Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

...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.

...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.

All right, I'll respond to this challenge -- which won't be quick, because it involves seven different (long) posts by Ernie.

The challenge from Ernie is for me to find ONLY ONE PLACE where Ernie accused me (and/or Harry) of pretending we have final proof of Harry's story. I take this challenge to go beyond Harry's claims to have met with Wesley Grapp -- and about Ernie's general accusation that we claimed to have proof.

Further, I won't limit myself to these seven posts by Ernie, rather, I reserve the right to include all of Ernie's posts in the past few weeks.

Before I do, however, I want to clarify a key point. Our eBook reports that Los Angeles FBI SAC Wesley Grapp contacted Harry Dean in 1961, shortly after Harry moved his family to Los Angeles. So I said that we should expect to find FBI records for 1961, and if we don't find these FBI records we face only three choices: (1) the records never existed; (2) the FBI made a mistake; or (3) the FBI records remain classified.

However, there is another major choice, namely: (4) Harry was in error about the 1961 date that he and Wesley Grapp made contact. Harry and I are talking about this possibility as of this writing. Harry Dean was in contact with the Los Angeles FBI with regard to Cuba and the FPCC in 1962 -- that much seems certain because of the existence of FBI serials about Harry Dean from Los Angeles that are dated in 1962.

So, Harry is now willing to admit that perhaps that 1961 date regarding his contact with FBI SAC Wesley Grapp might be mistaken. If so, that would make one erratum in our eBook, and one correction, making this another step forward in our history.

All right. That said, I'll review the seven posts that Ernie selected, and others as required.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I hadn't been following this thread. So I apologize to Paul and Ernie for not stepping in earlier.

Now, please cool it. No more personal attacks. Keep in mind that these are not private emails, but posts presenting ideas and information that will hopefully be read by students and researchers in years to come.

Now, that said. I have a bit to offer. It appears to be Ernie's position that it is unfair to say the John Birch Society accused Eisenhower of being a communist...

Pat, as you may have noticed in Ernie's post from yesterday, your perception of his position is actually different than you perceived it four days ago.

Ernie Lazar isn't defending the John Birch Society, Pat; instead, Ernle is defending the FBI.

The FBI, I suggest, have shown themselves to be less than forthcoming on the topic of the JFK assassination. Ernie apparently argues that the recent FOIA requests and releases from the FBI already resolve the key issues --- at least when it comes to Harry Dean's account of the JFK assassination.

Of course, we haven't seen all of the FBI serials yet -- but Ernie Lazar, who is purportedly the world's foremost authority on FBI materials outside of the FBI itself (at least in terms of quantity, if not quality) is confident that the FBI's opinion of Harry Dean -- which is quite dim (and which in many ways matches the W.R. Morris fiction about Harry) -- is assuredly the correct opinion.

My position is that until I myself see these FBI serials on Harry Dean, that I will not blindly accept the FBI side of the story.

It is my position, along with Harry Dean, that the FBI began playing hard-ball with Harry Dean in 1965, when Harry Dean took his story to the public in the live TV program, The Joe Pyne Show in Los Angeles.

It is apparently Ernie Lazar's position that the FBI was actually calm and reasonable toward Harry in 1965 and at all times later. That's my take on the actual dispute between Ernie and myself.

Finally, Pat, is there any update on correcting the Spartacus entry on the John Birch Society that prints a false statement about Harry Dean? Here is the URL:

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

Harry Dean has already complained that this Spartacus page misrepresents him -- and actually I say that it defames him. I raised this issue only a few days ago in great detail. We hope that you can bring this to the attention of John Simkin (whom we believe controls the Spartacus pages).

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...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.

...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.

All right, I'll respond to this challenge -- which won't be quick, because it involves seven different (long) posts by Ernie.

I'll save you some time. Here is a quick reference for each message:

Page....Message #...Message Content

40................591.......................My message re: FBI page estimate for Grapp's file

41................601.......................My quote of Harry's eBook comment re: date when Grapp contacted him vs first serial date of L.A. FBI File; also value of seeing Harry's L.A. file

41................604.......................My comment wondering how Grapp found Harry so quickly in Los Angeles

41................606.......................My list of relevant questions for Harry to answer--including was Grapp first Los Angeles Agent Harry contacted?

41................608.......................My request for verifiable proof for all statements made by Paul to conform to his recently stated criteria for "proof"; Grapp listed as one person about whom proof required

41................610.......................My announcement re: not sharing in EF any further FBI files - including Grapp's

43................635.......................My comment quoting Harry's eBook comment about meeting Grapp "not long after" arriving in Los Angeles

The challenge from Ernie is for me to find ONLY ONE PLACE where Ernie accused me (and/or Harry) of pretending we have final proof of Harry's story. I take this challenge to go beyond Harry's claims to have met with Wesley Grapp -- and about Ernie's general accusation that we claimed to have proof.

Wrong! I referred to ONE SPECIFIC RECENT ACCUSATION BY YOU IN MESSAGE #643. Here, again, is your entire accusation:

"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."

Nor did I "misunderstand" anything you wrote, I never made any statement about you presenting something as "a fact". I simply quoted Harry's comment (or yours) from the eBook and then I asked an obvious question about the time-line -- by comparing your "July 1961" date to the date of the first serial which appears in Harry's Los Angeles file.

And notice that you now have AGAIN changed our dispute to "final proof" not just "proof". This, again, is why nobody takes you seriously Paul because you are so sloppy and you constantly change the goalposts. Typical!

But for the record, you have been all over the place in your statements. I quote your three most recent statements below (and I underline the relevant parts)

In message #603 on 2/12/14 you wrote:

"Still, in the absence of further information, I stand by Harry's claim that FBI SAC Wesley Grapp contacted Harry "out of the blue" in July of 1961. The fact that we see no FBI files released from the Los Angeles FBI in this cache of records will remain mysterious for me until we see more information."

But in message #637 on 2/14/14, you wrote:

"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."

And, now, in message #646 on 2/16/14 you wrote:

"So, Harry is now willing to admit that perhaps that 1961 date regarding his contact with FBI SAC Wesley Grapp might be mistaken."

So, here again, we see the peril of relying EXCLUSIVELY upon the recollection of one "witness" and we also see the profound defects of employing Paul's "give the benefit of the doubt" methodology.

Further, I won't limit myself to these seven posts by Ernie, rather, I reserve the right to include all of Ernie's posts in the past few weeks.

Fine! -- as long as you focus upon your accusation that I claimed you stated you had "proof" or "final proof" regarding Harry's meeting with Grapp.

Before I do, however, I want to clarify a key point. Our eBook reports that Los Angeles FBI SAC Wesley Grapp contacted Harry Dean in 1961, shortly after Harry moved his family to Los Angeles. So I said that we should expect to find FBI records for 1961, and if we don't find these FBI records we face only three choices: (1) the records never existed; (2) the FBI made a mistake; or (3) the FBI records remain classified.

However, there is another major choice, namely: (4) Harry was in error about the 1961 date that he and Wesley Grapp made contact. Harry and I are talking about this possibility as of this writing. Harry Dean was in contact with the Los Angeles FBI with regard to Cuba and the FPCC in 1962 -- that much seems certain because of the existence of FBI serials about Harry Dean from Los Angeles that are dated in 1962.

There is not the remotest possibility that the FBI (or any other agency) would continue to "classify" a document which mentions that one or more FBI Agents "met" with some information source.

Such documents would automatically be de-classified if they are over 25 years old and they would be released, but it is possible that the names of parties involved in such a meeting might be redacted -- IF for example, the FOIA requester did not provide death info on any of the persons involved OR if the birthdates of the persons involved were less than 95 years ago OR if there had never been a previous FOIA request submitted on whatever persons were involved in the meeting. This, again, is an example of how Paul thinks he has made a "solid point" but anybody familiar with FOIA request and FOIA redaction protocols immediately recognizes Paul's "solid point" as an absurdity.

So, Harry is now willing to admit that perhaps that 1961 date regarding his contact with FBI SAC Wesley Grapp might be mistaken. If so, that would make one erratum in our eBook, and one correction, making this another step forward in our history.

All right. That said, I'll review the seven posts that Ernie selected, and others as required.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

My replies appear underneath your comments.

[Ernie Lazar]

I hadn't been following this thread. So I apologize to Paul and Ernie for not stepping in earlier.

Now, please cool it. No more personal attacks. Keep in mind that these are not private emails, but posts presenting ideas and information that will hopefully be read by students and researchers in years to come.

Now, that said. I have a bit to offer. It appears to be Ernie's position that it is unfair to say the John Birch Society accused Eisenhower of being a communist...

Pat, as you may have noticed in Ernie's post from yesterday, your perception of his position is actually different than you perceived it four days ago.

Ernie Lazar isn't defending the John Birch Society, Pat; instead, Ernle is defending the FBI.

The FBI, I suggest, have shown themselves to be less than forthcoming on the topic of the JFK assassination. Ernie apparently argues that the recent FOIA requests and releases from the FBI already resolve the key issues --- at least when it comes to Harry Dean's account of the JFK assassination.

Of course, we haven't seen all of the FBI serials yet -- but Ernie Lazar, who is purportedly the world's foremost authority on FBI materials outside of the FBI itself (at least in terms of quantity, if not quality) is confident that the FBI's opinion of Harry Dean -- which is quite dim (and which in many ways matches the W.R. Morris fiction about Harry) -- is assuredly the correct opinion.

My position is that until I myself see these FBI serials on Harry Dean, that I will not blindly accept the FBI side of the story.

It is my position, along with Harry Dean, that the FBI began playing hard-ball with Harry Dean in 1965, when Harry Dean took his story to the public in the live TV program, The Joe Pyne Show in Los Angeles.

It is apparently Ernie Lazar's position that the FBI was actually calm and reasonable toward Harry in 1965 and at all times later. That's my take on the actual dispute between Ernie and myself.

Finally, Pat, is there any update on correcting the Spartacus entry on the John Birch Society that prints a false statement about Harry Dean? Here is the URL:

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

Harry Dean has already complained that this Spartacus page misrepresents him -- and actually I say that it defames him. I raised this issue only a few days ago in great detail. We hope that you can bring this to the attention of John Simkin (whom we believe controls the Spartacus pages).

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Point of personal privilege:

Contrary to what Paul has written in his message, I am NOT DEFENDING EITHER THE FBI OR THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY.

This reveals the essential underlying problem with Paul's intellect. Correcting a factual error is not the same as "defending". All genuine scholars or researchers (regardless of their personal opinions or political sentiments) are bound by their commitment to intellectual honesty.

The American Historical Association has produced a very detailed "Standards of Professional Conduct".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4269&page=44#entry284754

I quote one paragraph below from the section captioned "Shared Values of Historians".

"Although historians disagree with each other about many things, they do know what they trust and respect in each other's work. All historians believe in honoring the integrity of the historical record. They do not fabricate evidence. Forgery and fraud violate the most basic foundations on which historians construct their interpretations of the past. An undetected counterfeit undermines not just the historical arguments of the forger, but all subsequent scholarship that relies on the forger's work. Those who invent, alter, remove, or destroy evidence make it difficult for any serious historian ever wholly to trust their work again."

I urge everyone reading this thread to review the entire "Standards" document -- particularly because people like Paul Trejo simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND these basic principles.

Paul interprets EVERYTHING in the context of "defending" or "opposing". He cannot even grasp the concept of intellectual neutrality or what I previously have described in some messages here in this thread as being the equivalent of "auditing", i.e. taking no side, defending nobody, but just explicitly recognizing when statements made are FALSE, GROSSLY EXAGGERATED, INACCURATE, UNFAIR, or OUT-OF-CONTEXT --- regardless of whose argument or position that might appear to help.

The American Civil Liberties Union "defends" a basic principle regarding our civil liberties -- namely, that ALL Americans have the right to express their political viewpoints REGARDLESS of how obnoxious or disgusting or hateful or mean-spirited their sentiments.

In the process of defending that principle -- the ACLU has offered it services (often free of charge) to John Birch Society members, American Nazi Party members, Communist Party members, and many other people and organizations which all of us probably despise.

What Paul needs to learn is the difference between defending a principle, or subscribing to standards of intellectual honesty, versus "defending" an organization.

Also -- it is preposterous for anybody to claim (as Paul contends in his message) that I am, "purportedly the world's foremost authority on FBI materials outside of the FBI itself".

Here, again, Paul's comment reveals that he is totally CLUELESS about the profound difference between having extensive personal experience with some subject or with some process and the insights which such experience provides in terms of informing judgment and analysis -- versus having no such experience -- and how that lack of experience limits one's ability to recognize what is reasonable or accurate.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Getting back to analyzing what Paul considers to be the "solid points" he presented in his previous message #637:

1. First: I refer readers back to my message on 1/25/14 (page 36, message #540) in which I uploaded two documents.

The first document was a 10-page San Francisco field checklist consisting of 49 items which the field office filled out with respect to one of their informants.

The second document was a Chicago field memo which summarized the procedures to be used when handling informants. The Chicago memo presents a virtually identical listing to what was contained in the San Francisco checklist. I will explain the significance of these two checklist memos after I present this introductory information:

2. Does Paul think that both of these FBI field offices just willy-nilly concocted those 49 checklist items from their own imagination?

The reality is that those two field offices were not inventing anything. Instead, they were following mandatory procedures contained in section 107 of the FBI's "Manual of Instructions" [MOI}.

The MOI was an extremely large and very detailed 4-volume handbook of FBI policies and procedures which ALL FBI employees were required to follow. Any deviations or failures to comply with those rules and procedures resulted in what could be blistering rebukes not just from the appropriate Assistant Director -- but also from Hoover personally.

I have FBI files which contain multi-page serials that list dozens of FBI employees (including Section Chiefs, Supervisors, and Assistant Directors) who were placed on probation (often for 6 or more months) because they failed to follow MOI procedures or they otherwise did not follow HQ instructions such as those contained in SAC Letters.

SAC Letters gave instructions to field offices on a weekly basis, i.e. more expeditiously than waiting for the MOI to be revised.

I also have serials showing a temporary reduction in pay OR a permanent reduction in their civil service pay schedule status (such as being reduced from G-7 to G-5) for FBI employees who did not follow MOI or SAC Letter instructions.

AND, I also have serials showing disciplinary transfers of FBI employees -- such as when a SAC or Special Agent at an important large field office (Dallas, Los Angeles, NYC or San Francisco for example) was suddenly transferred to a dead-end location (such as Savannah GA). [That actually happened to Dan Smoot. After he was notified about his transfer from Dallas to Savannah GA, he abruptly "retired".]

3. In Paul's snotty message to me on 2/14/14 (his "broken record", and "please actually pay attention" message #637), Paul gives us a litany of what he considers to be his "solid points".

I will not expend more thousands of words to explain the profound defects in every example cited in Paul's message. Instead, I will focus upon just a few examples which reveal how vacuous Paul's assertions are.

Paul refers to the "inept handling" by Los Angeles of its own records. Paul further claims that "Hoover was steaming mad" at the "slow action" of Chicago. And Paul refers to "bureaucratic bungling inside the FBI".

Now what evidence is Paul basing ALL of his comments upon? In essence, Paul is basing everything on his own personal opinions and assumptions -- but not upon facts which can be gleaned from the FBI documents themselves.

The problem with Paul's defective analysis is multi-dimensional. I will quickly summarize some of the key deficiencies.

(1) When Hoover was "steaming mad" at any field office, he did not mince words. His memos would always summarize what he asked for in his original communication and then there would be a brisk reminder to the SAC of the field office, that there had been no timely reply to Hoover's original communication. Significantly, the memos which Paul is analyzing do not contain any of these attributes. Instead, they are just routine inquiries -- which are identical in tone and substance to any other inquiry which you can see in ANY other FBI file.

(2) When a field office wanted to obtain HQ authorization to use somebody as an informant, the field office was required by section 107 of the MOI, to submit a detailed background report to HQ on their proposed person. That report normally contained all of the following information (only a partial list):

• Full name and aliases used
• Race
• Date and place of birth
• If not native born—specify how citizenship obtained
• Current residence address
• Home telephone
• Employer name and address and position held by informant and salary
• Past residences of informant
• Previous employers
• Derogatory and subversive references in FBI files
• Credit agencies checked
• Police records checked
• Military service records

Significantly, however, there are no references in any FBI file (HQ or field office) to any such document being prepared on Harry. Nor does the inventory of serials contained in any FBI file correspond to the date when such a report should have been compiled about Harry. Now, we all know what Paul's reply will be---i.e. there are some "secret files" in existence which we have not yet seen. But what Paul never explains is WHY IS IT that references in FBI documents to comparable files about other FBI informants have been released by the FBI but not (supposedly) Harry? Why, for example, was Mark Allen able to obtain all the FBI documents sent to the HSCA (including numerous references to informants who provided info to the FBI--and their names were not even redacted although they were then (and in many cases still are alive!), but we can find NO references to Harry in those same documents as an FBI informant?

At some point, one has to engage common sense -- and stop fabricating excuses for the total absence of confirming data in FBI files about Harry's status and, simultaneously, the incessant references in FBI files (HQ and field office) which categorically state Harry was NOT an FBI informant! IN FACT: does anybody know about ANY OTHER person who claims to have been an FBI (or CIA) informant sometime during 1960-1965 and that person provided info re: ANY "plot" -- but the both the FBI and CIA have categorically denied that they were an informant?

(3) AFTER FBI HQ authorized a field office to use an informant, the field office was required by section 107 of MOI to submit (at a minimum) quarterly summary reports about their informant. However, if the informant discovered some especially useful information, summary memos would be sent to HQ at more frequent intervals. Significantly, no such memos about Harry exist in any known HQ file.

Depending upon which decade you want to discuss, there were different categories of information which were required to be summarized on a quarterly basis but the general pattern in the 1950's and 1960's was as follows:

1. Recommendation

2. Residence and Employment

3. Current Membership in Organizations

4. Summary of Information Furnished

5. Amount Paid For Services

6. Type and Number of Meetings Attended

7. Number of Written and Oral Reports Submitted

8. Information Furnished Of Unusual Value

9. Approximate Number of Persons on Whom Informant Furnished Coverage and Their Importance

10. Steps Being Taken To Advance Informant

11. Stability and Reliability

12. Indoctrination Against Disclosure

13. Action On Information Furnished

14. Miscellaneous

According to Paul's "solid points", he is asking us to believe that Chicago and Los Angeles did not just forget to send ONE required quarterly report to HQ (what Paul describes as "inept handling of their own records") -- but, somehow, BOTH field offices "forgot" to send ALL of their required quarterly reports to HQ and neither Hoover or any FBI Supervisor or Assistant Director ever bothered to send the SAC at Chicago or Los Angeles a blistering teletype or airtel demanding such reports immediately!

Keep in mind the time-line which we are discussing.

According to Paul (and Harry), in Los Angeles, Harry began submitting information to Wesley Grapp in July 1961 or perhaps late 1961 or perhaps even early 1962 but the first serial in the Los Angeles file is dated July 18, 1962. Let's assume that this could have been their first quarterly report

We also know that this serial contains only 2 pages. It is NOT even hypothetically possible to submit the information required on a quarterly report (14 categories shown above) in just two pages! For example: I refer readers to the report submitted by Jackson MS field office on Delmar Dennis -- which I have posted online. It took Jackson 4-pages of single-spaced text to report their 14 categories of information.

OK--now let's assume that serial #1 is NOT the first Los Angeles quarterly report. Then which serial is? Is it the August 21st serial or the September 19th or September 28th serial? Or What?

The problem is this: NO MATTER WHAT DATE YOU SELECT as being potentially a quarterly report, the subsequent date sequence of serials DOES NOT CORRESPOND to a series of quarterly reports

For example, in 1964, you could plausibly argue that one of the March serials is their first quarterly report on Harry. But then that means that the next quarterly report should be dated 3 months later (i.e. June) but there is no serial dated in June. Also none in July. Also none in August. Also none in September.

(4) As I have previously pointed out, there are always "clues" which exist not only in specific documents or files but also in inventories of serials (such as the NARA inventory) which allow an experienced student or researcher to make reasonable deductions or conclusions.

Although I AGREE with Paul -- that obtaining and reviewing Harry's Los Angeles FBI file is likely to be quite important because it may provide us with an even more definitive understanding of Harry's relationship with the FBI -- AND -- that Los Angeles file may also provide many more clues -- nevertheless (as I have previously stated), all of the available evidence reflects a general pattern which every new piece of evidence seems to re-inforce.

[Paul Trejo]

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

Ernie wants to be quoted. OK, fair enough. I quote him 20 times in this post from the same messages he requested. My position hasn’t changed and I suspect that Ernie’s position won’t change, but here our differences are highlighted in clear terms. I begin with the Message Number, and then I quote Ernie word for word before I respond.

Let’s hope that Ernie can respond calmly to these replies, without accusations, and without defining words that everybody already knows, and without citing FBI documents about other subjects than Harry Dean.

Post by Ernie #591 (2/10/2014)

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: FBI documents already released in 1985 to Mark Allen make it very clear that employees of the Joe Pyne program along with reporters and publishers from several southern California newspapers contacted the FBI to inquire if Harry was (as he claimed) an “agent of the FBI” who was an undercover operative for the Bureau.

This claim is asserted without any written evidence.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: ….And, in fact, there are FBI memos which state that even Harry himself acknowledged to the FBI that he falsely described himself when he made contacts with some of these programs or journalists -- because he was trying to interest them in his story.

This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see those alleged acknowledgements in Harry’s own writing. If I see this, then I’ll have no choice but to drop my entire argument on this thread. It’s to your advantage, Ernie, to show written proof – the smoking gun. Where is it?

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: …The FBI was not “displeased” that Harry told his story in the public media. The FBI's problem with Harry was his false description of his relationship to the FBI.

This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see the “false description” in Harry’s own writing.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: …The problem (from the FBI perspective) was that Harry was falsely linking himself to the FBI.

This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see the “false linking” in Harry’s own writing.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: FBI…HQ frequently instructed Los Angeles to contact Harry Dean and tell him to desist from claiming that he was an FBI “agent” or “undercover operative”.

This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see the false claim in Harry’s own writing.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “So much of the ‘interest’ in Dean (by Los Angeles field) arises from the numerous attempts by Dean to obtain publicity for his story and the controversies which developed over Harry's mis-representation of himself.”

This is asserted without any written evidence. All these are mere claims that anybody can make if they are motivated. It isn’t hard to prove them – just provide some written documentation by somebody else besides the FBI claiming this. That’s all. I’m a reasonable guy.

Post by Ernie #604 (2/12/2014)

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “It is VERY clear that Harry described himself as an ‘agent of the FBI’.”

In this claim, Ernie gives the example of Tom Snyder firing questions at Harry, and Harry saying ‘yes’ to the last part of the question – and not being quick enough to correct Tom Snyder. But common sense can see that this example is a far cry from Harry “describing himself as an agent of the FBI.”

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “And there are several FBI memos which reflect that Harry personally acknowledged to FBI Special Agents that he had referred to himself as an “agent” of the FBI and Harry told them he would not do that again…”

In this claim, Ernie shows uncritical acceptance of the FBI report saying that they contacted Harry Dean to tell him “to stop making false claims about his relationship with the FBI.” No evidence is offered other than the word of this FBI report. Nothing is produced in writing from Harry Dean.

In this claim, also, Ernie quotes that FBI report as saying that “Dean admitted representing himself as an undercover agent for the FBI in talks with representatives of…KTTV.” Again, no evidence of this is offered other than this FBI report, and nothing is produced in writing from Harry Dean. Common sense must point out Harry’s claim that the FBI expressed their displeasure that Harry was going on KTTV with his story. Before I accept the FBI’s word over Harry’s, I will need more evidence.

In this claim, also, Ernie quotes that FBI report as alleging that Harry Dean made this false claim about being an undercover FBI agent, “in order to be selected for a guest spot on the Joe Pyne Show.” Again, no evidence is offered except this FBI agent’s word, and nothing in writing was produced in writing from Harry Dean, or even anybody from KTTV, as would be expected.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “In fact, all [senator George] Murphy was told…is that Harry was never authorized to represent or act in any official capacity for the FBI and the Bureau had to contact Harry several times to tell him to desist from making such claims.”

In this claim, Ernie shows that the FBI repeated their hostile profile of Harry as a person who claimed to be an FBI agent; but no evidence is offered other than his FBI report, nor produced in writing from Harry Dean.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “The file copy notation on the Bureau copy of the Murphy letter also points out that Harry “continued to make such claims to a newspaper and television station and was again contacted on 1/6/65 and admonished emphatically to desist from his claims”. The file copy notation refers to several different occasions when the FBI tried to get Harry to stop making such claims: 6/7/61, 12/2/63, 1/5/65.”

In this claim, Ernie shows that the FBI repeated their accusation that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent; but no evidence is offered other than his FBI report, nor produced in writing from Harry Dean. Ernie claims to have seen this FBI memo to Senator George Murphy, but this JFK Forum has not seen it. Perhaps if we can view the FBI file itself, it may affect our opinion.

Further, even if the FBI noted “several different occasions” when the FBI tried to get Harry to stop, this amounts to “hostile” reporting unless the FBI itself can come up with written examples in Harry Dean’s own writing. Otherwise, it is hear-say, even if it is FBI hear-say.

Without written evidence, we only have the FBI’s word for it – and common sense sees that the FBI word is potentially “hostile” to Harry Dean UNLESS IT CAN BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE by written documents in Harry’s own pen. That is, if the FBI made up these allegations about Harry claiming to be an FBI agent, then obviously these FBI reports are "hostile." That is not stretching that word in the least.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “But you do not apply that same standard to HARRY DEAN! Instead, as you admit, you prefer giving him ‘the benefit of the doubt’ even though there is not even ONE document or ONE person whom corroborates Harry's story. ALL of your assertions in your eBook (a memoir which contains not even ONE footnote, not even ONE scanned document, not even ONE transcript of an interview) is based upon YOUR (and Harry's) ALLEGATIONS!”

In this claim, Ernie wishes to hold an individual citizen, Harry Dean, to the same standards as a USA institution – the FBI – which has thousands of employees. Harry and I wrote his eBook as a Memoir, a Confession, rather than as a historical document. We’re content to wait for FBI documents to be released through the FOIA to supply footnotes and appendices in a future edition of our eBook.

I’m confident that historical documents will support the key points of Harry’s Memoirs, otherwise I wouldn’t have taken the time to publish the eBook. I’m willing to drop the entire project if I see convincing evidence that contradicts Harry’s key points (and by the way, minor points here or there, like the date of a meeting with the FBI, are not key points).

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “As I have repeatedly stated (and you continually ignore this), nobody that I know of has ever made the accusations which you are making about FBI documentary evidence or about FBI files or about FBI Special Agent interviews.”

In this claim, Ernie holds that “nobody” has ever accused the FBI of being less than truthful. We can only smile here, because this is the JFK Education Forum, and many if not most of its members have continually accused the FBI of being less than truthful. Doubting the FBI isn’t based only on Harry Dean’s word, but on hundreds, literally hundreds of books published over the past 50 years on the JFK assassination.

Post by Ernie #608 (2/12/2014)

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “Paul: what your standard of proof reveals, is that you would never accept ANYTHING except a direct admission by Harry (the person whose recollections are being disputed) -- which means (by definition) you have no OBJECTIVE standard.”

In this claim, Ernie sees that I demand a direct admission from Harry Dean before I accept any hostile accusations by the FBI that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent. The FBI has 65 serials and hundreds of pages on Harry Dean – and I must insist that they have the resources to capture documents that is unmatched by any individual on the face of the earth. Ernie hopes to portray this as “no OBJECTIVE standard,” while common sense can see that by demanding a written proof from the FBI in Harry's own pen, I am setting a very OBJECTIVE standard.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “OK – from now on, we will demand THE EXACT SAME STANDARD OF PROOF FROM YOU! If you do not have a specific document signed and notarized by Harry, NOTHING you state will be accepted. NOTHING.”

This is an emotional reply to my demand for written proof. The FBI can afford this proof, if it indeed exists. Harry Dean is an ordinary working man who had been opposed by the FBI at every turn since 1965. Actually, his trunk of documents was stolen decades ago. I never denied that I’m taking Harry Dean’s word above the FBI’s word. This is a legitimate scholastic experiment, as we wait for solid, acceptable evidence from the FBI.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “They are not ‘FBI sources.’ They are independent sources which were interviewed by many different FBI Special Agents OR sources which sent letters to the FBI or CIA -- all of which made the same general statements about what Harry claimed about himself.”

If this is so, then showing examples of this should not be difficult. Where are the examples? For a starter, just show one, Ernie. What I have seen so far are FBI reports from FBI agents who claim that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent. If they got their information from a third-party, let them produce the third-party Affidavit. I have not seen this, yet.

Yet, of course, if this third-party is an everyday FBI stooge or xxxx, then this must also be taken into consideration. I will accept written testimony from a KTTV Executive, for example, or from a US Senator, for example. In the absence of such written evidence, these FBI reports amount to hear-say, IMHO.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO SEE ANYTHING APPEARING IN FBI FILES? OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IN THEM IS CREDIBLE TO YOU, or, quoting your recent comment, ‘THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH’.”

I am very eager to see the FBI files, Ernie. Further, if the FBI fails to support its allegations against Harry Dean with written evidence by Harry Dean himself, I will seriously consider written evidence from a believable Third-party, which the FBI can be expected to supply. In the absence of this, I must continue to doubt the veracity of the FBI in this matter (just as I reserve the right to doubt FBI veracity in all matters pertaining to the JFK assassination).

Post by Ernie #635 (2/14/2014)

QUESTION BY ERNIE: “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?”

I have already said that Harry Dean might have been mistaken about the 1961 date with regard to Wesley Grapp. Yet again, until we can see these 60+ Los Angeles FBI serials on Harry Dean with my own eyes, we can’t very well count them as evidence.

QUESTION BY ERNIE: “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?”

I have already offered a reasonable explanation – the field offices of the FBI dropped the ball.

QUESTION BY ERNIE: “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?

That will be difficult to answer since the Chicago FBI destroyed all its files on Harry Dean. We can only hope that copies were preserved at FBI Headquarters.

QUESTION BY ERNIE: “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?”

That is fairly well explained by the fact that Harry is now 87 years old, and these events happened 50 years ago – and also that his trunk of documents was stolen decades ago.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo, MA

<edit typos and color>

Edited February 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

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

Ernie wants to be quoted. OK, fair enough. I quote him 20 times in this post from the same messages he requested. My position hasn’t changed and I suspect that Ernie’s position won’t change, but here our differences are highlighted in clear terms. I begin with the Message Number, and then I quote Ernie word for word before I respond.

Let’s hope that Ernie can respond calmly to these replies, without accusations, and without defining words that everybody already knows, and without citing FBI documents about other subjects than Harry Dean.

Post by Ernie #591 (2/10/2014)

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: FBI documents already released in 1985 to Mark Allen make it very clear that employees of the Joe Pyne program along with reporters and publishers from several southern California newspapers contacted the FBI to inquire if Harry was (as he claimed) an “agent of the FBI” who was an undercover operative for the Bureau.

This claim is asserted without any written evidence.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: ….And, in fact, there are FBI memos which state that even Harry himself acknowledged to the FBI that he falsely described himself when he made contacts with some of these programs or journalists -- because he was trying to interest them in his story.

This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see those alleged acknowledgements in Harry’s own writing. If I see this, then I’ll have no choice but to drop my entire argument on this thread. It’s to your advantage, Ernie, to show written proof – the smoking gun. Where is it?

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: …The FBI was not “displeased” that Harry told his story in the public media. The FBI's problem with Harry was his false description of his relationship to the FBI.

This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see the “false description” in Harry’s own writing.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: …The problem (from the FBI perspective) was that Harry was falsely linking himself to the FBI.

This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see the “false linking” in Harry’s own writing.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: FBI…HQ frequently instructed Los Angeles to contact Harry Dean and tell him to desist from claiming that he was an FBI “agent” or “undercover operative”.

This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see the false claim in Harry’s own writing.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “So much of the ‘interest’ in Dean (by Los Angeles field) arises from the numerous attempts by Dean to obtain publicity for his story and the controversies which developed over Harry's mis-representation of himself.”

This is asserted without any written evidence. All these are mere claims that anybody can make if they are motivated. It isn’t hard to prove them – just provide some written documentation by somebody else besides the FBI claiming this. That’s all. I’m a reasonable guy.

Post by Ernie #604 (2/12/2014)

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “It is VERY clear that Harry described himself as an ‘agent of the FBI’.”

In this claim, Ernie gives the example of Tom Snyder firing questions at Harry, and Harry saying ‘yes’ to the last part of the question – and not being quick enough to correct Tom Snyder. But common sense can see that this example is a far cry from Harry “describing himself as an agent of the FBI.”

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “And there are several FBI memos which reflect that Harry personally acknowledged to FBI Special Agents that he had referred to himself as an “agent” of the FBI and Harry told them he would not do that again…”

In this claim, Ernie shows uncritical acceptance of the FBI report saying that they contacted Harry Dean to tell him “to stop making false claims about his relationship with the FBI.” No evidence is offered other than the word of this FBI report. Nothing is produced in writing from Harry Dean.

In this claim, also, Ernie quotes that FBI report as saying that “Dean admitted representing himself as an undercover agent for the FBI in talks with representatives of…KTTV.” Again, no evidence of this is offered other than this FBI report, and nothing is produced in writing from Harry Dean. Common sense must point out Harry’s claim that the FBI expressed their displeasure that Harry was going on KTTV with his story. Before I accept the FBI’s word over Harry’s, I will need more evidence.

In this claim, also, Ernie quotes that FBI report as alleging that Harry Dean made this false claim about being an undercover FBI agent, “in order to be selected for a guest spot on the Joe Pyne Show.” Again, no evidence is offered except this FBI agent’s word, and nothing in writing was produced in writing from Harry Dean, or even anybody from KTTV, as would be expected.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “In fact, all [senator George] Murphy was told…is that Harry was never authorized to represent or act in any official capacity for the FBI and the Bureau had to contact Harry several times to tell him to desist from making such claims.”

In this claim, Ernie shows that the FBI repeated their hostile profile of Harry as a person who claimed to be an FBI agent; but no evidence is offered other than his FBI report, nor produced in writing from Harry Dean.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “The file copy notation on the Bureau copy of the Murphy letter also points out that Harry “continued to make such claims to a newspaper and television station and was again contacted on 1/6/65 and admonished emphatically to desist from his claims”. The file copy notation refers to several different occasions when the FBI tried to get Harry to stop making such claims: 6/7/61, 12/2/63, 1/5/65.”

In this claim, Ernie shows that the FBI repeated their accusation that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent; but no evidence is offered other than his FBI report, nor produced in writing from Harry Dean. Ernie claims to have seen this FBI memo to Senator George Murphy, but this JFK Forum has not seen it. Perhaps if we can view the FBI file itself, it may affect our opinion.

Further, even if the FBI noted “several different occasions” when the FBI tried to get Harry to stop, this amounts to “hostile” reporting unless the FBI itself can come up with written examples in Harry Dean’s own writing. Otherwise, it is hear-say, even if it is FBI hear-say.

Without written evidence, we only have the FBI’s word for it – and common sense sees that the FBI word is potentially “hostile” to Harry Dean UNLESS IT CAN BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE by written documents in Harry’s own pen. That is, if the FBI made up these allegations about Harry claiming to be an FBI agent, then obviously these FBI reports are "hostile." That is not stretching that word in the least.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “But you do not apply that same standard to HARRY DEAN! Instead, as you admit, you prefer giving him ‘the benefit of the doubt’ even though there is not even ONE document or ONE person whom corroborates Harry's story. ALL of your assertions in your eBook (a memoir which contains not even ONE footnote, not even ONE scanned document, not even ONE transcript of an interview) is based upon YOUR (and Harry's) ALLEGATIONS!”

In this claim, Ernie wishes to hold an individual citizen, Harry Dean, to the same standards as a USA institution – the FBI – which has thousands of employees. Harry and I wrote his eBook as a Memoir, a Confession, rather than as a historical document. We’re content to wait for FBI documents to be released through the FOIA to supply footnotes and appendices in a future edition of our eBook.

I’m confident that historical documents will support the key points of Harry’s Memoirs, otherwise I wouldn’t have taken the time to publish the eBook. I’m willing to drop the entire project if I see convincing evidence that contradicts Harry’s key points (and by the way, minor points here or there, like the date of a meeting with the FBI, are not key points).

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “As I have repeatedly stated (and you continually ignore this), nobody that I know of has ever made the accusations which you are making about FBI documentary evidence or about FBI files or about FBI Special Agent interviews.”

In this claim, Ernie holds that “nobody” has ever accused the FBI of being less than truthful. We can only smile here, because this is the JFK Education Forum, and many if not most of its members have continually accused the FBI of being less than truthful. Doubting the FBI isn’t based only on Harry Dean’s word, but on hundreds, literally hundreds of books published over the past 50 years on the JFK assassination.

Post by Ernie #608 (2/12/2014)

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “Paul: what your standard of proof reveals, is that you would never accept ANYTHING except a direct admission by Harry (the person whose recollections are being disputed) -- which means (by definition) you have no OBJECTIVE standard.”

In this claim, Ernie sees that I demand a direct admission from Harry Dean before I accept any hostile accusations by the FBI that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent. The FBI has 65 serials and hundreds of pages on Harry Dean – and I must insist that they have the resources to capture documents that is unmatched by any individual on the face of the earth. Ernie hopes to portray this as “no OBJECTIVE standard,” while common sense can see that by demanding a written proof from Harry in this matter, I am setting a very OBJECTIVE standard.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “OK – from now on, we will demand THE EXACT SAME STANDARD OF PROOF FROM YOU! If you do not have a specific document signed and notarized by Harry, NOTHING you state will be accepted. NOTHING.”

This is an emotional reply to my demand for written proof. The FBI can afford this proof, if it indeed exists. Harry Dean is an ordinary working man who had been opposed by the FBI at every turn since 1965. Actually, his trunk of documents was stolen decades ago. I never denied that I’m taking Harry Dean’s word above the FBI’s word. This is a legitimate scholastic experiment, as we wait for solid, acceptable evidence from the FBI.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “They are not ‘FBI sources.’ They are independent sources which were interviewed by many different FBI Special Agents OR sources which sent letters to the FBI or CIA -- all of which made the same general statements about what Harry claimed about himself.”

If this is so, then showing examples of this should not be difficult. Where are the examples? For a starter, just show one, Ernie. What I have seen so far are FBI reports from FBI agents who claim that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent. If they got their information from a third-party, let them produce the third-party Affidavit. I have not seen this, yet.

Yet, of course, if this third-party is an everyday FBI stooge or xxxx, then this must also be taken into consideration. I will accept written testimony from a KTTV Executive, for example, or from a US Senator, for example. In the absence of such written evidence, these FBI reports amount to hear-say, IMHO.

ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO SEE ANYTHING APPEARING IN FBI FILES? OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IN THEM IS CREDIBLE TO YOU, or, quoting your recent comment, ‘THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH’.”

I am very eager to see the FBI files, Ernie. Further, if the FBI fails to support its allegations against Harry Dean with written evidence by Harry Dean himself, I will seriously consider written evidence from a believable Third-party, which the FBI can be expected to supply. In the absence of this, I must continue to doubt the veracity of the FBI in this matter (just as I reserve the right to doubt FBI veracity in all matters pertaining to the JFK assassination).

Post by Ernie #635 (2/14/2014)

QUESTION BY ERNIE: “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?”

I have already said that Harry Dean might have been mistaken about the 1961 date with regard to Wesley Grapp. Yet again, until we can see these 60+ Los Angeles FBI serials on Harry Dean with my own eyes, we can’t very well count them as evidence.

QUESTION BY ERNIE: “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?”

I have already offered a reasonable explanation – the Chicago FBI dropped the ball.

QUESTION BY ERNIE: “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?

That will be difficult to answer since the Chicago FBI destroyed all its files on Harry Dean. We can only hope that copies were preserved at FBI Headquarters.

QUESTION BY ERNIE: “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?”

That is fairly well explained by the fact that Harry is now 87 years old, and these events happened 50 years ago – and also that his trunk of documents was stolen decades ago.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo, MA

<edit typos>

I will be happy to address your comments Paul -- but what does all of this have to do with my recent challenge concerning your accusation in message #643 which was the entire subject of my challenge to you? I quote it again, in its entirety:

"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."

HOW/WHEN DID I "CONTINUE TO MISREPRESENT" YOUR POSITION "BY CLAIMING THAT WE HAVE PROOF"??

1. When was the FIRST time I misrepresented your position, i.e. when I stated that you or Harry claimed to "have proof"?

2. When was the SECOND time I misrepresented your position, when I "continued" to state that you or Harry claimed to "have proof"?

3. And when did I state that Harry was "lying" about this matter (i.e. the date of his first meeting with Grapp)??

Edited February 17, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Ernie, my question was based on a memory (again) of a document I read in the Mississippi Sovereigny files. I cannot find it now again. It came up during a perusal of a large number of files that may have been about 'the mississippi three' or perhaps Beckwith (KKK assassin of M. Evers) which seemed to be a memo to some bodies giving advice to investigating officers that a request for information will be coming and that one way to 'honestly' reply that they have nothing is to regard what they do have as documents concerning an 'open case'.

While I can't produce the actual doc now, perhaps the description as I remember it serves as a template/example for the question I ask.

Was there, afa you know, at the time, any loopholes like this?

[Ernie Lazar]

With respect to Paul's message #651 (i.e. his "assertions by Ernie" message) there is a common denominator that is apparent throughout Paul's message. I want to thank Paul for finally giving us a relatively clear glimpse into his methodology for discovery of truth.

I have confronted Paul's arguments on many previous occasions in my debates with JBS members, my debates with supporters of Eustace Mullins, and my debates with holocaust deniers. Paul expended about 2300 words to address basically three key questions:

1. What constitutes reliable "evidence"?

2. What constitutes "proof"?

3. What constitutes "fact"?

As I have said repeatedly throughout this thread, and as these common denominators in Paul’s message reveal, the ultimate problem between us is two-fold:

(1) we have a major and apparently irreconcilable epistemological dispute, i.e. we disagree about how to go about obtaining and verifying facts (i.e. what methods and sources should be used) and

(2) Paul is not accustomed to having anything he (or somebody else) writes subjected to rigorous (but normal) fact-checking procedures nor is he accustomed to having his statements and assertions questioned or critiqued or disputed

Let me digress for one brief moment. One of the most potent arguments I have ever made against Birchers (which enrages them) is when I quote two passages about the same subject matter which were written by Robert Welch (one from the June 1958 edition of his unpublished private manuscript, The Politician, and one from his December 1958 speech in Indianapolis which was published and later became known as the JBS Blue Book.)

I won't go into all the details here except to say that the two passages reveal the completely muddled and sloppy thought process which Welch used when he sought to define or describe what he regarded as enemies of our country and his comments revealed his inability (or unwillingness) to make careful distinctions between legitimate (i.e. honorable, principled, and patriotic) versus subversive persons or groups (aka enemies). Instead, Welch conflated them all into one indistinguishable mass.

In what follows, I will be giving a comparable example regarding Paul’s muddled and sloppy thinking which gives us a clear insight into Paul's inability to make careful rational distinctions or even to be consistent in his own narrative. Unless Paul addresses this fundamental deficiency, nothing which he writes from this point forward can ever be taken seriously.

PAUL’S STANDARD FOR “PROOF”

If we accept the underlying predicate of Paul’s message, we might as well close down all history and political science departments at our colleges and universities because they will have utterly no purpose.

In addition, we might as well destroy all history and political science books and then get rid of every biography, autobiography, and memoir ever published along with every other type of purported “non-fiction” publication – including newspapers, magazines, or internet news websites.

While we are at it, we should also disband professional associations like the American Historical Association because they would no longer have anything useful to contribute to us or to their profession.

LET’S START WITH PAUL’S EBOOK

In Paul’s message, he lists what he calls 20 “Assertions By Ernie” and then he dismisses each one of those assertions by using phrases like the following (which are meant to give us his standard for what he thinks is reliable evidence and proof)

“claim asserted without any written evidence”

“show the written proof – the smoking gun”

“provide some written documentation”

“nothing is produced in writing from Harry Dean”

“no evidence is offered other than his FBI report, nor produced in writing from Harry Dean”

“otherwise it is hear-say”

“without written evidence, we only have the FBI’s word for it”

“UNLESS IT CAN BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE by written documents in Harry’s own pen”

If we use ONLY the standards which Paul has expressed, then we should destroy Paul’s eBook because there is utterly no documentation contained within it. Virtually everything in it is “hearsay” or rumors/gossip and conjecture which is dependent upon accepting what one person (and only one person) says. Even worse, that one person has declared that most (or all?) of his accumulated documentary evidence was lost, stolen, or destroyed decades ago!!!

For example:

1. Where is John Rousselot’s letter or videotape stating, “Yes, I gave $10,000 to Guy Galbadon in the summer of 1963 so that he could arrange to have JFK murdered” ?

Obviously, there is no FBI file which contains such a document because the FBI was not (like Harry) an intimate associate and friend of Rousselot or of Galbadon nor did the FBI have any knowledge about their plot. So, to quote Paul Trejo, “show the written proof—the smoking gun”.

2. Where is the letter or videotape of Guy Galbadon stating that: “Yes, on two occasions (once in Mexico and also once in the U.S.), I participated in a plot to murder JFK.” Or, as Paul would say, “provide some written documentation”

3. Where is the letter or videotape from Edwin Walker (and keep in mind, unlike the rest of us, Paul has actually gone through Walker’s personal papers!) in which Walker states that: “Yes, I frequently met with several individuals such as John Rousselot, Guy Galbadon, Harry Dean, Loran Hall etc. and we plotted to murder JFK and blame Lee Harvey Oswald for that deed.” OR as Paul would say, “if nothing is produced in writing from Edwin Walker, it can’t be proven to be true.”

THE FBI PLOT

What Paul is asking us to believe is that a bunch of FBI Special Agents in different cities, in different months/years, were terminally bored and had nothing else to occupy their time, so they decided (independently – or perhaps in combination?) to write DOZENS of completely false memos and reports. They did this in several ways:

1. They never interviewed or had any phone or personal contact with Harry but they created memos or reports making it seem like they spoke with Harry on many different occasions (in different cities in Illinois and California; and in different months and years).

2. These Agents also pretended that they had received inquiries about Harry from other government agencies, from newspaper reporters, from newspaper publishers, from radio and TV program executives and from other sources and the FBI Agents decided to fabricate FBI forms which Agents normally use to memorialize all the details of such contacts.

3. Then, all of these Special Agents pretended that they were assigned by their Supervisors to interview the people who had supposedly contacted the FBI about Harry

4. Then, all of these FBI Special Agents pretended that they traveled to various cities in order to actually interview all these reporters, publishers, and radio and TV executives or other agency contacts (such as CIA); they also pretended to have phone conversations with these folks.

5. Then all of these FBI Special Agents independently decided to fabricate comments supposedly made by these phantom interviewees. So, for example, multiple FBI Special Agents, on different occasions, in different cities were so bored, that they thought it would spice up their daily routine if they created reports stating that their interviewee had claimed that Harry Dean told the interviewee that he (Dean) had been an “undercover agent” or “undercover operative” for the FBI and Harry said to them that he had provided information to the FBI in both Chicago and Los Angeles for a period of about 5 years.

6. Then – AFTER all these phony reports of interviews were created by different Agents in different cities in different months/years, each one of those Agents turned over their phony reports to different Supervisors in their respective field offices for review. And, when each of the different Supervisors, in different field offices, in different cities, in different months/years finished reviewing those phony reports, they passed them along to all the different SAC’s in different field offices, in different months/years, who, in turn, forwarded all these phony reports to HQ where more Supervisors, Sections Chiefs, Assistant Directors, and (ultimately) Tolson and Hoover saw many of these phony reports. And when Hoover or anybody else at HQ sent follow-up inquiries to various field offices, all of these bored Special Agents created new phony reports which summarized all the original phony information which they had concocted to begin with -- and they sent it back to HQ.

7. And, lastly, based upon all the bogus reporting by all these different Special Agents, in different cities, in different months/years, J. Edgar Hoover and other senior FBI employees answered inquiries about Harry Dean (from Congressmen, from Senators, from the White House, from HSCA and from the CIA ...among others) and all those replies reported all the same phony and fabricated information about Harry which originated from all those phony reports made by multiple bored Special Agents who had nothing better to do with their time!

PAUL’S STANDARD FOR RELIABLE “EVIDENCE”

I want to spend a little time briefly illustrating how Paul pretends to use “evidence” in support of whatever he wants a reader to believe.

As I go through these examples, let’s keep in mind what Paul has declared as HIS rules or his preferred methodology for proving some “allegation” (as explained in his message #651). I am limiting myself exclusively to examples within the past week or so but there are literally SCORES of examples which could be used to illustrate Paul’s contempt for documentation.

Page 40, message #588

Referring to Harry, Paul declares:

“You’re also in FBI records as a figure in extreme right wing circles in southern California (e.g. the JBS)”

Where does this come from? What specific “FBI records” is Paul referring to? He doesn’t say. Nor does Paul explain why he suddenly is willing to accept "FBI records" as a reliable evidentiary source when he has explictly told us about his contempt for the FBI and how their records "are not good enough".

Page 40, message #593

Paul writes: “In the context of Little Rock AR in 1959, Walker’s troops…were unaware of the JBS teaching that the Eisenhower White House was really the Communist Enemy and it took its orders from Radio Moscow.”

And then Paul tells us that Walker was “frustrated” because all he wanted to do “was to teach his troops about anti-Communism. But he fails to admit openly that his definition of Communism was the JBS definition of Communism, namely, that all US Presidents since FDR have been Communists.”

And later in his message, Paul makes a strange comment about Walker, i.e. “what he really told his troops from 1960 through 1961 we can probably guess based on his firm support of the JBS….”

So, let’s quickly recap Paul’s claims. We have four elements in Paul’s story:

1. In 1959, Walker’s troops were not aware of JBS teachings

2. Walker was frustrated by his troops’ lack of knowledge regarding the Communist Enemy

3. Walker did not “admit openly… that all U.S. President since FDR have been Communists”

4. Paul thinks we can “guess” what Walker told his troops from 1960-1961

Let’s start with Paul’s last point:

Why do we have to “guess” about Walker told his troops from 1960-1961?

Isn’t this Paul’s tacit admission that he does not know what Walker told them because Paul has never asked anybody who served under Walker during that time?

Isn’t it also a tacit admission by Paul that he has never read the 992 pages of testimony and subsequent report on Walker by Lt. Gen. Frederic J. Brown -- which presents mind-numbing details about precisely what Walker told his troops?

If, as Paul admits, he has no familiarity with primary source documents, then why should we trust his analysis and conclusions about this matter or any other?

What 1959 JBS publication is Paul referencing which establishes that the JBS believed and was “teaching that the Eisenhower White House was really the Communist Enemy and took its orders from Radio Moscow”? Paul doesn’t say. He just expects readers to accept his allegation with no bibliographic citation or other “proof”. The precise type of "allegation" which infuriates Paul if he thinks it is being used against Harry!

Now we need to consider Paul’s 2/14/14 message #614 (page 41 of thread):

Paul tells us that: “…the very first month” when Walker was in Augsburg Germany “he also began his so-called ‘Pro-Blue’ training program, which included a stiff dose of JBS doctrines directed to the troops -- he had the nerve to teach his troops that sitting US Presidents were Communists taking orders from Moscow -- the ENEMY!”

But wait a minute! In message #593, Paul just got done telling us that we would have to “guess” what Walker told his troops in 1960-1961. Now Paul is saying he KNOWS what they were taught, i.e. "a stiff dose of JBS doctrines"!

Then, there is another problem: Walker’s first month in Augsburg was October 1959. But his Pro-Blue program did not commence until October 15, 1960.

And, of course, nobody (not the US Army investigation, not Overseas Weekly newspaper—the German paper which broke the story, not soldiers who served under Walker in Germany), not the US Senate Armed Services Committee which investigated this matter, NOBODY, has EVER claimed that either Walker or his Pro-Blue program told his troops that “sitting US Presidents were Communists taking orders from Moscow…”

Which is why, of course, the official investigation found no wrongdoing by Walker but, instead, the Secretary of the Army admonished Walker for what actually did occur and then Walker was re-assigned to Hawaii to become Assistant Chief of Staff For Training and Operations in the Pacific. Walker refused that position and resigned instead. [if Paul's description was accurate and truthful, Walker would have been summarily fired for a violation of several different Army regulations -- but Paul depends upon reader ignorance (or gullibility) so that they will believe any "allegation" which Paul makes -- no matter how preposterous or false.

BOTTOM-LINE

We could go through every line of Paul’s “20 assertions by Ernie” message to demonstrate how Paul misrepresents evidence or does not understand basic principles of logic – but to what purpose? Is someone is totally blind, how do you explain color?

As the example above reveals, Paul has no respect for facts (despite his protestations to the contrary).

Paul routinely makes bold assertions for which he does not provide even one scintilla of evidence – nor even a bibliographic citation so that interested readers could check it out

Paul routinely attributes beliefs, comments or positions to people which are utter falsehoods and then he becomes angry when those falsehoods are identified by someone who is familiar with the actual truth of the matter.

Paul routinely accepts whatever Harry Dean says or writes – because he considers that as his baseline “proof”.

Paul routinely contradicts himself in terms of what he considers acceptable.

On the one hand (for example) he emphatically declares:

“You must show a document from Harry Dean himself claiming to be an FBI Agent. Period. Nothing more and nothing less…Your cite hearsay and mostly from FBI sources. That’s not good enough.”

But on the other hand, Paul writes and publishes an entire eBook which contains nothing but hearsay and unsupported allegations and he wants it accepted as factual and truthful.

In addition, Paul tells us that he is looking forward to seeing the Los Angeles FBI file on Harry. But what for what possible purpose? If evidence developed by numerous Special Agents in multiple cities over a period of many different years from our nation’s primary law enforcement investigative agency “is not good enough” even though their educational background was required to be a law or accounting degree and everything they produced had to withstand rigorous courtroom scrutiny – then what is “good enough” to be considered as worthwhile or credible evidence?

Paul Trejo is the only person I have ever known (with the exception of Hitler admirers and adherents of Eustace Mullins) who claims that factual truth MUST NEVER be based upon primary source evidence UNLESS that evidence is accepted and approved by the very “witness” whose testimony (recollections) are being disputed.

This is equivalent to the prosecution being told that they CANNOT present any testimony from ANYBODY unless their testimony supports the defendant’s assertions and recollections. All contradictory evidence is verboten – UNLESS the defendant, should by some incredible miracle, agree to incriminate himself or admit he has made inaccurate or incomplete statements!

As I have previously written many times, there are many different types or standards of proof.

Paul demands that (with respect to Harry) we must use only the highest, most difficult standard of proof namely, the one used to convict people of the most serious crimes -- i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why Paul insists that critics or skeptics provide ONLY "a document from Harry Dean himself claiming to be an FBI Agent. Period. Nothing more and nothing less."

The reason why Paul wants ONLY this standard to be used is illustrated by our two most recent examples where Paul has acknowledged error

1. the FBI forgery episode

2. the Dean-Grapp first meeting episode

Paul knows (as does any rational being), that nobody except the most dedicated, persistent, and knowledgeable and skillful researcher could take on the task which Harry's narrative presents. Such a person would be required to have:

(1) considerable financial resources

(2) access to exceptional library and other premium online resources

(3) lots of time and energy

(4) be willing to devote long hours to the task of examining, in minute detail, whatever fictions Paul (or Harry) present.

This becomes even more onerous and daunting a task when private individuals do not even have access to the relevant documentary evidence because:

(1) much of it requires making FOIA requests and the requester would need to be intimately familiar with how documents are filed and cross-referenced at each agency -- plus the requester must be willing to wait potentially for long periods of time and be willing to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, for responsive documents (which Paul would just dismiss or de-value anyway)

(2) the primary witness has declared that his own corroborating documentary evidence no longer exists because it was lost, stolen, or destroyed!

(3) there is no known documentary evidence (or oral interviews) available from or about the other key actors in the "plot"

And, of course, private individuals do not have subpoena powers or the ability to compel testimony under oath via penalty of perjury.

In short, Paul is asking for the standard of proof which is always limited to the most serious criminal matters -- because Paul knows that standard cannot be, and is not, successfully applied to most historical research because students and researchers do not have access to the tools which are available to law enforcement entities and lawyers.

Consequently, Paul's strategy is to insist that critics and skeptics use ONLY the highest possible standard for "proof" (for anything pertaining to Harry) while, simultaneously, Paul

(1) NEVER accepts or applies that same standard for anything which Paul writes or asserts (instead, Paul tells us it is perfectly ok to rely upon his anecdotes, conjecture, inferences, and child-like faith in whatever Harry tells him aka "benefit of the doubt".

and

(2) Paul pretends that other standards of evidence are so totally sub-standard that they are impermissible because they are so inadequate -- including (lowest to highest):

reasonable suspicion

probable cause

substantial evidence

preponderance of evidence

clear and convincing evidence

Paul wants us to pretend that these other standards of evidence do not even exist!

Edited February 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, my question was based on a memory (again) of a document I read in the Mississippi Sovereigny files. I cannot find it now again. It came up during a perusal of a large number of files that may have been about 'the mississippi three' or perhaps Beckwith (KKK assassin of M. Evers) which seemed to be a memo to some bodies giving advice to investigating officers that a request for information will be coming and that one way to 'honestly' reply that they have nothing is to regard what they do have as documents concerning an 'open case'.

While I can't produce the actual doc now, perhaps the description as I remember it serves as a template/example for the question I ask.

Was there, afa you know, at the time, any loopholes like this?

All bureaucracies have methods by which they can attempt to conceal embarrassing (or worse) information. If your question is in the context of making FOIA requests (or the equivalent requests that can be used in many states to obtain state government records), there is no way to give you a definitive answer because everything would depend upon the exact nature of the documents being sought and, also, the type of records-keeping systems which exist in order to conduct searches.

Generally speaking, however, in a free society, it is very difficult to permanently hide responsive documents on entire subjects. Part of the reason is because usually there are references to every subject matter (and perhaps even identifying file numbers) which are sent outside the originating agency. For example, a long time ago, I attempted to obtain a copy of a two-part FBI monograph but the reply I got from the FBI was "no records" existed. However, by searching the Eisenhower Presidential Library catalog, I was able to determine that copies of those two FBI monographs were available in the Eisenhower Library -- so I got them that way.

Similarly, in the context of Harry Dean, we learned that over 30 years ago somebody made an FOIA request on a subject and contained within the hundreds of thousands of documents released, were at least four specific files which the FBI created that pertained to Harry Dean. We also know that the Dean-related material which was sent to the House Select Committee on Assassinations is listed, serial by serial (and by date), on a multi-page inventory which is accessible on the Mary Ferrell website. We also know that there are CIA files containing documents pertaining to Harry. We also know that Air Force Intelligence prepared a document on Harry. We also know there are other U.S. and Canadian sources which created records on Harry.

In short, there are multiple avenues for research -- but like anything else in life, it takes a lot of time and persistence (and often money) to track it all down.

[Paul Trejo]

With respect to Ernie’s message #654 attempting to respond to my demand for hard evidence from his side, he uses 3,255 words to basically say, “no, first YOU provide proof and hard evidence from YOUR side, Paul!”

I’ve long admitted that Harry and I lack proof for our eBook. Ernie is also right to note that to make any full, historical case out of Harry’s story would require a professional team with lots of resources; and that isn’t me. I’m just one guy, and I do what I can.

I think that Ernie and I both actually agree on what constitutes reliable evidence, proof and fact. We also seem to agree today that neither of us have this. These matters were well established even in the days of Moses, who would hear a charge in court only when there were “two or three” witnesses, and not only one. That is quite reasonable, and I accept it, and I take it that Ernie accepts it.

The FBI constitutes a single entity, and anything they claim, IMHO, must be confirmed by a second reliable party. The same applies to Harry Dean. He is one entity, and as his spokesperson, I count as part of his team. If we claim something, that is only one team claiming it – only one witness.

So, really, my standard for proof is nothing special – it is common sense. Ernie can see that, and he can admit that he also lacks this proof – so far.

Ernie is in a better position to find proof than I am. Ernie has access to countless thousands of FBI documents, and I don’t, and neither does Harry Dean. FBI documents, we know, will sometimes cite reliable third-parties. On this thread, I have thanked Ernie repeatedly for sharing his FBI documents with the Forum. It is a valuable service, no matter how much Ernie and I clash on sides.

If, for example, Ernie finds a document by Senator George Murphy, or an Executive from KTTV, for example, which says in writing, “Harry Dean told me clearly that he was an FBI agent,” then I’ll fold my hand.

But it’s not good enough for the FBI alone to say it – or even J. Edgar Hoover – and that’s because JFK researchers have come to doubt the veracity of the FBI in the case of the JFK assassination. The FBI was the primary source of information for the Warren Commission, and their conclusions were self-contradictory. So, we are justified in our doubt.

So, although I know I don’t have proof for Harry’s position, I won’t just accept the FBI’s word for it if they disagree.

Ernie remains mistaken, however, on the charge that I have only Harry Dean’s word for it. On the contrary, as Ernie mentioned in passing, I’ve had access to the personal papers of Ex-General Walker, and actually this is what got me interested in Harry Dean in the first place.

Ex-General Walker told the FBI and the Warren Commission that he never heard the name of Lee Harvey Oswald until the day of the JFK assassination. This is a matter of record. Walker’s personal papers, however, prove Walker suspected as early as Easter Sunday, 1963, that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill him in his Dallas home on 10 April 1963. I have shown this several times in past years with actual documents from Walker’s own typewriter.

This self-contradiction constitutes genuine evidence. Actually, Commission Attorney Wesley Liebeler already suspected Walker of knowing about Oswald prior to the JFK assassination. Liebeler questioned Walker about Oswald from the angle of the story in the German newspaper, the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, which was published the weekend after the JFK assassination. (This is found in the testimony by Edwin Walker in volume 11 of the Warren Commission Hearings.)

In this story, just 18 hours after the JFK assassination, the reporters at the Deutsche Nationalzeitung in Germany were in contact with Edwin Walker, and Walker told them early in the morning of 23 November 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald was also his shooter on 10 April 1963. They finalized their story the next day, and on the weekend of 29 November 1963, German readers saw it in print.

We know that Edwin Walker told this story to the German reporters, because the German BKA (Germany's FBI equivalent) forced the information out of them. Walker, they admitted, was the source of their story.

When Attorney Liebeler demanded to know from Walker how he knew that Oswald was his shooter on 10 April 1963, Walker denied any knowledge of it. When Liebeler asked how the Deutsche Nationalzeitung came to print it, Walker said, “they must have guessed it.” Liebeler then dropped the issue, knowing that the BKA has no jurisdiction or business in US politics or jurisprudence.

If that’s all we had, I wouldn’t say another word – but we have documents from Walker himself, demanding from every Administration since LBJ for further facts about his 10 April 1963 case – as he was convinced that there were two shooters involved.

Walker said in his letter to Frank Church that members of the US government told him on Easter Sunday that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the shooters, was arrested and was released that same night. Walker repeated that story until the year he died.

So, in fact, I do have a third-party corroboration that Walker lied about his knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination. It goes deeper than that, but for now, I’ll get back to the topic at hand, which is Harry Dean.

What intrigues me about Harry Dean's story is that Harry never refers to the Walker papers, and never refers to any other JFK conspiracy theory in the literature. Harry does not reference anything by Harold Weisberg, Jay Epstein, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher or Jim Garrison – Harry is just telling us what he saw and heard.

Harry says that it has been a terrible burden, knowing he was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK – but actually it’s not as though Harry was a shooter. Harry wasn’t in Dallas or anything. Harry knows nothing of Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, Marita Lorenz, Maurice Bishop, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales or William Harvey.

Harry only knows what he saw and heard. Other JFK researchers have already linked Walker with Hemming, for example, and with Loran Hall. But Harry Dean does not refer to other JFK researchers at all.

Harry claims that he saw and heard, over the course of several months in 1963, the antics of Ex-General Walker, Gabby Gabaldon, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Congressman John Rousselot and sundry JBS members whose names he cannot recall, involved in a JFK plot that named Lee Harvey Oswald.

Dave Robbins is afraid to speak about these issues, but he has verified (and probably will continue to verify, because he is an honest man) that all the above named people were movers and shakers in his event-planning activities for the right-wing in Southern California in 1963. He denies any knowledge of any plot to kill JFK, however.

So, it’s not only Harry’s word alone that I work with.

I’m also perfectly willing to admit that Harry Dean might be mistaken about this or that aspect of events that occurred 50 years ago. However, when it comes to my suspicions about Ex-General Edwin Walker – I feel I am on firm ground, and I seek, seek, seek more and more data and information – anything I can get.

I feel certain that Ex-General Walker was far closer to the center of the cyclone of the JFK assassination than any other researcher has ever before identified. (The writer who comes closest to my theory is Dick Russell in his landmark effort, The Man Who Knew Too Much. In that book Russell interviewed Edwin Walker as well as H.L. Hunt's butler who admitted that he overheard Edwin Walker and H.L. Hunt speaking about Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the JFK assassination.)

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 19, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Just out of curiosity, I would like Paul to answer one question about this previous comment -- which I let slide when Paul first made it.

"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."

Since you say Morris "invented the fiction", please tell me approximately what date that occurred?

When do you claim was the FIRST time Morris described Harry as an FBI agent? Or the first time when some surrogate of his, quoted/cited Morris's fiction?

[Paul Trejo]

Just out of curiosity, I would like Paul to answer one question about this previous comment -- which I let slide when Paul first made it.

"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."

Since you say Morris "invented the fiction", please tell me approximately what date that occurred?

When do you claim was the FIRST time Morris described Harry as an FBI agent? Or the first time when some surrogate of his, quoted/cited Morris's fiction?

Well, Ernie, the first place I've seen that with my own eyes is in a 1975 issue of The Tattler, which tells Harry's story with many weird embellishments. For example, W.R. Morris claims he chatted with Harry Dean at the gravesite of Lee Harvey Oswald. That happens to be a lie.

When Harry first saw that lie in The Tattler in 1975, he made efforts to telephone W.R. Morris and ask him what the heck was going on. To the best of my knowledge, this is the very first time that Harry Dean met W.R. Morris.

However, there is one report I am researching, that found W.R. Morris' story as early as 1968, the year of the Jim Garrison trials. If confirmed, we have W.R. Morris talking and bragging about Harry Dean seven years before he ever met the man. This suggests that W.R. Morris got Harry's story originally from the Joe Pyne show.

Since W.R. Morris was a fiction writer by trade (he wrote the famous, Walking Tall, series in the 60's) he was not above adding his original drama, just in case he could sell the story.

W.R. Morris followed Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and all the old guard. It was from Jim Garrison's case that the name of Eladio del Valle came up, and by 1975 W.R. Morris had added Eladio Del Valle to Harry Dean's story -- although Harry never before heard of Eladio Del Valle.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 19, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

With respect to Ernie’s message #654 attempting to respond to my demand for hard evidence from this side, he uses 3,255 words to basically say, “no, first YOU provide proof and hard evidence from YOUR side, Paul!”

Quite the contrary. What I stated is that you will not accept ANYTHING except ONE type of evidence and even then, it is unacceptable to you unless Harry acknowledges it. If you submit your standard of proof to ANY scholar or historian, they would laugh you out of the room!

Let us recall what you recently acknowledged regarding the first Harry-Grapp meeting. Remember: ALL of this is based upon Harry's statements to you -- not any independent verification of any kind.

You started by declaring a specific month/year (July 1961). Then you changed your story to a more ambiguous general time frame (i.e. latter part of 1961). And then you changed it again so that your "final" answer is "maybe" it occurred in a TOTALLY DIFFERENT YEAR! How can ANY researcher cope with such a story and prove or disprove it?

Then -- go back and review all of our exchanges regarding the Bill Kelly redacted version of Harry's letter to Hoover. Pay particular attention to YOUR arguments during that exchange. How certain you were (because you accepted Harry's assurances). How incensed you were that I supposedly had touching "blind faith" in FBI records. Then, when I presented my analysis of the two different documents, you dismissed and de-valued THAT too as if your conclusion was the ONLY reasonable explanation. Then consider Harry's Mormon Church comments.

Paul, do you honestly believe that these are the ONLY discrepancies somebody could find if they carefully examine Harry's story? Assuming, of course, they are willing to invest the time, energy, and resources?

There is not a SINGLE instance in this entire thread of anybody DISPUTING ANYTHING which you have presented. Why? Because nobody has the detailed knowledge required to falsify your statements -- especially the kind of specialized knowledge about the history of the Birch Society or about Walker or other topics which is required. So you get a free pass from everybody else to continue disseminating your falsehoods.

I’ve long admitted that Harry and I lack proof for our eBook. Ernie is also right to note that to make any full, historical case out of Harry’s story would require a professional team with lots of resources; and that isn’t me. I’m just one guy, and I do what I can.

You don't seem able to connect the dots here Paul. Your eBook is presented not as personal opinions or unsubstantiated conjectures, anecdotes, and speculations.

You continually describe Harry's narrative as a credible work of non-fiction. In the preface of your eBook, Harry described his personal recollections as "true experiences" and he accepted your assistance (i.e. Walker documents in particular) to help "corroborate" Harry's story.

But that is NOT true. NOTHING has been "corroborated". To corroborate means to authenticate or validate or prove. All you have done is attach your assumptions re: Walker and the "plot" to Harry's unproven subjective recollections.

That is why your eBook contains no footnotes, no bibliographic citations, no list of libraries or other institutions which you have visited to pursue research, no reference to any historian or political scientist who reviewed your manuscript to critique it (and to correct factual errors before publication), etc. Every non-fiction book published contains the types of references I just listed precisely because they use standard methodology for "corroborating" their text.

Actually, I think that Ernie and I both actually agree on what constitutes reliable evidence, proof and fact. We also seem to agree today that neither of us have this. These matters were well established even in the days of Moses, who would hear a charge in court only when there were “two or three” witnesses, and not only one.

I totally disagree. You and I DO NOT have the same standard for proof or reliable evidence or fact.

That is quite reasonable, and I accept it, and I take it that Ernie accepts it. The FBI constitutes a single entity, and anything they claim, IMHO, must be confirmed by a second reliable party.

You are using lowest-common-denominator reasoning here and you are pretending that there is a moral or pratical equivalence between the FBI as "one entity" versus all other "entities".

The FBI is not just a non-descript "single entity". It is an organization which was created and designed to discover facts. It is a professional investigative agency (with THOUSANDS of professional investigators) which has the full power of the United States Government as a toolbox to use for discovering truth. Furthermore, the information which appears in FBI files is NOT "FBI information". 90% or more originated OUTSIDE the FBI -- including from city, county, state law enforcement agencies (including intelligence units of police departments, state police, district attorneys, US Attorneys, State Attorney Generals), and from military intelligence (G-2, ONI, OSI), and from state and national legislative investigating bodies, and from DOZENS of other sources -- including, but not limited to, thousands of informants inside legitimate and subversive organizations. NO OTHER single "entity" had access to all of that!

Furthermore, BY LAW, other agencies of our government were REQUIRED to submit evidence of known or suspected criminal or subversive activities to the FBI for processing. The people within the FBI (Agents and technical staff--such as laboratory and forensic science people) were professionals who had to successfully complete mandatory intensive training on every conceivable type of subject.

More importantly, the FBI employees who were case agents for FBI informants were subject to very specific protocols and mandatory reporting procedures -- not just within their own field office, but also to FBI HQ -- where the people assigned to review those types of cases were long-term career employees (often 20-30 years of service).

Why do you think we were so successful in penetrating the Communist Party and the Ku Klux Klan? Do you think it was because a bunch of amateurs got incredibly lucky over a period of many decades?

Does all this mean that the FBI was perfect? Of course not. It was comprised of human beings -- subject to all the normal failings of human beings. But, more often than not, it got basic investigative facts correct -- even if it used those facts in ways which we now rightly criticize.

The same applies to Harry Dean. He is one entity, and as his spokesperson, I count as part of his team. If we claim something, that is only one team claiming it – only one witness.

So, really, my standard for proof is nothing special – it is common sense. Ernie can see that, and he can admit that he also lacks this proof – so far.

No, Paul, we disagree about what constitutes "proof". You think it is totally irrelevant if (for example) multiple independent sources, over a lengthy period of time, present the same comments about what Harry suggested concerning his relationship with the FBI.

You think that "proof" is ONLY whatever supports Harry's recollections. You DO NOT recognize as valuable or even as relevant, anything falling into the categories of: reasonable suspicion, probable cause, substantial evidence, preponderance of evidence.

Ernie is in a better position to find proof than I am. Ernie has access to countless thousands of FBI documents, and I don’t, and neither does Harry Dean. FBI documents, we know, will sometimes cite reliable third-parties. On this thread, I have thanked Ernie repeatedly for sharing his FBI documents with the Forum. It is a valuable service, no matter how much Ernie and I clash on sides.

The ONLY FBI documents you want to see, are those which support Harry's narrative. Period. End of story. Everything else is suspect. AND: any accumulation of evidence in FBI files (over a lengthy period) means absolutely nothing to you in terms of probative value.

If, for example, Ernie finds a document by Senator George Murphy, or an Executive from KTTV, for example, that says in writing, “Harry Dean told me clearly that he was an FBI agent,” then I’ll fold my hand.

WRONG. You will then assert it was forged. Besides, the entire purpose of FBI summary memos was to present what Agents discovered when they interviewed people with direct first-hand knowledge of whatever matter was being investigated.

Often, there are multiple pieces of evidence over a period of time which can be used to form a reasonable conclusion EVEN IF there is no "direct" statement of the type you want to see.

So, for example, #1 piece of evidence:

SAC Los Angeles sent a memo to Hoover on 1/6/65 in which the SAC reported that Harry was "recontacted by Bureau Agents" at his home in LaPuente. During that interview, "Dean admitted representing himself as an 'undercover agent' for the FBI in talks with representatives of television station KTTV, Los Angeles, in order to be selected for a guest spot on the Joe Pyne Show."

#2 piece of evidence:

About six months later, SAC Los Angeles sent another memo to Hoover. This time, the communication was in reference to a contact by Thomas Vodrey, the publisher of the Valley Journal newspaper. FBI Agents contacted Vodrey because he (Vodrey) had requested confirmation that Harry was an "undercover agent" for the FBI.

Now here is the part which can be interpreted as SUPPORTING a portion of Paul's argument:

The reason why Vodrey had that description of Harry in his head, is because of the manner in which Vodrey's employee (Bill Capps, a staff writer for the Valley Journal) described Harry to Vodrey.

Now, Paul will say that Harry cannot be responsible for how other people interpret or describe him or how they might decide to dramatize something Harry said for publicity purposes. And that is true enough. And Vodrey even told the FBI that Bill Capps probably used the term, undercover agent, "in a very broad sense in dramatizing the story."

BUT---let's now proceed to the third piece of evidence.

#3 piece of evidence

This time, we have YET ANOTHER person who contacted the FBI to report how they interpreted Harry's comments about himself. This time it was Bob Hayward, the Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Show. According to the 12/18/64 memo from SAC Los Angeles to Hoover, Mr. Hayward "said Dean claims he served as an 'undercover agent' for the FBI in Chicago and wants to appear on the Pyne Show to tell about his role in developing information for the Bureau in the 26th of July Movement and the FPCC."

#4 piece of evidence:

We now return to the Tom Snyder interview of Harry when Harry was asked a direct question, using the EXPLICIT TERM "undercover agent" and Harry said "that's right".

You can certainly understand why there are so many pieces of evidence to support the idea that Harry was never very precise with respect to how he described himself --- especially when Harry was actively seeking publicity for his story.

The point here is this: Different people, at different times, came to the same conclusion about the manner in which Harry was presenting himself---based upon their personal contacts with Harry.

Do I think that Harry INTENTIONALLY LIED? Probably not. But I DO think Harry was perfectly happy to let people use their imagination to surmise whatever they wanted to surmise from his cryptic and ambiguous references to himself -- because he wanted publicity!

During a February 1967 appearance before the House Appropriations Committee, J. Edgar Hoover was asked if he approved of former FBI informants speaking under the auspices of "extremist groups" such as the JBS-front group TACT (Truth About Civil Turmoil).

Hoover accepted the premise that TACT was an extremist group and he then said:

"It is an improper attempt to capitalize on the name of the FBI."

Congressman Andrews then asked Hoover:

“In other words, this certainly does not indicate what it would to the average American, that the ‘ex-FBI undercover agents’ are so frustrated in their work in the Agency that they leave and sign-up with extremist organizations in order to try to protect America.”

Hoover replied: “Nor does it indicate I in any way condone the use of the name ‘ex-FBI-undercover agent’ in such endeavors.“ [HQ 62-104401-3135, 5/31/67].

Hoover objected to former informants seeking to inflate their credentials to persuade audiences that they had some sort of special expertise when, in reality, they simply provided raw information, of varying quality, to the Bureau.

JBS National Public Relations Director Reed Benson wrote to Hoover on 11/30/67 to ask Hoover to clarify his objection. Benson mentioned that JBS publicity releases on JBS speakers included descriptions of their association with the FBI. Examples: Julia Brown was described as former "FBI Undercover Agent" and Lola Belle Holmes and Ruth Gordienko were described as "an FBI undercover operative".

Hoover's terse reply to Benson was that "it is improper for individuals who have voluntarily furnished information to the FBI on a confidential basis, for which they may or may not have been compensated, to capitalize on the name and reputation of this Bureau." [HQ 62-104401, #3215; 11/30/67 Reed Benson letter and 12/5/67 Hoover reply.]

ANY ANY TIME, Harry could have definitively shut-down all this inaccurate speculation but he chose not to. Tom Snyder's interview was probably seen by HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people -- Harry's biggest audience. That would have been the perfect occasion to clear it up once and for all. But Harry just said "that's right" and moved on to the next question. AND, later, he accepted the premise of a question which referred to him as an "employee of the federal government" -- giving even more credence to the idea that he was some sort of AGENT for the FBI.

But it’s not good enough for the FBI alone to say it – or even J. Edgar Hoover – and that’s because JFK researchers have come to doubt the veracity of the FBI in the case of the JFK assassination.

You STILL don't get it! It isn't "the FBI" or "Hoover" Paul. It is the people they interviewed (and in the Snyder example, HARRY HIMSELF! See previous answer.

The FBI was the primary source of information for the Warren Commission, and their conclusions were self-contradictory. So, we are justified in our doubt.

So, although I know I don’t have proof for Harry’s position, I won’t just accept the FBI’s word for it if they disagree.

Ernie remains mistaken, however, on the charge that I have only Harry Dean’s word for it. On the contrary, as Ernie mentioned in passing, I’ve had access to the personal papers of Ex-General Walker, and actually this is what got me interested in Harry Dean in the first place.

What is this a reference to? WHAT, specifically, is contained in Walker's papers that supports Harry's word?? Harry's word about WHAT? And if you had such documents, why didn't you specifically cite them (or better yet, scan and copy them into) your eBook?

Ex-General Walker told the FBI and the Warren Commission that he never heard the name of Lee Harvey Oswald until the day of the JFK assassination. This is a matter of record. Walker’s personal papers, however, prove Walker suspected as early as Easter Sunday, 1963, that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill him in his Dallas home on 10 April 1963. I have shown this several times in past years with actual documents from Walker’s own typewriter.

This self-contradiction constitutes genuine evidence. Actually, Commission Attorney Wesley Liebeler already suspected Walker of knowing about Oswald, and he questioned Walker about it from the angle of the story in the German newspaper, the Deutsche Nationalzeitung.

In this story, just 18 hours after the JFK assassination, the reporters at the Deutsche Nationalzeitung in Germany were in contact with Edwin Walker, and Walker told them early in the morning of 23 November 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald was also his shooter on 10 April 1963. They finalized their story the next day, and on the weekend of 29 November 1963, German readers saw it in print.

But what does this have to do with Harry's "JBS-plot" narrative?

We know that Edwin Walker told this story to the German reporters, because the German BKA (their FBI equivalent) forced the information out of them. Walker, they admitted, was the source of their story.

When Attorney Liebeler demanded to know from Walker how he knew that Oswald was his shooter on 10 April 1963, Walker denied any knowledge of it. When Liebeler asked how the Deutsche Nationalzeitung came to print it, Walker said, “they must have guessed it.” Liebeler then dropped the issue, knowing that the BKA has no jurisdiction or business in US politics or jurisprudence.

If that’s all we had, I wouldn’t say another word – but we have documents from Walker himself, demanding from every Administration since LBJ for further facts about his 10 April 1963 case – as he was convinced that there were two shooters involved.

Walker said in his letter to Frank Church that members of the US government told him on Easter Sunday that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the shooters, was arrested and was released that same night. Walker repeated that story until the year he died.

So, in fact, I do have a third-party corroboration that Walker lied about his knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination. It goes deeper than that, but for now, I’ll get back to the topic at hand, which is Harry Dean.

What intrigues me about the story of Harry Dean is that it knows nothing about the Walker papers, and nothing about any other JFK conspiracy theory in the world.

Harry Dean does not reference anything by Harold Weisberg, Jay Epstein, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher or Jim Garrison – Harry is just telling us what he saw and heard.

Harry says that it has been a terrible burden, knowing he was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK – but actually it’s not as though Harry was a shooter. Harry wasn’t in Dallas or anything. Harry knows nothing of Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, Marita Lorenz, Maurice Bishop, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales or William Harvey.

Harry only knows what he saw and heard. Other JFK researchers have already linked Walker with Hemming, for example, and with Loran Hall. But Harry Dean does not refer to them at all.

Harry claims that he saw and heard, over the course of several months in 1963, the antics of Ex-General Walker, Gabby Gabaldon, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Congressman John Rousselot and sundry JBS members whose names he cannot recall, involved in a JFK plot that named Lee Harvey Oswald.

But, again, (1) Harry claims he has no documentary evidence to support his recollections (it was all lost, destroyed, or stolen decades ago - or never existed to begin with) and (2) you have presented no documentary evidence in your eBook (the only type which you state is acceptable) to prove any of these relationships/associations -- so why should we accept your narrative?

Dave Robbins is afraid to speak about these issues, but he has verified (and probably will continue to verify, because he is an honest man) that all the above named people were movers and shakers in his event-planning activities for the right-wing in Southern California in 1963. He denies any knowledge of any plot to kill JFK, however.

Hearsay -- and totally worthless according to your evidence or "proof" standards. Essentially the same (in your scheme of things) to me quoting FBI documents.

So, it’s not only Harry’s word alone that I work with.

EXACTLY!

I’m also perfectly willing to admit that Harry Dean might be wrong on this or that aspect of events that occurred 50 years ago. However, when it comes to my suspicions about Ex-General Edwin Walker – I feel I am on firm ground, and I seek, seek, seek more and more data and information – anything I can get.

I feel certain that Ex-General Walker was far closer to the center of the cyclone of the JFK assassination than any other researcher has ever before identified. (The closest writer to approximate my theory has been Dick Russell and his landmark effort, The Man Who Knew Too Much, because he interviewed Edwin Walker, and he also interviewed the butler of H.L. Hunt who admitted that he overheard Walker and Hunt speaking about Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the JFK assassination.)

Hmm---I think I have Russell's book buried somewhere. I don't recall him mentioning anything about Harry or his JBS-plot theory but I will try to find it.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

My replies appear underneath your comments.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Just out of curiosity, I would like Paul to answer one question about this previous comment -- which I let slide when Paul first made it.

"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."

Since you say Morris "invented the fiction", please tell me approximately what date that occurred?

When do you claim was the FIRST time Morris described Harry as an FBI agent? Or the first time when some surrogate of his, quoted/cited Morris's fiction?

Well, Ernie, the first place I've seen that with my own eyes is in a 1975 issue of The Tattler, which tells Harry's story with many weird embellishments. For example, W.R. Morris claims he chatted with Harry Dean at the gravesite of Lee Harvey Oswald. That happens to be a lie.

When Harry first saw that lie in The Tattler in 1975, he made efforts to telephone W.R. Morris and ask him what the heck was going on. To the best of my knowledge, this is the very first time that Harry Dean met W.R. Morris.

However, there is one report I am researching, that found W.R. Morris' story as early as 1968, the year of the Jim Garrison trials. If confirmed, we have W.R. Morris talking and bragging about Harry Dean seven years before he ever met the man. This suggets that W.R. Morris got Harry's story originally from the Joe Pyne show.

Since W.R. Morris was a fiction writer by trade (he wrote the famous, Walking Tall, series in the 60's) he was not above adding his original drama, just in case he could sell the story.

W.R. Morris followed Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and all the old guard. It was from Jim Garrison's case that the name of Eladio del Valle came up, and by 1975 W.R. Morris had added Eladio Del Valle to Harry Dean's story -- although Harry never before heard of Eladio Del Valle.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

I did not see this message until AFTER I typed my reply to your message #656.

So, according to you, as of right now, the earliest date you can identify connected to Morris MIGHT be 1968.

As you will notice in my previous message, I identified examples of the "agent" controversy starting in December 1964 and continuing into the summer of 1965 -- so...by your own statement, W.R. Morris was NOT responsible for creating this controversy or "inventing this fiction".

It certainly may be the case that insofar as someone read something written by Morris (or by some party who quoted Morris) which gave the impression that Harry was an "agent", they came to a false conclusion about Harry's status -- but it is clear from even my cursory research that this problem started YEARS before Morris got involved!