meetings or reports regarding JBS-sponsored events such as speaking engagements sponsored by JBS-front groups (TACT, SYLP, MOTOREDE, TRAIN, etc)? 8. Were your reports to the FBI about the JBS primarily written reports OR oral reports? 9. Did FBI-Los Angeles assign you a code name which you were instructed to use when you submitted your JBS-related reports? If so, what was that code name? 10. Did FBI-Los Angeles assign you a post office box to mail your reports to? 11. Did you ever meet with FBI-Los Angeles Special Agents at the FBI’s Los Angeles field office? 12. If you provided oral reports to FBI-Los Angeles, were you asked to subsequently read them and initial the Bureau-typed summaries of your oral reports to signify that they were accurate transcriptions of what you said? 13. Was Wesley Grapp the first Los Angeles FBI Agent to whom you made your reports? If not, who was? What were the name(s) of the other FBI-Los Angeles Agents to whom you made oral or written reports? If possible, estimate the number of reports you made to each person, i.e. more than 10 or less than 10 , etc. 14. Approximately how many individual JBS members did you report on to the FBI? [Less than 10, more than 10 or what?] 15. Did you receive any payments from the FBI for your travel or expenses that were related to your “informant” work re: the JBS? If “yes”, approximately how much (in total) and over what period of time? MINUTEMEN-RELATED 1. Did you join the MM using your own name? If not, what name did you use? 2. What code name or identification number were you assigned by MM? 3. Did you receive any payments from the FBI for your travel or expenses that were related to your “informant” work re: MM? If “yes”, approximately how much (in total) and over what period of time? CHICAGO INFORMANT PERIOD 1. Did FBI Special Agents in Chicago ever meet with you in the FBI-Chicago field office? 2. You have stated that when you returned from your June 1960 trip to Cuba, you were “debriefed” by FBI and CIA. At what location did that meeting take place? 3. Was a stenographer in the “debriefing” location to make a transcript of your comments? 4. Did FBI-Chicago assign you a code name to use whenever you submitted your reports? If “yes”, what was that code name? 5. Were your reports to FBI-Chicago primarily oral or written? 6. Were you assigned a Post Office box to mail your reports to? 7. Approximately how many different members of FPCC-Chicago did you report on to the FBI? 8. Approximately how many different members of other pro-Castro groups in the Chicago area did you report on to the FBI? GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Is there ANY living person to whom you spoke (or to whom you wrote a letter or note) during the 1960’s (not including family members) who could verify any aspect of your narrative concerning your alleged FBI informant experience? Particularly with respect to your “reports” to FBI-Los Angeles? 2. Do you recall writing any correspondence during the 1960’s-1980’s, to any friend or acquaintance (living or dead; but not anybody in government) in which you mentioned specific information that you gave to the FBI or CIA or anybody else? 3. Prior to 1965, did you ever reveal (in confidence) your "informant" status to any friend or acquaintance? If "yes" are any of those persons still living? Or do you have any correspondence from them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Someone sent me an email stating that he/she did not think all of the back and forth between me and Paul Trejo was helping to resolve anything being disputed. This person then asked me to produce a list of specific questions which, if answered, I think would go a long way to figuring out how much of Harry’s story is accurate and credible. So in that spirit here are the questions I would ask Harry to answer (in no particular order of importance): BIRCH SOCIETY-RELATED 1. Did you join the Birch Society using your own name? If not, what name did you use? 2. What was the code name of your JBS chapter? Did you belong to more than one chapter (if you changed addresses? If so, what were the other chapter code names?) 3. What were the name(s) of your JBS chapter leader(s)? 4. What were the name(s) of your JBS section leader(s)? 5. What were the name(s) of your JBS Coordinators? 6. Did you normally attend JBS chapter meetings? If so, approximately how many times during which specific years? 7. Approximately how many different reports did you make to FBI-Los Angeles regarding the JBS as an organization – such as reporting what happened during chapter meetings or reports regarding JBS-sponsored events such as speaking engagements sponsored by JBS-front groups (TACT, SYLP, MOTOREDE, TRAIN, etc)? 8. Were your reports to the FBI about the JBS primarily written reports OR oral reports? 9. Did FBI-Los Angeles assign you a code name which you were instructed to use when you submitted your JBS-related reports? If so, what was that code name? 10. Did FBI-Los Angeles assign you a post office box to mail your reports to? 11. Did you ever meet with FBI-Los Angeles Special Agents at the FBI’s Los Angeles field office? 12. If you provided oral reports to FBI-Los Angeles, were you asked to subsequently read them and initial the Bureau-typed summaries of your oral reports to signify that they were accurate transcriptions of what you said? 13. Was Wesley Grapp the first Los Angeles FBI Agent to whom you made your reports? If not, who was? What were the name(s) of the other FBI-Los Angeles Agents to whom you made oral or written reports? If possible, estimate the number of reports you made to each person, i.e. more than 10 or less than 10 , etc. 14. Approximately how many individual JBS members did you report on to the FBI? [Less than 10, more than 10 or what?] 15. Did you receive any payments from the FBI for your travel or expenses that were related to your “informant” work re: the JBS? If “yes”, approximately how much (in total) and over what period of time? MINUTEMEN-RELATED 1. Did you join the MM using your own name? If not, what name did you use? 2. What code name or identification number were you assigned by MM? 3. Did you receive any payments from the FBI for your travel or expenses that were related to your “informant” work re: MM? If “yes”, approximately how much (in total) and over what period of time? CHICAGO INFORMANT PERIOD 1. Did FBI Special Agents in Chicago ever meet with you in the FBI-Chicago field office? 