Harry Dean: Memoirs

Paul Trejo · February 22, 2014

(1) 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.

(2) You do not even accept Harry's answer to a direct question by Tom Snyder as recorded in the written transcript of his interview program --- which means that you would not accept ANYTHING which Harry has not written himself. HOW CONVENIENT since Harry claims all his written records have been destroyed or lost or stolen!

(3) Can you imagine applying your standard to ANY other matter of dispute in history?

(4) This reminds me of my debates with people who deny that the holocaust ever happened because they require a specific letter or document signed by BY HITLER ORDERING THE EXTERMINATION OF ALL JEWS! "Period. Nothing more and nothing less".

(5) OK--from now on, we will demand THE EXACT SAME STANDARD OF PROOF FROM YOU!

(6) If you do not have a specific document signed and notarized by Harry, NOTHING you state will be accepted. NOTHING...(REPEAT: NOTHING) you or Harry writes from this point forward will be accepted!

(7) Unsupported INVENTION of your mind. Give me a DOCUMENT signed by Snyder or his employees stating that (1) there was any pressure during the interview and (2) that Morris in any way coerced Harry into stating what he did and (3) that the transcript of the interview is NOT accurate.

(8) 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.

(9) You obviously do not understand the definition of "hearsay". Hearsay occurs when person "a" who was NOT present, reports what he or she HEARD about something from another source.

(10) BUT for sake of argument -- -let's accept your premise that these are "FBI sources" and, thus, cannot be trusted. THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO SEE ANYTHING APPEARING IN FBI FILES? OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IN THEM IS CREDIBLE TO YOU, or, quoting your recent comment, "THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH".

(11) You just got done saying that FBI documents are "NOT GOOD ENOUGH" because they do not constitute credible evidence. Consequently, they cannot be considered (as you just wrote) "proof" of anything! Nor can anything in FBI documents be considered "facts".

This selection of quotes from Ernie Lazar is from post #608. I am just about one week behind in catching up with a thorough, quote by quote response to Ernie's relentless challenges. (Again, I numbered these quotes so I can respond to them below -- which I believe is a courtesy to the reader.)

(1) Ernie Lazar charges that my demand for independent confirmation of statements from the FBI about Harry Dean “reveals” that I, Paul Trejo, “would never accept ANYTHING except a direct admission by Harry.” If that were true, then Ernie could also charge, as he does, that I, Paul Trejo, “have no OBJECTIVE standard.”

But it isn’t true, and Ernie knows it. As usual, Ernie Lazar is over-stating his case, exaggerating and using rhetoric instead of logic. Actually, I’ve always accepted information outside of Harry Dean for independent confirmation, with the clear exception of the FBI and their quislings (like W.R. Morris).

(2) Ernie Lazar charges that I, Paul Trejo, “do not even accept Harry's answer to a direct question by Tom Snyder as recorded in the written transcript of his interview program.” That depends, however, upon whether the question was ambiguous, unclear or could be taken in different ways under the pressure of a live TV program. But obviously, in cases where Harry Dean merely says, “Yes,” that does not automatically justify attributing to Harry every ambiguous remark the interviewer's question would impute, because we have no guarantee that Harry clearly heard the full question.

Even from Harry Dean I demand to see full sentences before I go around making public statements. Also, when Harry Dean claims that his trunk full of documents was stolen – I see no reason on earth to call him a xxxx. Ernie Lazar, however, has very little problem throwing this word around, as we have seen from direct quotations of his recent posts.

(3) Ernie Lazar wants me to imagine applying my standard – my demand for independent confirmation beyond the magnificent FBI, to “any other matter of dispute in history.” I can easily imagine it. We can all easily imagine it. The FBI has proven over the decades that they are only human.

Former FBI Agent Don Adams admitted that if J. Edgar Hoover directed an FBI to go down a particular line of investigation – even if it wasn’t best practice – that FBI Agent would follow Hoover rather than best practices or his own best judgment. Therefore, when it comes to J. Edgar Hoover, especially in the cases of JFK and MLK, we have every historical right and even a duty to challenge the FBI.

(4) Ernie Lazar is so frustrated with my willingness to challenge the FBI that he tries to liken my demand for independent confirmation with Holocaust revisionism. This shows Ernie’s bias and preference for rhetoric instead of logic.

(5) Ernie claims that because I demand independent confirmation from the FBI in the case of the JFK assassination, that, “from now on, we will demand THE EXACT SAME STANDARD OF PROOF” from me, Paul Trejo. To this I say that I’ve always welcomed independent confirmation of Harry’s story, e.g. from Dave Robbins, from the Edwin Walker personal papers, and from objective FBI reports and more. So, no problem.

(6) Ernie Lazar, however, doesn’t really mean “the exact same standard,” as he said. Insetead he means that if Harry Dean and I cannot provide official, notarized documentation, then, in Ernie’s own words, “NOTHING you state will be accepted. NOTHING...(REPEAT: NOTHING) you or Harry writes from this point forward will be accepted!”

In other words, even before all the FBI evidence is in, Ernie Lazar wants to shut Harry Dean down today. This is bias. Ernie wants to take the FBI at its word without a mature challenge and even without seeing forthcoming FOIA releases. (What if further evidence contradicts Ernie’s prejudiced accusations? That could be embarrassing to Ernie! Better shut down Harry Dean first!)

(7) Ernie Lazar says that if I challenge a question by Tom Snyder as “ambiguous,” Ernie will demand a “DOCUMENT signed by Snyder or his employees stating that (i) there was any pressure during the interview and (ii) that Morris in any way coerced Harry into stating what he did and (iii) that the transcript of the interview is NOT accurate.” Again, this irrational leap by Ernie Lazar is mere rhetoric, a mere playing with words.

(8) Ernie Lazar insists that anything the FBI wrote about Harry Dean, even without independent confirmation, should be accepted as though independent witnesses “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.” Yet if such letters really exist, then the FBI should be able to cough them up. Where are these letters?

(9) Ernie Lazar, in his endless rhetoric, pretends that he must define common English words to me, like “hearsay,” because I simply refuse to agree with his accusations although he claims to be a world expert on the FBI. Ernie Lazar may or may not speak well, but Ernie Lazar doesn’t listen very well. Even the FBI needs independent confirmation now and then.

(10) Ernie Lazar challenges me, Paul Trejo: ”THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO SEE ANYTHING APPEARING IN FBI FILES? OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IN THEM IS CREDIBLE TO YOU...” Again, this is mere rhetoric. FBI files can be extremely useful documents to point the way to the truth, and I accept many of them. Yet FBI Agents are not perfect. Sometimes some independent confirmation should be demanded. Only a sycophant would insist on accepting the FBI’s word for every little thing.

(11) Ernie Lazar charges that if I demand independent confirmation from this or that FBI claim about Harry Dean, that, “consequently, they cannot be considered (as you just wrote) ‘proof’ of anything! Nor can anything in FBI documents be considered ‘facts’." Again, this is mere playing with words – mere rhetoric. I reserve the right to use rational judgment before just accepting whatever the FBI says -- even in the privacy of their own offices.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 23, 2014 by Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · February 22, 2014

I need to correct one of my answers (copied below from message #694) to Paul because it might leave the wrong impression.

FBI files contain different types of information. For example:

1, public source documents (such as newspaper articles and public records -- including corporate articles of incorporation; legislative hearings and reports; newsletters published by organizations, regulatory agency documents, court case records unless sealed etc.)

2. confidential information developed by FBI investigations (including statements made by, or data obtained from, employers, landlords, credit reporting agencies, neighbors, co-workers, business associates, educational institutions, city/county/state law enforcement agencies, military intelligence agencies, income tax records, etc.

3. unverified raw information (allegations which the FBI never confirmed and perhaps was not even considered germane to their investigative interest or it was outside the scope of their jurisdiction as an agency)

In my answer below, I wrote that the FBI would never directly publicize or release any adverse information contained in its files. That is not correct. They WOULD do so if it was already in the public domain (i.e. category one above). So, for example, if a friendly media source (or a Congressperson) contacted the Bureau and asked for background information about a particular person or organization and the Bureau wanted to influence public debate about that person or organization, they could (and often did) give their friendly source adverse information which was available in Bureau files from public sources.

However, if there was derogatory confidential information in FBI files, the FBI (like any other bureaucracy) would always want to protect itself through "plausible deniability" (a term coined by the CIA). In those cases, the FBI would point a friendly source in a general direction and then let them do the footwork to find what was available. Paul is incorrect about potential lawsuits (unless a Constitutional issue was involved) -- due to U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving "qualified immunity" for government officials against civil lawsuits.

ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PAUL'S QUESTION

4. You imply that the FBI could have been far more hostile to Harry Dean if they wanted to – for example, by publicizing their alleged ‘rap sheet’ on Harry Dean, which I have shown is full of holes. It is just as likely that the FBI was afraid of publicizing a fraud – knowing they could be sued and that would have been bad PR – something Hoover dreaded. Only if I see independent confirmation of the FBI will I change my mind.

I did NOT write that either. I wrote that the FBI could have leaked information to friendly media and then the media could have had a field day with publicizing derogatory info about Harry. The FBI would never directly publicize anything which could lead back to them. Instead, they would have contacted a friendly reporter and given them some hints such as: "By the way, did you know that Harry was born in Canada? Maybe you should contact your sources with law enforcement authorities up there and inquire into his background." Thus, the entire burden (and responsibility) would fall upon the journalists to discover what they could and the FBI could plausibly deny that they had provided any specific information from their files. With respect to your comment about a lawsuit, you obviously are ignorant about American law. With respect to your comment about you supposedly showed re: the rap sheet, you are delusional.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

Ernie Lazar · February 22, 2014

I also would to address the issue which Paul has raised with respect to use of language and why it is important.

However, this time, I will not discuss any FBI informant. Instead, my examples will be former FBI Special Agents who caused a lot of controversy and grief within the FBI because of their claim that they were an "Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover".

As I mentioned before with respect to Harry and the use of terms "undercover agent" or "undercover operative" or "agent of the FBI" or any similar term -- there are not a lot of examples of this being a problem (as far as I know). And all of the examples I know about involve people who were connected to the JBS. Strange "coincidence", huh?

Ditto for the "Administrative Assistant" controversy. There were only two former FBI Special Agents who had this problem: W. Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot -- and both of them were also connected to the JBS -- another strange "coincidence" huh?

Let me briefly explain what happened.

During the early years of World War II, when the Bureau designated some Agents to give general public relations speeches to civic organizations around the country, their FBI press releases sometimes described them as "Administrative Aide" or "Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover".

However, in July 1947, FBI HQ sent a SAC Letter to all FBI field offices instructing them to discontinue use of that term because it was misleading to the general public.

After Dan Smoot and Cleon Skousen retired from the FBI (in 1951), they both often described themselves as having been an "Administrative Assistant" [AA] to Hoover. In fact, when Skousen was seeking the GOP nomination for Governor of Utah (in 1961), his campaign literature described him thusly:

"Served his country in the FBI 16 years, 4 of them as Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover during World War II, a top assignment.”

So, Skousen admirers over the decades have believed that Cleon was a "top" official at the FBI -- perhaps even sitting just outside Hoover's office!

A few years ago, I was engaged in a heated debate with a JBS member and she posted a message online stating that Cleon was an "AA to Hoover" and she then described that as the "third position" in the FBI hierarchy (which would mean that Skousen was an Assistant Director!) Also, many Skousen and Smoot admirers assumed that being an "AA to Hoover" must mean that they had unique access to Hoover and they also must have been privy to important internal security-related matters. But nothing could be further from reality.

That is why language used to describe a person is important -- because of the IMPRESSION such imprecise terms produce in the minds of ordinary people who do not have the remotest clue what terms like "AA" or "Agent" or "undercover Agent" or "undercover operative" mean in the context of the FBI. The first image that comes into most people's minds is James Bond! All those terms sound VERY impressive and they seem to enhance the credentials of anybody described in that fashion -- as if the holder of those titles had some sort of special training or special expertise in internal security matters or major investigative experience etc.

I certainly understand why Paul wants us all to believe that Harry never described himself in any manner which caused confusion. And that is why Paul insists that ONLY a signed "confession" by Harry is acceptable "proof". But, Paul is missing the point. As I wrote previously, there are different types of acceptable evidence. There is direct evidence, indirect evidence, and there are even uncorrected insinuations or imprecise statements that are just left floating in the air -- all of which combine to leave an impression which simply is NOT true. And THAT is the problem.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

John Dolva · February 22, 2014

There's also Zack van Landringham who worked as an admin assistant to hoover during wwii for 2 1/2 years and worked around the country at various postings. Understanding what the designation means helps. He is represented in MSC (for whom he worked as investigator in 50's 60's) files as a former aa + he also has the creds of a kkk,mm,jbs sympathiser. Also from reading his files I get a feeling that he shared his knowledge of the FBI with the MSC and perhaps the instructions from the msc to people during the various crisis' how to recognise an fbi agent and how to not talk to them. It describes fbi agents spending time in places and getting nothing, the descriptions seem to indicate the agents weren't that fussed..

Ernie Lazar · February 22, 2014

(1) 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.

(2) You do not even accept Harry's answer to a direct question by Tom Snyder as recorded in the written transcript of his interview program --- which means that you would not accept ANYTHING which Harry has not written himself. HOW CONVENIENT since Harry claims all his written records have been destroyed or lost or stolen!

(3) Can you imagine applying your standard to ANY other matter of dispute in history?

(4) This reminds me of my debates with people who deny that the holocaust ever happened because they require a specific letter or document signed by BY HITLER ORDERING THE EXTERMINATION OF ALL JEWS! "Period. Nothing more and nothing less".

(5) OK--from now on, we will demand THE EXACT SAME STANDARD OF PROOF FROM YOU!

(6) If you do not have a specific document signed and notarized by Harry, NOTHING you state will be accepted. NOTHING...(REPEAT: NOTHING) you or Harry writes from this point forward will be accepted!

(7) Unsupported INVENTION of your mind. Give me a DOCUMENT signed by Snyder or his employees stating that (1) there was any pressure during the interview and (2) that Morris in any way coerced Harry into stating what he did and (3) that the transcript of the interview is NOT accurate.

(8) 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.

(9) You obviously do not understand the definition of "hearsay". Hearsay occurs when person "a" who was NOT present, reports what he or she HEARD about something from another source.

(10) BUT for sake of argument -- -let's accept your premise that these are "FBI sources" and, thus, cannot be trusted. THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO SEE ANYTHING APPEARING IN FBI FILES? OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IN THEM IS CREDIBLE TO YOU, or, quoting your recent comment, "THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH".

(11) You just got done saying that FBI documents are "NOT GOOD ENOUGH" because they do not constitute credible evidence. Consequently, they cannot be considered (as you just wrote) "proof" of anything! Nor can anything in FBI documents be considered "facts".

This selection of quote from Ernie Lazar is from post #608. I am just about one week behind in catching up with a thorough, quote by quote response to Ernie's relentless challenges. (Again, I numbered these quotes so I can respond to them below -- which I believe is a courtesy to the reader.)

(1) Ernie Lazar charges that my demand for independent confirmation of statements from the FBI about Harry Dean “reveals” that I, Paul Trejo, “would never accept ANYTHING except a direct admission by Harry.” If that were true, then Ernie could also charge, as he does, that I, Paul Trejo, “have no OBJECTIVE standard.”

But it isn’t true, and Ernie knows it. As usual, Ernie Lazar is over-stating his case, exaggerating and using rhetoric instead of logic. Actually, I’ve always accepted information outside of Harry Dean for independent confirmation, with the clear exception of the FBI and their quislings (like W.R. Morris).

There is a logical fallacy in your argument Paul. Think of this like a telephone. There is a receiver (which your ear is on -- so you hear what is being said) and then there is a mouthpiece (so you can respond to what you are hearing). What "independent confirmation" is available (if there is no tape recording of the conversation?)

In the context of our debate, the FBI Agent is the receiver (listening to what is being said by the persons contacting FBI offices and then memorializing those comments on a written form. That is precisely what happened when Harry phoned the Chicago field office starting in the summer of 1960 and as I demonstrated in one recent reply, the FBI accurately summarized what Harry told them verbally during those conversations -- even though we did not have any written verbatim text and even though (until recently) we had no confirmation by Harry by virtue of the letters he wrote to JFK, Hoover, and Joe Pyne.

So, there is no rational basis for believing (based upon that example) that the FBI Agents handling incoming contacts did not perform due diligence or act in good faith to accurately and truthfully summarize their public contacts.

OK--let me now anticipate your next objection.

What about the cases where there were written contacts -- such as by correspondence?

Well, we now know that the FBI summary memos which were prepared by Chicago field and by HQ AFTER they received correspondence from Harry were accurate with respect to presenting the essence of what Harry discussed in his letters. We did not have the documentary evidence until I discovered the actual letters by Harry on the Mary Ferrell website. So to me, this means that FBI employees (at both the field office level and at HQ) were doing their jobs properly.

NOW, originally, YOU insisted that the Bill Kelly version of Harry's 1963 letter to Hoover (which I think you said was published in Harry's 1990 book, Crosstrails??) was the genuine letter and not the letter appearing in the FBI file. You went into all sorts of semantic gymnastics to "prove" it was not a genuine document. So the only definite indisputable example we have of FALSE information being presented with respect to Harry has been your arguments against FBI records that turned out to be genuine.

Now with respect to the comment made in one HQ memo concerning Bill Capps and his publisher, Mr. Vodrey: At present, we have no correspondence by Capps to document the characterization which his publisher used because that was a verbal communication between Capps and his publisher. But we do have an FBI memo which states that Vodrey thought Capps was using the term "undercover agent" in the broadest possible sense (to dramatize what Harry was saying). But, then, we have Harry's answer to Snyder's two questions -- see more comments below in answer to your next point.

(2) Ernie Lazar charges that I, Paul Trejo, “do not even accept Harry's answer to a direct question by Tom Snyder as recorded in the written transcript of his interview program.” That depends, however, upon whether the question was ambiguous, unclear or could be taken in different ways under the pressure of a live TV program. But obviously, in cases where Harry Dean merely says, “Yes,” that does not automatically justify attributing to Harry every ambiguous remark the interviewer's question would impute, becuase we have no guarantee that Harry clearly heard the full question.

But there is no fact-based verifiable evidence to support your assumption that the question was ambiguous or unclear or could be taken in different ways nor is there any evidence that there was any "pressure" involved. All we have is your SPECULATION.

So here is the bottom-line: Given a choice between accepting the verbatim transcript of Snyder's question and then Harry's clear 2-word reply to the first question and then his clear acceptance of the predicate of a second question which described Harry as "an employee of the federal government" versus your mere speculation about what might have occurred, there is no rational reason to accept your speculation. Particularly when you consider that there are other examples of people (in different times and locations) who came away with the same IMPRESSION.

Even from Harry Dean I demand to see full sentences before I go around making public statements. Also, when Harry Dean claims that his trunk full of documents was stolen – I see no reason on earth to call him a xxxx. Ernie Lazar, however, has very little problem throwing this word around, as we have seen from direct quotations of his recent posts.

Do you believe xxxx is a word in the English language that has a meaning? Or do you want the word expunged from the English language?

I repeat for the 100th time. My only use of that word in connection with Harry was a long time ago and it is ONLY YOU that keeps resurrecting it.

How about this compromise? I will never use the word xxxx in connection with Harry in the future IF you will agree to honor your commitment to respond to my recent challenge regarding your claim that I "misrepresented" your position. We are still waiting for you to honor your word.

(3) Ernie Lazar wants me to imagine applying my standard – my demand for independent confirmation beyond the magnificent FBI, to “any other matter of dispute in history.” I can easily imagine it. We can all easily imagine it. The FBI has proven over the decades that they are only human.

Former FBI Agent Don Adams admitted that if J. Edgar Hoover directed an FBI to go down a particular line of investigation – even if it wasn’t best practice – that FBI Agent would follow Hoover rather than best practices or his own best judgment. Therefore, when it comes to J. Edgar Hoover, especially in the cases of JFK and MLK, we have every historical right and even a duty to challenge the FBI.

Well, I don't know what specific "investigation" you are referring to -- so I cannot respond appropriately. Also, I would need to become more familiar with the experience level of Don Adams. He may be pissed off about something because he received a performance evaluation he did not like or a promotion he did not receive OR he may not have been privy to all the information required to make an informed judgment about whatever "investigation" he is referring to. The FBI had about 5500-7000 FBI Agents at any given point in time. One should expect to discover critics within the Agency -- that is true about all large organizations.

EXAMPLE: One of the FBI's severest critics is a former Agent by the name of Jack Levine. He was often quoted in 1962 (you may have seen this quote or some variation of it) as saying that 1500 of the 8500 members of the Communist Party in 1962 were FBI informants and consequently the FBI was the largest single financial supporter of the Party.

In reality, there were only 401 FBI informants in the CPUSA in 1962 and the Party had only 5164 members at that time. For Levine's comments see: See: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,874514,00.html

If you do any careful research into Levine, you will discover that Levine worked for the FBI from September 12, 1960 thru August 4, 1961 and he then resigned. Since FBI Agents had 13 weeks of training (sometimes 14) before being assigned to a field office, that means that Levine had a maximum of EIGHT MONTHS work experience within the FBI. New Special Agents were almost never assigned to work immediately on internal security matters and Levine never worked in the Domestic Intelligence Division where he would be privy to classified information regarding CPUSA membership numbers and the number of FBI informants inside the Party -- which explains why he made such a totally false statement.

I do know this however. When the Domestic Intelligence Division produced a lengthy report stating that they had not found any significant Communist influence within the civil rights movement, Hoover challenged their conclusion. After the Assistant Director in Charge explained the reasoning behind their conclusion, Hoover made his speech stating that there was no Communist domination or control of our civil rights movement. And he repeated that conclusion two years later in reply to a Birch Society member inquiry.

(4) Ernie Lazar is so frustrated with my willingness to challenge the FBI that he tries to liken my demand for independent confirmation with Holocaust revisionism. This shows Ernie’s bias and preference for rhetoric instead of logic.

Oh please Paul -- come up with something more entertaining than that as your argument.

(5) Ernie claims that because I demand independent confirmation from the FBI in the case of the JFK assassination, that, “from now on, we will demand THE EXACT SAME STANDARD OF PROOF” from me, Paul Trejo. To this I say that I’ve always welcomed independent confirmation of Harry’s story, e.g. from Dave Robbins, from the Edwin Walker personal papers, and from objective FBI reports and more. So, no problem.

What "independent confirmation" did you find in Walker's papers? Did Walker even mention Harry Dean or the JBS plot? or Galbadon? or Loran Hall?

(6) Ernie Lazar, however, doesn’t really mean “the exact same standard,” as he said. Insetead he means that if Harry Dean and I cannot provide official, notarized documentation, then, in Ernie’s own words, “NOTHING you state will be accepted. NOTHING...(REPEAT: NOTHING) you or Harry writes from this point forward will be accepted!”

No - I mean what I wrote. Some verifiable written documentation.

In other words, even before all the FBI evidence is in, Ernie Lazar wants to shut Harry Dean down today. This is bias. Ernie wants to take the FBI at its word without a mature challenge and even without seeing forthcoming FOIA releases. (What if further evidence contradicts Ernie’s prejudiced accusations? That could be embarrassing to Ernie! Better shut down Harry Dean first!)

Oh please Paul....You are really becoming totally irrational. Nobody is shutting down Harry. Challenging somebody is standard procedure in historical records disputes so try to grow up. Making tentative conclusions when 95% of the evidence is available is not a crime against humanity.

(7) Ernie Lazar says that if I challenge a question by Tom Snyder as “ambiguous,” Ernie will demand a “DOCUMENT signed by Snyder or his employees stating that (i) there was any pressure during the interview and (ii) that Morris in any way coerced Harry into stating what he did and (iii) that the transcript of the interview is NOT accurate.” Again, this irrational leap by Ernie Lazar is mere rhetoric, a mere playing with words.

No -- we are operating on your standards now. There must be written documentation to support any assertion.

(8) Ernie Lazar insists that anything the FBI wrote about Harry Dean, even without independent confirmation, should be accepted as though independent witnesses “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.” Yet if such letters really exist, then the FBI should be able to cough them up. Where are these letters?

See my previous answers..

(9) Ernie Lazar, in his endless rhetoric, pretends that he must define common English words to me, like “hearsay,” because I simply refuse to agree with his accusations although he claims to be a world expert on the FBI. Ernie Lazar may or may not speak well, but Ernie Lazar doesn’t listen very well. Even the FBI needs independent confirmation now and then.

(10) Ernie Lazar challenges me, Paul Trejo: ”THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO SEE ANYTHING APPEARING IN FBI FILES? OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IN THEM IS CREDIBLE TO YOU...” Again, this is mere rhetoric. FBI files can be extremely useful documents to point the way to the truth, and I accept many of them. Yet FBI Agents are not perfect. Sometimes some independent confirmation should be demanded. Only a sycophant would insist on accepting the FBI’s word for every little thing.

Straw man argument.

(11) Ernie Lazar charges that if I demand independent confirmation from this or that FBI claim about Harry Dean, that, “consequently, they cannot be considered (as you just wrote) ‘proof’ of anything! Nor can anything in FBI documents be considered ‘facts’." Again, this is mere playing with words – mere rhetoric. I reserve the right to use rational judgment before just accepting whatever the FBI says -- even in the privacy of their own offices.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My replies appear underneath your comments.

Ernie Lazar · February 22, 2014

There's also Zack van Landringham who worked as an admin assistant to hoover during wwii for 2 1/2 years and worked around the country at various postings. Understanding what the designation means helps. He is represented in MSC (for whom he worked as investigator in 50's 60's) files as a former aa + he also has the creds of a kkk,mm,jbs sympathiser. Also from reading his files I get a feeling that he shared his knowledge of the FBI with the MSC and perhaps the instructions from the msc to people during the various crisis' how to recognise an fbi agent and how to not talk to them. It describes fbi agents spending time in places and getting nothing, the descriptions seem to indicate the agents weren't that fussed..

I am not aware that Van Landingham ever described himself that way after he left the Bureau. But I do have an interesting story about him. One day I was just browsing through the MSC listings and I came across a document typed by Van Landingham on a plain sheet of paper to summarize information about some left-wing person (I forget who right now). Anyway, by total coincidence, I had just received an FBI file on that person and I noticed that Zack's summary was a VERBATIM copy of an FBI report!!!!!

Paul Trejo · February 22, 2014

(1) Your definition of "facts" does not conform to any methodology familiar to me. Normally, for example, a transcript of an interview is considered a primary source factual document by historians.

(2) The problem here is your extremely narrow concept of what constitutes "proof". Basically, in your scheme of things, "proof" is anything which Harry tells you.

(3) You…do not consider evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency to be any different from rumors or innuendo. All FBI Special Agents were required to have either law degrees or accounting degrees -- i.e. educational background not known for being susceptible to rumors or innuendos. All Agents received 13-weeks of intensive initial training and numerous subsequent specialized training classes plus mandatory periodic refresher courses.

(4) Unlike Harry Dean's recollections or written memoirs, everything said or written by an FBI Special Agent had to be documented in such a way that it would withstand the most brutal courtroom scrutiny.

(5) Let us recall your most recent admission that you wrongly accused the FBI of forgery. Did you discover your error because of any research you did and shared here? Nope! Instead, from the beginning, you just accepted Harry's story and you accepted Bill Kelly's redacted version of Harry's letter to Hoover as the only permissible evidence -- even though there was NOTHING to authenticate Kelly's document.

(6) Even worse, Harry refuses to answer obvious questions which ANY impartial researcher would ask before accepting his recollections.

(7) You obviously do not understand the definition of public figure. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "politicians". As American jurisprudence has established, one type of public figure is somebody who "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."

(8) There are many very friendly and caring and decent and moral and patriotic and principled individuals whom, nevertheless, are simply mistaken or confused or otherwise not presenting accurate information. As previously noted, "witness" testimony is universally recognized as often the most unreliable -- for a variety of reasons -- which is why genuine researchers and historians critique such testimony

(9) You leave all the real research (and expense) to other people. You are a parasite.

(10) There is nothing contained in FBI files which you will EVER accept as "factual" or "proof" so why do you care what they contain?

(11) Everything currently known about Harry which appears in FBI documents, falsifies or diminishes Harry's story

(12) The fact that there is not even one FBI file number on Harry which has a classification code which the FBI used to archive data regarding its informants means nothing to you.

(13) And the fact that all of Harry's FBI files are very small (250 or less pages) means nothing to you.

(14) And the fact that FBI HQ had to send inquiries to its Chicago and Los Angeles field offices just to discover who Harry was, means nothing to you

This selection of quotes from Ernie Lazar is from post #612. (Again, I numbered these quotes so I can respond to them below – which I believe is a courtesy to the reader.)

(1) Ernie Lazar wishes to define a “fact” as “a transcript of an interview.” Actually, if the FBI had provided “a transcript of an interview” to J. Edgar Hoover when they claimed they had to repeatedly warn Harry Dean to stop calling himself an FBI agent, I would have accepted it.

But I have yet to see “a transcript of an interview” from the FBI to J. Edgar Hoover about Harry Dean. At best they provide their “recollection” of an interview, or their personal feeling on the topic. Once again, Ernie Lazar is playing fast and loose with “facts.”

(2) Ernie Lazar wishes to claim that for me, Paul Trejo, "’proof’ is anything which Harry tells you.” This is obviously false and biased. Ernie hopes to silence my demand for independent confirmation of FBI statements with regard to the JFK assassination. All I want is independent confirmation.

(3) Ernie Lazar charges me, Paul Trejo, with daring to doubt “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” I am guilty as charged. Nor am I alone; former FBI agents also criticize J. Edgar Hoover himself precisely on the topic of the JFK assassination.

As former FBI Agent Don Adams reported, J. Edgar Hoover himself directed FBI agents in investigating the JFK murder, despite protests and all their training. In the JFK case, it did not matter that FBI Agents had degrees in law or accounting – or whether they were personally susceptible to rumors or innuendos – they took orders from Hoover.

(4) Ernie Lazar claims that, “everything said or written by an FBI Special Agent had to be documented in such a way that it would withstand the most brutal courtroom scrutiny.” Ernie seems to be unaware of standard JFK research literature.

For example, one widely read book in this genre is Gerald McKnight’s Breach of Trust (2005), which is subtitled, “How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation And Why.” McKnight’s well-researched book clarifies that the FBI was the investigation source for the Warren Commission – and how the FBI manipulated evidence from start to finish. We have substantial evidence that the JFK case was an exception to normal FBI operating procedures.

(5) Ernie Lazar remembers when Harry and I reversed our claim about Harry Dean’s writing of a memo to Hoover in November, 1963 which the FBI published. Ernie charges, “did you discover your error because of any research you did and shared here? Nope!” Well, that’s obviously false because I had interviewed Harry Dean very recently, and I shared the result with this Forum in a timely manner. So again, Ernie is simply biased.

(6) Ernie Lazar charges that Harry Dean refuses to answer his questions “which any impartial researcher would ask.” But I claim that Ernie Lazar asks Harry Dean in a cruel and unusual manner. I say Ernie is acting like a Gestapo, like a prosecuting attorney in a murder case, placing Harry Dean under suspicion from the start. There is no respect, there is no courtesy, there is only a cold, calculating suspicion.

No wonder Harry Dean doesn’t want to respond to Ernie Lazar. No reasonable person would want to. Yet for Ernie Lazar, Harry Dean challenges “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency,” and Ernie is very emotional about this.

(7) Ernie Lazar suggests that Harry Dean is a ‘public figure’ because he is among those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Based on this, Ernie seems to believe he can mistreat Harry Dean on this Forum any way he feels. This is clear to all readers.

I, Paul Trejo, on the other hand, regard Harry Dean as a personal friend and an honest man who is attempting to recollect for the public his memoirs from 1963 so that history can recover from the damage done by the FBI’s investigation into the JFK assassination. I’ve always admitted we don’t have all the proof we need, but we’re working on it. This is not enough for Ernie, who would rush to judgment.

(8) Ernie Lazar attempts to patronize Harry Dean by recalling other “caring and decent and moral and patriotic and principled individuals whom, nevertheless, are simply mistaken or confused or otherwise not presenting accurate information.” So Ernie, as a “genuine researcher,” seeks to step in and “critique such testimony.” That would be welcome if Ernie was impartial.

We have seen, however, ample evidence that Ernie is biased. Ernie does not like to see the “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency” subjected to Harry’s challenges. Ernie has been on this Forum thread since 2010 repeating the same charges relentlessly.

(9) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo: “You leave all the real research (and expense) to other people. You are a parasite.” Despite the slur, and even the libel of that last remark, I will note here that I have done a lot of research in this case. It takes time to obtain the memoirs of anybody – months of difficult review.

Also, I researched the personal papers of Ex-General Edwin Walker in this case. Also, I interviewed several others on this case, including Larrie Schmidt, Dave Robbins, Bishop Duncan Gray and James Meredith. Such interviews are not easy to do, and are very time consuming. It is comparatively easy to collect documents, as Ernie Lazar does. But interviewing people requires courteous manners – an attribute Ernie appears to lack.

(10) Ernie Lazar charges that “there is nothing contained in FBI files which you will EVER accept as "factual" or "proof" so why do you care what they contain?” It is simply false that I’d accept nothing in FBI files. It all depends on the files! Again, Ernie is exaggerating. I care very much what they contain and I’ll accept them when they’re true and correct and I’ll criticize them when they’re false and incorrect.

(11) Ernie Lazar also charges that, “everything currently known about Harry which appears in FBI documents, falsifies or diminishes Harry's story.” That is clearly false. Actually, FBI documents prove many aspects of Harry’s story:

They prove, for example: (i) that Harry Dean was an officer of the FPCC; (ii) that Harry Dean spoke with the FBI in Chicago when he was an officer of the FPCC; (iii) that Harry Dean wrote a letter to JFK in June of 1961; (iv) that Harry Dean moved to Los Angeles in mid-1961; (v) that Harry Dean associated with JBS and Minutemen while in Los Angeles; (vi) that Harry Dean wrote a letter to J. Edgar Hoover in November, 1963; and (vii) that the FBI was aware that Harry Dean appeared on the Joe Pyne Show in early 1965.

That’s only the beginning! Before these FBI documents were available, we had no independent confirmation of these aspects of Harry’s story! Thanks to the FBI we have a growing list of these! So, again, Ernie Lazar is guilty of exaggeration – his usual mode of communication.

(12) Ernie Lazar says of me, Paul Trejo, that the presence of “not even one FBI file number on Harry which has a classification code which the FBI used to archive data regarding its informants, means nothing to you.” But that is simply false.

It’s significant to me that the FBI won’t list Harry Dean as a formal, paid informant of the FBI. I take that very seriously. However, only the FBI and their quislings (like W.R. Morris) ever claimed that Harry Dean claimed to be a paid FBI agent or informant in the formal sense.

Harry always told me, and he also claimed in his Crosstrails manuscript (1990) that he was unpaid by the FBI. So, actually, the lack of an FBI file number with an informant classification code is yet one more independent confirmation of Harry Dean’s memoirs!

(13) Ernie Lazar charges that “the fact that all of Harry's FBI files are very small (250 or less pages) means nothing to you.” Of course that is false and it is also misleading. While it is significant that Harry Dean’s FBI-LA files contain less than 250 pages, I regard quality to be more important that quantity. I regard the content of those files is to be the more important factor. Here again we see Ernie’s use of exaggeration to make his points.

(14) Ernie Lazar charges that, “the fact that FBI HQ had to send inquiries to its Chicago and Los Angeles field offices just to discover who Harry was, means nothing to you.” Of course that is also false, and just as misleading.

In my opinion, the fact that FBI Headquarters had to send inquiries to its Chicago field office in November of 1963, after the JFK assassination, is a matter of major importance. Of course, we must see those Chicago FBI files on Harry Dean to make a final decision – however, the Chicago FBI destroyed those documents!

Ernie Lazar has suggested that that Chicago FBI destroyed them because they were trivial (e.g. post #675). This also explains to Ernie the absence of these files at FBI headquarters when Hoover wanted them. Notice that Ernie never saw those documents, but he is certain that they must have been trivial. This shows Ernie’s bias, and the unreliability of his research.

Actually, the proper way to make a decision about the Chicago FBI files on Harry Dean is to recover them. FBI Headquarters demanded those files in the wake of the JFK assassination, so we presume that the FBI Headquarters did not also destroy those records after the Chicago field office sent them – because they are part of the JFK assassination records. Can we recover them?

Ernie claims this “means nothing” to me, but the opposite is true – I want to see them perhaps more than anybody else here.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 23, 2014 by Paul Trejo

Ernie Lazar · February 23, 2014

(1) Your definition of "facts" does not conform to any methodology familiar to me. Normally, for example, a transcript of an interview is considered a primary source factual document by historians.

(2) The problem here is your extremely narrow concept of what constitutes "proof". Basically, in your scheme of things, "proof" is anything which Harry tells you.

(3) You…do not consider evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency to be any different from rumors or innuendo. All FBI Special Agents were required to have either law degrees or accounting degrees -- i.e. educational background not known for being susceptible to rumors or innuendos. All Agents received 13-weeks of intensive initial training and numerous subsequent specialized training classes plus mandatory periodic refresher courses.

(4) Unlike Harry Dean's recollections or written memoirs, everything said or written by an FBI Special Agent had to be documented in such a way that it would withstand the most brutal courtroom scrutiny.

(5) Let us recall your most recent admission that you wrongly accused the FBI of forgery. Did you discover your error because of any research you did and shared here? Nope! Instead, from the beginning, you just accepted Harry's story and you accepted Bill Kelly's redacted version of Harry's letter to Hoover as the only permissible evidence -- even though there was NOTHING to authenticate Kelly's document.

(6) Even worse, Harry refuses to answer obvious questions which ANY impartial researcher would ask before accepting his recollections.

(7) You obviously do not understand the definition of public figure. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "politicians". As American jurisprudence has established, one type of public figure is somebody who "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."

(8) There are many very friendly and caring and decent and moral and patriotic and principled individuals whom, nevertheless, are simply mistaken or confused or otherwise not presenting accurate information. As previously noted, "witness" testimony is universally recognized as often the most unreliable -- for a variety of reasons -- which is why genuine researchers and historians critique such testimony

(9) You leave all the real research (and expense) to other people. You are a parasite.

(10) There is nothing contained in FBI files which you will EVER accept as "factual" or "proof" so why do you care what they contain?

(11) Everything currently known about Harry which appears in FBI documents, falsifies or diminishes Harry's story

(12) The fact that there is not even one FBI file number on Harry which has a classification code which the FBI used to archive data regarding its informants means nothing to you.

(13) And the fact that all of Harry's FBI files are very small (250 or less pages) means nothing to you.

(14) And the fact that FBI HQ had to send inquiries to its Chicago and Los Angeles field offices just to discover who Harry was, means nothing to you

This selection of quotes from Ernie Lazar is from post #612. (Again, I numbered these quotes so I can respond to them below – which I believe is a courtesy to the reader.)

(1) Ernie Lazar wishes to define a “fact” as “a transcript of an interview.” Actually, if the FBI had provided “a transcript of an interview” to J. Edgar Hoover when they claimed they had to repeatedly warn Harry Dean to stop calling himself an FBI agent, I would have accepted it.

What I originally wrote was very clear but you have managed to totally mangle it into some deformed idea which I do not even understand.

What I originally wrote is this: verbatim transcripts (such as television programs like Meet The Press), court testimony, and testimony before legislative committees or oral history interviews) are normally considered reliable and factual primary source documents.

If YOU think there is something suspect about a verbatim transcript -- then I really don't know what to say to you Paul except (again)-- contact ANY researcher or scholar of your choice and ask them what they think about your objection and then let us know the result.

With respect to your comment about wanting to see a "transcript of an interview to J. Edgar Hoover" re the FBI's warnings to Dean, I will only say this: you obviously have complete contempt for normal rules of evidence.

Since we are not discussing any criminal or illegal activity, there obviously would be no such thing as a verbatim "transcript of an interview" which would apply to the situation which you describe.

If there was some violation of a federal law, and it was important to establish specifically the "who, what, where and when", aspects of what Dean was told, then testimony about what happened would be taken under oath.

This is another example of how you want to apply a standard of evidence which is inapplicable to what we are discussing and your self-evident ploy is to de-value and discard ANY evidence except the type which does not even apply to this situation.

Significantly, you do NOT apply this proposed standard to anything which you interpret as supportive of your claims or Harry's recollections!

As I previously wrote, if you GENUINELY want this standard to be the operative standard for all of our analysis and our discussions, then we must now insist upon two things:

1. We must totally ignore and discard every single thing you (and Harry) have ever said or written -- without exception -- because both of you have presented absolutely NOTHING (in your eBook AND in your messages here in EF, AND in Harry's writings and interviews with newspapers or book authors or TV/radio programs) which rises to the standard you now insist we adopt.

2. You should start a movement to burn all non-fiction books ever written and remove all non-fiction books ever published from all of our libraries. History, as a discipline, could not, and would not, exist if we are compelled to adopt your proposed standard.

But I have yet to see “a transcript of an interview” from the FBI to J. Edgar Hoover about Harry Dean. At best they provide their “recollection” of an interview, or their personal feeling on the topic. Once again, Ernie Lazar is playing fast and loose with “facts.”

I accept your comment as representing what you consider credible evidence. Consequently, there is no point in continuing our discussion because you have presented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that rises to your own standard. Therefore, obviously, this thread no longer has any value. But thanks for the entertainment.

(2) Ernie Lazar wishes to claim that for me, Paul Trejo, "’proof’ is anything which Harry tells you.” This is obviously false and biased. Ernie hopes to silence my demand for independent confirmation of FBI statements with regard to the JFK assassination. All I want is independent confirmation.

(3) Ernie Lazar charges me, Paul Trejo, with daring to doubt “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” I am guilty as charged. Nor am I alone; former FBI agents also criticize J. Edgar Hoover himself precisely on the topic of the JFK assassination.

As former FBI Agent Don Adams reported, J. Edgar Hoover himself directed FBI agents in investigating the JFK murder, despite protests and all their training. In the JFK case, it did not matter that FBI Agents had degrees in law or accounting – or whether they were personally susceptible to rumors or innuendos – they took orders from Hoover.

(4) Ernie Lazar claims that, “everything said or written by an FBI Special Agent had to be documented in such a way that it would withstand the most brutal courtroom scrutiny.” Ernie seems to be unaware of standard JFK research literature.

For example, one widely read book in this genre is Gerald McKnight’s Breach of Trust (2005), which is subtitled, “How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation And Why.” McKnight’s well-researched book clarifies that the FBI was the investigation source for the Warren Commission – and how the FBI manipulated evidence from start to finish. We have substantial evidence that the JFK case was an exception to normal FBI operating procedures.

(5) Ernie Lazar remembers when Harry and I reversed our claim about Harry Dean’s writing of a memo to Hoover in November, 1963 which the FBI published. Ernie charges, “did you discover your error because of any research you did and shared here? Nope!” Well, that’s obviously false because I had interviewed Harry Dean very recently, and I shared the result with this Forum in a timely manner. So again, Ernie is simply biased.

(6) Ernie Lazar charges that Harry Dean refuses to answer his questions “which any impartial researcher would ask.” But I claim that Ernie Lazar asks Harry Dean in a cruel and unusual manner. I say Ernie is acting like a Gestapo, like a prosecuting attorney in a murder case, placing Harry Dean under suspicion from the start. There is no respect, there is no courtesy, there is only a cold, calculating suspicion.

No wonder Harry Dean doesn’t want to respond to Ernie Lazar. No reasonable person would want to. Yet for Ernie Lazar, Harry Dean challenges “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency,” and Ernie is very emotional about this.

(7) Ernie Lazar suggests that Harry Dean is a ‘public figure’ because he is among those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Based on this, Ernie seems to believe he can mistreat Harry Dean on this Forum any way he feels. This is clear to all readers.

I, Paul Trejo, on the other hand, regard Harry Dean as a personal friend and an honest man who is attempting to recollect for the public his memoirs from 1963 so that history can recover from the damage done by the FBI’s investigation into the JFK assassination. I’ve always admitted we don’t have all the proof we need, but we’re working on it. This is not enough for Ernie, who would rush to judgment.

(8) Ernie Lazar attempts to patronize Harry Dean by recalling other “caring and decent and moral and patriotic and principled individuals whom, nevertheless, are simply mistaken or confused or otherwise not presenting accurate information.” So Ernie, as a “genuine researcher,” seeks to step in and “critique such testimony.” That would be welcome if Ernie was impartial.

We have seen, however, ample evidence that Ernie is biased. Ernie does not like to see the “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency” subjected to Harry’s challenges. Ernie has been on this Forum thread since 2010 repeating the same charges relentlessly.

(9) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo: “You leave all the real research (and expense) to other people. You are a parasite.” Despite the slur, and even the libel of that last remark, I will note here that I have done a lot of research in this case. It takes time to obtain the memoirs of anybody – months of difficult review.

Also, I researched the personal papers of Ex-General Edwin Walker in this case. Also, I interviewed several others on this case, including Larrie Schmidt, Dave Robbins, Bishop Duncan Gray and James Meredith. Such interviews are not easy to do, and are very time consuming. It is comparatively easy to collect documents, as Ernie Lazar does. But interviewing people requires courteous manners – an attribute Ernie appears to lack.

(10) Ernie Lazar charges that “there is nothing contained in FBI files which you will EVER accept as "factual" or "proof" so why do you care what they contain?” It is simply false that I’d accept nothing in FBI files. It all depends on the files! Again, Ernie is exaggerating. I care very much what they contain and I’ll accept them when they’re true and correct and I’ll criticize them when they’re false and incorrect.

(11) Ernie Lazar also charges that, “everything currently known about Harry which appears in FBI documents, falsifies or diminishes Harry's story.” That is clearly false. Actually, FBI documents prove many aspects of Harry’s story:

They prove, for example: (i) that Harry Dean was an officer of the FPCC; (ii) that Harry Dean spoke with the FBI in Chicago when he was an officer of the FPCC; (iii) that Harry Dean wrote a letter to JFK in June of 1961; (iv) that Harry Dean moved to Los Angeles in mid-1961; (v) that Harry Dean associated with JBS and Minutemen while in Los Angeles; (vi) that Harry Dean wrote a letter to J. Edgar Hoover in November, 1963; and (vii) that the FBI was aware that Harry Dean appeared on the Joe Pyne Show in early 1965.

That’s only the beginning! Before these FBI documents were available, we had no independent confirmation of these aspects of Harry’s story! Thanks to the FBI we have a growing list of these! So, again, Ernie Lazar is guilty of exaggeration – his usual mode of communication.

(12) Ernie Lazar says of me, Paul Trejo, that the presence of “not even one FBI file number on Harry which has a classification code which the FBI used to archive data regarding its informants, means nothing to you.” But that is simply false.

It’s significant to me that the FBI won’t list Harry Dean as a formal, paid informant of the FBI. I take that very seriously. However, only the FBI and their quislings (like W.R. Morris) ever claimed that Harry Dean claimed to be a paid FBI agent or informant in the formal sense.

Harry always told me, and he also claimed in his Crosstrails manuscript (1990) that he was unpaid by the FBI. So, actually, the lack of an FBI file number with an informant classification code is yet one more independent confirmation of Harry Dean’s memoirs!

(13) Ernie Lazar charges that “the fact that all of Harry's FBI files are very small (250 or less pages) means nothing to you.” Of course that is false and it is also misleading. While it is significant that Harry Dean’s FBI-LA files contain less than 250 pages, I regard quality to be more important that quantity. I regard the content of those files is to be the more important factor. Here again we see Ernie’s use of exaggeration to make his points.

(14) Ernie Lazar charges that, “the fact that FBI HQ had to send inquiries to its Chicago and Los Angeles field offices just to discover who Harry was, means nothing to you.” Of course that is also false, and just as misleading.

In my opinion, the fact that FBI Headquarters had to send inquiries to its Chicago field office in November of 1963, after the JFK assassination, is a matter of major importance. Of course, we must see those Chicago FBI files on Harry Dean to make a final decision – however, the Chicago FBI destroyed those documents!

Ernie Lazar has suggested that that Chicago FBI destroyed them because they were trivial (e.g. post #675). This also explains to Ernie the absence of these files at FBI headquarters when Hoover wanted them. Notice that Ernie never saw those documents, but he is certain that they must have been trivial. This shows Ernie’s bias, and the unreliability of his research.

Actually, the proper way to make a decision about the Chicago FBI files on Harry Dean is to recover them. FBI Headquarters demanded those files in the wake of the JFK assassination, so we presume that the FBI Headquarters did not also destroy those records after the Chicago field office sent them – because they are part of the JFK assassination records. Can we recover them?

Ernie claims this “means nothing” to me, but the opposite is true – I want to see them perhaps more than anybody else here.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Sometimes, Paul, I do not even understand your comments but my replies are underneath your comments.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

Ernie Lazar · February 23, 2014

For everyone (except Paul):

I received an email late yesterday from my archivist contact at NARA. She told me that as soon as she receives confirmation from NARA's fiscal unit that they have processed my credit card payment, she will process my request for Harry's Los Angeles FBI file.

She told me that she would mail out the DVD within 2-3 days of receiving that confirmation (which probably means she will begin processing my request on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week and I should have the file within the next 7-10 days.)

After I receive and review that file, I will post a message here which briefly explains what new info is contained in it (if any). I will also mention if any of the items which I previously listed here (which I thought might be in the file) are actually in the file.

Paul Trejo · February 23, 2014

BUMP

Edited February 23, 2014 by Paul Trejo

Paul Brancato · February 23, 2014

This thread about Harry Dean and his story is in some way a distraction. Dean did not kill JFK, and whether or not his story is true or false, General Walker may very well have been a key part of the assassination. What worries me therefore is that if Dean's bonafides are never verified by FBI files or other independent corroboration it will do serious damage to what should be the focus here - the very real possibility that Walker was a key element in the plot to kill JFK.

I have read the book that Dean, with Trejo's help, has written, something I doubt most readers here have done. That's not meant to be a knock on forum members, but a comment on the way that Dean's posts here read. They are mostly inscrutable. If his story is true he is not a good advocate for it. Trejo's unflinching belief in Dean likewise strikes me as over zealous. I don't doubt Trejo's earnestness, just his choice to promote Dean's story. Trejo's research on Walker is revealing and important, and I think there is more to discover about Walker and the far right racist milieu he was an integral part of. I remember that in the first hours and days after the assassination, suspect number one for those that thought Oswald was a patsy was the Minutemen.

Ernie Lazar · February 23, 2014

To Larry Hancock:

I have been giving more thought to your previous message and I have some additional resources you might want to check.

The specific years which interest you present something of a problem because the older editions of the FBI Manual of Instructions have been replaced by other Manuals (see links below) although the original MOI is at NARA.

However, these new Manuals do contain considerable material which relates to your interest. For example, if you open the first pdf file link of the MIOG, and then proceed to page 61, you will see a reference to "section 7" that pertains to "interviews". If you then search for all references to "interviews" you will see various instructions about how to conduct interviews such as on page 174-175 regarding interviews of family members.

There are also numerous references in the DIOG (link below) to interview techniques.

Also major sections of the MOI are at Marquette University in Athan Theoharis's files, see link below:

http://www.marquette.edu/library/archives/Mss/FBI/FBI-series22.shtml

I obtained several specific sections of the MOI which interested me (particularly with respect to Security Investigations of Individuals) and I also have requested numerous SAC Letters which contain instructions to field offices regarding many different related matters.

Theoharis obtained all SAC Letters and they are archived at Marquette. See: http://www.marquette.edu/library/archives/Mss/FBI/FBI-series73.shtml

I hope this is a better answer to your previous question.

Also, I think the 10-page San Francisco document which I previously posted here in EF (regarding what questions Agents were required to ask informants and what notices they were required to give informants) can also give you an idea about the interview techniques used by Agents.

Many FBI files which I have obtained over the years contain individual serials that reflect the verbatim text of an interview conducted by FBI Agents (including in the time period which interests you)....but I do not have any way to remember which specific files contain those interviews and then I would have to remember which specific file sections to look in, and then which specific serials of those sections contain the type of documents you want. Even worse, the FBI does not release pdf files as searchable documents. I have to use my Adobe software to convert them into searchable documents.

If I ever stumble across something particularly interesting, I will let you know.

MIOG (Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines)

http://vault.fbi.gov/miog

MAOP (Manual of Administrative Operations and Procedures)

http://vault.fbi.gov/maop

DIOG (Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide)

http://vault.fbi.gov/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20%28DIOG%29

Edited February 23, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

Ernie Lazar · February 23, 2014

This thread about Harry Dean and his story is in some way a distraction. Dean did not kill JFK, and whether or not his story is true or false, General Walker may very well have been a key part of the assassination. What worries me therefore is that if Dean's bonafides are never verified by FBI files or other independent corroboration it will do serious damage to what should be the focus here - the very real possibility that Walker was a key element in the plot to kill JFK.

I have read the book that Dean, with Trejo's help, has written, something I doubt most readers here have done. That's not meant to be a knock on forum members, but a comment on the way that Dean's posts here read. They are mostly inscrutable. If his story is true he is not a good advocate for it. Trejo's unflinching belief in Dean likewise strikes me as over zealous. I don't doubt Trejo's earnestness, just his choice to promote Dean's story. Trejo's research on Walker is revealing and important, and I think there is more to discover about Walker and the far right racist milieu he was an integral part of. I remember that in the first hours and days after the assassination, suspect number one for those that thought Oswald was a patsy was the Minutemen.

Paul B: I was particularly struck by your use of the descriptive word "inscrutable" - which is comparable to what I observed in a previous message when I referred to Harry's written sentence and thought fragments which are sometimes incoherent or subject to multiple interpretations.

As I have tried to point out to Paul T. (unsuccessfully), there are many different methods which can be employed to establish whether or not someone was an actual FBI informant. But every one of those methods requires clear answers to specific questions.

I don't think any of us are likely to get those answers from Harry or from Paul. That leaves us with FBI file documents but Paul T. insists that they are not trustworthy.

SO.....that leaves us with Paul T's bizarre proposed methodology for confirming evidence -- which he exempts himself from following! See details below.

You could prepare a comprehensive list of every declarative sentence or assertion made by "Harry" in Paul's eBook and there is not even one of those statements which has the type or quality of "proof" which Paul T. insists MUST be presented in order to be credible.

For example:

1. Do we even know that "Harry J. Dean" is the ACTUAL name of the person who posts messages in this thread and who is being discussed? And that he was born in Canada?

Using Paul Trejo's stated criteria for "proof", what "INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION" do we have for that?

Remember! "Independent verification" BY DEFINITION means a PROCESS by which someone confirms as valid (aka truthful) a statement, accusation, or assertion by using sources OTHER THAN the originating source.

So, for example, if you want to "independently verify" a person's identity including their birthdate and birthplace -- you cannot just accept their word, you must search for some kind of documentary record (not provided by the original source) to validate their assertion. Obviously, this can be a difficult process because it takes a lot of time and resources to verify statements made. But Paul Trejo insists that everything must be subject to "independent verification" OR it is NOT credible evidence.

We know that the person who uses the name "Harry Dean" has used several aliases including, for example, "Dean Fallon" and "Harry Fallon" and, perhaps, "George R. Baker". For all we know, one of those "aliases" is his actual name!

But, according to Paul T., we should insist upon some sort of documentary proof (such as a birth certificate) before we conclude that "Harry J. Dean" is the actual identity of the person we are discussing here!

2. Do we even know that "Harry" actually was ever a member of the Birch Society in southern California or of the Minutemen? Has anybody ever seen any proof for those assertions?

3. Do we know that "Harry" actually ever knew Walker, Galbadon, or Rousselot? Has anybody seen any "independent verification" for those assertions?

4. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that Harry did know Galbadon -- do we have any "independent verification" that Harry ever attended ANY meetings with Galbadon or with Galbadon and Rousselot? Do we have any "independent verification" for that?

5. NOW...we must consider some of the major assertions made by the person whom we know by the name "Harry Dean". As I previously pointed out:

5.1 Paul T. states that Harry was a close personal friend of Loran Hall. But where is the "proof"? Does Paul have a document (a letter, a note, a card) from Loran to Harry acknowledging their "friendship"? If not -- then according to Paul's criteria, we cannot accept his statement regarding Hall and Harry's "friendship" because there is no "proof" (aka "independent verification" for that assertion.

5.2 Where is the "proof" regarding Loran Hall being a "close associate" of Fidel and Che? Where is the document we can read which establishes their "association"?

5.3 Paul Trejo previously posted a message stating that....."David Robbins told me personally..."

But, according to Paul T, that type of "evidence" is, nothing but "hearsay" and, consequently, has no value. Where is the "proof"?

Does Paul T. have a letter or email from David Robbins or perhaps a tape recording in which David Robbins acknowledges whatever he supposedly told Paul T. ? IF NOT, this is nothing more than what Paul describes as an unsubstantiated allegation.

5.4 Paul T. also states that the person we know as "Harry Dean" heard Loran Hall make his "standard speech before the JBS". But where is the "proof" aka the "independent verification"?

Paul T. does not supply us with ANY verifiable documentary evidence which establishes that Harry attended any speech by Loran Hall. THUS...according to Paul T's stated criteria, this is nothing more than an "allegation" but not "fact" or "proof"

5.5 The person we know as "Harry" claims he had an ongoing personal relationship with Los Angeles FBI SAC Wesley G. Grapp and they met several times in person. But where is the "proof" for that assertion? The "independent verification"? So far, it is TOTALLY NON-EXISTENT! Paul T. cannot provide it. The person we know as "Harry" has not provided it.

5.6 The person we know as "Harry" claims that in August 1963, he told Wesley Grapp about a "plot" by JBS members to murder JFK.

But where is the "proof" of that assertion? The "independent verification"? So far, it is NON-EXISTENT.

Hundreds of thousands of contemporaneous documents appearing in FBI and CIA and HSCA files re: JFK's murder were released over 30 years ago in response to an FOIA lawsuit but there is not ONE WORD in ANY of those documents about any meetings or contacts between Harry and Grapp. There is not even any mention of the FBI in Los Angeles receiving any reports from anybody matching Harry's description about any murder "plot" by JBS members.

5.7 According to the person we know as "Harry", he drove Guy Galbadon to a meeting with John Rousselot where Rousselot handed over $10,000 in cash to Galbadon so that Guy could finance the "plot" by JBS members to murder JFK.

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” ?

OR as Paul Trejo would insist: where is the "independent verification" to prove that any such meeting took place AND that such a sum of money was given to Galbadon AND that the purpose of that money was to finance a plot to murder JFK?

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE THREE ELEMENTS OF JUST THAT ONE ASSERTION has never been proven to be accurate or truthful.

Where is the "independent verification" which Paul T. tells us MUST be provided in order for such an assertion to rise to the level of credible evidence?

5.8 Where is the letter or other document 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 T. would say, where is the "written documentation” ??

5.9 Where is the letter or other document or videotape from Edwin Walker (presumably in Walker’s personal papers which Paul T. has reviewed) 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.”

6. Paul T. has made very specific assertions regarding what Edwin Walker told his troops in Germany in 1960 via his "Pro-Blue" training program.

But where is the "independent verification" for ANY or ALL of Paul T's assertions?

Does Paul T. have any affidavits from soldiers who attended that training? Or any letters? Or any taped interviews? Or any emails? Is there any investigative body that has ever confirmed the specific assertions which Paul T. has made? -- particularly with respect to Paul T.'s comment regarding what Walker supposedly "taught" his troops about our Presidents?

7. The person we know as "Harry" has stated that after he moved to California, he became a "private investigator" and a "small contractor". Where is the "independent verification" for either of those assertions?

In summary:

We could examine Paul Trejo's eBook line-by-line (page by page) and there is not ANY "independent verification" offered for ANYTHING contained in that ENTIRE eBook.

There is not a single footnote.

There is not a single bibliographic reference.

There is not a single scanned document.

There is not a single affidavit or notarized statement.

There is not even the PRETENSE of presenting ANYTHING which has been independently proven to be accurate and truthful and fact-based.

EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE of Paul's eBook presents UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS and nothing more -- including, as mentioned above, even the identity of the person Paul T. is writing about since we have no proof that "Harry Dean" is actually his name nor do we have any proof of his alleged birth date, his birthplace, his education, his military service, his marital history, his employment history, his actual political beliefs, his alleged activities after he moved to California, or ANY other matter discussed in that eBook.

FOR ALL WE KNOW, THE ENTIRE EBOOK MIGHT BE A WORK OF FICTION -- A "WHO-DONE-IT?" NOVEL!

Edited February 23, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

Paul Trejo · February 23, 2014

This thread about Harry Dean and his story is in some way a distraction. Dean did not kill JFK, and whether or not his story is true or false, General Walker may very well have been a key part of the assassination. What worries me therefore is that if Dean's bonafides are never verified by FBI files or other independent corroboration it will do serious damage to what should be the focus here - the very real possibility that Walker was a key element in the plot to kill JFK.

I have read the book that Dean, with Trejo's help, has written, something I doubt most readers here have done. That's not meant to be a knock on forum members, but a comment on the way that Dean's posts here read. They are mostly inscrutable. If his story is true he is not a good advocate for it. Trejo's unflinching belief in Dean likewise strikes me as over zealous. I don't doubt Trejo's earnestness, just his choice to promote Dean's story. Trejo's research on Walker is revealing and important, and I think there is more to discover about Walker and the far right racist milieu he was an integral part of. I remember that in the first hours and days after the assassination, suspect number one for those that thought Oswald was a patsy was the Minutemen.

Well, Paul B., I appreciate your observations. First of all, you're 100% correct -- the main issue here is the JFK assassination and the central role that might have been played by Ex-General Edwin Walker in it.

There are other threads about Edwin Walker on the Forum, but they tend to be armchair quarterback experiments in guesswork. Dick Russell did some digging back in the 1990's, and even interviewed Edwin Walker, but his questions were far off track -- he never got close.

For instance, Dick Russell's pursuit of the Larrie Schmidt story was weak -- a dead end -- and he pushed it too far. The only person who would have known more about Ex-General Walker and his plans in 1963 was the brother of Larrie, namely, Robbie Schmidt, who died in the 1990's. Robbie Schmidt used to live with Edwin Walker, for the better part of 1963. Larrie Schmidt insists that Robbie Schmidt had no clout with Walker, because Robbie was only Walker's chauffeur, and there was a great social distance between them -- so Robbie would not even pay attention to people who came and went from Walker's home while he lived there -- says Larrie Schmidt. He might be right -- but in any case, the death of Robbie Schmidt ends all certainty on that score, IMHO.

The only living persons who could have associated with Ex-General Walker in the summer of 1963 who are still alive today -- that I know about -- are Harry Dean, David Robbins and Jack Martin, whose home movie showed the bullet holes in Walker's home at the start of the film, and the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans at the end of the film.

I spoke with David Robbins and he confirmed for me that the key persons whom Harry Dean names in his Confessions did indeed congregate around his JBS speaker events in 1962-1963. The key men -- including Edwin Walker, John Rousselot, Loran Hall and Harry Dean -- were all speakers at one time or other for David Robbins' events, and they were also frequently seen at the JBS where David Robbins also hung out. However -- that's about all that David Robbins can say. I've pressed him -- he knows very little more than that. He admitted that he was very close to John Rousselot, and that he was at his side when Rousselot died in 2003.

Jack Martin flatly refuses to talk with anybody about Walker -- anybody -- at least that what he told the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas which has his home movie on their web site.

As for Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray, he faced off with Edwin Walker in 1962 at Ole Miss University, challenging Walker to send the out-of-towners home and to stop the violence against the Federal Troops who were trying to enforce the Supreme Court decision to racially integrate Ole Miss. Bishop Duncan Gray (then a lowly Reverend) told me plainly that Edwin Walker scowled at this peace-loving Pastor, and directed men in the crowd to beat up Gray. This is a matter of history, told at Ole Miss down to this day. However, Gray stopped tracking Walker after that point, and has no knowledge of Walker's activities in 1963.

So -- that leaves me with Harry Dean. I grant that there are technical issues that remain with Harry Dean's story -- for example, independent confirmation. However, the paradox is that all these negative FBI files about Harry Dean actually support most of the claims that Harry Dean makes -- that is, they tend to place Harry at certain locations at certain dates, and associate Harry with specific people there.

No matter what problems Harry Dean may have had with the FBI, the paradox is that their records so far have substantiated the locations and the general society of Harry's story. Even if there are more negative things that the FBI will have to say about Harry Dean, I suspect that we will also find further confirmations of Harry Dean's story as regards his location and society in question.

My ultimate goal here is scientific. My ultimate goal is historical in the most scholarly sense of the term. I admit we have a lot more work to do. I have always admitted that Harry Dean's case as it stood twp years ago was weak -- but I believed in Harry Dean all this time because I have a growing case against Ex-General Edwin Walker, and Harry Dean is my star living witness today.

Furthermore, even the case against Ex-General Edwin Walker gives Harry Dean's story a bit more independent confirmation, so I will continue to defend Harry Dean to the very end.

I appreciate your objectivity, Paul B. I can't tell you how much.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 24, 2014 by Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo · February 24, 2014

...Paul, when you post falsehoods, you should expect push-back from someone who notices those falsehoods. Unlike yourself, I welcome any corrections to what I write....

Your paranoid delusions and routine brain freezes make any possibility of you recognizing your grievous errors virtually impossible.

Ernie, people who live in tin houses shouldn't throw can-openers.

I'll continue to supply more push-back to your many falsehoods on this Forum thread. I'm glad you "welcome any corrections," because there are plenty more.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 24, 2014 by Paul Trejo

Harry Dean: Memoirs

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements