Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

Pat, in case you wish to know what sentences Harry Dean would approve, I propose something like the following:

--------------------------- BEGIN PROPOSED SPARTACUS ENTRY ON THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY ------------------------

In 1965 Harry J. Dean went on The Joe Pyne Show (Los Angeles, KTTV) to make public the reports that he shared with the FBI before and after the JFK assassination about a plot that apparently originated within the Southern California John Birch Society.

JBS members Ex-General Edwin Walker, Congressman John Rousselot, war-hero Gabby Gabaldon, and militant mercenaries Loran Hall and Larry Howard included Harry Dean in their September 1963 plot to assassinate JFK, and to blame Lee Harvey Oswald for the killing. In that Joe Pyne program, Harry Dean told Marguerite Oswald that he believed her son was innocent of killing JFK. Harry Dean still sticks to that story today, despite continual opposition.

In 1975 W.R. Morris took Harry's story and made a fiction of it, pretending Harry was an FBI and a CIA undercover agent, and introducing the figure of Eladio del Valle. This fiction (The Men Behind the Guns, 1975) is still circulated widely as the Harry Dean story, although it remains pure fiction.

--------------------------- END PROPOSED SPARTACUS ENTRY ON THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY ------------------------

Harry: What do you think? Is this version worded fairly well in your opinion?

I note here, Pat, that the reason Harry waited until 1965 (or rather, December, 1964) to go public with this information, is that he still had faith in the Warren Commission -- that they would conclude with the truth about Ex-General Walker and his plotting.

When the Warren Report came out in late 1964, and failed in their mission, but instead chose to blame Lee Harvey Oswald, and him alone, for the slaying of JFK, Harry decided he had to tell the world the truth all by himself. That's what Harry's been doing ever since, despite violent opposition of the sort we see on this very thread.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Nobody cares about what W.R. Morris wrote or said.

The only pertinent evidence is

(1) contained in FBI files which can help us determine if Harry's statements about his alleged relationship with the FBI are accurate and truthful and

(2) Harry's answers to (or his refusal to answer) questions which would help us separate fact from fiction in Harry's narrative about FPCC, JBS, MM, etc.

The FBI answered inquiries about Harry's status when they received questions from journalists and TV programs. The FBI did not "warn" Harry to not appear on the Joe Pyne Show and Paul has no evidence of any kind to support such a claim --- which is why he never produces any. Instead, as is Paul's custom, he thinks making an accusation is the same thing as proving it.

(1) You say, Ernie, that nobody cares what W.R. Morris wrote or said, but that's simply incorrect. In fact, W.R. Morris first invented the fiction that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent, and it is this very fiction that is part of the very FBI record that you keep citing -- and promoting as Truth.

No, Paul, you are again mistaken. I am not relying upon anything which Morris said or wrote. I am relying upon what HARRY said during an interview. So unless your position is that Harry is NOT responsible for his own words, then I do not understand your comment.

In fact, if anybody goes to NARA today, and does a search for Harry Dean, what do you know -- the fiction by W.R. Morris is among the records that come up first! So, the fictional account about Harry Dean is still promoted from within NARA -- the US Government -- itself!

My point, which you totally ignore, is that for purposes of our discussion, I am NOT relying upon ANYTHING written or said by Morris. During our entire debate, I have quoted what HARRY wrote or said. So please stop your straw-man arguments.

(2.1) You say, Ernie, that "the only pertintent evidence is contained in FBI files" about Harry. Yet those same FBI files have already shown this bias that conforms to the fiction of W.R. Morris. It would seem that not only NARA, but the FBI itself has been thoroughly misled by W.R. Morris.

As usual, you do not quote anything to illustrate what you mean so I cannot respond appropriately except to point out that the data in FBI files pertains to Harry's background and activities not Morris's. For example, we have discussed Harry's rap sheet (not Morris's), Harry's letters to JFK and Hoover (not Morris's), Harry's comments regarding his supposed membership in the JBS, MM, FPCC, etc. , (not Morris's), Harry's contacts with the Joe Pyne Program (not Morris's), Harry's publicity-seeking activities and interviews with southern California newspapers (not Morris's), Harry's answers to questions posed here in EF (not Morris's). So stop using Morris as your all purpose boogeyman as an intellectual escape hatch.

In the absence of further information, this is the only explanation that matches all available data.

And if that turns out to be the case (which still remains to be seen) then your faith in the FBI, Ernie, on the topic of Harry Dean, is really a dependence upon W.R. Morris -- and in that case you are really believing in W.R. Morris and all his fiction without even realizing it.

I am not relying upon Morris for ANYTHING. That is entirely a FICTION of yours.

Yet you say that "nobody cares what W.R. Morris wrote or said."

In fact, because neither you nor the FBI has -- after hundreds of documents, shown conclusively that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent -- in his own writing -- then I can justly argue that everybody cares what W.R. Morris wrote or said, because W.R. Morris apparently has the last word on Harry Dean to this very day.

You are focusing all your attention upon one single comment I made in answer to one specific statement YOU made and you are blowing up that ONE comment as though it represents your ENTIRE argument. Do you even know the definition of "agent"? I think not. So here it is:

a person who acts on behalf of another; a person who tries to get secret information about another country,

There is nothing in that definition which contradicts Harry's description of himself. Why don't you focus upon the most important evidence instead of attempting to divert attention into secondary matters? Nobody cares what Morris wrote or said. We care about what Harry has written and said -- including during numerous interviews (TV and newspapers).

(2.2) You say, Ernie, that Harry's answers to your questions about the FPCC, JBS, MM, and so on would be pertinent -- and surely they would be -- but somehow this doesn't inspire you to ask him kindly and courteously Instead, your tone has been accusatory -- and everybody who has been reading your posts for the past several months here has seen few exceptions to this.

"Accusatory"? Even if that is true, that seems like even more reason to set the record straight!

I am willing to be corrected if anything I say or write is mistaken. But I don't refuse to answer questions or assertions when posed to me by interested parties.

On one occasion, I exchanged over 100 emails with someone to respond to his vicious, disgusting (and threatening) questions and comments (he was a neo-nazi in Britain who objected to my report on Eustace Mullins). I read numerous emails from him in which he expressed his hope that I would be "hung from a lamp post" and that I might find my "rightful" place in a gas oven.

I have received emails from JBS-admirers and participated in lengthy debates with JBS members whom have accused me of being a "traitor", "a Communist disinformation agent" and "worse than Al Qaeda".

All this is something that comes with the territory when you become involved in public debates or when you write and publish anything which is intended to inform public perceptions and influence their conclusions.

The REAL problem here, Paul, is that neither you or Harry are prepared for rigorous examination of what you say and write. Your experience here in EF has been entirely with fawning people who AGREE with Harry. Harry has never once been asked a probing question. All the questions posed are softballs, based upon the assumption that Harry is telling the truth. Nobody has EVER contradicted anything Harry has said or written.

For your information, THAT is NOT how historical research proceeds -- particularly when there are MAJOR disputes. If you REALLY want to see how debates proceed, go back to old issues of the New York Review of Books and read the amazing debates that were conducted about (for example), Sen. Joe McCarthy, the Vietnam War, Alger Hiss or "communists" in government. Numerous very famous and highly respected award-winning scholars (with doctoral degrees) went after each other hammer and tong!

So, Paul, GROW UP. Stop making excuses! If Harry cannot or will not answer important questions -- then stop pretending that he welcomes scrutiny of his story.

Incidentally, the FACT that neither you or Harry has ever made ANY effort to obtain his CIA or FBI files -- does not give any serious person confidence that you have ANY genuine interest in discovering anything. AT A MINIMUM, Harry should have sent the FBI an FOIA request asking that they provide him with a list of ALL field office and HQ file numbers which were opened on him! In addition, he should have asked for an estimate of the number of serials and number of pages in each file and the file's disposition (i.e. still available, destroyed, transferred to NARA, combined with another file, etc.). THAT ALONE would have gone a LONG way to understanding something about Harry's assertions.

The plain fact is that Harry Dean doesn't like your tone. No reasonable person wants to be grilled and accused. So, that's why Harry doesn't rush to answer your questions. Surely you must see that.

Well, being grilled is precisely what happens when serious researchers take interest in any disputed subject matter -- especially when there is very little (or no) documentary evidence available OR when no other living person is available to corroborate statements being made.

I note for the record, that Harry never responded to my original 2010 message which was not particularly "accusatory". All I did is summarize what I knew from all of my research and then I stated a conclusion which was, yes, critical of Harry. But if you or Harry want ONLY friends and admirers to participate in a debate, then Harry and yourself should candidly admit that from the outset.

(3) You say, Ernie, that the FBI did not "warn" Harry to not appear on the Joe Pyne Show. Yet you have no evidence to support your claim. None at all. Harry Dean was there. Harry Dean says that the FBI did warn him.

The burden of proof is upon YOU and HARRY - not me. Any fiction writer can invent a story.

We are now using YOUR newly stated criterion for what constitutes "facts" and "proof". According to you, there MUST be verifiable documentary evidence, i.e. something "written by" the FBI that substantiates your "allegation".

If an FBI employee were to participate in an interview and a transcript of his comments indicates that the FBI employee states that the FBI warned Harry, then that transcript is ALSO not acceptable. Instead, we MUST have a contemporaneous WRITTEN document which PROVES the FBI animus against Harry and that they were so obsessed with Harry and hostile toward him that they warned Harry not to appear on the Pyne program!

As you have previously stated, you WILL NOT ACCEPT any mere assertion....It must be PROVEN by quoting a comment written by the originating party.

You keep referring to what HARRY says. But you cannot prove something by citing ONLY the person whose testimony or recollections are being disputed or are being scrutinized! Don't you understand that basic principle of logic and evidence? Are you really that obtuse??? Have you learned NOTHING from the "FBI forgery" episode?

But although you have no evidence, you still insist that the FBI didn't warn him. That is tantamount to calling Harry Dean a xxxx, Ernie, and you know it.

No, Paul, here again we see your incredible bias and total unfamiliarity with standard procedures or principles involved with historical research.

There are MANY possible explanations for what could have transpired. As is your custom, you proceed from A to Z and skip B thru Y.

You ALWAYS attempt to limit our options to "either/or" choices.

This is why nobody can trust ANYTHING you write or say - because you seem incapable of understanding rudimentary principles of logic, evidence, and argument. I suggest you review this summary of logical fallacies because your comments in this website are FILLED with such fallacies:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

I will try this ONE LAST TIME to explain this in plain English --- not so much for you (because you do not seem capable of understanding this) but for anybody following this discussion.

1. WHAT IS "EVIDENCE"?

Evidence consists of the available body of facts or information which must be considered in order to determine whether or not a belief or proposition may be true or valid. Not all evidence is equally important or equally valid or has the same significance -- which is why all evidence must be carefully examined, analyzed, and interpreted.

2. WHAT ARE "RULES OF EVIDENCE"?

Rules of evidence govern when, how, and for what purpose data can be used to prove an assertion.

Such rules pertain to such matters as witnesses, authenticating documents, physical evidence, expert testimony, and relevance of whatever is being presented.

In short, these rules govern the amount, quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in a debate or argument and what types of information should be considered before reaching a decision.

3. WHAT RULES APPLY TO PERSONS MAKING ACCUSATIONS?

The burden of proof always falls upon the individual making the accusation. He or she must provide compelling verifiable factual evidence in support of whatever claim is being made. This is particularly true when highly pejorative comments are being made.

4. HOW DOES ALL THIS APPLY TO THE DISPUTE REGARDING THE FBI ALLEGEDLY "WARNING HARRY"?

(1) As the accuser, Harry MUST provide substantiation for his claim.

(2) If Harry cannot provide such substantiation, then what he asserts can never be considered "fact-based" or "proof". Instead, it is merely an unsupported allegation.. BY DEFINITION, an "unsupported allegation" means that whatever assertion is being made, it is not being supported by evidence or facts.

(3) If there is no factual evidence to support the allegation (in this case, documentary evidence in FBI files), then there is no reason to believe the initial allegation UNLESS AND UNTIL subsequent FACTUAL evidence can be found.

ADDENDUM

5. IF NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE CAN BE FOUND TO SUPPORT THE INITIAL ALLEGATION, DOES THAT MEAN THE ACCUSER IS "A xxxx"?

Of course not!

There can be many different reasons (depending upon the specific factors involved in whatever is being disputed) to explain why somebody has presented an allegation which cannot be substantiated.

For example:

As previously stated, "eyewitness" testimony is always recognized as the most unreliable type of testimony because everyone who is a participant or witness in any event can (and usually does) have different recollections (which fade over time or which are colored by personal factors such as stress, bias, ambiguity, incompleteness, etc.)

Witnesses also subjectively interpret comments or events or behavior by giving different emphasis to whatever they see or hear.

For example: to one witness, a comment or behavior may seem to be trivial and insignificant whereas the exact same comment or behavior may be interpreted by another witness as hostile, threatening, or offensive. [if you doubt me, then review the Trayvon Martin murder transcript].

HOWEVER: It is also true that some witnesses do lie, or they grossly exaggerate, or they color their answers to questions to present themselves in the most favorable light. This is why researchers must analyze and interpret evidence -- and then decide what significance and weight and credence to give to whatever is being stated or alleged.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My replies appear underneath your comments.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

(1) You say, Ernie, that nobody cares what W.R. Morris wrote or said, but that's simply incorrect. In fact, W.R. Morris first invented the fiction that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent, and it is this very fiction that is part of the very FBI record that you keep citing -- and promoting as Truth.

No, Paul, you are again mistaken. I am not relying upon anything which Morris said or wrote. I am relying upon what HARRY said during an interview. So unless your position is that Harry is NOT responsible for his own words, then I do not understand your comment.

In fact, if anybody goes to NARA today, and does a search for Harry Dean, what do you know -- the fiction by W.R. Morris is among the records that come up first! So, the fictional account about Harry Dean is still promoted from within NARA -- the US Government -- itself!

My point, which you totally ignore, is that for purposes of our discussion, I am NOT relying upon ANYTHING written or said by Morris. During our entire debate, I have quoted what HARRY wrote or said. So please stop your straw-man arguments.

<snip>

Your contradiction, Ernie, is that you now say you're relying on what Harry said during an interview -- but that Interview (The Tommorow Show with Tom Snyder of 8 April 1975 was actually arranged by W.R. Morris. W.R. Morris was also present during the interview, and in fact sat right next to Harry Dean during the interview.

So, once again, you don't even know what you're talking about. The entire interview was coordinated and evidently manipulated by W.R. Morris. And you bought this farce, hook, line and sinker.

Also, you claim that Harry "said" that he was an FBI agent in that Interview. You know that's inaccurate; but that doesn't slow you down.

What you refer to so callously was actually Tom Snyder's question about a statement inside W.R. Morris' book, The Men Behind the Guns (1975) in which W.R. Morris claimed that Harry Dean was a CIA agent and an FBI agent who had inside information.

In that Interview -- if you bothered to read it (which you probably didn't) Harry made it clear that he was NOT an FBI agent.

However, there was one question which Tom Snyder asked -- and he asked it quickly and softly, and Harry Dean only heard the last clause of it. What Harry Dean heard was something like -- "did you report that the John Birch Society was involved in a plot to kill JFK?"

To which Harry answered, "Yes."

The first part of the question was muffled, but it turns out to be closer to this: "Were you an agent of the FBI and did you report that the John Birch Society was involved in a plot to kill JFK?"

First of all, Harry didn't hear the question fully. Secondly, there was intense pressure from a live TV program. Thirdly, the FBI warned Harry against appearing on the Tomorrow Show, adding to the pressure. Finally, the word "agent" can be ambiguous, and unclear in a given context.

So, when Harry answered "yes" to the second part of that question, it was unclear to him at the time that he was playing into the hands of W.R. Morris - who was sitting right next to him.

That's the truth. What you continue to promote -- even though you deny it -- is the fiction promoted by W.R. Morris. EVEN THOUGH YOU DENY IT.

Finally -- you have NEVER, EVER quoted that Harry Dean wrote or said the words, "I was an FBI agent." NEVER. EVER. So don't lie about it.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Pat, it's important to know a key fact here: although Harry Dean and W.R. Morris collaborated for a brief period in 1975, surrounding the preparation and airing of the Tomorrow Show, Harry sharply broke his relationship with W.R. Morris.

W.R. Morris, however, went around the USA for years lying about Harry Dean, and claiming that he spoke for Harry Dean.

W.R. Morris even hired an actor to pretend to be Harry Dean, to spew his lies wider and wider.

There was nothing that Harry Dean could afford to do about this. All Harry could do, eventually, was to write his own manuscript (Crosstrails) and publish it himself -- one copy at a time. Harry also attempted to send free copies to every person he named in the JFK conspiracy, to warn them that he was coming out and naming names.

It seems, however, that W.R. Morris won the day. Even as I write, the W.R. Morris version of the Harry Dean story still appears on the Spartacus web page about the John BIrch Society.

Here is the web page.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm

The false information about Harry Dean is posted in the section for 1975. Please seek to have this changed this ASAP.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Below I present just a few of the questions which Paul is never willing to address – so, instead, he creates straw-man arguments to divert us from the critically important subjects which should occupy our attention.

Although Paul does not like to acknowledge this, historical research often requires ANALYSIS of both direct and indirect internal evidence in order to discover truth OR, at a minimum, to discover clues which should be pursued. Although Paul does not seem to be equipped to recognize when such clues exist, I offer some examples below.

It should also be acknowledged that an interested student or researcher cannot be expected to recognize “clues” UNLESS that person is familiar with standard practices and procedures of whatever entities are being scrutinized (whether government agencies, corporations, labor unions, businesses, non-profit organizations ro charities, etc).

So….let’s begin…….

1. Harry states that he moved his family from Chicago to California by car starting on June 28, 1961. Then, according to Harry: “Not long after we arrived in Los Angeles, Wesley Grapp of the local FBI contacted me out of the blue” and Grapp asked for Harry’s help with finding some information on an FPCC member who had also moved to California in 1961. (Harry does not explain why the FBI thought Harry would know where this FPCC member might be or how Harry could get info about him. Nor does Harry explain how Grapp was able to so quickly discover where Harry was living.)

Anyway, Harry thought about Grapp’s proposal and then he agreed to assist Grapp.

HOWEVER, the first serial in Harry’s Los Angeles file is dated July 18, 1962. So the obvious first question is: why would Harry’s Los Angeles field file only be opened in mid-July 1962, if, as Harry claims, he was contacted by Grapp and Harry agreed to help Grapp a year earlier?

2. Serial #1 in Harry’s HQ main file (62-109068) is dated 11/22/63. It is a memo from Hoover to the SAC Chicago regarding the recent letter which Hoover received from Harry (from La Puente CA) dated 11/19/63.

Hoover told Chicago that, “Bufiles contain no information indicating that this correspondent was considered an informant or a potential informant by your office.” Then Hoover instructed Chicago to provide both HQ and Los Angeles field with a summary of any information Chicago had regarding Dean.

So, the obvious questions here are:

How do we explain why FBI HQ had no copies of Harry’s alleged 1961 informant reports from Los Angeles field (presumably to Grapp) with respect to that FPCC member OR any other subject?

AND

How do we explain that the FIRST serial in Harry’s HQ main file indicates that his file was opened in November 1963?

3. Serial #2 in Harry’s main HQ file is dated 11/26/63.

This is Chicago field’s reply to Hoover’s 11/22/63 memo to Chicago. Chicago advised HQ about Harry’s August 1960 telephone call (when he did not identify himself) and a subsequent phone call in December 1960. Chicago also advised HQ about the information which they received from FBI-Indianapolis that reported Harry’s background as provided by the Whiting IN Police Department.

Chicago then advised HQ that on 6/7/61, two Chicago Special Agents told Harry “that this office did not desire his assistance”. Lastly, Chicago told HQ that all of this information was provided to Los Angeles field on September 19, 1962.

So the next obvious question is why would FBI-Chicago have sent its first summary memo on Harry to Los Angeles in September 1962?

If, as Harry claims, he was approached by Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1961, then standard FBI field office procedure would require Los Angeles to contact Chicago field and/or HQ to get a summary memorandum from them about the person who claimed to have been an FBI informant in Chicago.

4. Readers may recall that I have previously pointed out that Harry’s HQ main file (62-109068) incorporated documents which originally were serialized and placed in HQ main file 62-109217 on Harry. Readers may also recall that I previously pointed out that one reason why multiple main files would be opened was to capture data about specific subjects. HQ main file 62-109217 was opened to archive information pertaining to Harry’s claims about his trip to Cuba.

5. Serial #1 of HQ 62-109217 is a 2/19/64 memo from Hoover to SAC Los Angeles which responds to a Los Angeles communication to HQ dated 1/28/64 and a previous Los Angeles memo to HQ dated 12/10/63.

In his memo to Los Angeles, Hoover instructs them to expeditiously provide a summary memorandum “setting forth background of subject [Harry Dean] together with results of interview concerning his trip to Cuba and his admitted membership and activities in the July 26^th Movement and the Fair Play For Cuba Committee.”

At this point, Hoover tells Los Angeles that it is unable to identify Frank Vega (whom Harry had mentioned to Los Angeles Agents) and Hoover instructs Los Angeles to prepare a separate memo to advise HQ what Dean knows about Vega, and the “reason Dean believes Vega to have been with Cuban G-2 and period Vega was reported to be in New York City.”

Serial #2 of HQ 62-109217 is the 3/6/64 Los Angeles response to Hoover’s 2/19/64 instructions. Los Angeles told HQ that it was using “concealed sources” for information contained in their memo which pertains to FPCC and to Edgar Swabeck. According to Los Angeles, all of this information (about FPCC and about Edgar Swabeck) originally came from reports made by the following FBI Special Agents: John N. Morgan in Chicago dated 7/26/61 and Lee R. Inman in Los Angeles dated 7/26/62.

The obvious questions which arise from these two memos are as follows:

(1) Why is it that the first serial in HQ file 62-109217 indicates that this file was opened in February 1964 if, as Harry asserts, he was providing information to the Los Angeles-FBI (Grapp) about an FPCC member starting in the summer of 1961?

(2) Why is it, that in February 1964, FBI HQ still does not recognize who Harry Dean is and HQ has to instruct Los Angeles to interview Harry and then provide a report concerning Dean’s story?

(3) Why is it that HQ does not recognize Frank Vega, given Harry’s assertions about how he allegedly told the FBI and CIA (in Chicago) everything that transpired during Harry’s June 1960 trip to Cuba?

(4) Why is it that the primary case agent in Chicago in 1961 who was assigned to prepare reports on FPCC (John Morgan) is NOT an FBI Agent whose name Harry has previously cited as his case agent?

6. What I find particularly interesting, is that when FBI-Los Angeles contacted Harry in 1964, Harry gave them 16 items (mostly correspondence between Harry and Dr. Juan Orta, along with various documents related to the FPCC chapter in Chicago such as letters announcing date and location of FPCC meetings, copies of receipts showing Harry’s dues payments, etc. along with pages from Harry’s J26M membership book and correspondence to Harry about meetings of J26M.)

The reason I find this interesting is because FBI-Los Angeles seemed to think that none of this information had ever previously been given to the FBI in Chicago because Los Angeles forwarded copies of everything to Chicago.

[Ernie Lazar]

(1) You say, Ernie, that nobody cares what W.R. Morris wrote or said, but that's simply incorrect. In fact, W.R. Morris first invented the fiction that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent, and it is this very fiction that is part of the very FBI record that you keep citing -- and promoting as Truth.

No, Paul, you are again mistaken. I am not relying upon anything which Morris said or wrote. I am relying upon what HARRY said during an interview. So unless your position is that Harry is NOT responsible for his own words, then I do not understand your comment.

In fact, if anybody goes to NARA today, and does a search for Harry Dean, what do you know -- the fiction by W.R. Morris is among the records that come up first! So, the fictional account about Harry Dean is still promoted from within NARA -- the US Government -- itself!

My point, which you totally ignore, is that for purposes of our discussion, I am NOT relying upon ANYTHING written or said by Morris. During our entire debate, I have quoted what HARRY wrote or said. So please stop your straw-man arguments.

<snip>

Your contradiction, Ernie, is that you now say you're relying on what Harry said during an interview -- but that Interview (The Tommorow Show with Tom Snyder of 8 April 1975 was actually arranged by W.R. Morris. W.R. Morris was also present during the interview, and in fact sat right next to Harry Dean during the interview. So, once again, you don't even know what you're talking about. The entire interview was coordinated and evidently manipulated by W.R. Morris. And you bought this farce, hook, line and sinker.

You totally lost me Paul.

What difference does it make if Harry's interview was "arranged by" Morris or by the man on the moon? The only relevant point is Harry was asked numerous questions by Snyder and HARRY (not Morris) answered those questions.

Then you claim (aka INVENT) something NOT IN EVIDENCE, i.e. that "the entire interview was coordinated and evidently manipulated by W.R. Morris".

What does "evidently manipulated" mean? How did you determine that? This is YOUR TYPICAL PLOY. You make insinuations without presenting ANY factual evidence to support your nasty insinuations.

The interview transcript consists of 16 pages of text.

The total number of comments or questions made by Snyder: 85

The total number of replies/comments made by HARRY: 68

The total number of replies/comment made by MORRIS: 26

MOST of Morris's replies/comments are comments about the Birch Society, about LHO, and about the book Morris was promoting.

If anything, from the available evidence, you could say HARRY DEAN coordinated and evidently manipulated the entire interview because it is HARRY'S replies and comments which consume virtually the entire space devoted to the interview text (outside of Snyder's questions and comments)!

Also, you claim that Harry "said" that he was an FBI agent in that Interview. You know that's inaccurate; but that doesn't slow you down.

He agreed with the question posed. In law and morality, the applicable principle is that silence gives consent and that is usually accompanied by the principle that "ubi loqui debuit ac potuit", that is, "when he ought to have spoken and was able to" And it was not just that one question and reply. It was the subsequent question where Harry accepted the predicate that he was "an employee" of the federal government"

What you refer to so callously was actually Tom Snyder's question about a statement inside W.R. Morris' book, The Men Behind the Guns (1975) in which W.R. Morris claimed that Harry Dean was a CIA agent and an FBI agent who had inside information.

WRONG---ANOTHER TOTAL FABRICATION BY YOU.

Here is the entire context -- so STOP misrepresenting it. There was no "statement inside Morris's book" being discussed. Instead, Snyder directed ALL his questions to Harry to discover what HARRY'S POSITION was.

1. Snyder started by asking Harry (not Morris):

"Your allegation is that the JBS was involved in the killing of JFK?"

HARRY: That's right. Yes.

2. Snyder: "And how was it involved? It collected money?"

HARRY: "It was representative of many people in many facets of life that were patriotic and financially able to take care of it. For example, they used it to promote the anti-communist, anti_Castro movement, You see, that was only a front against Mr. Kennedy"

3. Snyder: "You were an agent of the FBI infiltrating into the John Birch Society, and there, you learned of the plans to assassinate JFK?"

HARRY: That's right.

In that Interview -- if you bothered to read it (which you probably didn't) Harry made it clear that he was NOT an FBI agent.

See comments above - which falsify your premise.

However, there was one question which Tom Snyder asked -- and he asked it quickly and softly, and Harry Dean only heard the last clause of it. What Harry Dean heard was something like -- "did you report that the John Birch Society was involved in a plot to kill JFK?"

To which Harry answered, "Yes."

The first part of the question was muffled, but it turns out to be closer to this: "Were you an agent of the FBI and did you report that the John Birch Society was involved in a plot to kill JFK?"

First of all, Harry didn't hear the question fully. Secondly, there was intense pressure from a live TV program. Thirdly, the FBI warned Harry against appearing on the Tomorrow Show, adding to the pressure. Finally, the word "agent" can be ambiguous, and unclear in a given context.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support your fictions.

So, when Harry answered "yes" to the second part of that question, it was unclear to him at the time that he was playing into the hands of W.R. Morris - who was sitting right next to him.

That's the truth. What you continue to promote -- even though you deny it -- is the fiction promoted by W.R. Morris. EVEN THOUGH YOU DENY IT.

Finally -- you have NEVER, EVER quoted that Harry Dean wrote or said the words, "I was an FBI agent." NEVER. EVER. So don't lie about it.

You still don't understand Paul. There are many different ways to use language to convey a particular point.

There are direct statements.

There are indirect statements.

There are innuendos or insinuations.

There are also statements whose internal logic or structure makes certain conclusions inescapable.

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER that Harry has not said "I was an FBI agent". That is merely ONE way to express a thought --- but not the ONLY way.

The question is whether or not Harry has presented himself in numerous different contexts in ways ordinary people could reasonably expect to understand what he meant.

Such as when you accept a question whose predicate is that "you as an employee of the government of the United States of America" without correcting the person posing the question.

AT ANY TIME, Harry could have stopped and said something like this:

Well, Mr. Snyder, let me clarify something. I was never "an employee of the government" and I was never an FBI agent. I simply provided information to the FBI offices in Chicago and Los Angeles. I do not even know what they did with all my information because I was not an FBI employee."

Lastly, there are only a handful of actual FBI informants or confidential sources who have had this problem, i.e. where FBI memos reflect that FBI Special Agents in multiple locations, in multiple years, have had to go out and tell somebody to stop mis-representing their "association" or "connection" to the FBI.

What you continue to ignore (for obvious reasons) is that the FBI has repeatedly stated that not only was Harry never an "agent"; he was not even an "informant" or a "confidential source" -- nor was he even considered for such positions.

Obviously, this entire topic elicits considerable raw emotion and hysteria on your part -- so why don't you focus ALL your attention on the FBI documents which categorically deny Harry's claims?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

PAUL - MY REPLIES APPEAR UNDERNEATH YOUR COMMENTS.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Below I present just a few of the questions which Paul is never willing to address – so, instead, he creates straw-man arguments to divert us from the critically important subjects which should occupy our attention.

Although Paul does not like to acknowledge this, historical research often requires ANALYSIS of both direct and indirect internal evidence in order to discover truth OR, at a minimum, to discover clues which should be pursued. Although Paul does not seem to be equipped to recognize when such clues exist, I offer some examples below.

It should also be acknowledged that an interested student or researcher cannot be expected to recognize “clues” UNLESS that person is familiar with standard practices and procedures of whatever entities are being scrutinized (whether government agencies, corporations, labor unions, businesses, non-profit organizations ro charities, etc).

Well, Ernie, I've always been willing to address your broken-record claims -- although it does get boring -- like a broken record.

I'll answer you AGAIN -- and this time, please actually pay attention.

1. Don't fool yourself that just because you're receiving 63 FBI serials about Harry Dean from Los Angeles, that you are being guaranteed that there are no more. You have no proof that these 63 represent the full cache on record. If any are still Classified, then of course you don't have them. I've reminded you about this for MONTHS now, but it doesn't seem to dawn on you. This is not some conspiracy theory -- it's simple business.