2. You have stated that when you returned from your June 1960 trip to Cuba, you were “debriefed” by FBI and CIA. At what location did that meeting take place? 3. Was a stenographer in the “debriefing” location to make a transcript of your comments? 4. Did FBI-Chicago assign you a code name to use whenever you submitted your reports? If “yes”, what was that code name? 5. Were your reports to FBI-Chicago primarily oral or written? 6. Were you assigned a Post Office box to mail your reports to? 7. Approximately how many different members of FPCC-Chicago did you report on to the FBI? 8. Approximately how many different members of other pro-Castro groups in the Chicago area did you report on to the FBI? GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Is there ANY living person to whom you spoke (or to whom you wrote a letter or note) during the 1960’s (not including family members) who could verify any aspect of your narrative concerning your alleged FBI informant experience? Particularly with respect to your “reports” to FBI-Los Angeles? 2. Do you recall writing any correspondence during the 1960’s-1980’s, to any friend or acquaintance (living or dead; but not anybody in government) in which you mentioned specific information that you gave to the FBI or CIA or anybody else? 3. Prior to 1965, did you ever reveal (in confidence) your "informant" status to any friend or acquaintance? If "yes" are any of those persons still living? Or do you have any correspondence from them? Well, Ernie, insofar as you have no rights of any kind to ask Harry Dean such personal questions -- and since you haven't befriended yourself in any way to Harry Dean, then I suggest that you and your "someone" also work out a fitting price you should be willing to pay Harry Dean for taking the time out of his busy day to answer your personal questions. I suggest say, $80 an hour, which is a fairly average legal fee in the USA. The only question I'd have, then, is how many hours Harry Dean would require to dig up the answers to all these questions to your satisfaction. But of course, since Harry Dean is the only person who can answer these questions, perhaps we should ask for Harry's opinion about a fair price. Your "someone" did give you one bit of good advice though -- all these ALLEGATIONS that you're making are leading nowhere. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited February 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Ernie, I read your replies, and there was no WHOPPER exposed. I say that you fail to provide PROOF of Harry claiming to be an FBI agent. I stand by that. You ask what I claim to be PROOF, and I already said it, but I'll say it again; hopefully you'll pay attention this time. You must show a document from Harry Dean himself, claiming to be an FBI Agent. Paul: what your standard of proof reveals, is that you would never accept ANYTHING except a direct admission by Harry (the person whose recollections are being disputed!)-- which means (by definition) you have no OBJECTIVE standard. You do not even accept Harry's answer to a direct question by Tom Snyder as recorded in the written transcript of his interview program --- which means that you would not accept ANYTHING which Harry has not written himself. HOW CONVENIENT since Harry claims all his written records have been destroyed or lost or stolen! Can you imagine applying your standard to ANY other matter of dispute in history? This reminds me of my debates with people who deny that the holocaust ever happened because they require a specific letter or document signed by BY HITLER ORDERING THE EXTERMINATION OF ALL JEWS! "Period. Nothing more and nothing less". OK--from now on, we will demand THE EXACT SAME STANDARD OF PROOF FROM YOU! If you do not have a specific document signed and notarized by Harry, NOTHING you state will be accepted. NOTHING. Furthermore, if you cannot produce a specific verifiable signed document to prove your assertions about any other source of information (FBI, CIA, or any other government agency OR a specific verifiable SIGNED document by Edwin Walker, by John Rousselot, by David Robbins, by Robert Welch, by Robert DePugh, by Guy Galbadon, by Loran Hall, by Gerald Patrick Hemming, by Guy Banister, by Jerry Milton Brooks, by Eladio del Valle, by Marina Oswald, by David Ferrie, by Dr. Juan Orta, by Joaquin Friere, by Juan Del Rosario, by Edgar Swabeck, by Frank Vega, by John Rossen, by Florence Criley, by Richard Criley, by FBI Agents Wesley Grapp, Mike Simon, J.B. Walker, A.A. Whalen, Ferd Rapp, and by numerous other individuals -- NOTHING (REPEAT: NOTHING) you or Harry writes from this point forward will be accepted! PERIOD. Nothing more, and nothing less. As for those ALLEGED transcripts from the Tomorrow Show that you cited, even if they are accurate (which is highly debatable if W.R. Morris was in any way involved) then they are still easily explained by a simple misunderstanding, especially under the pressure of a live TV program. Unsupported INVENTION of your mind. Give me a DOCUMENT signed by Snyder or his employees stating that (1) there was any pressure during the interview and (2) that Morris in any way coerced Harry into stating what he did and (3) that the transcript of the interview is NOT accurate. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You need to show PROOF before you harp on and on about these allegations that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent. You cite HEARSAY and mostly from FBI sources. That's not good enough! They are not "FBI sources". They are independent sources which were interviewed by many different FBI Special Agents OR sources which sent letters to the FBI or CIA -- all of which made the same general statements about what Harry claimed about himself. You obviously do not understand the definition of "hearsay". Hearsay occurs when person "a" who was NOT present, reports what he or she HEARD about something from another source. EXAMPLE: Paul has a meeting with Bob and Jim. Ernie then makes a statement about what supposedly was discussed at that meeting -- based upon something Ernie heard from a NON-participant in the meeting. THAT is hearsay! The evidence I am discussing comes from THE ACTUAL PERSONS INVOLVED WITH HARRY. That is NOT hearsay. BUT. for sake of argument, ---let's accept your premise that these are "FBI sources" and, thus, cannot be trusted. THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO SEE ANYTHING APPEARING IN FBI FILES? OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IN THEM IS CREDIBLE TO YOU, or, quoting your recent comment, "THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH". Thank goodness that 55+ FBI serials are going to be released soon to enable us to get down to the bottom of this problem. Yet without PROOF, what you're alleging amounts to -- at the very mildest, an INSULT, and at the worst, well, you get the idea. So, please be careful, Ernie, and suspend your judgment until you've seen all the facts. TOTAL NON-SEQUITER -- You just got done saying that FBI documents are "NOT GOOD ENOUGH" because they do not constitute credible evidence. Consequently, they cannot be considered (as you just wrote) "proof" of anything! Nor can anything in FBI documents be considered "facts" Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> MY REPLIES ARE UNDERNEATH YOUR COMMENTS...... Edited February 13, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Someone sent me an email stating that he/she did not think all of the back and forth between me and Paul Trejo was helping to resolve anything being disputed. This person then asked me to produce a list of specific questions which, if answered, I think would go a long way to figuring out how much of Harry’s story is accurate and credible. So in that spirit here are the questions I would ask Harry to answer (in no particular order of importance): BIRCH SOCIETY-RELATED 1. Did you join the Birch Society using your own name? If not, what name did you use? 2. What was the code name of your JBS chapter? Did you belong to more than one chapter (if you changed addresses? If so, what were the other chapter code names?) 3. What were the name(s) of your JBS chapter leader(s)? 4. What were the name(s) of your JBS section leader(s)? 5. What were the name(s) of your JBS Coordinators? 6. Did you normally attend JBS chapter meetings? If so, approximately how many times during which specific years? 7. Approximately how many different reports did you make to FBI-Los Angeles regarding the JBS as an organization – such as reporting what happened during chapter meetings or reports regarding JBS-sponsored events such as speaking engagements sponsored by JBS-front groups (TACT, SYLP, MOTOREDE, TRAIN, etc)? 8. Were your reports to the FBI about the JBS primarily written reports OR oral reports? 9. Did FBI-Los Angeles assign you a code name which you were instructed to use when you submitted your JBS-related reports? If so, what was that code name? 10. Did FBI-Los Angeles assign you a post office box to mail your reports to? 11. Did you ever meet with FBI-Los Angeles Special Agents at the FBI’s Los Angeles field office? 12. If you provided oral reports to FBI-Los Angeles, were you asked to subsequently read them and initial the Bureau-typed summaries of your oral reports to signify that they were accurate transcriptions of what you said? 13. Was Wesley Grapp the first Los Angeles FBI Agent to whom you made your reports? If not, who was? What were the name(s) of the other FBI-Los Angeles Agents to whom you made oral or written reports? If possible, estimate the number of reports you made to each person, i.e. more than 10 or less than 10 , etc. 14. Approximately how many individual JBS members did you report on to the FBI? [Less than 10, more than 10 or what?] 15. Did you receive any payments from the FBI for your travel or expenses that were related to your “informant” work re: the JBS? If “yes”, approximately how much (in total) and over what period of time? MINUTEMEN-RELATED 1. Did you join the MM using your own name? If not, what name did you use? 2. What code name or identification number were you assigned by MM? 3. Did you receive any payments from the FBI for your travel or expenses that were related to your “informant” work re: MM? If “yes”, approximately how much (in total) and over what period of time? CHICAGO INFORMANT PERIOD 1. Did FBI Special Agents in Chicago ever meet with you in the FBI-Chicago field office? 2. You have stated that when you returned from your June 1960 trip to Cuba, you were “debriefed” by FBI and CIA. At what location did that meeting take place? 3. Was a stenographer in the “debriefing” location to make a transcript of your comments? 4. Did FBI-Chicago assign you a code name to use whenever you submitted your reports? If “yes”, what was that code name? 5. Were your reports to FBI-Chicago primarily oral or written? 6. Were you assigned a Post Office box to mail your reports to? 7. Approximately how many different members of FPCC-Chicago did you report on to the FBI? 8. Approximately how many different members of other pro-Castro groups in the Chicago area did you report on to the FBI? GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Is there ANY living person to whom you spoke (or to whom you wrote a letter or note) during the 1960’s (not including family members) who could verify any aspect of your narrative concerning your alleged FBI informant experience? Particularly with respect to your “reports” to FBI-Los Angeles? 2. Do you recall writing any correspondence during the 1960’s-1980’s, to any friend or acquaintance (living or dead; but not anybody in government) in which you mentioned specific information that you gave to the FBI or CIA or anybody else? 3. Prior to 1965, did you ever reveal (in confidence) your "informant" status to any friend or acquaintance? If "yes" are any of those persons still living? Or do you have any correspondence from them? Well, Ernie, insofar as you have no rights of any kind to ask Harry Dean such personal questions -- and since you haven't befriended yourself in any way to Harry Dean, then I suggest that you and your "someone" also work out a fitting price you should be willing to pay Harry Dean for taking the time out of his busy day to answer your personal questions. I suggest say, $80 an hour, which is a fairly average legal fee in the USA. The only question I'd have, then, is how many hours Harry Dean would require to dig up the answers to all these questions to your satisfaction. But of course, since Harry Dean is the only person who can answer these questions, perhaps we should ask for Harry's opinion about a fair price. Your "someone" did give you one bit of good advice though -- all these ALLEGATIONS that you're making are leading nowhere. Also, you might want to give some thought to legal fees in general, when broaching this topic in the future. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo What a silly comment Paul. ANYBODY who becomes a public figure and especially someone whom, for 50 years, has ACTIVELY SOUGHT publicity about his story -- should expect to be questioned by EVERYONE who has an interest in the story. My questions are not "personal". ALL of them pertain to Harry's STORY about his experiences with the FBI .. and whether or not he has ANY substantiation for his assertions. The fact that you are so incredibly hostile toward questions which would help everybody ascertain the truth -- is indicative of your overall mental deficiency. Obviously, you are exclusively AN ADVOCATE for Harry -- you are NOT an impartial or objective researcher or author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Given Paul Trejo's most recent comments about the total unacceptability of anything appearing in FBI files (it's all "hearsay" or worse) -- and since Paul's stated criterion for "proof" is limited exclusively to whatever Harry decides is accurate and truthful -- then, obviously, there is nothing further to be gained by discussing anything appearing in FBI files. Consequently, I no longer plan to share anything here on EF when I get Harry's Los Angeles FBI file or when I get other FBI files -- such as pending requests on Wesley Grapp, Guy Banister, FPCC-Chicago, etc.) Obviously, it would be a waste of time since Paul does not believe anybody but Harry (even when it has been recently established that Harry and Paul can make materially important errors). IF you are interested in Harry's Los Angeles file - you may send NARA $200 and obtain it for yourself. Edited February 13, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Given Paul Trejo's most recent comments about the total unacceptability of anything appearing in FBI files (it's all "hearsay" or worse) -- and since Paul's stated criterion for "proof" is limited exclusively to whatever Harry decides is accurate and truthful -- then, obviously, there is nothing further to be gained by discussing anything appearing in FBI files. Consequently, I no longer plan to share anything here on EF when I get Harry's Los Angeles FBI file or when I get other FBI files -- such as pending requests on Wesley Grapp, Guy Banister, FPCC-Chicago, etc.) Obviously, it would be a waste of time since Paul does not believe anybody but Harry (even when it has been recently established that Harry and Paul can make materially important errors). IF you are interested in Harry's Los Angeles file - you may send NARA $200 and obtain it for yourself. You're quite mistaken, Ernie. I'm completely open to facts. You, however, are all-too-willing to throw allegations around and ignore demands for PROOF. Although I consider Harry Dean my personal friend, and I'm not going to watch his name get trashed by amateurs, I remain open-minded and I will consider any and all FACTS that are presented about his case. So far, I hear only accusations and rumors and innuendos! So what if this or that FBI Agent claimed this or that? WE DEMAND PROOF!! The sad part about your posts, Ernie, is that you fail to present FACTS, and you present only ALLEGATIONS and you expect them to be accepted as FACTS. Then, when somebody points this out to you, your textual behavior in public becomes emotional. And -- there you go again. I'm not surprised that you now refuse to share your FBI files about Harry Dean with hundreds of EF readers, Ernie -- because what if you're PROVEN totally WRONG !! Could you stand it? What if you had to publicly apologize to Harry Dean? Could you stand it? Also -- your claim that Harry Dean is a public figure -- like a politician who runs for public office -- or like a movie star or a rock star -- is simply laughable. No, you don't get to trash Harry Dean just because you FEEL LIKE IT, Ernie. The truth is -- you could have had all your answers from Harry Dean any time you wanted -- all for free and with a smile -- if you had only been COURTEOUS toward him in the past. Harry is one of the friendliest persons I've ever met. He's intelligent and charming and FRIENDLY. It takes lot to get on the wrong side of Harry Dean, Ernie -- but somehow you've done it. So, now you're going to run away and hide? Tsk. It seems that you can dish it out but you just can't take it. Oh well, then GOOD RIDDANCE! I'm absolutely certain that we will eventually obtain these FBI materials about Harry Dean from NARA in one of many other ways. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited February 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Given Paul Trejo's most recent comments about the total unacceptability of anything appearing in FBI files (it's all "hearsay" or worse) -- and since Paul's stated criterion for "proof" is limited exclusively to whatever Harry decides is accurate and truthful -- then, obviously, there is nothing further to be gained by discussing anything appearing in FBI files. Consequently, I no longer plan to share anything here on EF when I get Harry's Los Angeles FBI file or when I get other FBI files -- such as pending requests on Wesley Grapp, Guy Banister, FPCC-Chicago, etc.) Obviously, it would be a waste of time since Paul does not believe anybody but Harry (even when it has been recently established that Harry and Paul can make materially important errors). IF you are interested in Harry's Los Angeles file - you may send NARA $200 and obtain it for yourself. You're quite mistaken, Ernie. I'm completely open to facts. Your definition of "facts" does not conform to any methodology familiar to me. Normally, for example, a transcript of an interview is considered a primary source factual document by historians. You, however, are all-too-willing to throw allegations around and ignore demands for PROOF. The problem