Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

Incidentally, Paul, have you ever asked Harry to give you proof that he was ever (as he claims) a "private investigator" in California?

OR

Is this another case where you intend to INVENT a phony distinction between "official" vs "unofficial", OR "formal" vs "informal" OR "laymen" vs "expert" understanding of what "private investigator" means?

Ernie Lazar, it's only YOU who make any broad claim that Harry Dean was a "Private Investigator" in California, in ths sense of being a formal, licensed PI, registered with the LAPD.

What nonsense.

Harry Dean claims to have been a professional plasterer in California. He was a skilled laborer raising his family. Now, insofar as Harry Dean was also an INFORMAL source of information to the FBI, I can imagine that this could have been intriguing to Harry, as it would be to most people.

Yet if Harry Dean ever used the term, PI, in regards to himself, I'm sure it was as good-natured humor -- or in some other informal, layman's meaning of the term.

Here again, dear readers, we witness Ernie Lazar spreading disinformation about Harry Dean, who only wishes to cast a light on specific members of the John Birch Society in Southern California in 1963 as having secret dealings with a plot to murder JFK as well as Lee Harvey Oswald.

The FBI has been trying to cover up the fact of Oswald accomplices in the JFK murder since 1963. J. Edgar Hoover was at the helm of this activity. These facts have been recently confirmed by former FBI Agents Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen -- as well as many other writers in the past fifty years.

Yet Ernie Lazar seems to wish to defend the reputation of the FBI and the JBS -- and to do that he must impeach the witness and memoirs of Harry Dean. Ernie does this with great energy, year after year -- spreading his bias using exaggerations like this one.

If Harry Dean joked or spoke metaphorically about being a PI (when everybody who knew him knew he had no college degree or even a high school degree), Ernie Lazar does not care -- Ernie wants to accuse Harry Dean of MISREPRESENTATION.

What nonsense. What a waste of time and energy.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 11, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Incidentally, Paul, have you ever asked Harry to give you proof that he was ever (as he claims) a "private investigator" in California?

OR

Is this another case where you intend to INVENT a phony distinction between "official" vs "unofficial", OR "formal" vs "informal" OR "laymen" vs "expert" understanding of what "private investigator" means?

Ernie Lazar, it's only YOU who make any broad claim that Harry Dean was a "Private Investigator" in California, in ths sense of being a formal, licensed PI, registered with the LAPD.

What nonsense.

Harry Dean claims to have been a professional plasterer in California. He was a skilled laborer raising his family. Now, insofar as Harry Dean was also an INFORMAL source of information to the FBI, I can imagine that this could have been exciting to Harry, as it would be to most people.

Yet if Harry Dean ever used the term, PI, in regards to himself, I'm sure it was as good-natured humor -- or in some other informal, layman's meaning of the term.

Here again, dear readers, we witness Ernie Lazar spreading disinformation about Harry Dean, who only wishes to cast a light on specific members of the John Birch Society in Southern California in 1963 as having secret dealings with a plot to murder JFK as well as Lee Harvey Oswald.

The FBI has been trying to cover up the fact of Oswald accomplices in the JFK murder since 1963. J. Edgar Hoover is at the helm of this activity -- this has been confirmed by former FBI Agents Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen -- and many other people in the past fifty years.

Yet Ernie Lazar wishes somehow to protect the good name of the FBI and the JBS -- and to do that he must impeach the witness and memoirs of Harry Dean. Ernie does this with great energy, year after year -- spreading his bias using exaggerations, like this one.

If Harry Dean joked about being a PI (when everybody who knew him knew he had no college degree or even a high school degree), Ernie Lazar wants to take accuse Harry Dean of MISREPRESENTATION.

It seems to me, a layman, that Ernie Lazar is only projecting his own psychological compulsion to exaggerate onto Harry Dean.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

PAUL

1. PLEASE QUOTE my message (or refer us to the message number) where I supposedly stated that (as you now assert):

"Ernie Lazar, it's only YOU who make any broad claim that Harry Dean was a "Private Investigator" in California, in ths sense of being a formal, licensed PI, registered with the LAPD."

HERE AGAIN, you are deliberately LYING. I never once stated that Harry was a licensed PI -- nor did I even refer to any location where he was supposedly "registered". Nor did I ever mention "LAPD". These are ALL your deliberate FABRICATIONS.

All I have ever done is ASK a question about whether Harry could provide us with his license number IF he had such a license. Nothing more, Nothing less.