Harry says that Wesley Grapp contacted him in the latter part of 1961 -- and you have no evidence to the contrary. None. Zero. Zip. That's a fact, not an invention of mine. Now, it's quite true that I don't have any proof for sticking to Harry's story -- but I do have Harry's word on it, and there is no contradictory fact -- there is only silence from the FBI. And that is no argument at all. So, until I see FACTS to the contrary (and not more useless desk-pounding from Ernie Lazar) I will continue to believe the word of Harry Dean -- Wesley Grapp contacted Harry in the latter part of 1961.

Now, insofar as this might be true, and insofar as the FBI has NOT produced any FBI serials on this matter, then my only LOGICAL conclusion has to be that the FBI is still withholding these FBI serials because they are CLASSIFIED. That's a legitimate guess on my part -- not an invention.

2. You ask why the FBI HQ in 1963 had no copies of Harry's alleged contact with Wesley Grapp in 1961. You base your question on the statement by Hoover: “Bufiles contain no information indicating that this correspondent was considered an informant or a potential informant by your office.”

Well, obviously Hoover is asking the same question, isn't he? Also, Hoover is not happy about the fact. Hoover has been blindsighted by the inept handing of the Harry Dean case by the Chicago office. Here is it -- after the JFK assassination -- and Hoover has no inkling that Harry Dean, who was clearly in conact with the Chicago FBI (as official documents prove) is now a person of interest with regarding to the JFK assassination.

You are asking me why -- but more importantly, Hoover is asking the Chicago FBI why! Why hasn't Chicago kept HQ informed! That's a legitimate interpretation of Hoover's question.

You also ask why the FBI's first serial in Harry's HQ files is dated 11/26/1963, while the first date of the Los Angeles FBI serial is 7/1962. Yet that is not a question for me, that is a question for the Los Angeles FBI about their inept handling of their own records!

3. In the same light, the second serial in the FBI HQ is dated 11/26/1963, and consists of the Chicago FBI speedily sending everything they had on Hoover -- probably because Hoover was steaming mad that he was blind-sighted by their slow action.

The contents of the Chicago FBI serial to Hoover goes all the way back to 1960! Back to 1960! And yet Hoover's FBI Headquarters did not have copies of this documents! This is clear proof of bureaucratic bungling inside the FBI. There is no other logical explanation. Harry Dean and the Chicago FBI sharply break their communication in June, 1961, when Harry Dean moves his family to Los Angeles.

The FULL contents of the Chicago records must interest us a great deal -- although we must again have some assurance that we are seeing ALL the contents, and that anything that is CLASSIFIED is reported to us as off-limits because it is CLASSIFIED.

4. You raise the topic of FBI reports about Harry's trips to Cuba, Ernie, but you don't offer any details to comment upon.

5. At the late date of 12/10/1963 J. Edgar Hoover demands from his Chicago FBI staff a expeditious provision of information about Harry Dean. Hoover doesn't have this information ready-to-hand, but it is already old, going back from 1960-1961. That is not something that Harry has to explain -- it is something the Chicago FBI must explain.

As for Frank Vega, there is plenty of information about him -- it's only that Hoover didn't have it ready-to-hand when he wanted it. The Chicago FBI dropped the ball, evidently.

6. You seem surprised that the Los Angeles FBI seemed to think that none of the information about Juan Orta was previously given to the Chicago FBI -- and yet we have just seen that the Chicago FBI failed to produce its files to J. Edgar Hoover himself, until he demanded them! So, true to any bureaucracy, the Chicago FBI is clearly to blame for hoarding its information. That's the explanation that best matches the given data.

So, there, once again, Ernie, I took time out of my busy day to answer your questions -- and I hope this time you'll pay closer attention. My answers are plausible, logical and match the given data.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Below I present just a few of the questions which Paul is never willing to address – so, instead, he creates straw-man arguments to divert us from the critically important subjects which should occupy our attention.

Although Paul does not like to acknowledge this, historical research often requires ANALYSIS of both direct and indirect internal evidence in order to discover truth OR, at a minimum, to discover clues which should be pursued. Although Paul does not seem to be equipped to recognize when such clues exist, I offer some examples below.

It should also be acknowledged that an interested student or researcher cannot be expected to recognize “clues” UNLESS that person is familiar with standard practices and procedures of whatever entities are being scrutinized (whether government agencies, corporations, labor unions, businesses, non-profit organizations ro charities, etc).

Well, Ernie, I've always been willing to address your broken-record claims -- although it does get boring -- like a broken record.

I'll answer you AGAIN -- and this time, please actually pay attention.

AGAIN? I have never posed all of these questions to you previously -- which is probably why you did not reference a previous message of mine.

1. Don't fool yourself that just because you're receiving 63 FBI serials about Harry Dean from Los Angeles, that you are being guaranteed that there are no more. You have no proof that these 63 represent the full cache on record. If any are still Classified, then of course you don't have them. I've reminded you about this for MONTHS now, but it doesn't seem to dawn on you. This is not some conspiracy theory -- it's simple business.

You are misrepresenting what I said Paul. Try paying attention. All ANY of us can do is discuss WHAT EXISTS and WHAT IS KNOWN. We cannot intelligently discuss what does not currently exist because we have no knowledge about it.

My questions pertain to all the known FBI files which exist on Harry. The successful FOIA lawsuit by Mark Allen compelled the FBI (via court order) to turn over ALL JFK-related material which the FBI had previously sent to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

That means (even if YOU don't want to admit it), that EVERY FBI file which contained JFK-related material was identified (and inventoried) and all responsive documents were released with very few exceptions.

More importantly, existing FBI main files ALWAYS reference the other files which contain documents that relate to the main subject file. So, for example, if Harry made a report on FPCC, the serial containing his report would not only go into the FPCC main file (at HQ) but copies were then sent to applicable field offices who also had an interest in FPCC information and copies were placed in files of individuals who were officers of FPCC.

YOU have NO PROOF that any file(s) exist on Harry other than the ones we know about. It makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER if one or more serials were originally "classified". You STILL do not understand the meaning of that term. You just throw it out to confuse everybody because you think it has a magical effect on critical thinking. There are MANY "classified" files related to the JFK-murder which are currently available. Just check History Matters or Mary Ferrell's website. There is NOTHING which you or Harry claim Harry reported to the FBI which would preclude releasing his type of information. MUCH MORE SERIOUS information has already been released -- even when "classified" secret or top secret -- stop pretending that you know something when you DO NOT. You are just INVENTING this because you have no other reasonable answers.

In fact, EVERYBODY can make the exact same claim as you make about ANY OTHER subject. Anybody can claim that the FBI is not releasing "classified" files which would prove their point! Your argument is totally fallacious and NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN would accept it.

Harry says that Wesley Grapp contacted him in the latter part of 1961 -- and you have no evidence to the contrary. None. Zero. Zip.

That's a fact, not an invention of mine. Now, it's quite true that I don't have any proof for sticking to Harry's story -- but I do have Harry's word on it, and there is no contradictory fact -- there is only silence from the FBI. And that is no argument at all. So, until I see FACTS to the contrary (and not more useless desk-pounding from Ernie Lazar) I will continue to believe the word of Harry Dean -- Wesley Grapp contacted Harry in the latter part of 1961.

That is NOT a "fact" because there is no evidence to prove it is accurate. ALL "facts" must be verifiable. There is no such thing as "fact" which cannot be verified.

See, Paul, this is our continuous basic problem. You use words to conform to your personal idiosyncratic definitions. You assert as "fact", items for which there is no verifiable evidence. Harry's word or his best recollections are NOT the only (or necessarily even the best) evidence - particularly when you recall our recent FBI forgery episode.

Where does Harry state "latter part of 1961"? Be specific. Your eBook states that Harry said "not long after we arrived in Los Angeles..." Harry apparently arrived in L.A. the first week of July 1961.

This is a good example of the point I tried to make earlier about how Harry's comments are often imprecise or cryptic and subject to multiple interpretations. I suspect if you asked 100 people what "not long after" meant, they would probably think it meant within 1-6 weeks but not 5 or 6 months later! And this is precisely WHY researchers "grill" witnesses or sources who claim to have pertinent information.

Now, insofar as this might be true, and insofar as the FBI has NOT produced any FBI serials on this matter, then my only LOGICAL conclusion has to be that the FBI is still withholding these FBI serials because they are CLASSIFIED. That's a legitimate guess on my part -- not an invention.

It is your INVENTION from whole cloth. "Classified" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not an agency releases files or serials. Particularly since MANDATORY declassification rules took effect many years ago. But your ignorance about this is impenetrable.

2. You ask why the FBI HQ in 1963 had no copies of Harry's alleged contact with Wesley Grapp in 1961. You base your question on the statement by Hoover: “Bufiles contain no information indicating that this correspondent was considered an informant or a potential informant by your office.”

Well, obviously Hoover is asking the same question, isn't he? Also, Hoover is not happy about the fact. Hoover has been blindsighted by the inept handing of the Harry Dean case by the Chicago office. Here is it -- after the JFK assassination -- and Hoover has no inkling that Harry Dean, who was clearly in conact with the Chicago FBI (as official documents prove) is now a person of interest with regarding to the JFK assassination.

No, Paul, again this reveals your total lack of knowledge about how FBI informants were handled and how their information was serialized into multiple FBI HQ and field files--AND into the Central Records System at HQ. Again, I suggest you review some of the informant files I have posted online.

You are asking me why -- but more importantly, Hoover is asking the Chicago FBI why! Why hasn't Chicago kept HQ informed! That's a legitimate interpretation of Hoover's question.

Paul, I have a bridge in Arizona I want to sell you. Once again, review actual FBI informant files to see how preposterous your interpretation is.

You also ask why the FBI's first serial in Harry's HQ files is dated 11/26/1963, while the first date of the Los Angeles FBI serial is 7/1962. Yet that is not a question for me, that is a question for the Los Angeles FBI about their inept handling of their own records!

Another fabrication by you. Instead of recognizing obvious clues which need to be addressed, you attempt to reverse the significance of the clues in order to make it seem that the entire FBI bureaucracy was incompetent on JUST ONE "informant" -- Harry Dean. Nobody else. Not ever.

3. In the same light, the second serial in the FBI HQ is dated 11/26/1963, and consists of the Chicago FBI speedily sending everything they had on Hoover -- probably because Hoover was steaming mad that he was blind-sighted by their slow action.