here is your extremely narrow concept of what constitutes "proof". Basically, in your scheme of things, "proof" is anything which Harry tells you. Although I consider Harry Dean my personal friend, and I'm not going to watch his name get trashed by amateurs, I remain open-minded and I will consider any and all FACTS that are presented about his case. So far, I hear only accusations and rumors and innuendos! So what if this or that FBI Agent claimed this or that? WE DEMAND PROOF!! Your comment reveals that you do not consider evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency to be any different from rumors or innuendo. All FBI Special Agents were required to have either law degrees or accounting degrees -- i.e. educational background not known for being susceptible to rumors or innuendos. All Agents received 13-weeks of intensive initial training and numerous subsequent specialized training classes plus mandatory periodic refresher courses. Unlike Harry Dean's recollections or written memoirs, everything said or written by an FBI Special Agent had to be documented in such a way that it would withstand the most brutal courtroom scrutiny. The sad part about your posts, Ernie, is that you fail to present FACTS, and you present only ALLEGATIONS and you expect them to be accepted as FACTS. Your ENTIRE eBook is nothing more than ALLEGATIONS so you have quite the nerve! Your eBook does not contain one footnote, one scanned document, one reference to an oral history interview, one verifiable witness statement, one photo, one transcript of a recording, one document from personal papers archived at any college or university -- in short, NOTHING but unsubstantiated "allegations"!! Then, when somebody points this out to you, your textual behavior in public becomes emotional. And -- there you go again. I'm not surprised that you now refuse to share your FBI files about Harry Dean with hundreds of EF readers, Ernie -- because what if you're PROVEN totally WRONG !! Could you stand it? You have never "proven" anything. How can you "prove" something without once providing any evidence? All you ever do is repeat your child-like faith in Harry's story. Let us recall your most recent admission that you wrongly accused the FBI of forgery. Did you discover your error because of any research you did and shared here? Nope! Instead, from the beginning, you just accepted Harry's story and you accepted Bill Kelly's redacted version of Harry's letter to Hoover as the only permissible evidence -- even though there was NOTHING to authenticate Kelly's document. That reveals your methodology for "proof" and "facts". What if you had to publicly apologize to Harry Dean? Could you stand it? There is nothing to apologize for -- particularly since, as mentioned above, there is no corroborating evidence (person or document) which supports Harry's story. Even worse, Harry refuses to answer obvious questions which ANY impartial researcher would ask before accepting his recollections. Also -- your claim that Harry Dean is a public figure -- like a politician who runs for public office -- or like a movie star or a rock star -- is simply laughable. You obviously do not understand the definition of public figure. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "politicians". As American jurisprudence has established, one type of public figure is somebody who "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Harry has "thrust himself" into public debates by constantly seeking publicity for his story for 50 years! He has sought that publicity by newspaper interviews, by radio and tv appearances, by publishing several books and other publications (including the most recent one in October 2013), by soliciting subscriptions to his newsletter. and by what Harry described to Sen. George Murphy as his campaign to influence "organizations, individuals, and government officials" by sharing his story. As Harry wrote (below) in his 1966 advertising flyer, captioned "I Confess" -- he was offering a "twice monthly...history of shocking reality". "Are you interested in the details of the above and enclosed information and other unexposed facts? From the records of Harry Dean who is deeply involved and prepared to tell all. If so, you will receive a complete expose, documents, letters, and the total actual experience that can lay open the fearful reason for the assassination of President Kennedy and the 'invisible war' that continues trampling underfoot nations and individuals" And Harry claims he copyrighted all this information---because, obviously, he intended to profit from it. No, you don't get to trash Harry Dean just because you FEEL LIKE IT, Ernie. The truth is -- you could have had all your answers from Harry Dean any time you wanted -- all for free and with a smile -- if you had only been COURTEOUS toward him in the past. That is absurd. Harry has never answered any question which he interprets as skeptical or critical. Which is why he relies upon you as his alter-ego because he knows you will shield him from answering any significant questions. Harry is one of the friendliest persons I've ever met. He's intelligent and charming and FRIENDLY. It takes lot to get on the wrong side of Harry Dean, Ernie -- but somehow you've done it. There are many very friendly and caring and decent and moral and patriotic and principled individuals whom, nevertheless, are simply mistaken or confused or otherwise not presenting accurate information. As previously noted, "witness" testimony is universally recognized as often the most unreliable -- for a variety of reasons -- which is why genuine researchers and historians critique such testimony So, now you're going to run away and hide? Tsk. It seems that you can dish it out but you just can't take it. Nope -- I am just not going to spend $200 and then listen to you whine and moan and complain with your baseless accusations. You leave all the real research (and expense) to other people. You are a parasite. Oh well, then GOOD RIDDANCE! I'm absolutely certain that we will eventually obtain these FBI materials about Harry Dean from NARA in one of many other ways. There is nothing contained in FBI files which you will EVER accept as "factual" or "proof" so why do you care what they contain? Everything currently