Why is it that you NEVER are able to ACCURATELY summarize or paraphrase what somebody has explicitly written?

2. DISINFORMATION: How could I be "spreading disinformation" if all I ever did was ask a question?

3. GOOD NAME OF FBI and JBS: Once again, Paul, QUOTE SOMETHING I have ever written in my lifetime which expresses the idea that I think the JBS should be considered as a reputable and credible and trustworthy organization. In other words, some expression by me which reflects that I think the JBS "has a good name" or a "good reputation". QUOTE IT -- Do not merely attribute something to me.

I have already previously addressed your conscious, deliberate, lies about my evaluation of the FBI during the time period we are discussing.

4.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Attached is a copy of a letter-to-the-editor which I wrote and which was published in August 1966 (47 years ago!) which expresses my hostility toward the JBS. My closing paragraph summarized the point I was making in my previous 23 paragraphs. I wrote:

"I have tried to indicate by three examples that the JBS doesn't know what it is talking about in terms of recognizing Communist or pro-Communist organizations (like ADA?) individuals (like Chief Justice Warren?) or strategy (like the civil rights item). I'd be happy to provide further examples if desired"

THAT has been my position for my ENTIRE ADULT LIFE. And there are DOZENS more examples of my letters-to-the-editor published during 1965 and 1966 which excoriated the JBS for poisoning rational discussion in our country. Significantly, the tactics employed by Birchers were (and are) IDENTICAL to those used by Paul Trejo -- who, like many of the most extreme Birchers, cannot or will not provide FACTS to document their warped assertions.HDR 8-31-66, p20 = Lazar and Birchers.pdf

So where does Paul Trejo come up with such a deliberate LIE that "Ernie Lazar wishes somehow to protect the good name of the FBI and the JBS"

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul wrote:

If Harry Dean joked about being a PI (when everybody who knew him knew he had no college degree or even a high school degree), Ernie Lazar wants to take accuse Harry Dean of MISREPRESENTATION.

Notice that Paul does not even care what factual evidence exists. He has already dismissed any possibility that Harry ever described himself as a PI (not as a "joke") but in answer to a question about how he was earning his living!

This is TYPICAL of the way Paul approaches debate. His first and ONLY instinct is to dismiss, ridicule, de-value, and ignore EVERYTHING which might be considered adverse to Harry.

As Harry's #1 defender -- Paul tells us Harry's spoken or written words do not mean anything.

And when challenged with contradictory evidence by someone whom Paul described as "intelligent and courageous", Paul insists that nobody should believe what that "intelligent and courageous" person has explicitly written. Instead, Paul demands that we accept Paul's personal tortured explanation of what that person has written.

Well, if words have no meaning (except what Paul wants them to mean), then how can anybody ever have an intelligent or rational discussion with either Paul or Harry?

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie Lazar, why don't you just show us the alleged quotation from Harry Dean you're referring to, and stop your grandstanding?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie Lazar, why don't you just show us the alleged quotation from Harry Dean you're referring to, and stop your grandstanding?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, I will be happy to comply with your request AFTER you first provide documentation for YOUR statement which I copy again below:

"Ernie Lazar, it's only YOU who make any broad claim that Harry Dean was a "Private Investigator" in California, in ths sense of being a formal, licensed PI, registered with the LAPD."

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie Lazar, why don't you just show us the alleged quotation from Harry Dean you're referring to, and stop your grandstanding?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Here, Paul -- I'll help you out.....There are only TWO messages in which I mentioned Harry and "private investigator". See:

page 47, message #702

page 48, message #718

In BOTH messages, I asked questions. Perhaps your point is that the very act of asking questions amounts to "misrepresentation" or "disinformation" or whatever other libel you want to fabricate.

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie Lazar, why don't you just show us the alleged quotation from Harry Dean you're referring to, and stop your grandstanding?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Here, Paul -- I'll help you out.....There are only TWO messages in which I mentioned Harry and "private investigator". See:

page 47, message #702

page 48, message #718

In BOTH messages, I asked questions. Perhaps your point is that the very act of asking questions amounts to "misrepresentation" or "disinformation" or whatever other libel you want to fabricate.

All right, Ernie, let's see what you're complaining about this time. First, let's look at what you said on post #702:

Post #702 -- Ernie Lazar, on 21 Feb 2014 - 8:37 PM, said:

...There is another matter which I have neglected to ask Paul and Harry about -- which arises from a comment which Harry has made.

I cannot find the specific reference right now (I think it is from Harry answering a question here in EF] but Harry stated that, at some point in time, after he moved to California, he became a "private investigator"....

(1) Did Harry undergo the required "criminal history background check through the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)" ...

All right, Ernie, we can see the problem there easily -- you are accusing Harry Dean of claiming to be a professional Private Investigator -- which is a career that requires a special license from the US Government.

The problem is, by your own admission, that you can't even find anyplace where Harry Dean actually claimed that! Probably you imagined it. You pulled it out of thin air. And then you have the nerve to demand that Harry Dean respond to your false charges!

I know of no text where Harry Dean claimed to be a professional Private Investigator. If Harry Dean made a joke (or a metaphor) about it somewhere, it didn't register with me because a colloquialism is just that, and nothing more.

All right, now let's look at your post #718:

Post #718 - Ernie Lazar, on 23 Feb 2014 - 2:23 PM, said:

...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? ...

All right, Ernie, we can again see the problem easily -- you are again accusing Harry Dean of claiming to be a professional Private Investigator -- however, you never cite any source to back up your accusation.

You are merely repeating your first post (which has no citation) and now you want Harry Dean to answer something that you said? That's some nerve. You have really shown our readers here how biased you truly are.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie Lazar, why don't you just show us the alleged quotation from Harry Dean you're referring to, and stop your grandstanding?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Here, Paul -- I'll help you out.....There are only TWO messages in which I mentioned Harry and "private investigator". See:

page 47, message #702

page 48, message #718

In BOTH messages, I asked questions. Perhaps your point is that the very act of asking questions amounts to "misrepresentation" or "disinformation" or whatever other libel you want to fabricate.

All right, Ernie, let's see what you're complaining about this time. First, let's look at what you said on post #702:

Post #702 -- Ernie Lazar, on 21 Feb 2014 - 8:37 PM, said:

...There is another matter which I have neglected to ask Paul and Harry about -- which arises from a comment which Harry has made.

I cannot find the specific reference right now (I think it is from Harry answering a question here in EF] but Harry stated that, at some point in time, after he moved to California, he became a "private investigator"....

(1) Did Harry undergo the required "criminal history background check through the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)" ...

All right, Ernie, we can see the problem there easily -- you are accusing Harry Dean of claiming to be a professional Private Investigator -- which is a career that requires a special license from the US Government.

The problem is, by your own admission, that you can't even find anyplace where Harry Dean actually claimed that! Probably you imagined it. You pulled it out of thin air. And then you have the nerve to demand that Harry Dean respond to your false charges!

I know of no text where Harry Dean claimed to be a professional Private Investigator. If Harry Dean made a joke (or a metaphor) about it somewhere, it didn't register with me because a colloquialism is just that, and nothing more.

All right, now let's look at your post #718:

Post #718 - Ernie Lazar, on 23 Feb 2014 - 2:23 PM, said:

...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? ...

All right, Ernie, we can again see the problem easily -- you are again accusing Harry Dean of claiming to be a professional Private Investigator -- however, you never cite any source to back up your accusation.

You are merely repeating your first post (which has no citation) and now you want Harry Dean to answer something that you said? That's some nerve. You have really shown our readers here how biased you truly are.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul:

1. I am not "accusing" Harry of anything. I simply asked him a question which anybody would ask if someone claims that they were employed as a private investigator.

2. I made no "false charge". Instead, I pointed out that one of my own relatives became a PI after he retired as a policeman. So, naturally, I asked if Harry followed the normal procedures for becoming a PI in California.

3. What is a "professional Private Investigator"? Isn't that someone who says he is employed as a PI -- in addition to being employed as a "small contractor"??

4. SO...if I now understand the full import of all your comments here, your position is that when Harry was asked a question which was intended to discover what he did for a living and Harry said: "I'm a private investigator and a small contractor, very small. That's my function at this time." you want us to believe that Harry did not actually mean "private investigator". ???

So, WHAT DID Harry mean?

What sort of "private investigations" did he actually do?

AND how did he obtain his clients? Did he advertise himself anywhere as a PI?

Edited March 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

PAUL:

Still waiting for your substantiation that I previously wrote ANY of what YOU claimed here:

"Ernie Lazar, it's only YOU who make any broad claim that Harry Dean was a "Private Investigator" in California, in ths sense of being a formal, licensed PI, registered with the LAPD."

Your accusation is comprised of 4 separate elements about what I supposedly had previously written:

1. That I claimed Harry "was a Private Investigator in California"

2. That I claimed Harry was a "formal, licensed PI"

3. That I claimed Harry was "registered"

4. That I claimed Harry was registered "with the LAPD"

If you cannot prove, with exact quotations of what I have written, that I made each and every one of those 4 separate statements -- then you are a conscious, deliberate, pathological xxxx.

[Paul Trejo]

PAUL:

Still waiting for your substantiation that I previously wrote ANY of what YOU claimed here:

"Ernie Lazar, it's only YOU who make any broad claim that Harry Dean was a "Private Investigator" in California, in ths sense of being a formal, licensed PI, registered with the LAPD."

Your accusation is comprised of 4 separate elements about what I supposedly had previously written:

1. That I claimed Harry "was a Private Investigator in California"

2. That I claimed Harry was a "formal, licensed PI"

3. That I claimed Harry was "registered"

4. That I claimed Harry was registered "with the LAPD"

If you cannot prove, with exact quotations of what I have written, that I made each and every one of those 4 separate statements -- then you are a conscious, deliberate, pathological xxxx.

It's very simple, Ernie. You claimed this in two posts, as I plainly showed above in plain quotations of your own words:

The first post was #702. The second post was #718.

You claimed that Harry Dean said this (without showing your work) and then you demanded that Harry Dean produce his own registration papers for your claim.

HARRY HIMSELF NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A PROFESSIONAL PRIVATE DETECTIVE.

Therefore, as everybody can see, you are the ONLY ONE who claimed that Harry Dean claimed to be a professional Private Detective.

Finally, as for your emotional outbursts Ernie, I've been more than patient with you, and I think the time has come to call for a Moderator again.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

PAUL:

Still waiting for your substantiation that I previously wrote ANY of what YOU claimed here:

"Ernie Lazar, it's only YOU who make any broad claim that Harry Dean was a "Private Investigator" in California, in ths sense of being a formal, licensed PI, registered with the LAPD."

Your accusation is comprised of 4 separate elements about what I supposedly had previously written:

1. That I claimed Harry "was a Private Investigator in California"

2. That I claimed Harry was a "formal, licensed PI"

3. That I claimed Harry was "registered"

4. That I claimed Harry was registered "with the LAPD"

If you cannot prove, with exact quotations of what I have written, that I made each and every one of those 4 separate statements -- then you are a conscious, deliberate, pathological xxxx.

It's very simple, Ernie. You claimed this in two posts, as I plainly showed above in plain quotations of your own words:

The first post was #702. The second post was #718.

You claimed that Harry Dean said this (without showing your work) and then you demanded that Harry Dean produce his own registration papers for your claim.

HARRY HIMSELF NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A PROFESSIONAL PRIVATE DETECTIVE.

Therefore, as everybody can see, you are the ONLY ONE who claimed that Harry Dean claimed to be a professional Private Detective.

Finally, as for your emotional outbursts Ernie, I've been more than patient with you, and I think the time has come to call for a Moderator again.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul: I checked my two messages again, and neither of them includes the words:

1. professional

2. formal

3. registered

4. LAPD (or any other police department)

Now, in the past, you have demanded that I produce documents by Harry in which he specifically said "I was an FBI agent" or "I was an FBI undercover informant" -- because you said that was the ONLY acceptable documentation. So, BY YOUR OWN STANDARD, you have lied.

AGAIN:

I NEVER made ANY statement about Harry's status. The ONLY thing I did was ASK A QUESTION based upon Harry's statement that he was a private investigator.

So, once again, you have proved that you are prepared to deliberately LIE when you think it will advance your argument --- just like the previous time when you claimed that I wrote that you (or Harry) "had proof" of Harry's meeting with Grapp when I never made any such statement

NOTICE THE WORD "ASK" IN THE FIRST SENTENCE and THEN THE QUESTION

There is no reference to "registered" or "Los Angeles Police Department" or any other Police Department

Post #702 -- Ernie Lazar, on 21 Feb 2014 - 8:37 PM, said:

There is another matter which I have neglected to ask Paul and Harry about -- which arises from a comment which Harry has made. I cannot find the specific reference right now (I think it is from Harry answering a question here in EF] but Harry stated that, at some point in time, after he moved to California, he became a "private investigator"....

(1) Did Harry undergo the required "criminal history background check through the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)"

NOTICE THE QUESTION "WHERE IS THE INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION?" There is no reference to "professional" or "registered" or "Los Angeles Police Department" or any other Police Department

Post #718 - Ernie Lazar, on 23 Feb 2014 - 2:23 PM, said:

...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? ...

AND JUST FOR CLARITY:

The actual reason I asked Harry my questions about his PI status -- was because I was curious if he was going to claim that he had passed the mandatory background check by the FBI and the California Dept of Justice in Sacramento. Obviously, those background checks are based upon fingerprints.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

So, Paul, let's attempt to summarize everything:

1. When Harry wrote that he was "an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation", according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN he was an informant.

2. When Harry wrote that he was "a private investigator", according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN he was a private investigator.

3. When Harry wrote here in EF that he DID NOT write the long, unredacted version of the 11/63 letter to Hoover, according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN that he did not write that letter.

4. When Harry wrote that "shortly after" arriving in California in July 1961, Wesley Grapp contacted Harry, according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN that such a meeting occurred "shortly after" he arrived in California.

5. When Harry said/wrote that he spoke with Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963 and reported the "JBS plot" to murder JFK, according to you HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN that he spoke with Wesley Grapp NOR did Harry really mean any such conversation occurred in summer of 1963 NOR anytime in 1963 NOR anytime prior to JFK's murder!!!

So what the hell does Harry mean?

Since Wesley Swearingen has confirmed what I wrote in this forum last year -- i.e. Grapp was NOT in Los Angeles until 1964 (March 1964 to be precise), then your ENTIRE eBook story just crumbled into absurdity.

1. Whom, do you (or Harry) now claim Harry spoke to (in Los Angeles FBI) before JFK was murdered?

2. Obviously, it was not Grapp nor Agent McCauley -- the Agent who had the most contact with Harry. So who is your "new" eBook going to be about?

Edited March 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

So, Paul, let's attempt to summarize everything:

1. When Harry wrote that he was "an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation", according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN he was an informant.

2. When Harry wrote that he was "a private investigator", according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN he was a private investigator.

3. When Harry wrote here in EF that he DID NOT write the long, unredacted version of the 11/63 letter to Hoover, according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN that he did not write that letter.

4. When Harry wrote that "shortly after" arriving in California in July 1961, Wesley Grapp contacted Harry, according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN that such a meeting occurred "shortly after" he arrived in California.

5. When Harry said/wrote that he spoke with Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963 and reported the "JBS plot" to murder JFK, according to you HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN that he spoke with Wesley Grapp NOR did Harry really mean any such conversation occurred in summer of 1963 NOR anytime in 1963 NOR anytime prior to JFK's murder!!!

So what the hell does Harry mean?

Since Wesley Swearingen has confirmed what I wrote in this forum last year -- i.e. Grapp was NOT in Los Angeles until 1964 (March 1964 to be precise), then your ENTIRE eBook story just crumbled into absurdity.

1. Whom, do you (or Harry) now claim Harry spoke to (in Los Angeles FBI) before JFK was murdered?

2. Obviously, it was not Grapp nor Agent McCauley -- the Agent who had the most contact with Harry. So who is your "new" eBook going to be about?

Ernie, aside from your hostile and misrepresenting bias, that's almost a fair summary of our status today.

You keep repeating that Harry Dean "wrote" that he was an "undercover informant for the FBI" but you never show where Harry wrote that.

You don't follow your own advice and QUOTE the source. You can only find places where W.R. Morris claimed that Harry said that. After all this time you're still mesmerized by W.R. Morris.

Perhaps Harry Dean may have mispoken on this or that minor point -- after all, FBI terminology was not his strong suit, and his documentation was stolen decades ago, and we're relying on his memory of events a half-century ago. These minor errors are easily corrected.

Insofar as Harry Dean tells me that he rode in a car with Wesley Grapp, and I have no reason to doubt him (except your hostile bias), then I will keep an open mind about it -- and I feel confident that Harry's account will prove to be justified.

Remember that Wes Swearingen also admitted the possibility that the FBI is hiding files about Harry Dean -- and it is simply because of the JFK murder that this would be the case. Harry's alleged meetings with Wesley Grapp were chiefly about the JFK murder.

It doesn't bother me one tiny bit that we now have some minor edits for our eBook -- so our second edition is going to be much stronger and better documented than our first edition.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

So, Paul, let's attempt to summarize everything:

1. When Harry wrote that he was "an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation", according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN he was an informant.

2. When Harry wrote that he was "a private investigator", according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN he was a private investigator.

3. When Harry wrote here in EF that he DID NOT write the long, unredacted version of the 11/63 letter to Hoover, according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN that he did not write that letter.

4. When Harry wrote that "shortly after" arriving in California in July 1961, Wesley Grapp contacted Harry, according to you, HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN that such a meeting occurred "shortly after" he arrived in California.

5. When Harry said/wrote that he spoke with Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963 and reported the "JBS plot" to murder JFK, according to you HARRY DID NOT REALLY MEAN that he spoke with Wesley Grapp NOR did Harry really mean any such conversation occurred in summer of 1963 NOR anytime in 1963 NOR anytime prior to JFK's murder!!!

So what the hell does Harry mean?

Since Wesley Swearingen has confirmed what I wrote in this forum last year -- i.e. Grapp was NOT in Los Angeles until 1964 (March 1964 to be precise), then your ENTIRE eBook story just crumbled into absurdity.

1. Whom, do you (or Harry) now claim Harry spoke to (in Los Angeles FBI) before JFK was murdered?

2. Obviously, it was not Grapp nor Agent McCauley -- the Agent who had the most contact with Harry. So who is your "new" eBook going to be about?

Ernie, aside from your hostile and misrepresenting bias, that's almost a fair summary of our status today.

Well, thank you for recognizing at least that! It's like pulling teeth to get you to admit the obvious,.

You keep repeating that Harry Dean "wrote" that he was an "undercover informant for the FBI" but you never show where Harry wrote that.

Why do I have to "show" anything? Your eBook does not "show" anything whatsoever -- not even a bibliographic footnote. The burden of proof is upon you and Harry. YOU GUYS are the authors of the assertions made in your eBook and in this forum. Consequently, the responsibility for "independent confirmation" falls upon both of you -- not your readers.

You don't follow your own advice and QUOTE the source. You can only find places where W.R. Morris claimed that Harry said that. After all this time you're still mesmerized by W.R. Morris.

WRONG AGAIN! Another TOTAL LIE by you. I am relying upon what HARRY WROTE in his OWN 1966 ADVERTISEMENT captioned "I Confess" where he stated that he was an "undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation". Morris has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what Harry wrote himself in 1966.

Perhaps Harry Dean may have mispoken on this or that minor point -- after all, FBI terminology was not his strong suit, and his documentation was stolen decades ago, and we're relying on his memory of events a half-century ago. These minor errors are easily corrected.

To you, everything is a "minor error" if it reflects adversely upon Harry. Now that we know Harry DID NOT speak with Grapp prior to JFK's murder, I suppose you consider THAT to be a "minor error" even though it is a central point of your entire eBook?

Insofar as Harry Dean tells me that he rode in a car with Wesley Grapp, and I have no reason to doubt him (except your hostile bias), then I will keep an open mind about it -- and I feel confident that Harry's account will prove to be justified.

I have no hostile bias about it. I never even mentioned him riding in a car. That was Wesley Swearingen who described that as "absolutely preposterous". The only point I have ever made (starting many months ago) is that Harry could never have spoken to Grapp in the summer of 1963 because Grapp was not in Los Angeles until March 1964. Again, this proves how you deliberately LIE about what has been clearly stated because you want to manipulate readers into accepting YOUR FALSEHOODS instead of focusing upon the actual pertinent issues.

Remember that Wes Swearingen also admitted the possibility that the FBI is hiding files about Harry Dean -- and it is simply because of the JFK murder that this would be the case. Harry's alleged meetings with Wesley Grapp were chiefly about the JFK murder.

Anybody can speculate about anything. It is "possible", based upon all currently available evidence, that Swearingen's conclusion about YOU is totally accurate i.e. "In my opinion, Dean is just blowing smoke rings at Paul Trejo and Trejo is grasping into thin air."

It doesn't bother me one tiny bit that we now have some minor edits for our eBook -- so our second edition is going to be much stronger and better documented than our first edition.

"Minor edits"?? There are no documents in Harry's HQ and Los Angeles files that confirm ANYTHING which Harry has said with respect to Grapp, or the "JBS plot" or his alleged reports on Minutemen, Alpha 66, etc. And there are no documents ANYWHERE that confirm that Harry was ever an FBI or CIA informant (official or unofficial, formal or informal).

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

MY REPLIES APPEAR UNDERNEATH YOUR COMMENTS