How did you determine something was "slow" as opposed to following customary procedure? And, if slow, how come there are no memos from HQ to Chicago telling them that they had not responded in a timely fashion -- which was ROUTINE procedure -- particularly when Hoover was expecting information? In fact, such memos would always clearly identify a specific date by which the field office was required to respond because of their initial tardiness. But there don't seem to be any such memos. I have everything from the HQ file in chronological (and serial number) sequence, so what am I missing?

The contents of the Chicago FBI serial to Hoover goes all the way back to 1960! Back to 1960! And yet Hoover's FBI Headquarters did not have copies of this documents! This is clear proof of bureaucratic bungling inside the FBI. There is no other logical explanation. Harry Dean and the Chicago FBI sharply break their communication in June, 1961, when Harry Dean moves his family to Los Angeles.

What 1960 "Chicago FBI serial" are you referring to. Please be specific.

Are you referring to the fact that in subsequent years Chicago field office reported to HQ that they had contacts with Harry starting in August 1960? If I am interpreting your comment correctly, then you are then using that 1960 date as indicative of when HQ should have opened a file on Harry --- is that your point?

If so, this is simply your profound ignorance about FBI HQ and field office procedures. First, keep in mind that the FBI has two functions: investigatory (i.e. known or suspected crimes falling under its jurisdiction) and intelligence-gathering.

Field offices did NOT send copies of everything to HQ. Routine or insignificant information was kept exclusively in the field office files (why clutter up HQ?) and such data was not forwarded to HQ unless subsequently a formal investigation was opened into some matter where that original information might be useful (for example as investigative leads) OR if there was another compelling reason -- such as, for example, requesting HQ authorization to use someone as an informant. That is another important clue, i.e. Chicago never asked HQ for authorization to use Harry as an informant or confidential source.

So, it is entirely understandable why HQ would have no serials about Harry from 1960. The reasons would be (although you will not accept them), that:

(1) Harry's phone calls were just ordinary routine contacts -- like many thousands of others (from phone calls, mail received, or in person visits) which were recorded on standard FBI contact forms

(2) Chicago recorded Harry's phone contacts (another routine procedure) -- but they quickly determined from FBI-Indianapolis that Harry was not somebody whose background would make it possible for a field office to accept him as an informant or provide any useful information so they told Harry his assistance was not required. They probably closed their file on him. [incidentally, this also explains why Chicago destroyed its main file on Harry in 1990. Informant files are never destroyed.]

(3) Later, when Harry started contacting Hoover directly (in 1963), or when field offices were sending inquiries to HQ to ask for background info on Harry, Hoover wanted to know who this guy was because HQ informant indexes did not reflect that Harry was ever an FBI informant.

(4) So Chicago (and Los Angeles) then summarized everything they had in their files regarding Harry -- and that was the end of the matter.

The FULL contents of the Chicago records must interest us a great deal -- although we must again have some assurance that we are seeing ALL the contents, and that anything that is CLASSIFIED is reported to us as off-limits because it is CLASSIFIED.

How would you (or anybody else) decide what constitutes "ALL the contents"?

What source would you rely upon to make that determination?

IF (for sake of argument) you see the entire Los Angeles file (105-12933) and it contains nothing to corroborate Harry's story, then won't you just claim that some other "classified" file still exists somewhere?

AND, in October 2017, if you discover that there is NO other FBI-Los Angeles file and NO other FBI-Chicago file and NO other FBI-HQ file on Harry --- won't your position be that the FBI destroyed all of Harry's files which had all the data you claim is currently "classified"?

DO YOU TRULY NOT SEE THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT WHICH YOU HAVE CREATED? THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BECOMES PROOF IN YOUR SCHEME OF THINGS!

4. You raise the topic of FBI reports about Harry's trips to Cuba, Ernie, but you don't offer any details to comment upon.

5. At the late date of 12/10/1963 J. Edgar Hoover demands from his Chicago FBI staff a expeditious provision of information about Harry Dean. Hoover doesn't have this information ready-to-hand, but it is already old, going back from 1960-1961. That is not something that Harry has to explain -- it is something the Chicago FBI must explain.

Nope--it is just your ignorance about FBI filing procedures. AGAIN: Review as many FBI informant files as you can find and see why your comments are absurd.

As for Frank Vega, there is plenty of information about him -- it's only that Hoover didn't have it ready-to-hand when he wanted it. The Chicago FBI dropped the ball, evidently.

Nope -- another invention by you. But this is the beauty of your position. You exempt yourself from presenting any verifiable evidence. Instead, you just invent whatever explanation neatly covers whatever inconvenient situations or information you confront.

6. You seem surprised that the Los Angeles FBI seemed to think that none of the information about Juan Orta was previously given to the Chicago FBI -- and yet we have just seen that the Chicago FBI failed to produce its files to J. Edgar Hoover himself, until he demanded them! So, true to any bureaucracy, the Chicago FBI is clearly to blame for hoarding its information. That's the explanation that best matches the given data.

Entirely false assumption on your part which again reveals your profound ignorance. That very same Los Angeles serial has, on its last page, the standard FBI procedure which ALL field offices used when they had information which needed to be shared with other field office or with HQ. So, in this instance, for example, Los Angeles forwarded copies of specific items to Chicago, to Detroit, to Miami, and to New York -- because standard FBI procedure required CROSS-REFERENCING everything substantive -- particularly if allegations were made concerning persons or organizations suspected of, or known to be, involved in "subversive" or "front" or "extremist" activities.

The purpose of forwarding was to make sure that every field office which might have an interest in the subjects being discussed in any serial -- would have the same information as the "originating office" -- which, in this case, refers to Chicago (at first), and then Los Angeles (when Harry changed his residence).

So, there, once again, Ernie, I took time out of my busy day to answer your questions -- and I hope this time you'll pay closer attention. My answers are plausible, logical and match the given data.

Although I appreciate the time you took, you have not presented any answer which corresponds to what scholars or researchers know about standard FBI procedures and practices.

Instead, you just INVENTED from whole cloth what you consider to be "plausible, logical" answers --but, in reality, your answers do not correspond to what is known about everything pertaining to informants and FBI filing and indexing practices. [With some minor edits, somebody could copy every one of your answers and then paste them into some message about ANY subject involving the FBI, and then claim that your answers apply to any other subject! But that is the beauty of not being constrained by facts.]

This is comparable to your fabrications during the FBI-forgery episode. That is why I posted Dr. Athan Theoharis's replies to my questions. I thought (mistakenly) that if you saw this information from, arguably, our nation's most accomplished and knowledgeable expert on the FBI (instead of automatically rejecting it because it came from me), you might consider that you need to be more careful about your tendency to INVENT stories. Obviously, my hope was in vain.

P.S. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS NEXT POINT AS STRONGLY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE!

DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN ABOVE IN ANSWER TO YOUR COMMENTS.

INSTEAD, CONTACT ANY HISTORIANS OR POLITICAL SCIENTISTS OR LEGISLATORS OF YOUR CHOICE WHO HAVE SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FBI HISTORY AND PRACTICES --- AND ASK THEM IF YOUR "ANSWERS" ARE "LOGICAL" OR "PLAUSIBLE".

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

MY REPLIES APPEAR UNDERNEATH YOUR COMMENTS

Edited February 15, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

I usually am pretty good about multi-tasking but I have fallen behind in responding to requests from various people who (unlike Paul) actually have knowledge about FBI history and practices (see one email I received today below)....so I may not be able to respond to anything Paul writes for a couple days until I catch up with my inbox.

-----Original Message-----edited to protect privacy

From: Jason

To: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com>

Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2014 10:51 am

Subject: Hi Ernie. Mike...suggested I contact you

Ernie,

How are you? I am an investigative reporter. Late last week, I received some documents from the FBI from back in the 40s related to confidential national defense informants in response to a FOIA I filed. I am wondering if you received similar documents or if these are ones that have not been publicly released before. If the latter, I'd love to interview you, if possible, for a story, given your deep knowledge and years of work on this subject."

All best,

Jason"

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - one question. Would you admit that the FBI, the ONI, the CIA etc destroy files on occasion?

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - one question. Would you admit that the FBI, the ONI, the CIA etc destroy files on occasion?

Of course -- and I have identified here in EF files which have been destroyed. However, please do not pretend that the FBI or other agencies destroy informant files. When the FBI was compelled by the courts to allow NARA to inspect its records so that the court could later approve NARA's record destruction rules for all federal agencies, there were very detailed guidelines about what types of files could be destroyed.

If you are interested in the details, there is a 568 page report which was submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Harold Greene by the Director of the FBI Records Appraisal Project. The criteria used and the rules for records retention and disposal may also be reviewed in Title 44 of the United States Code, Section 2201 and in Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 12, sub-chapter B, Part 1228.

rt

[John Dolva]

Ernie, can you clear up a matter for me, please? Is there a way to make documents inaccessible or 'unknowable' or 'unlisted' by them being considered part of an 'open' investigation?

[Paul Trejo]

1. Ernie, my arguments are not straw-man, as you falsely charge. I make solid points, and you merely demean them to evade them.

As for analysis – a final analysis must always wait until all the evidence has been presented. But all the evidence has not been presented. You, Ernie, wish to jump into analysis before all the evidence is presented – which is a flaw in your methodology.

The only “clues” that you are really qualified to pursue have little to do with the JFK assassination, but are strictly limited to the rules of FBI bureaucratic methods. This is useful only in a limited way – but still you rush to judgment.

I myself have no conclusions – I have a theory that patiently awaits for further evidence – further facts.

And while you admit that nobody can discuss what is not currently known, that doesn’t stop you from jumping to conclusions today, and putting down Harry Dean.

You admit that there remain exceptions (though you claim “very few”) to the FOIA release of all JFK-related materials held by the FBI. But its very clear to most of us – there remain some exceptions. Yet until we have all the evidence, then all our conclusions mine, yours, anybody's – must be open to doubt.

You can tell us about the FBI bureaucracy rules about these files – but you don’t know what’s being kept Top Secret. Still, you're aware that something is being kept Top Secret – even if it’s only one single file.

I’ve always admitted that I have NO PROOF of anything that the FBI possesses, other than the ones it tells us about. We might be able to make some deductions based on internal evidence -- but until we can see it all, we must leave our minds open to doubt.

My only point has been that you have NO PROOF either. All your knowledge about FBI bureaucratic rules still can't give you Top Secret knowledge.

You don’t know – and I don’t know – and nobody except select people in the FBI knows what is contained in the Top Secret files related to the JFK assassination. So this always presents a doubt in the minds of all reasonable Americans about the TRUTH in the JFK assassination.

I’m not inventing anything here – it's common knowledge that the US Government continues to keep Top Secret files about the JFK assassination that occurred 50 years ago, even though the one and only alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, has been dead for 50 years! What, then, is the purpose of keeping any Top Secret files? Even one?

I want to see those FBI files as soon as possible, and I’m sure that everybody on this Forum (except possibly you, Ernie) can hardly wait to see the contents of those Top Secret FBI files. Evidently we must now wait until 2017.

Also, you misunderstood me to say that it is a fact that Wesley Grapp met with Harry Dean in mid-1961. It is only a fact that Harry Dean claimed this. Now, I believe Harry Dean is telling the truth -- you however, believe Harry Dean is lying "to inflate his credentials."

I’m humbly waiting for verification of this – and I admit (and I have always admitted) that I still don’t have the verification. You continue to misrepresent my position as claiming that we have proof. I have always, always, always said we don’t have proof.

All I added was that you have no proof to the contrary! You know you don’t, still you insist that you’re right, even without proof. You keep repeating that “all facts must be verifiable” as if anybody disputes that, but nobody ever disputed that – you’re just evading my points. You yourself don't have any verification that Harry Dean is lying.

Also, you effort to grill Harry Dean carries no kindness or humanity in it. Harry dislikes your attitude toward him, and I don’t think anybody here blames him – you come on so strong with your FBI persona that it is offensive to the very person you wish to question. You should be really think about that.

I said that if (and only if) Harry Dean is telling the truth about his meetings with Wesley Grapp in the latter part of 1961, then there must be FBI records of the event. I stand by my statement – it is not an invention as you charge, it is a clear and logical proposition.

Since there are no known FBI records of that event, I see only three possibilities: (1) they don’t exist; or (2) they have been overlooked by bureaucratic bungling; or (3) they are part of Top Secret FBI papers.

That is clearly logical. But you, Ernie, don't like that logical proposition -- you insist on #1 without final proof. Also, the MANDATORY declassification rules that took effect years ago cannot have any effect whatever on #2 and #3. That’s not an invention – these are common sense facts: (i) mistakes can be made, and (ii) Top Secret Files still exist. But you, Ernie, don’t have the logical confidence to admit these simple facts – instead you insist on #1 and you insist fiercely that you are right.

2. I stand by my observation that Hoover was apparently angry with the Chicago FBI office in 1963 simply because they had files on Harry Dean going back to 1960, but FBI headquarters had NONE.

Why hadn't the Chicago FBI kept FBI HQ informed? That's a legitimate question based on the situation that J. Edgar Hoover complained in 1963 that his offices had no files on Lee Harvey Oswald from the Chicago FBI from 1960-1961.

(Nor did I say that this was the only time they were incompetent, as you charged, but like all bureaucracies, I presume the FBI shows signs of incompetence every single year.)

3. You ask how I determine something is “slow” as opposed to the customary procedure, even though I don’t know their procedure. But it’s only common sense: if the Chicago FBI had files on Harry Dean going back to 1960, and in late 1963 the Director demands to know why his FBI headquarters has no files on Harry Dean – it is only common sense to say that this is S-L-O-W. Nobody I know would ever claim that a three-year delay in reporting is “normal” in any office in the world.

You ask me if I’m using the August 1960 Chicago FBI contact date with Harry Dean as an indicator that the FBI headquarters should have received copies of those files sometime before 1963. My answer is, yes, because that's common sense. Yet we must also add to this the admission by the Chicago FBI that they had further contact with Harry Dean regarding the FPCC and Fidel Castro’s Cuba in that time. This is obvious. So, yes, yes, yes, the Chicago FBI should have told FBI Headquarters about Harry Dean sometime before late 1963. It’s just common sense.

You do offer an alternative theory here, Ernie: you claim that all this is evidence that the Chicago FBI never used Harry as an official informant. But that is circular thinking. It does not admit that something positive could later turn up.

We should demand to see not only all of the 63 Los Angeles FBI serials about Harry Dean, but we must also demand to see all of the uncounted Chicago FBI serials about Harry Dean. But wait – they have all been DESTROYED!

Now, in your world, Ernie, the Chicago FBI destroyed all its Harry Dean files simply because Harry was not really an informant for them. Yet we know that Harry Dean was known to be an FPCC secretary -- as a matter of documented Senate Subcommittee record. You want us to believe that the Chicago FBI files on a known FPCC Secretary from 1960 to 1961 were simply of no interest to the Chicago FBI – but that makes no sense.

You, Ernie, want us to believe that for the Chicago FBI, Harry’s phone calls were just “routine contacts – like many thousands of others.” Really? From the Chicago FPCC Secretary? Don't you see that you're reaching?

HOWEVER, according to FBI Headquarter records, Hoover demanded those files in 1963 – so I now suspect (though I’m not an expert in FBI procedures) that the Chicago FBI would obey the orders of the Director, and send FBI Headquarters all of its files on Harry Dean. So maybe we really haven’t lost all these FBI serials after all.

Yet you, Ernie, use the absence of Chicago FBI records at FBI headquarters in 1963 to build your own invention that Harry was useless to the Chicago FBI. Well, I’m not satisfied with your invention, Ernie. I wonder how many Forum readers are satisfied with it.

3.1. Next, Ernie you ask me a direct question. If I discover that there are no other FBI-LA files, and no other FBI-Chicago files and no other FBI-HQ files on Harry Dean – won’t I claim that they were then destroyed? Not necessarily. Yet since the Chicago FBI already admitted that it destroyed its Harry Dean files, then I will surely keep an open mind about the issue. There is no circular argument in this – I have empirical facts on my side.

None of my observations here are inventions – they are rational observations, presented as theories only.

Also, if I’m wrong – if evidence is presented to me that answer all my questions – I can and will change my mind. This was proved when I reversed my position about the November 1963 letter written to J. Edgar Hoover by Harry Dean.

Based on the evidence I was presented earlier this year, I thought the FBI version was a forgery. When I got more information, I admitted publicly that it was most likely genuine. So, show me real evidence to the contrary and I’ll change my mind. Until then, I go by the evidence before me.

I want to see the facts and the evidence as much as any person here.

Finally, Ernie, it is useless, as you should know, to simply ask academic experts about any of this. It is well-known that the JFK assassination topic is generally avoided by conservative historians, political scientists or legislators.

We saw this clearly in the 50^th anniversary of the JFK assassination in Dallas last November – when all JFK conspiracy theorists were generally banned from the streets and the microphones that day.

This does not convince us that we are wrong – it only convinces us that public opinion has become apathetic about the JFK assassination.

Most of us agree -- as long as the FBI and the US Government continues to keep ANYTHING secret about the JFK assassination, and still insists that only one guy, who has been dead 50 years, is responsible – then everybody really knows that something is fishy. Shades of Watergate.

There is more, but this post is long enough, and besides it really addresses the key points.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, can you clear up a matter for me, please? Is there a way to make documents inaccessible or 'unknowable' or 'unlisted' by them being considered part of an 'open' investigation?

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

[Ernie Lazar]

1. Ernie, my arguments are not straw-man, as you falsely charge. I make solid points, and you merely demean them to evade them.

As for analysis – a final analysis must always wait until all the evidence has been presented. But all the evidence has not been presented. You, Ernie, wish to jump into analysis before all the evidence is presented – which is a flaw in your methodology.

The only “clues” that you are really qualified to pursue have little to do with the JFK assassination, but are strictly limited to the rules of FBI bureaucratic methods. This is useful only in a limited way – but still you rush to judgment.

I myself have no conclusions – I have a theory that patiently awaits for further evidence – further facts.

And while you admit that nobody can discuss what is not currently known, that doesn’t stop you from jumping to conclusions today, and putting down Harry Dean.

You admit that there remain exceptions (though you claim “very few”) to the FOIA release of all JFK-related materials held by the FBI. But its very clear to most of us – there remain some exceptions. Yet until we have all the evidence, then all our conclusions mine, yours, anybody's – must be open to doubt.

You can tell us about the FBI bureaucracy rules about these files – but you don’t know what’s being kept Top Secret. Still, you're aware that something is being kept Top Secret – even if it’s only one single file.

I’ve always admitted that I have NO PROOF of anything that the FBI possesses, other than the ones it tells us about. We might be able to make some deductions based on internal evidence -- but until we can see it all, we must leave our minds open to doubt.

My only point has been that you have NO PROOF either. All your knowledge about FBI bureaucratic rules still can't give you Top Secret knowledge.

You don’t know – and I don’t know – and nobody except select people in the FBI knows what is contained in the Top Secret files related to the JFK assassination. So this always presents a doubt in the minds of all reasonable Americans about the TRUTH in the JFK assassination.

I’m not inventing anything here – it's common knowledge that the US Government continues to keep Top Secret files about the JFK assassination that occurred 50 years ago, even though the one and only alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, has been dead for 50 years! What, then, is the purpose of keeping any Top Secret files? Even one?

I want to see those FBI files as soon as possible, and I’m sure that everybody on this Forum (except possibly you, Ernie) can hardly wait to see the contents of those Top Secret FBI files. Evidently we must now wait until 2017.

Also, you misunderstood me to say that it is a fact that Wesley Grapp met with Harry Dean in mid-1961. It is only a fact that Harry Dean claimed this. Now, I believe Harry Dean is telling the truth -- you however, believe Harry Dean is lying "to inflate his credentials."

I’m humbly waiting for verification of this – and I admit (and I have always admitted) that I still don’t have the verification. You continue to misrepresent my position as claiming that we have proof. I have always, always, always said we don’t have proof.

All I added was that you have no proof to the contrary! You know you don’t, still you insist that you’re right, even without proof. You keep repeating that “all facts must be verifiable” as if anybody disputes that, but nobody ever disputed that – you’re just evading my points. You yourself don't have any verification that Harry Dean is lying.

Also, you effort to grill Harry Dean carries no kindness or humanity in it. Harry dislikes your attitude toward him, and I don’t think anybody here blames him – you come on so strong with your FBI persona that it is offensive to the very person you wish to question. You should be really think about that.

I said that if (and only if) Harry Dean is telling the truth about his meetings with Wesley Grapp in the latter part of 1961, then there must be FBI records of the event. I stand by my statement – it is not an invention as you charge, it is a clear and logical proposition.

Since there are no known FBI records of that event, I see only three possibilities: (1) they don’t exist; or (2) they have been overlooked by bureaucratic bungling; or (3) they are part of Top Secret FBI papers.

That is clearly logical. But you, Ernie, don't like that logical proposition -- you insist on #1 without final proof. Also, the MANDATORY declassification rules that took effect years ago cannot have any effect whatever on #2 and #3. That’s not an invention – these are common sense facts: (i) mistakes can be made, and (ii) Top Secret Files still exist. But you, Ernie, don’t have the logical confidence to admit these simple facts – instead you insist on #1 and you insist fiercely that you are right.

2. I stand by my observation that Hoover was apparently angry with the Chicago FBI office in 1963 simply because they had files on Harry Dean going back to 1960, but FBI headquarters had NONE.

Why hadn't the Chicago FBI kept FBI HQ informed? That's a legitimate question based on the situation that J. Edgar Hoover complained in 1963 that his offices had no files on Lee Harvey Oswald from the Chicago FBI from 1960-1961.

(Nor did I say that this was the only time they were incompetent, as you charged, but like all bureaucracies, I presume the FBI shows signs of incompetence every single year.)

3. You ask how I determine something is “slow” as opposed to the customary procedure, even though I don’t know their procedure. But it’s only common sense: if the Chicago FBI had files on Harry Dean going back to 1960, and in late 1963 the Director demands to know why his FBI headquarters has no files on Harry Dean – it is only common sense to say that this is S-L-O-W. Nobody I know would ever claim that a three-year delay in reporting is “normal” in any office in the world.

You ask me if I’m using the August 1960 Chicago FBI contact date with Harry Dean as an indicator that the FBI headquarters should have received copies of those files sometime before 1963. My answer is, yes, because that's common sense. Yet we must also add to this the admission by the Chicago FBI that they had further contact with Harry Dean regarding the FPCC and Fidel Castro’s Cuba in that time. This is obvious. So, yes, yes, yes, the Chicago FBI should have told FBI Headquarters about Harry Dean sometime before late 1963. It’s just common sense.

You do offer an alternative theory here, Ernie: you claim that all this is evidence that the Chicago FBI never used Harry as an official informant. But that is circular thinking. It does not admit that something positive could later turn up.

We should demand to see not only all of the 63 Los Angeles FBI serials about Harry Dean, but we must also demand to see all of the uncounted Chicago FBI serials about Harry Dean. But wait – they have all be DESTROYED!

Now, in your world, Ernie, the Chicago FBI destroyed all its Harry Dean files simply because Harry was not really an informant for them. Yet we know that Harry Dean was known to be an FPCC secretary -- as a matter of documented Senate Subcommittee record. You want us to believe that the Chicago FBI files on a known FPCC Secretary from 1960 to 1961 were simply of no interest to the Chicago FBI – but that makes no sense.

You, Ernie, want us to believe that for the Chicago FBI, Harry’s phone calls were just “routine contacts – like many thousands of others.” Really? From the Chicago FPCC Secretary? Don't you see that you're reaching?

HOWEVER, according to FBI Headquarter records, Hoover demanded those files in 1963 – so I now suspect (though I’m not an expert in FBI procedures) that the Chicago FBI would obey the orders of the Director, and send FBI Headquarters all of its files on Harry Dean. So maybe we really haven’t lost all these FBI serials after all.

Yet you, Ernie, use the absence of Chicago FBI records at FBI headquarters in 1963 to build your own invention that Harry was useless to the Chicago FBI. Well, I’m not satisfied with your invention, Ernie. I wonder how many Forum readers are satisfied with it.

3.1. Next, Ernie you ask me a direct question. If I discover that there are no other FBI-LA files, and no other FBI-Chicago files and no other FBI-HQ files on Harry Dean – won’t I claim that they were then destroyed? Not necessarily. Yet since the Chicago FBI already admitted that it destroyed its Harry Dean files, then I will surely keep an open mind about the issue. There is no circular argument in this – I have empirical facts on my side.

None of my observations here are inventions – they are rational observations, presented as theories only.

Also, if I’m wrong – if evidence is presented to me that answer all my questions – I can and will change my mind. This was proved when I reversed my position about the November 1963 letter written to J. Edgar Hoover by Harry Dean.

Based on the evidence I was presented earlier this year, I thought the FBI version was a forgery. When I got more information, I admitted publicly that it was most likely genuine. So, show me real evidence to the contrary and I’ll change my mind. Until then, I go by the evidence before me.

I want to see the facts and the evidence as much as any person here.

Finally, Ernie, it is useless, as you should know, to simply ask academic experts about any of this. It is well-known that the JFK assassination topic is generally avoided by conservative historians, political scientists or legislators.

We saw this clearly in the 50^th anniversary of the JFK assassination in Dallas last November – when all JFK conspiracy theorists were generally banned from the streets and the microphones that day.

This does not convince us that we are wrong – it only convinces us that public opinion has become apathetic about the JFK assassination.

Most of us agree -- as long as the FBI and the US Government continues to keep ANYTHING secret about the JFK assassination, and still insists that only one guy, who has been dead 50 years, is responsible – then everybody really knows that something is fishy. Shades of Watergate.

There is more, but this post is long enough, and besides it really addresses the key points.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I will attempt to answer all your assertions and comments -- but, frankly, it would take HOURS of typing to completely and satisfactorily address everything you have presented.

PREFACE:

I have finally come to the realization that one of my ongoing problems with you is identical to the problem I experience when I debate John Birch Society members, namely, that you do not use standard dictionary definitions of words or normal rules of logic. Unfortunately, this means I must first devote considerable space (as I have done repeatedly in this thread) to correct your mis-use of the English language.

1. "STRAW MAN" and "EVADE"

STRAW MAN: The correct definition of straw-man is an argument which is inherently so weak or imaginary that it ignores the actual pertinent issues and, instead, substitutes a distorted or exaggerated misrepresentation of what is supposed to be addressed.

Example:

Person “E” says to Person “P”:

We should wash our car. It is dirty.

Person “P” replies to “E”:

Why? We just washed our car 6 weeks ago. Do we have to wash it everyday?

EVADE: By definition, to “evade” something means to ignore it, dodge it, or bypass it. You accuse me of evading your “solid points”. But the reality is that I have expended tens of thousands of words to explicitly address all of your specific points (including in this message).

And, in fact, you often accuse me of presenting too much information or you accuse me of making “broken-record claims” (because you don’t seem able or willing to recognize or comprehend their significance when I originally present those points).

“SOLID POINTS”: Who and what determines whether or not something is a “solid point”?

Is something “solid” simply because you say so? Or this there some sort of objective standard which applies to ALL OF US? I will have more to say about this in the second part of this reply.

Shouldn’t we compare your “solid points” to the universe of available factual data regarding the subject matters we discuss?

If you have no familiarity with the available factual data re: some subject matter, then how could you possibly know what constitutes a “solid point” regarding that subject as opposed to a total fiction?

By definition, something “solid” must be well-constructed, strong and substantial, but how can a total fiction which you INVENTED in your imagination be a “solid point”? See below for more specific details which illustrate why your statements cannot be taken seriously.

EVIDENCE:

What “evidence” did you present in answer to my questions? Did I miss something? All of your answers are based upon your ASSUMPTIONS – not fact-based evidence.

You also state that a final analysis “must always wait until all the evidence has been presented. But not all the evidence has been presented.”

This bromide gets back to my previous observation that your criterion is like saying that I must drink an entire gallon of sour milk before I can make a reasonable conclusion about the taste or condition of that milk.

What time-line are you proposing as being required for “all the evidence” to become available? Do you have specific knowledge about some materially important “evidence” which is not currently available – but which WILL become available in the foreseeable future? If you do not know of something specific which exists that will be released at some point in the future, then there is no reason to adopt your catch-all excuse for not relying upon abundant evidence which is currently available.

CLUES:

You state that I am only qualified to discuss clues pertaining to “FBI bureaucratic methods” but not about the JFK assassination.

Oh really? What permits someone to enter the room as “qualified” to discuss the JFK assassination or to discuss any other subject?

Is there some Committee to which a person must submit one’s credentials for authentication and acceptance? Obviously, there are different levels of understanding which everyone brings to a discussion but ANYBODY can recognize CLUES and pursue them to a logical conclusion. And, incidentally, isn’t your statement an example of how YOU “demean” what someone presents in order to “evade” their “solid points”?

If, as you suggest, I am qualified to discuss “FBI bureaucratic methods” (but you are not because you have little or no familiarity with that subject), then why should anybody accept ANYTHING you write about such methods or practices? Perhaps you think you have discovered “clues” which you think might be significant? And you recognized those "clues" even though you have no particular expertise in the subject matter???

CONCLUSIONS:

If, as you claim, you have made “no conclusions”, then what has this entire debate been about?

YOUR “THEORY”

By definition, a theory is speculation or conjecture. It is a proposed explanation which is subject to rigorous testing. It is presented as only a possibly true explanation of known facts or events BUT it must be plausible and verifiable and falsifiable.

A legitimate “theory” contains several hypotheses which have been supported by repeated tests or which are supported by an accumulation of verifiable factual evidence. Every theory must be based upon careful, rational examination of the facts. There can be various interpretations of those facts, but the facts themselves do not usually change much.

As I will illustrate below, your “theory” is NOT based upon ANY facts. Consequently, what you propose is NOT a legitimate theory.

JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS AND PUTTING DOWN HARRY:

I have not “jumped” to any conclusion. Unlike yourself, I have made the effort to obtain the relevant documentary evidence. I then saw a CONSISTENT PATTERN which appears in that evidence.

What you describe as “putting down Harry” is simply an inescapable conclusion which any rational, fair-minded person would draw from the available documentary evidence. I also point out, for the record, on NUMEROUS occasions, YOU have presented us with FALSE “either/or” choices regarding Harry. You always insist that if somebody does not believe something Harry presents, then the ONLY possible explanation is that Harry must be “a xxxx”.

However, I have REPEATEDLY told you that your defamatory and libelous characterizations of Harry are logically fallacious. For example, in my recent private email to you which led to you posting a message retracting your “FBI forgery” accusation, I explicitly told you that I DID NOT believe Harry was “lying”. And in many other messages in this thread, I have repeatedly told you that witness testimony is universally recognized as the most unreliable – NOT because anybody is “lying” (although that does sometimes occur), but because of many other different factors.

I also have told you repeatedly that if I discover anything which supports Harry’s story I will happy to share it and I will cheerfully correct any defective conclusions which I have made. Again, I note for record, that the most recent “jump to a conclusion” that has been verified during this thread, is your admission that you believed something which Harry told you which ultimately turned out to be inaccurate.

RECORDS EXCEPTIONS:

There is no rational reason to believe that any remaining “exceptions” with respect to un-released records have anything to do with Harry Dean because we already have considerable documentary evidence (from CIA and FBI files) to support a reasonable fact-based conclusion about Harry’s story. In addition, there are numerous clues appearing in various files and documents which fortify such conclusions.

Your position is equivalent to you telling somebody to purchase 1000 Mega Millions lottery tickets every single week (52,000 per year). Although this person never wins the jackpot, your advice to him is that he continue purchasing 52,000 tickets per year – even though the chance of winning is 1 in 180 million. [someone 20 years old who purchased 52,000 tickets per year for 75 years (with never repeating any number series) still would not exhaust the possible winning number combinations.]

Similarly, you think there is some mystical “Top Secret” files which contain “proof” of something – although there is no rational reason to believe that hypothesis any more than believing if you purchase 52,000 lottery tickets every year, that is likely to make you a millionaire.

TOP SECRET:

It is increasingly obvious from all your messages in this thread that you don’t have the vaguest idea what “Top Secret” means or how it is applied within a government bureaucracy.

You use that term as an all-purpose intellectual escape hatch and magical phrase whenever you want to exempt yourself from providing any fact-based verifiable evidence to support your weak and not-credible “theory”. You also use that term when you do not want to acknowledge your own ignorance about something significant, so you just trot out “top secret” to cover everything you know nothing about.

There is nothing “top secret” about the speculations of a non-informant.

EVEN IF Harry was an informant, then (by definition) all Harry would have done is provide RAW INFORMATION. Raw information is not classified as “top secret” – which is why the FBI has routinely released highly classified files which reveal the exact same type of information which you think Harry was privy to – but which was provided by HUNDREDS of other actual FBI informants – including informants who were used to supply very confidential JFK-related information.

This gets back to my previous comments regarding our basic epistemological dispute.

You make all these sorts of allegations but you have NEVER ONCE told us that you contacted any expert in security or intelligence-related matters in order to discover the basic principles which govern records classification.

You have NEVER ONCE told us that you contacted anybody (especially the Chairman) who served on the Assassination Records Review Board to ask them to explain what sort of records have not been released thus far.

In addition, there is NOTHING on record to indicate that you are familiar with the AUTOMATIC and MANDATORY de-classification stipulations contained within FOIA statutes, Presidential Executive Orders, and in the 1992 JFK Records Act – all of which are the controlling authorities regarding what can be legitimately classified and/or withheld. Instead, we are constantly subjected to your FEVERED IMAGININGS!

PROOF:

We have plenty of “proof” with respect to Harry Dean.

What we do not have is ANY proof from either you or Harry which corroborates your allegations. No documents, no photos, no tape recordings (audio or visual), no letters, no emails, no interview transcripts, no post-it notes, no FOIA documents, NOTHING!

And every time somebody finds some evidence which is not supportive of your claims regarding Harry – then you trot out “forgery” or it was W.R. Morris who “manipulated” Harry or some such nonsense.

As I have repeatedly stated, your methodology for discovery of, or for what constitutes, “proof” is totally unknown in the normal world of historical research --- why is why, of course, you have NEVER ONCE told us about any contacts which you have had with reputable historians or political scientists or journalists or legislators who have specialized knowledge about FBI history and FBI practices.

God forbid, you should actually attempt to learn something BEFORE you arrive at your conclusions! This also explains why neither you or Harry has ever submitted an FOIA request to ANY agency. You simply cannot be bothered with documentary evidence – particularly since it might not conform to the “proof” you want.

TOP SECRET FILES:

IF such files existed, they would contain only such data as could legitimately be placed into a Top Secret file. Has Paul ever contacted ANY FBI employee (especially a Supervisor within their Domestic Intelligence Division or successor units) to ask that person what type of information would be classified as “Top Secret” by the FBI? And THEN describe to that person, the type of data from Harry which YOU think would be placed into a “Top Secret” file – and ask the FBI employee if such data would have originally been (or still might be) so classified?

No! Of course not! Because Paul operates EXCLUSIVELY in terms of whatever he IMAGINES in his own mind!

He NEVER contacts ANYBODY who might help him understand the basic rules or protocols or guidelines which govern anything because, if Paul did, he is afraid that he would discover and have to admit that the type of info Harry thinks is filed in his phantom “Top Secret” files – was declassified DECADES AGO! And then was released!

Harry allegedly provided information to the FBI about a “plot” to murder JFK. His alleged case agent (Wesley Grapp) was so un-impressed by the quality of the information that Harry supposedly provided, that he cavalierly dismissed Harry’s info! (This is according to Harry's own recollections as reported in your eBook!) AND all FBI files which mention the persons whom Harry identified as being connected to the “plot” do not contain ANY references to Harry or to his information -- nor do those files even reference a file number into which a cross-reference copy of a Harry-report might have been placed, i.e. one of those "Top Secret" files! And when you see the "search slips" which the FBI used to find ALL references to Harry, there is nothing on those search slips which provides clues to any "Top Secret" files -- even though search slips were used EXCLUSIVELY within the FBI by their own name-check employees!!

NEVERTHELESS, every other person who provided comparable information about a “plot” to murder JFK has had their FBI files released (if any existed) which is why we know about all those other “plots” – even when individual serials in their files were classified “secret” or “top secret”. Ditto for the files on organizations allegedly involved in the “plot” (such as NSRP or ANP or MM). But Paul is totally oblivious to ALL of this information because it does not "fit" into his "theory".

PAUL ASKS: “WHAT, THEN, IS THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING ANY TOP SECRET FILES?"

Good question!!! BUT...has Paul ever contacted anybody whose government background was (or is) in security and/or intelligence to ask them for an answer to his question? Of course not! Instead, Paul prefers to rely exclusively upon his own ASSUMPTIONS – and then he describes his assumptions as “solid points”.

HARRY IS “LYING” TO INFLATE HIS CREDENTIALS WITH RESPECT TO WESLEY GRAPP

See my comments above under “Jumping to Conclusions and Putting Down Harry”.

This is a FLAWLESS example of yet another straw-man argument by Paul.

Where is Paul’s PROOF that I said Harry was “lying”? QUOTE IT or admit that you just deliberately lied about my position.

I have repeatedly stated, over and over and over again, that there are MANY potential explanations for deficiencies in “witness” testimony. I even went so far as to copy and paste an article into this thread about the problems which law enforcement agencies, journalists, private investigators, and researchers ROUTINELY confront when relying upon witness testimony.

But, nevertheless, Paul continually and MALICIOUSLY, mis-represents my explicit repeated statements.

And, I also am on record in this thread as recently as 2/12/14 (message #601 on page 41) stating what I thought would be the value of obtaining from NARA the Los Angeles FBI file on Harry. See, especially, items #2 and #3 and #4 below.

Does that sound like the attitude of somebody who has concluded that Harry is “lying”?

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

I have stated over and over and over again, that it is entirely plausible that Harry gave unsolicited information to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles) – as was done by tens of thousands of other people over the years. I also have stated over and over and over again, that Harry may be confused about, or may be exaggerating in his own mind, the nature and significance of his contacts with the FBI (or CIA).

I have even explained that because FBI Agents would routinely interview people who thought they had valuable information to share with the FBI, it is entirely possible that Harry concluded from the fact that he was asked questions by some FBI agents (and Harry even provided them with copies of documents in his possession which he thought would be of interest to the FBI), that Harry concluded from all that accumulated FBI “attention”, that he functioned essentially like an “undercover operative” or “informant” (I think the term he used in the eBook was “street informant”).

PAUL DECLARES THAT I “MISREPRESENT HIS POSITION”

See Paul’s paragraph that begins with “I’m humbly waiting for verification of this…” which refers to Harry’s relationship with Wesley Grapp.

In the preceding paragraph, Paul refers to Harry’s statement that he met with Wesley Grapp in mid-1961 (shortly after he arrived in Los Angeles). Paul then states that he believes Harry’s statement, but the only fact is that Harry had made such an assertion. Then Paul says that I believe Harry is lying. (I've already addressed that falsehood by Paul above).

In the next paragraph, Paul says he is “humbly waiting for verification of this” (referring to whether or not Harry met with Grapp in mid-1961.

Then there is Paul’s ENORMOUS WHOPPER.

Paul then boldly makes a very clear and defamatory declaration about me. Paul declares that I “continue to misrepresent my position as claiming we have proof.”

I am willing to rest my ENTIRE case against Paul’s method of argument – on just this ONE example.

I will apologize to Paul and I will retract all critical statements which I have ever made about Paul in this entire thread if Paul will just tell readers WHEN and WHERE I supposedly made the statement which Paul now attributes to me.

Remember: Paul is asserting that I have claimed that Paul or Harry stated that they have PROOF that Harry met with Grapp in mid-1961.

And that is what Paul now describes as me “misrepresenting” his position because Paul declares he has never made such a statement.

And to emphasize his point, Paul closes with this comment:

“I have always, always, always said we don’t have proof.”

By using three “always” – Paul is emphasizing that he is angry about my supposed mis-representation of his position about this matter.

HOWEVER: Notice, that (as is Paul’s routine custom), Paul NEVER quotes anything I wrote nor does he even cite a message number so that interested parties could refer back to my original statement to check out where I supposedly stated that either he or Harry had “proof” of Harry meeting with Grapp in mid-1961.

WHEN AND WHERE DID I STATE WHAT PAUL CLAIMS?

QUOTE IT!

DON’T JUST ATTRIBUTE THE COMMENT TO ME.

I went back to page 40 of this thread to find all messages in which I mentioned Wesley Grapp. I found a total of 7 messages. In NONE of them, did I make the statement which Paul attributes to me. NONE.

So, I give Paul this challenge:

QUOTE THE EXACT COMMENT I MADE. Be sure to specify the message number (see below) so everyone can go back to it and check it out.

Here are the message numbers (starting on page 40 of this thread):

591, 601, 604, 606, 608, 610, 635

I will continue the second part of this reply to Paul’s message after Paul responds to my challenge.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Ernie Lazar