known about Harry which appears in FBI documents, falsifies or diminishes Harry's story. Consequently, everyone already knows what YOUR interpretation will be of any data appearing in FBI files about Harry or about any related subject matter. Many dozens of messages ago, I predicted that when all JFK-related documents are released by 2017, you will simply develop a new conspiracy theory to explain why there is nothing to support Harry's story -- just like you currently fabricate "explanations". You are totally clueless about standard FBI practices and procedures (particularly with respect to informants) and yet you expect us to believe your bizarre interpretations and allegations just because YOU want them accepted as the basis for all analysis. So--for example, the fact that there is not even one FBI file number on Harry which has a classification code which the FBI used to archive data regarding its informants means nothing to you. And the fact that all of Harry's FBI files are very small (250 or less pages) means nothing to you. And the fact that FBI HQ had to send inquiries to its Chicago and Los Angeles field offices just to discover who Harry was, means nothing to you It is this sort of total blissful ignorance which reveals that you have utterly no respect for anything if it diminishes Harry's story. Ironically, you simultaneously expect us to "connect the dots" when there are murky "clues" which you think support Harry's story -- but any clues which do not support Harry's story are immediately discarded or de-valued! Sincerely, --Paul Trejo My replies appear underneath your comments. Edited February 13, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Thank God in heaven that Ernie Lazar is finally leaving this thread. I, for one, have had quite enough of his incessant insults combined with his online whining. (Ernie should learn that people who live in tin houses shouldn't throw can openers.) Anyway, getting back to the 63 FBI serials that NARA is now offering for sale for $200, I'm willing to pony up 20% of the cost, so that others on this thread may also contribute, if they wish. Following up my previous scrutiny of the NARA index, we see that four FBI serials are from 7/1962 thru 9/1962. I wonder what those are about. Also, there is one FBI serial from 4/1963 - this was the month that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill Ex-General Walker at his home in Dallas. Also, there are four FBI serials from 11/22/1963 through 12/10/1963, the period of the JFK assassination and its immediate aftermath. I wonder what those FBI serials say about Harry Dean. Also, there are fourteen FBI serials in 1964, bunched mainly at the beginning (1/1964 thru 3/1964). These are probably related to the Warren Commission's first months of operation -- but what do they say? Another bunch of FBI serials from 1964 is concentrated around December, the month that Harry Dean decided to go public with his story on the Joe Pyne Show. It will be interesting to see those serials. But there were more FBI serials in 1965 than at any other time -- twenty-one of them, from 3/1965 to 10/1965. What is going on here? I think we all want to see these. I think all this FBI activity about Harry Dean -- 55 FBI serials from 1962 through 1965 -- is hard evidence that the FBI never considered Harry Dean to be just another gadfly who went around claiming he was an FBI agent just to "inflate his credentials", as Ernie likes to portray it (post #545). That's a lot of interest in a five year period. The bulk of that FBI interest is also bunched around the period of the JFK assassination and the Warren Report. I simply must see what's contained in those FBI serials! Why was the FBI so interested in Harry Dean? WHY?!? Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited February 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Another reason I'm glad that Ernie Lazar is leaving this thread is that we can finally get back to the issues at hand (which have nothing to do with Harry Dean allegedly "inflating his credentials"). Perhaps the main issue is the core of Harry Dean's story, namely, the status of Ex-General Edwin Walker in the assassination of JFK. Malcom shared the recent release of a CIA document about Edwin Walker on the Mary Ferrell site, only to see revealed that this document was merely Walker's resignation letter of November 1961. In that resignation letter, however, Edwin Walker revealed many things, including: (1) his intense hatred for JFK; (2) his JBS conviction that JFK was a Communist; and (3) his desire to enter politics. Walker also revealed that he was hot-headed enough to reject his US Army pension that he had built up over 30 years (even though he would later plead with the US Army to have it back). That's what happens when a US General resigns his post. It's not the same as retirement. Although most documents about Ex-General Walker will describe him as "retired", that is merely being polite about it, in deference to his high post in the US Army. In fact, Walker was not "retired" nor was he asked politely to step down, but he aggressively "resigned" which means that he lost his US Army pension by doing so. Walker was the only US General in the 20th century to make that hot-headed move. So, Walker revealed many things about himself in his resignation letter to the JFK Administration, which he referred to as "little men." Walker tried to compare himself with General MacArthur (who graduated from West Point at the top of his class, while Walker himself graduated West Point near the bottom of his class). Walker also revealed in that resignation letter that he was very much a follower of the John Birch Society (JBS), which arose after Joseph McCarthy died, and took his place to accuse US officers in Washington DC of being Communists. Going further than McCarthyism, however, the JBS openly and boldly accused FDR, Truman and Eisenhower of being Communists themselves. When Walker joined the JBS in 1959, while serving as a Major General overseeing Little Rock high school in Arkansas, he learned this crypto-treasonous doctrine, and actually resigned from the US Army in October, 1959 -- however Eisenhower refused to accept his resignation. Yet the very first month that Walker landed in Augsburg, Germany to command 10,000 troops there, defending the Berlin Wall, he also began his so-called "Pro-Blue" training program, which included a stiff dose of JBS doctrines directed to the troops -- he had the nerve to teach his troops that sitting US Presidents were Communists taking orders from Moscow -- the ENEMY! Then, Walker defended himself on grounds of Freedom of Speech and "truth dictated by conscience". Yet the US Army has strict rules about Officers in Politics, and the US Army itself (with the approval of JFK) demoted Walker from his command in Germany. He was an embarrassment to the US Military -- not in his heroism in WW2, or in Korea, but in his command in Augsburg, Germany in 1960-1961. Walker does not admit all these details in his resignation letter -- he simply implies that the JFK Administration acted in favor of the Communists in getting him dismissed, because he and all Communists were afraid of the JBS message. From one viewpoint, Walker was already showing some paranoia. His paranoia showed more clearly in his Senate Subcommittee testimony in March, 1962, when he read his resignation letter into the record, as well as two other speeches, and tried to explain why the US Army newspaper which tattled on him, the Overseas Weekly, was "subsersive." (I would note here the theory of Sigmund Freud about homosexuals who live in the closet too long -- they can easily become paranoid; afraid that people are trying to guess their secret, and so are "out to get them." It is significant in this context that Walker never married or had a girlfriend, and that late in life he was arrested twice for lewd, homosexual acts in public.) So, IMHO, Walker also reveals his paranoia in his resignation letter. Why do I bother go mention this? Harry Dean never mentions this. Yet for me, this goes to the heart of the matter -- Walker was just off-balance enough, although still functioning well enough, to carry off a paranoid scheme like the JFK assassination. (That is my opinion, and it will be interesting to see how history finally deals with my opinion.) Walker refuses to admit that JFK is even an American; he says of the JFK White House, "They are not America!" And he blames them for losing his command in Germany. Ex-General Edwin Walker's resignation letter is a clear example of right-wing extremism when it accuses US schools, universities and the entertainment industry of supporting Communism. And like the Tea Parties of today, Walker also accused the Free Press of being part of this vast left-wing conspiracy. Walker's obvious support of the JBS shows in this letter when he stated that "30 years ago" the Communists invaded the US government. That was the time of the election of FDR to the White House, and the JBS has always claimed that FDR was the first Communist in the White House. Walker wanted nothing more than to indoctrinate all US soldiers into the JBS web of lies -- because then a right-wing revolution to overtake the White House would have been inevitable. How could it be otherwise? If the President is the Communist Enemy, common sense dictates that a violent revolution is necessary to maintain the Constitution! This was not rhetoric with Ex-General Walker -- he truly believed this in every fiber of his being. That is why Walker ended his 1961 resignation letter as he did, saying, "My objective henceforth will be to try to do as a civilian what it is no longer possible for me to do wearing the uniform." WALKER DECIDED TO ENTER POLITICS. And his main target would be JFK. Walker's concluding words: "War has been declared. Every man is a soldier," in my reading, flies directly in the face of JFK. Who declared war by dismissing Walker from his command in Germany? JFK! So, JFK declared war on Walker, and now Walker would seek to dismiss JFK from his command. This is only the start. Matters become more interesting when Walker runs for the office of Governor of Texas in early 1962. He loses in May, 1962. Yet matters really become interesting when Ex-General Edwin Walker leads a massive race riot at Ole Miss University on 29 September 1962, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. And then the drama unfolds even more from that point forward. All JBS readers were aware of these events -- even Harry Dean himself. But the JBS didn't interpret these events the way normative Americans interpret them today. Best regards,--Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited February 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Thank God in heaven that Ernie Lazar is finally leaving this thread. I, for one, have had quite enough of his incessant insults combined with his online whining. (Ernie should learn that people who live in tin houses shouldn't throw can openers.) Anyway, getting back to the 63 FBI serials that NARA is now offering for sale for $200, I'm willing to pony up 20% of the cost, so that others on this thread may also contribute, if they wish. Following up my previous scrutiny of the NARA index, we see that four FBI serials are from 7/1962 thru 9/1962. I wonder what those are about. Also, there is one FBI serial from 4/1963 - this was the month that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill Ex-General Walker at his home in Dallas. Also, there are four FBI serials from 11/22/1963 through 12/10/1963, the period of the JFK assassination and its immediate aftermath. I wonder what those FBI serials say about Harry Dean. Also, there are fourteen FBI serials in 1964, bunched mainly at the beginning (1/1964 thru 3/1964). These are probably related to the Warren Commission's first months of operation -- but what do they say? Another bunch of FBI serials from 1964 is concentrated around December, the month that Harry Dean decided to go public with his story on the Joe Pyne Show. It will be interesting to see those serials. But there were more FBI serials in 1965 than at any other time -- twenty-one of them, from 3/1965 to 10/1965. What is going on here? I think we all want to see these. I think all this FBI activity about Harry Dean -- 55 FBI serials from 1962 through 1965 -- is hard evidence that the FBI never considered Harry Dean to be just another gadfly who went around claiming he was an FBI agent just to "inflate his credentials", as Ernie likes to portray it (post #545). That's a lot of interest in a five year period. The bulk of that FBI interest is also bunched around the period of the JFK assassination and the Warren Report. I simply must see what's contained in those FBI serials! Why was the FBI so interested in Harry Dean? WHY?!? Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> On NUMEROUS occasions during our exchanges in this thread I have told Paul that he SHOULD NOT accept my word for something. Instead, I challenged Paul to contact ANY reputable historian or political scientist of his choice (but ideally, someone familiar with FBI history and practices) -- so that Paul could send his "theories" or assertions to them for THEIR analysis and evaluation. For obvious reasons, Paul has never accepted my repeated challenges. For obvious reasons, your eBook contains no references to ANY historian or political scientist whom you contacted about ANYTHING! The reason why nobody buys your eBook, and the reason why no historian or political scientist mentions Harry in their books or articles (except, perhaps, to dismiss his story) is because Paul does not subscribe to any known principles of logic or definition or interpretation of what constitutes "evidence". INSTEAD, Paul invents his own unique criteria for what constitutes "evidence" or "proof" or "facts" which basically are self-sealing tautological arguments which are designed to preclude anybody from falsifying anything Paul asserts. By definition, a tautological argument is "a series of statements that form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed." That, in a nutshell, is Paul's entire approach to "evidence". I have another challenge for Paul: Send a copy of your eBook to a minimum of 10 historians and political scientists and ask them to give you a numerical score (from zero to 100) to reflect their judgment of its probative value. ZERO = utterly worthless 100 = hugely important and very significant --- and something which should inform all subsequent research and discussion Then let us know the result. With respect to this new absurdity by you: "I think all this FBI activity about Harry Dean -- 55 FBI serials from 1962 through 1965 -- is hard evidence that the FBI never considered Harry Dean to be just another gadfly who went around claiming he was an FBI agent just to "inflate his credentials", as Ernie likes to portray it (post #545)." Once again, you reveal not only your extraordinary ignorance but also your inability to process already available factual data. There is absolutely NO significance of any kind whatsoever to 55 serials from 1962 through 1965. It certainly does NOT (as Paul claims) represent "hard evidence" of anything which Paul alleges. You can discover what most of those 55 serials are about simply by reviewing the HQ main file on Harry because many of those Los Angeles serials are contained in the HQ file inventory. For example, go back to my message where I posted the inventory of Harry's HQ main file (HQ 62-109068 -- which incorporated documents from HQ 62-109217). 16 of the items listed are HQ contacts with Los Angeles and/or field replies to HQ. In the period between December 1964 and October 1965 (for example) there were at least 3 serials which were Los Angeles inquiries or reports to HQ regarding Harry's proposed appearance on the Joe Pyne Show AND then there are another 7 serials from Los Angeles to HQ which dealt with the proposed article by Bill Capps which was to be published in the Valley Journal newspaper. So just those TWO subjects alone comprise at least 10 of the 55 serials (i.e. 20%). PLUS: there are "unrecorded" serials (no date shown but the NARA accession numbers make it obvious that these items are in the same time period which Paul references) and those unrecorded serials include memos and letters and teletypes to/from Los Angeles which pertain to Harry's publicity-seeking efforts. As one example, in one serial HQ instructed Los Angeles field to secure copies of newspaper articles published in their territory about Harry and forward them to HQ. PLUS: there are HQ serials which respond to inquiries from the Memphis and Dallas FBI field offices. What is currently missing are the original Dallas and Memphis inquiries to HQ (and perhaps to Los Angeles or Chicago). If you total up everything just mentioned, there are at least 20 serials (40% of the entire Los Angeles file) which are inquiries from HQ or from other FBI field offices and then the replies to those inquiries by HQ or by Los Angeles or by Chicago. So Paul's absurdity about "all this activity" is simply multiple serials from HQ to Los Angeles or from Chicago to HQ or from Los Angeles to HQ or to Chicago summarizing for each other what their files showed about Harry Dean. And in EVERY instance, without exception, every field office categorically declared that Harry was NOT an FBI informant or confidential source for their office and the serials also mention that Harry had been repeatedly contacted by FBI Agents to ask him to stop claiming he was an "undercover agent" for the FBI. The other "activity" in the Los Angeles file concerns other related subjects -- such as incoming correspondence from other journalists or publishers or items described as "third party" contacts regarding Harry -- such as, for example, police departments who supplied arrest/conviction information about Harry AND a 10/22/65 Los Angeles to HQ memo regarding someone by the name of Ray William Gardner (Pasadena CA) who claims he was employed in the public relations field and he supposedly had been approached by Harry for help in writing and publishing a book of articles dealing with Harry's activities. This same serial refers to a 10/19/65 FBI contact with Pat McGuiness of ABC News in Los Angeles who advised that his wife (a reporter for the San Gabriel section of the L.A. Times) had interviewed Gardner. It is these sorts of secondary (but routine) matters which often result in numerous "cross reference" serials being filed into some person's HQ or field office "main file" (such as Harry's) -- but ignorant fools like Paul Trejo subsequently interpret all this as being important or suspicious "activity" which needs to be investigated to expose the supposed mystery of "what's going on here" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts