Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

My reason to not bother requesting my FBI records was simply that I was there in every situation. However being goaded into the fray on E Forum my request for these records is well underway.

Upon their arrival hopefully soon, everyone will know the facts already known for years to me.

These FBI records will be 'destructive' to the over spoken Lazar, but informative to interested persons...

Harry, congragulations on your bold move.

I look forward to seeing the full FBI record about you, and especially about your interaction with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp in early 1964.

I'm aware that Ernie Lazar continues to cast doubt on your claims to have spoken with Wesley Grapp, but as I have found and have tried to show on this Forum, your general account of your experiences in 1963 with regard to extremist elements of the John Birch Society (including Loran Hall) and Lee Harvey Oswald still stand up under unbiased scrutiny.

Despite all the bias from Ernie Lazar, I maintain complete confidence that your contact with Wesley Grapp will be vindicated by a fuller display of FBI records.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - I for one would not accuse you of having 'blind faith' in FBI integrity or record keeping procedures. I would simply ask you whether you do think the FBI has integrity? Do you think they destroy files or create false ones? This is not, or should not, be a litmus test of your political persuasions. They can either be trusted or they cannot. Same goes for other intelligence agencies.

In 1964 I went to hear Mark Lane speak in NYC on at least two occasions. I was 16 at the time and for some reason felt that something terribly sinister had happened to our president, and I wanted to find out the truth. I was sure that we weren't getting the truth from most of our media. I'll admit a certain bias here, as I was and still am a humanist and an idealist, and then and now cannot make peace with the idea of endless warfare. But I did not know then what extreme challenges JFK faced and what he was trying to accomplish. I had not heard or read the American University speech. I knew that he had unilaterally stopped nuclear tests in the atmosphere. I had a generally positive feeling about him. The second time I heard Lane it was at a debate between him and Melvin Belli. About half way through that debate Belli, in extreme exasperation, stood up and proclaimed to Lane and the audience before walking out altogether 'if you can't trust the FBI who can you trust?' I never forgot those lines. In the fullness of time it became obvious, to me at least, that you cannot trust the FBI. If the lies and obfuscations surrounding the investigation for the Warren Commission are not enough, look at Hoover's enemies list.

I think you draw a false equivalence between the left and the right. The left wanted more from JFK than they were getting, at least it appeared so. I am not sure they really had enough facts to make that judgement. Civil rights, Cold War politics, things were moving too slowly. Still are. But the vitriol and hatred came from the right not the left. Any sane person not blinded by media lies, willing to consider that so much of how things actually work are deliberately hidden from the electorate, (just look at Assange and Snowden - traitors? Really?) can see that power corrupts. The national security state doesn't work for the people, it works for the powerful. And that is the way things have been on this planet forever.

I would return to the thing that really bugs me about this thread - that Harry Dean's bonafides will make or break the case against Edwin Walker and his smarmy racist warmongering confederates. No way.

[Harry J.Dean]

My reason to not bother requesting my FBI records was simply that I was there in every situation. However being goaded into the fray on E Forum my request for these records is well underway.

Upon their arrival hopefully soon, everyone will know the facts already known for years to me.

These FBI records will be 'destructive' to the over spoken Lazar, but informative to interested persons...

Harry, congragulations on your bold move.

I look forward to seeing the full FBI record about you, and especially about your interaction with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp in early 1964.

I'm aware that Ernie Lazar continues to cast doubt on your claims to have spoken with Wesley Grapp, but as I have found and have tried to show on this Forum, your general account of your experiences in 1963 with regard to extremist elements of the John Birch Society (including Loran Hall) and Lee Harvey Oswald still stand up under unbiased scrutiny.

Despite all the bias from Ernie Lazar, I maintain complete confidence that your contact with Wesley Grapp will be vindicated by a fuller display of FBI records.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

It will be vindicated, though I could not see it then or now as being unusual. Grapp after taking over at LA office was just following up

previous reports by other agents. It is so that he was close with Mr. Hoover and both were burned up when I exposed my 1965

association with the Chicago and Los Angeles Bureau

On a personal note, Wes. Grapp came across as an old grouch.

[Ernie Lazar]

My reason to not bother requesting my FBI records was simply that I was there in every situation. However being goaded into the fray on E Forum my request for these records is well underway.

Upon their arrival hopefully soon, everyone will know the facts already known for years to me.

These FBI records will be 'destructive' to the over spoken Lazar, but informative to interested persons...

Harry, congragulations on your bold move.

I look forward to seeing the full FBI record about you, and especially about your interaction with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp in early 1964.

I'm aware that Ernie Lazar continues to cast doubt on your claims to have spoken with Wesley Grapp, but as I have found and have tried to show on this Forum, your general account of your experiences in 1963 with regard to extremist elements of the John Birch Society (including Loran Hall) and Lee Harvey Oswald still stand up under unbiased scrutiny.

Despite all the bias from Ernie Lazar, I maintain complete confidence that your contact with Wesley Grapp will be vindicated by a fuller display of FBI records.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, you have this annoying habit of describing everything which does not agree with your personal opinions as "biased" and, simultaneously, you exempt yourself from any such "bias".

I wonder why you think FBI documents will "vindicate" Harry with respect to Wesley Grapp? Consider the following FACTS:

1. Grapp was SAC of Los Angeles field office from March 1964 until 1972.

2. What file(s) do you think would contain any interactions between Grapp and Harry?

According to Harry's account in your eBook (and elsewhere), Harry gave information to the Los Angeles field office almost as soon as he arrived in Los Angeles in the summer of 1961.

However, we now have Harry's Los Angeles field file and there are NO references to any contacts between Grapp and Harry. Even more significant, none of the serials in Harry's Los Angeles file contain any references to OTHER files which pertain to Harry (other than to copies of Los Angeles memos sent to other field offices -- such as Chicago -- and of course references to copies sent to HQ. And we also have seen Harry's HQ file on Mary Ferrell's website.

3. Then there is the comment made by Wesley Swearingen which corresponds to what you can see in all the FBI employee files I have posted online (those FBI employees who became SAC's).

When a Special Agent became a SAC, he did not perform field work. FBI Special Agents in Charge were administrators. They did not perform investigations or interview people. They supervised the employees who did that type of work. This is particularly true for a large field office like Los Angeles where a SAC might be responsible for a couple hundred employees!

Aside from their office administrative duties, i.e.

* writing employee performance evaluations,

* holding meetings to assure that Supervisors in Los Angeles were aware of and properly implementing FBI HQ instructions

* arranging training classes for Los Angeles employees or authorizing travel for Agents to attend classes at HQ or other locations,

* monitoring the status of major investigations for required status reports to HQ,

* explaining office delinquencies revealed in mandatory monthly or quarterly statistical reports required by HQ,

* responding to problems revealed in office Inspection Reports which evaluated every aspect of field office operations and whether or not personnel were properly trained and performing efficiently (they even measured the key strokes of clerical staff to determine who was productive)

* authorizing payments for goods and services and approving employee expense claims

* approving purchase or maintenance requests (for everything from office supplies to alarm systems to photocopiers to new vehicles),

* replying to HQ or other field office memos or inquiries

* responding to complaints received from citizens, politicians, other government agencies, etc.

Beyond all that.... a SAC frequently gave public relations speeches to various civic organizations. For example, in one 7-month period, a previous SAC of Los Angeles (Richard Hood) gave 56 speeches!

So why do you think Grapp would be so personally interested in Harry Dean's reports that he would want to see him in person or drive around town with Harry for hours? Especially when Grapp's subordinate was describing Harry as a "mental case"?

I understand and I appreciate why you are so loyal to Harry --- but, at some point, you need to step back and consider the full impact of what we know for certain instead of always inventing ever-more-imaginative excuses for not finding the type of empirical evidence which supports your personal opinions.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - I for one would not accuse you of having 'blind faith' in FBI integrity or record keeping procedures. I would simply ask you whether you do think the FBI has integrity? Do you think they destroy files or create false ones? This is not, or should not, be a litmus test of your political persuasions. They can either be trusted or they cannot. Same goes for other intelligence agencies.

In 1964 I went to hear Mark Lane speak in NYC on at least two occasions. I was 16 at the time and for some reason felt that something terribly sinister had happened to our president, and I wanted to find out the truth. I was sure that we weren't getting the truth from most of our media. I'll admit a certain bias here, as I was and still am a humanist and an idealist, and then and now cannot make peace with the idea of endless warfare. But I did not know then what extreme challenges JFK faced and what he was trying to accomplish. I had not heard or read the American University speech. I knew that he had unilaterally stopped nuclear tests in the atmosphere. I had a generally positive feeling about him. The second time I heard Lane it was at a debate between him and Melvin Belli. About half way through that debate Belli, in extreme exasperation, stood up and proclaimed to Lane and the audience before walking out altogether 'if you can't trust the FBI who can you trust?' I never forgot those lines. In the fullness of time it became obvious, to me at least, that you cannot trust the FBI. If the lies and obfuscations surrounding the investigation for the Warren Commission are not enough, look at Hoover's enemies list.

I think you draw a false equivalence between the left and the right. The left wanted more from JFK than they were getting, at least it appeared so. I am not sure they really had enough facts to make that judgement. Civil rights, Cold War politics, things were moving too slowly. Still are. But the vitriol and hatred came from the right not the left. Any sane person not blinded by media lies, willing to consider that so much of how things actually work are deliberately hidden from the electorate, (just look at Assange and Snowden - traitors? Really?) can see that power corrupts. The national security state doesn't work for the people, it works for the powerful. And that is the way things have been on this planet forever.

I would return to the thing that really bugs me about this thread - that Harry Dean's bonafides will make or break the case against Edwin Walker and his smarmy racist warmongering confederates. No way.

Paul -- I reject your false "either/or" choice.

The FBI is like any other institution staffed by human beings. If, for example, you were to survey any other organization with a comparable number of employees (5000 or more), you will ALWAYS find examples of employees who do not follow procedures or who violate some rule or policy.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to make an argument about a particular FBI file -- that it has flaws or defects. All I ask is that we do not fall into the logical fallacy which you propose, i.e. ONE example of something means that a generalization can be made about an entire organization.

The FBI "destroys files" all the time -- as do all other government agencies -- and, for that matter, as do all corporate entities. But FBI records destruction protocols are based upon a court-ordered review of all FBI records. As I previously mentioned here, the full report (1/8/82, 568pp) by the Archivist of the U.S. to the Director of the FBI Appraisal Project is available for anybody who wants to read all the details OR there is a good synopsis by James G. Bradsher entitled "The FBI Records Appraisal" in Midwestern Archivist, Volume 3, #2, 1988, pp 51-66 -- which was subsequently updated and published in Archival Issues, Volume 25, #1-2, 2000, pp 101-118.

If, as you suggest, "you cannot trust the FBI" -- then I imagine you do not care one whit what exists in FBI files -- regardless of how many thousands of different employees were responsible for investigating and writing reports. I guess you are saying that every FBI employee was trained to be (or was prior to becoming an FBI employee) a totally immoral, dishonest person who had no moral compass of any kind and was, therefore, a depraved chronic, habitual, pathological xxxx.

Lastly, nothing Harry Dean says or writes will "make or break the case" regarding anybody or anything. By his own admission, he was not a major active participant. He was (supposedly) an observer. Harry does not have personal first-hand knowledge about much of anything BUT it would be interesting to see if he could pass a polygraph exam.

[Ernie Lazar]

My reason to not bother requesting my FBI records was simply that I was there in every situation. However being goaded into the fray on E Forum my request for these records is well underway.

Upon their arrival hopefully soon, everyone will know the facts already known for years to me.

These FBI records will be 'destructive' to the over spoken Lazar, but informative to interested persons...

Harry, congragulations on your bold move.

I look forward to seeing the full FBI record about you, and especially about your interaction with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp in early 1964.

I'm aware that Ernie Lazar continues to cast doubt on your claims to have spoken with Wesley Grapp, but as I have found and have tried to show on this Forum, your general account of your experiences in 1963 with regard to extremist elements of the John Birch Society (including Loran Hall) and Lee Harvey Oswald still stand up under unbiased scrutiny.

Despite all the bias from Ernie Lazar, I maintain complete confidence that your contact with Wesley Grapp will be vindicated by a fuller display of FBI records.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

It will be vindicated, though I could not see it then or now as being unusual. Grapp after taking over at LA office was just following up

previous reports by other agents. It is so that he was close with Mr. Hoover and both were burned up when I exposed my 1965

association with the Chicago and Los Angeles Bureau

On a personal note, Wes. Grapp came across as an old grouch.

Another one of Harry's inscrutable messages. Grapp was "following up previous reports by other agents" about WHAT?

There is currently not one shred of factual evidence in any of your files to support your contention that Hoover was "burned up" by anything you did in 1965 or at any other time. What is apparent, however, is that Hoover did not even know who you were!

[Paul Trejo]

Bugliosi never responded to anything I had to say about anything. I sent him some research before his book came out. It came back in the mail. After his book came out, someone started an email campaign to convince him to debate me on the medical evidence. He never responded. Although his book was supposed to answer all the questions, he never debated anyone in its defense.

I later met him at a book-signing. We had a friendly discussion and I gave him a copy of my DVD. He said he'd take a look and get back to me. Nothing.

Perhaps he had someone look me up and see what I had to say about his book. If so, they probably found this:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b%3Areclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2

Pat, I just wanted to say that I'm reading your critque of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History (2007) with a special focus on your narrative of the three strikes, namely, Part 3: The Case Against Vincent Bugliosi. It is excellent. When I finish parsing your sentences and arguments I'll offer some remarks about it within this thread.

I understand why Bugliosi never responded to you -- you've matched his scholarship line for line and argued the case better than he did.

By the way, I thought Bugliosi was washed-up in his 2008 video, On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald, in which his producers clearly hired an unprepared lawyer to go up against him -- an emotional pleader with hardly any background in the JFK murder case. It was a "fixed" fight, so to speak.

It's a pity, too, since the producers called some superb witnesses -- and a good lawyer (or a good researcher) could have had a field day. Oh well, win a few, lose a few.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...I would return to the thing that really bugs me about this thread - that Harry Dean's bonafides will make or break the case against Edwin Walker and his smarmy racist warmongering confederates. No way.

Well,Paul B., I'd remark here that the case against Ex-General Edwin Walker will go forward with or without the Harry Dean case. In other words, no matter the outcome of the Harry Dean case, it won't make or break the case against Edwin Walker.

Yet since the material on Edwin Walker in the JFK murder is so interesting, and since Harry Dean is the last living willing witness on this topic, I believe we should give Harry some room and hear him out -- and reserve judgment until all the data are finally in hand.

Harry Dean links Edwin Walker with Loran Hall and thus with Silvia Odio -- and this is crucial.

We can't trust the reports we're getting from those who would cherry-pick sentence fragments from FBI documents held in private. That's why I'm so glad that Harry Dean will soon have his own stockpile of FBI documents -- and we'll finally get some TRUTH on the table.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...I would return to the thing that really bugs me about this thread - that Harry Dean's bonafides will make or break the case against Edwin Walker and his smarmy racist warmongering confederates. No way.

Well,Paul B., I'd remark here that the case against Ex-General Edwin Walker will go forward with or without the Harry Dean case. In other words, no matter the outcome of the Harry Dean case, it won't make or break the case against Edwin Walker.

Yet since the material on Edwin Walker in the JFK murder is so interesting, and since Harry Dean is the last living willing witness on this topic, I believe we should give Harry some slack and hear him out -- and reserve judgment until all the data is finally in hand.

We can't trust the reports we're getting from those who would cherry-pick sentence fragments from FBI documents held in private.

That's why I'm so glad that Harry Dean will soon have his own stockpile of FBI documents -- and we'll finally get some TRUTH on the table.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- What the hell are you talking about?

90% of all the FBI documents I have have in my possession either have been posted here in EF by me OR they are available to anybody on Mary Ferrell's website.

If you are too damn lazy to spend 15-20 minutes doing some research, then why am I responsible for YOUR laziness?

Nor did I "cherry pick" anything. I faithfully summarized every document in Harry's Los Angeles file. And you have previously seen the documents which I posted here in EF which present EXACTLY the same FBI evaluations of Harry. Just because you do not like what you discovered -- does not give you permission to libel me.

With respect to "cherry picking", your tortured summary of what YOU claimed Wesley Swearingen believed is the most compelling evidence regarding who has grossly distorted evidence.

Nor is Harry going to get much of any "stockpile" of documents (at least not from the FBI) since his files were transferred to NARA 30 years ago! If either you or Harry had one ounce of curiosity, you could have obtained them yourselves 30 years ago (actually Harry could have submitted an FOIA request with affidavit 40+ years ago! -- and he or you could have saved his Chicago file from destruction.)

In every way imaginable, your debate tactics are IDENTICAL to the Birch Society. You always blame your opponents for your own flaws and deficiencies.

[Paul Trejo]

Bugliosi never responded to anything I had to say about anything. I sent him some research before his book came out. It came back in the mail. After his book came out, someone started an email campaign to convince him to debate me on the medical evidence. He never responded. Although his book was supposed to answer all the questions, he never debated anyone in its defense.

I later met him at a book-signing. We had a friendly discussion and I gave him a copy of my DVD. He said he'd take a look and get back to me. Nothing.

Perhaps he had someone look me up and see what I had to say about his book. If so, they probably found this:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b%3Areclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2

Pat, your article, The Case Against Vicent Bugliosi, is one of the best I've ever read. Here are a few remarks.

Bugliosi bases his 1,600 page defense of Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory on a very narrow set of arguments; namely:

1. There were three shots, evenly spaced taking 8.4 seconds as follows: 0.0 --> 3.5 --> 8.4 seconds.

2. Since the Zapruder film Frame Z-313 shows the moment of the final shot, and filmed at 18.3 fps, we can use Bugliosi's claim to measure the Frames as follows: 1st shot=Frame-Z-160; 2nd shot=Frame Z-224; 3rd shot=Frame Z-313.

3. To clarify, Bugliosi proposes that the 1st shot missed, hitting the pavement BEHIND the JFK limo; then the 2nd shot wounded both JFK and Governor Connally; then the 3rd shot killed JFK by exploding his head.

4. Bugliosi calls these "Matters of Fact" and proceeds to use Eyewitness Testimony and Statements to confirm his theory.

5 He proceeds carefully with, say, 55 witnesses, stepping through each shot, slowly, one at a time.

I won't go into the immense detail that you took in your article, Pat, but I will say that you demonstrated thoroughly that Vincent Bugliosi was able to maintain his arguments only by omitting testimony from roughly 50 out of 55 witnesses.

A. The main factor Bugliosi omitted -- simply deleted -- was that most of these witnesses who were cited regarding the 3rd shot claimed that the final two shots they heard occurred extremely close to each other -- almost like an echo. Some thought they heard an echo.

B. Another factor Bugliosi omitted was that some witnesses heard only two shots (e.g. Jackie Kennedy) and some heard four shots (e.g. James Worrell).

C. The bottom line -- as you ably showed -- was that Bugliosi failed to honestly use the eye-witness testimony to support his "Matters of Fact." and yet he pretended that he succeeded, and he then went about to construct the rest of his theory on this flimsy foundation.

I'm delighted with the level of scholarship you used to tackle the mighty Bugliosi, and to show that for some reason or other, he was so intent on defending the "Lone Shooter" theory that he was willing to compromise his integrity to do so.

This leads me back to the Harry Dean thread. The tremendous energy that J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI have used for so many years to defend the "Lone Shooter" theory that blames Lee Harvey Oswald -- without eye-witnesses, and only by hiding evidence including medical evidence -- is now a matter of American History.

Harry Dean's struggle in the past fifty years is part and parcel of the long and often brutal suppression of the truth that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy in the JFK murder and that Oswald had accomplices. What is most interesting to me today is that this recent book by Bugliosi (Reclaiming History, 2007) represents an enduring and continuing gargantuan effort to maintain Hoover's mythology.

Bugliosi spent 20 years to write this book consisting of 1,648 pages, with more than another 1,000 pages of endnotes on a DVD.

The effort expended to defend the FBI story is mind-boggling. Yet with former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen's book (and others) coming out, we can see clearly that the FBI admitted internally that it was artificially maintaining Hoover's own private position on Lee Harvey Oswald -- and that the evidence pointed elsewhere.

It should be clear from this that the effort mounted against Harry Dean by the FBI over the past fifty years -- especially the effort to put words into his mouth or to make him appear, like Silvia Odio or Seth Kantor "a mental case" -- is part of a massive effort that has yet to be adequately measured.

Harry Dean still proclaims to anybody who will listen, that Lee Harvey Oswald was not alone in his suspicious activities on 22 November 1963. For many Americans, this is still an American heresy.

Many thanks for writing, The Case Against Vicent Bugliosi, Pat. It's one of the best articles on the JFK murder that I've ever read.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Let’s take a closer look at some of the comments which Harry posted on Mary Ferrell’s website because they reveal some very interesting inconsistencies. My comments appear underneath Harry’s.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/comments/getList.do?member=HarryDean

Letter Nov. 19, 1963
by HarryDean on Tue, Aug 29, 2006, 11:19 PM GMT (#1465)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 4

There is more to the Hoover letter..? The Chicago Bureau office dumped me when I casually mentioned to my FBI contacts I had confided to a CIA agent about also advising the Bureau re; Cuban affairs. They said "You told them!" Both agents seemed equally angry and disappointed, adding," You can no longer deal with the Bureau"! This put me on the outs with All sides of the U.S. and Cuban fury. We hurriedly packed and hauled for southern California. In the transition phase from heartfelt facination with the Revolution and Cuba I came to realize that all of my involvements for and then against them, were in the final costly waists. Mr. Hoover must have known about my earlier contacts with Central Intelligence Agents? The first was 1960 close to my departure time to visit the Cuban Revolutionary Government. The second encounter after returning, to be interviewed\debriefed. The third connection, several days prior to the 1961 planned invasion of Cuba. H. Dean

Significantly, Harry’s 2006 comment on the Ferrell website does not correspond to anything he has previously or subsequently said or written to explain why he was “dumped” by the FBI. His reference to the CIA also does not appear in the 2013 eBook.

When Harry wrote his June 1961 letter to JFK he was very clear and very definitive about the reason why the FBI “dumped” him. Harry declared that:

“Then after a meeting today with two Agents, I was told I could no longer continue, as they had found out about my past difficulty with the law, but if I get my outstanding debts, which are many, straightened out, they would be able to consider using me again…”

Similarly, when Harry wrote to J. Edgar Hoover in November 1963, his explanation was as follows (I underline a key portion):

“I have made many errors in my time, as a younger and unmarried man, and until the first meetings, my inside information sufficed, but at this time they began investigating me. A short time later, just prior to hearings held on this front, by the Senate Subcommittee in July 1961, I was told to quite (sic) giving information to the F.B.I. by two Agents whom I met on Chicago’s north side, in a street corner meeting prearranged of course. They made it clear that I was finished by reason of their findings, concerning my past, most of which I would have gladly related to them the year before, when I first pointed the finger at proven, active Communists in, and working against our country…I know these Agents, all whom I dealt with were my kind of people, they went by the book, they were patriots, when they gave me the word to never mention any of these activities, or their names, and that I could no longer continue as an undercover agent, I was saddened to tears…”

I attach a new copy of Harry’s letter to Hoover because this one is much clearer than the one I originally found on Mary Ferrell’s website.

As this example shows, Harry is in the habit of changing his story – depending upon what audience he is addressing.

Code Name "J.R."
by HarryDean on Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 2:25 AM GMT (#1463)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 11

At the outset {1960} I told FBI agents I could never go to the office, as Cuban activists and others I dealt with would spot me, or worse. They agreed. When I first contacted the Bureau, the agent answering the phone registered suprise, saying "we did'nt know that The Fair Play For Cuba Committie had started yet in Chicago." The Chicago Office instructed me to choose a code name for use when either of us contacted the other. I came up with the initials "J.R." My wife and I knew who was calling when they ask for J.R. requesting information and\or to set up a meeting. Agents also advised me to work out a code for message writing, kindly offering to do it for me if I could not. H. Dean

There are 3 reasons why Harry’s claim about what FBI-Chicago knew re: FPCC does not pass the laugh test.

(1) In August 1960 when Harry made his first two telephone contacts with the FBI, his reliability and credibility were unknown to the FBI. Keep in mind that it was not until the following month (September) that FBI-Chicago had received any background information pertaining to Harry (other than an informant report in August which gave the FBI a physical description of Harry).

(2) Does Harry actually expect us to believe that FBI Agents were so stupid and criminally incompetent that they would cavalierly give confidential security information regarding what they knew or did not know about a local Communist front organization to a total stranger calling them up on the phone (i.e. “We didn’t know that FPCC had started yet in Chicago”)?

(3) More significantly, FPCC-Chicago was formed in the summer of 1960 under the direct guidance of Richard Criley (a member of the Communist Party Illinois State Committee). Criley and his wife were both on the FBI Security Index which means that everything they did was monitored by the FBI. The first serials of the Chicago file on FPCC were created PRIOR TO Harry’s phone calls in August 1960. Obviously, the Chicago field office was totally aware of FPCC’s existence and Harry’s assertion about what Agents told him is false.

Who said I said that?
by Harry Dean on Sun, Aug 20, 2006, 2:18 PM GMT (#1459)

Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 12

I do say; The sudden change in Eisenhower's Cuba Policy had left me hanging. I knew I was just as suddenly in trouble being a member of two pro-Castro groups. Castro's Network In The United States the Fair Play For Cuba Committie, and Castro's 26 July Movement. Contacting the FBI would save me being considered a Communist subversive {executive order 10450} The Bureau convinced me to stay-in and pass it all information. I did. Later, in 1961 the Bureau fired me when I mentioned previous dealings with CIA agents re; Cuba. They were plenty excited and angry. I wondered why? So thats what it's like to be suddenly out in the cold with no explanation. I had accepted cash expences at their insistence, but not this time. A few months later in Los Angeles, California I became involved in simular actions for that office. I sure welcome the opportunity to correct such semi-official twisted statements on the MaryFerrell.org site. Thanks. H. Dean

The FBI never “insists” that anyone accept cash expenses or any other type of payment. The matter does not even come up unless the informant or confidential source has asked for reimbursement AND the case agent(s) assigned to the informant confirm that information provided (or which they want to obtain) is of sufficient value for them to request authorization from their Supervisor and then their SAC to make such payments. If and when approval is received, a check is generated (made out to the handling Agent) from the Office Field Support Account and then the Agent cashes the check at a local bank and then he pays the informant or source. The informant or source signs a receipt for those payments.

The Bureau
by HarryDean on Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 9:51 PM GMT (#1457)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 5

Intelligence agencies naturally pour out unflatering information usually in somewhat 'twisted form' re; anyone who 'blabbs later' about having labored for them. Such information insures continued co-operation. It is their methodology. Re; FBI, they kicked me loose in Chicago because I mentioned talking with CIA agents there. Re; the Canada episode mentioned above. I went back there in 1946 to visit relatives. Sadly married a persistent Canada girl {since died}. Prison, resulted from wife, self and mother-in-law continued battles, where I was interned for much of two years, finally escaping from that awful British\Canada society with which I had since my early teens been at war! H. Dean

How would Harry Dean know what “intelligence agencies” do?

By his own admission, he was “dumped” by the FBI in June 1961 and even Harry now admits (through Paul Trejo) that Harry was never a “formal informant” or “official informant” in either Chicago or in Los Angeles.

So what does Harry base his “intelligence agencies…methodology” comments upon?

Is Harry claiming that he was in contact with numerous actual FBI informants to discuss their experiences? And again Harry repeats his falsehood about his mentioning the CIA to FBI Agents which I discussed above.

For the record
by HarryDean on Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 8:58 PM GMT (#1456)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 5

I moved from Chicago to the nearby suburb of Whiting Indiana, assumed a new name to avoid danger to my family from anti-Castro agents. Began a business, purchased an apartment bldg. a rental property, and a private residence. Bad check charges were\are untrue! The Whiting, Indiana Power structue feared I intended to sell the apt. bldg. to a negro person from Chicago. They also knew of visits by a Castro official in a vehicle with Cuban government licence plates. Whiting's power structue questioned me via a Whiting cop who was also my employee. My wife, children and I were under physical attacks. Suddenly, we left, loosing everything. Their check charges were a further method of attack about which I only recently learned from the above report. H. Dean

Why would Harry or his family be in any danger from “anti-Castro agents”? Harry claims that the bad check charges were untrue---which is a reference to the September 1960 report by the Whiting, Indiana Police Department. But, nevertheless, in his June 1961 letter to JFK, Harry acknowledged “my outstanding debts which are many” and his “past difficulty with the law” in the context of those debts and in his November 1963 letter to Hoover, Harry referred to his “shady character”

JOE PYNE SHOW ET AL.
by HarryDean on Sun, Aug 13, 2006, 5:35 PM GMT (#1451)
Comment on document page: HARRY DEAN, Pg 2

Hayward's warning to FBI brought Bureau agents out to forbid my going on this or any TV or Radio show re; my association with FBI in Los Angeles, Chicago or elsewhere. I did go on, as a way to end my informant status with them. The Bureau was furious. No more information, no more expense money! I was glad! H. Dean

Hayward did not “warn” the FBI. Nor was the FBI “furious” nor did the FBI “forbid” Harry to go on any TV/radio show:

The actual sequence of events was as follows:

1. 12/10/64 = Harry called KTTV-TV in Los Angeles to solicit their assistance with publicizing his story. After his phone call, Harry wrote a letter on the same day to “The Director, Joe Pyne Show” to summarize his Chicago pro-Castro activities

2. 12/17/64 = Bob Hayward, KTTV-TV Los Angeles, called the CIA field office in Los Angeles. He explained that he was the Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne program. The purpose of his call was to inform the CIA about Harry’s potential appearance on the 1/9/65 Pyne program. Hayward told the CIA about what Harry had told Hayward re: his background in Illinois and Harry also told Hayward that he was an informant for the FBI. Harry indicated that he had knowledge of CIA activities with respect to Cuba.

3. Hayward asked CIA-Los Angeles if they had any suggestions or recommendations with respect to how to interview Harry on the Pyne program. The CIA responded by saying that “the Agency could not presume to influence the communications media” but that they would forward Hayward’s information to their HQ but Harry “was not known to this office, and that even if it were, we would have no comment.” The CIA then notified their HQ as well as the FBI-Los Angeles about Hayward’s contact.

4. 12/17/64 = Bob Hayward gave FBI-Los Angeles Special Agent Richard G. Douce a photocopy of Harry’s 12/10/64 letter to the Pyne program. Hayward told the FBI that he was considering scheduling Harry for a 1/9/65 interview on the Pyne program “but would not use him if he is a fraud or if his appearance is not desired by the Bureau.”

5. 12/18/64 = FBI-Los Angeles sends a copy of Harry’s letter to FBI-HQ to ask for their instructions

6. 12/29/64 = FBI-HQ instructs SAC Los Angeles to “immediately advise Bob Hayward that Dean has never been an ‘undercover agent’ for the FBI, nor has he ever been authorized to represent the Bureau or act in any official capacity for it.” FBI-HQ suggested that Bob Hayward be “discreetly” advised that “in view of Dean’s fabrication, which, of course, reflects unfavorably on his integrity, that he, Hayward, may not desire to have this individual on the Joe Pyne Show.”

7. Hayward promptly ignored the information he received from FBI-Los Angeles and scheduled Dean’s interview anyway.

8. The only FBI contact with Dean as a result of this episode was when two agents contacted him to ask that he “desist making false claims concerning his relationship with the FBI.”

9. IF Harry had presented his entire story exactly as he has always done but NOT described himself with language that made people believe he was an FBI undercover operative, or FBI agent, or FBI spy, or FBI informant --- there would have been no further FBI contacts with Harry nor any further interest in him.

10. The FBI’s objection to Harry was based solely upon the manner in which Harry was promoting himself. In other words, if Harry had said/written something like what follows—there would have been no problem of any kind:

“In the summer of 1960, while living in the Chicago area, I became involved in pro-Castro groups and activities. At one point, I was even the Secretary of the Chicago Chapter of the FPCC. However, when I realized that FPCC was organized and controlled by Communist influences, I called the Chicago FBI office and I voluntarily gave them some information about the organizations and people I was involved with – and I also gave them info about my trip to Cuba in June 1960. I was never an FBI informant or agent or undercover operative. I just provided some unsolicited information to the Chicago FBI office and they thanked me for it.”

11-19-63 Harry-JEH.PDF

Edited March 14, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

I got a private Email telling me that Ernie Lazar is again on the war path, spreading his usual disinformation about Harry Dean. Sigh. I guess I need to set the record straight for the upteenth time:

1. The only problematic story in Harry's memo to the Mary Ferrell site is his story that the FBI broke off relations with him because of his contact with the CIA. Harry admitted to me, to President Kennedy and to J. Edgar Hoover the real reason. It has been a matter of the public record for a half-century. (The reason for Harry's defensive story to Mary Ferrell is probably a reaction to decades of hostility and fighting off the LIES of W.R. Morris. There may be other extenuating circumstances.)

2. As for the notion that some dizzy clerk in the Chicago FBI, in an attempt to patronize Harry Dean, may have told Harry that "gosh, sir, we didn't know about any FPCC in Chicago" -- I find nothing improbable about that in the slightest. We've already seen the arrogance and insulting nature of the FBI in Chicago from handwritten comments by FBI Agent William McCauley (who is evidently Ernie Lazar's model). So, yes, it's well within the realm of probability.

3. Insofar as payments for information is concerned, former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen reported that in 1963, if an informal source of information earned less than $400 a month at a local field office (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald) that the FBI Field office didn't have to report this to FBI Headquarters! (See this in chapter 39 of Swearingen's 2010 book, To Kill A President.) I trust the word of a former FBI Agent and whistleblower over that of Ernie Lazar any day.

4. When Harry Dean complained about "intelligence agenies" he was obviously speaking of the arrogance he suffered at the hands of the FBI -- which we have seen clearly in the words of FBI Agent William McCauley.

Until we obtain FBI records of Harry Dean's activities with the Chicago FBI from December 1960 through June 1961, nobody is in a position to draw conclusions about what those FBI records might entail -- despite the disinformation of Ernie Lazar. The only thing we know with certainty is that Harry Dean offered information, the Chicago FBI received information, and that the Chicago FBI was also arrogant and insulting -- but then, that is a portrait from a biased source -- so far.

5. If Harry Dean says the bad check charges are untrue -- unless I see independent confirmation from some OTHER source than the arrogant, insulting Chicago FBI -- then I will believe Harry Dean.

6. It makes perfect sense that a Secretary of the FPCC -- or a member of Fidel Castro;s 26th of July Movement -- would be subject to danger and even physical violence from Anti-Castro agents. Only an ignoramus in American History (or Ernie Lazar) would fail to see the logic there.

7. Ernie Lazar says, "Hayward did not 'warn' the FBI. Nor was the FBI 'furious' nor did the FBI 'forbid' Harry to go on any TV/radio show," as if Ernie was personally present and overheard those verbal conversations in 1965!

Ernie claims to speak from FBI records -- but actually, only Ernie has seen those FBI records so far, and we know Ernie is BIASED. Notice that the tale told by the FBI records which Ernie cherry-picks is an incomplete story with major gaps.

For example, KTTV Executive Bob Hayward allegedly asked the FBI-HQ for instructions and advice about letting Harry Dean on his TV program. The FBI responded to Hayward only to say that Harry Dean was never an official Informant of the FBI, and then gently, meekly, mildly advised KTTV to keep Harry Dean off the air. Yet Bob Hayward still put Harry Dean on TV. What?? There is a major gap there -- and I suspect it is because Ernie Lazar is in the loop again.

8. Ernie Lazar claims that "the ONLY FBI contact with Dean as a result of this episode," was that two FBI-LA Agents contacted Harry in order to gently, meekly and mildly advise Harry Dean to pretty please stop claiming he ws an Official FBI Informant. Can you say, major gap?

9. Ernie Lazar -- who believes in J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI wholeheartedly -- even though he claims he's objective -- continues to spread the disinformation that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI Agent, .

10. Ernie Lazar continues to spread this disinformation about Harry Dean -- 48 years later -- namely, that the innocent, kind and gentle FBI was only humbly begging for that mean old Harry Dean to pretty please stop claiming to be an FBI Agent? Please?? WHAT A CROCK!

The key point to remember here is that nothing presented by Ernie Lazar today requires even the slightest update to Harry Dean's eBook.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I got a private Email telling me that Ernie Lazar is again on the war path, spreading his usual disinformation about Harry Dean. Sigh. I guess I need to set the record straight for the upteenth time:

Well, at least we now know that Paul's definition of "disinformation" is ANYTHING which reveals inconsistencies in Harry's own statements.

1. The only problematic story in Harry's memo to the Mary Ferrell site is his story that the FBI broke off relations with him because of his contact with the CIA. Harry admitted to me, to President Kennedy and to J. Edgar Hoover the real reason. It has been a matter of the public record for a half-century. (The reason for Harry's defensive story to Mary Ferrell is probably a reaction to decades of hostility and fighting off the LIES of W.R. Morris. There may be other extenuating circumstances.)

Nice try, but no cigar. What possible connection to Morris could there be, in 2006, when Harry commented upon reasons for why the FBI "fired" or "dumped" him? Why was that supposed reason not apparent when Harry was commenting upon the same subject here in EF in 2005?

The more important revelation here, however, is that Paul is prepared to INVENT whatever it takes to excuse whatever falsehoods and inconsistencies come up in Harry's ever-changing story.

In the future, I will be posting a comprehensive article which reveals how often Harry has changed his story or used literary license (?) to embellish it.

2. As for the notion that some dizzy clerk in the Chicago FBI, in an attempt to patronize Harry Dean, may have told Harry that "gosh, sir, we didn't know about any FPCC in Chicago" -- I find nothing improbable about that in the slightest. We've already seen the arrogance and insulting nature of the FBI in Chicago from handwritten comments by FBI Agent William McCauley (who is evidently Ernie Lazar's model). So, yes, it's well within the realm of probability.

William McCauley was not in Chicago and there was nothing arrogant or insulting about him or any other professional investigator making an observation about the impression which Harry was making upon not just McCauley -- but upon other FBI employees.

Furthermore, Harry acknowledged in writing that the FBI Agents he dealt with were entirely honorable people, In Harry's November 1963 letter to Hoover, he described FBI employees as "my kind of people...they were patriots...(and) also dedicated to the same principles as we are."

Once again, this shows to what lengths Paul is prepared to go to slime people he knows nothing whatsoever about. Obviously, Paul thinks ANY criticism of Harry is unacceptable, no matter who makes it and no matter what that criticism is based upon.

3. Insofar as payments for information is concerned, former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen reported that in 1963, if an informal source of information earned less than $400 a month at a local field office (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald) that the FBI Field office didn't have to report this to FBI Headquarters! (See this in chapter 39 of Swearingen's 2010 book, To Kill A President.) I trust the word of a former FBI Agent and whistleblower over that of Ernie Lazar any day.]

Straw-man argument. I never made any statement regarding what reports field offices were required to send to HQ so why does Paul bring this up?

HOWEVER, if there was any ONGOING regular payment being made to an informant or source -- then HQ had to be notified and HQ had to authorize such payments and they would set limits regarding how much could be paid.

In addition, FBI procedure required that every SAC was required to review every informant file on a regular periodic basis not to exceed 60 days and that review included, but was not limited to, assuring that full value had been received for all payments made to informants and sources. AND then, the annual field office Inspection also reviewed the entire informant program at each field office, i.e. they physically reviewed each informant file to assure informants were handled properly and that any payments made were commensurate with the value of the information received.

My original comment which (as is Paul's custom) he totally ignored was that it would have been better (for Paul's story) if Harry WAS paid regularly -- because that would have been compelling evidence that the Bureau valued Harry's information and evidence that the FBI was actively soliciting Harry's assistance over some period of time.

Lastly, whatever alleged payments were made to Harry would have been required to be reported by Harry on his income tax returns (state and federal) and the Dept of Justice would have sent Harry an annual summary of all payments made to him. If Harry had saved any of that documentary evidence, it also would have supported Harry's story.

4. When Harry Dean complained about "intelligence agenies" he was obviously speaking of the arrogance he suffered at the hands of the FBI -- which we have seen clearly n the words of FBI Agent William McCauley.

Harry has written about "intelligence agencies" in many different contexts -- usually to assert his own alleged connection to them, so I don't understand your gratuitous smear.

Until we obtain FBI records of Harry Dean's activities with the Chicago FBI from December 1960 through June 1961, nobody is in a position to draw conclusions about what those FBI records might entail -- despite the disinformation of Ernie Lazar. The only thing we know with certainty is that Harry Dean offered information, the Chicago FBI received information, and that the Chicago FBI was also arrogant and insulting -- but then, that is a portrait from a biased source -- so far.

There are no extant Chicago records from December 1960 through June 1961 EXCEPT insofar as serials were filed as cross-references into other files -- such as (perhaps) on FPCC and persons connected to FPCC. But EVEN IF we could find such documents, all of us know you will INVENT some new reason to discredit, de-value, and dismiss their importance.

You keep using the word "disinformation" to describe whatever I have written but, significantly, you have never once disproven with FACTS, anything which I have asserted.

Isn't it interesting and significant, however, that ALL of the anomalies that have been discovered with respect to Harry's story have been the result of MY research -- and not anything which YOU discovered?

And isn't it interesting and significant that ALL of the primary source documentary evidence about Harry has been the result of MY research and not anything which YOU discovered?

For example, you were so committed to believing and parroting EVERYTHING Harry told you, that you did not even have the "common sense" (to use one of your favorite phrases) to spend 20 seconds to check the Los Angeles Times archives to see when Wesley Grapp first arrived in Los Angeles. So, instead, YOU cheerfully spread DISINFORMATION in your eBook and in multiple messages in this thread.

It is this sort of GROSS INCOMPETENCE that tells us everything we need to know about your research and analytical skills

5. If Harry Dean says the bad check charges are untrue -- unless I see independent confirmation from some OTHER source than the arrogant, insulting Chicago FBI -- then I will believe Harry Dean.

And where do you suppose you could find such "independent confirmation" 50+ years later? This is another example of how you set a standard which is impossible to meet (which is of course why you set it) because you will not accept ANY primary source documentary evidence that you interpret as adverse to Harry. BUT, you DO NOT apply this same standard to your own writing. You are free to FABRICATE whatever you want and claim that it is factual.

6. It makes perfect sense that a Secretary of the FPCC -- or a member of Fidel Castro;s 26th of July Movement -- would be subject to danger and even physical violence from Anti-Castro agents. Only an ignoramus in American History (or Ernie Lazar) would fail to see the logic there.

Well, instead of ad hominem attacks, why don't you explain why Harry would be in danger from anti-Castro Cubans? First of all, why would they even know about the existence of Harry? Second, can you cite some examples of OTHER FPCC members in Chicago (who never left Chicago) who were attacked or threatened because of their association with FPCC? In fact, why didn't everybody associated with FPCC or J26M in Chicago leave Chicago if there was so much danger?

Here is a brief list of some of the major figures involved in FPCC in Chicago, Please tell us which ones were attacked or threatened and left Chicago because of the "danger" they confronted?

1. John Rossen, Chairman

2. Roberta Bruce, Secretary

3. Howard Packer, Treasurer

4. Gaylord McDowell, Publicity and Education

5. Richard and Florence Criley (co-founders)

6. Angus Sumner, Treasurer

North Side Branch

1. Robert Koester, Chairman

2. Marcia Starr, Secretary

3. Gaylord McDowell, Publicity and Education

South Side Branch

1. Isadore Warwak, Chairman

2. Shirley Freundlich, Secretary

3. Henry Garcia, Publicity and Education

7. Ernie Lazar says, "Hayward did not 'warn' the FBI. Nor was the FBI 'furious' nor did the FBI 'forbid' Harry to go on any TV/radio show," as if Ernie was personally present and overheard those verbal conversations in 1965!

I based my comments upon the contemporaneous primary source documentary evidence - not my personal opinions. You were not there either Paul so what makes your personal opinion superior to contemporaneous documents?

Ernie claims to speak from FBI records -- but actually, only Ernie has seen those FBI records so far, and we know Ernie is BIASED. Notice that the tale told by the FBI records which Ernie cherry-picks is an incomplete story with major gaps.

Not true Paul. I scanned some of those documents and posted them here. More importantly, you can see them any time you want by going to Mary Ferrell's website. Once again, you DELIBERATELY LIE and claim I "cherry-picked" records. Do you even know the meaning of that term? Cherry-pick means selecting ONLY items which advance a particular point of view.

But instead of me selecting anything, I presented a chronological summary of every serial in Harry's Los Angeles file. There was no cherry-picking.

Lastly, as I stated here previously, I will be including Harry's file on the DVD which I send to Internet Archive and Democracy-US this summer so it will be posted online, Obviously, if I was guilty of "cherry picking" as you allege, I would never do that. In addition, although I don't think it would be worth spending the money (another $200), I may decide to purchase his HQ file JUST BECAUSE morons like you will always claim "cherry picking" occurred if you don't see all the documents yourself.

And let me predict here and now, that when Paul sees all this material online -- he will AGAIN INVENT some new excuse for NOT accepting the clear evidence contained in FBI documents. It is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Paul will (as usual) regurgitate his standard "secret files" and "bias" arguments.

For example, KTTV Executive Bob Hayward allegedly asked the FBI-HQ for instructions and advice about letting Harry Dean on his TV program. The FBI responded to Hayward only to say that Harry Dean was never an official Informant of the FBI, and then gently, meekly, mildly advises KTTV to keep Harry Dean off the air. Yet Bob Hayward still put Harry Dean on TV. What?? There is a major gap there -- and I suspect it is because Ernie Lazar is in the loop again.

What do you mean? Spell it out? What "gap" are you implying? Obviously, Hayward thought Harry's story would be the type of material which would perfectly fit into Joe Pyne's interview show. The CIA quoted Hayward's description of the Pyne program as follows:

"Hayward explained that he is the producer of the Joe Pyne Show, a weekly, Saturday evening local personal interview program that attracts do-gooders, missionaries, repentant sinners, con men, manufacturers of suitless bathing-straps, etc. ad infinitum. A guest is cajoled, abused, thanked, or just tolerated, as the nature of his presentation, the approval or indignation of the viewing public or the whim of Joe Pyne may dictate."

Having been told by the FBI that Harry was, in effect, a "con man" -- that probably made Hayward salivate at the prospect of booking him.

8. Ernie Lazar claims that "the ONLY FBI contact with Dean as a result of this episode," was that two FBI-LA Agents contacted Harry in order to gently, meekly and mildly advise Harry Dean to pretty please stop claiming he ws an Official FBI Informant. Can you say, major gap?

I did not write (and you just fabricated) "gently, meekly and mildly". Quite the opposite, FBI documents make it very clear that FBI Agents were sent to make it very clear to Harry to stop misrepresenting his association with the FBI. What "major gap" are you now insinuating? Spell it out. All of us always enjoy your tortured defenses of Harry.

9. Ernie Lazar -- who believes in J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI wholeheartedly -- even though he claims he's objective -- continues to spread the disinformation that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI Agent, .

First of all, I do not believe in Hoover and the FBI wholeheartedly. But I accurately summarize what contemporaneous documentary evidence reveals. You (on the other hand) have acknowledged (in writing) that you are Harry's "#1 defender", "friend" and "ally". I am not any of those things with respect to the FBI or Harry. So which one of us is truly impartial?

Second, I am not spreading "disinformation" about Harry. I am QUOTING his own words. If you do not like what he has said or written -- that is YOUR problem, not mine.

10. Ernie Lazar continues to spread this disinformation about Harry Dean -- 48 years later -- namely, that the innocent, kind and gentle FBI was only humbly begging for that mean old Harry Dean to pretty please stop claiming to be an FBI Agent? Please?? WHAT A CROCK!

No, Paul, you just deliberately LIED again. You really need professional help.

I clearly wrote, in plain English, that the FBI was instructing Harry to stop mis-representing his association with the FBI. They did not do that "humbly" or "begging" (your deliberate fabrications) and they did not limit their criticism to any one specific descriptive term.

The ACTUAL ISSUE (as opposed to your FABRICATION) was that Harry gave the impression to numerous people over many different years in many different locations that he was involved with the FBI at THEIR REQUEST and he was given ASSIGNMENTS BY the FBI. Those assertions are FALSEHOODS and THAT is what the FBI objected to. Now -- there are many terms which Harry has used or which he has accepted when used by other people to describe his relationship to the FBI. You can take your pick....ALL of them present a FALSE description of Harry's status.

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out (and you continually ignore), the FBI had this problem with relatively few individuals and all of the examples I know about "coincidentally" involve John Birch Society members or endorsers. ALL of them also involve people who were attempting to generate publicity for themselves to promote their books, newsletters, speeches, personal appearances, etc.

The key point to remember here is that nothing presented by Ernie Lazar today requires even the slightest update to Harry Dean's eBook.

What do you mean "update"? Is that your new term for "minor edits" -- such as the 24 references to Wesley Grapp in your eBook which are all fictional?

ANNOUNCEMENT:

I have decided to do something which, normally, I do not do. Normally, when a story such as the one you and Harry present is so full of holes (as has recently been established here), I just allow everyone to make their own judgments based upon the evidence presented. And I have received at least 6 or 8 emails from people who have expressed their pleasure about me demonstrating, with evidence, how absurd and intellectually dishonest your comments have been in this thread.

But I now have decided to take this to the next level. Up to this point, this entire exchange has been on a relatively obscure website, and in one particular message thread, which, perhaps, not many people will ever read -- and, apparently, this website will cease to exist sometime in the future.

Consequently, I have decided to create a Google Site devoted exclusively to demolishing Harry Dean's narrative with FACTUAL EVIDENCE. Obviously, you will not accept any of that evidence -- but here is the difference between your story and what I will present.

1. You will always object by presenting your UNSUBSTANTIATED PERSONAL OPINIONS -- but you will NEVER provide ANY documentary evidence to corroborate whatever you write

2. I will provide scanned copies of specific documents to support my observations and analysis. You will provide ONLY your OPINIONS.

3. I will copy and paste into my Google Site, your entire original tortured exegesis of Harry's November 1963 letter to Hoover in which you claimed "someone is lying" (by which you meant the FBI) -- so that everyone can see the quality of your analytic skills.

4. I will copy and paste into my Google Site, the evaluation made about Harry's story by "intelligent and courageous" Wesley Swearingen. You will present NOTHING from anybody who agrees with Harry.

IF you had the common decency to graciously acknowledge your mistakes, I would not have taken this step...but I think it is important as a "case study" to illustrate how a seemingly intelligent person with a degree in history (?) nevertheless is revealed to be totally incompetent as a researcher and analyst and then functions exclusively as a shill for one particular person and one particular conclusion no matter what volume of contradictory evidence is presented.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

MY REPLIES APPEAR UNDERNEATH YOUR ABSURDITIES

Edited March 15, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

This is amazing stuff Harry. You are clearly not afraid to name names. Will you be naming the gunmen involved in the assassination?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, John

Edwin A. Walker, removed from command and forced into retirement by the Kennedy administration,was acting on his own behalf,as much as for the 'new Americanist order' that he served in both military and civilian life. Walker was more than a leader of ultra-conservatism. He was an arrogant, powerless, but explosive force, enjoying the praise of his...JBS co-conspirators and followers. When Kennedy entered Texas, his life was in the deadly hands of 'extremist veteran riflemen' of Walkers former Munich, Germany 24th infantry command!

Harry Dean...

As the years progress forward, Harry, I increasingly see the logic in your claims about the JFK murder -- a side of the JFK plot that is very rarely mentioned in the 400+ books that have emerged about the JFK murder in the past half-century.

General Edwin A. Walker -- an early member of the John Birch Society, a supporter of the White Citizens Councils of the deep South, a supporter of the National States Rights Party, and a darling of the KKK, the ANP and all others who hated the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's -- was a key enemy of JFK since JFK took office.

General Edwin A. Walker had already submitted his resignation from the US Army in October of 1959, soon after becoming a member of the John Birch Society. President Eisenhower in 1957 had assigned General Walker to enforce the Brown Decision of the Supreme Court -- the law of the land -- and allow a half-dozen black children to attend Little Rock High School for the first time, there in the home town of General Douglas MacArthur.

General Walker was successful in his duty -- however, the extreme right-wing of the South began working on General Walker right away. Some of those who approached Walker included segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis and his leader and founder of the segregationist ACCC, Carl McIntire, and other right wing leaders like H.L. Hunt, Kent Courtney and Robert Welch. Robert Welch finally convinced General Walker in 1959 that Eisenhower was a Communist.

The right-wing in the South believed strongly that the Brown Decision of racial integration of US Public Schools was a Communist Plot, and must be reversed at all costs. They founded the White Citizens Councils (aka Citizens Councils) to oppose the Brown Decision and its supporters, the NAACP, at every turn. Short of violence, they ruined NAACP members financially whenever they could. (If that didn't work, they called in the KKK -- see Neil McMillen,1971,The Citizen's Council.)

In any case, they worked on General Walker and they won. He was converted, and Walker resigned from the US Army in 1959, citing a "Fifth Column Conspiracy" which means a "foreign power conspiracy." So Walker was referring to International Communism and so he was implying that President Eisenhower, his boss, had been infected by Communism and so prevented Walker from doing his job.

What was Walker's job, if not taking orders from the US President? This is where the extreme right-wing came in. States Rights became the new slogan. The President was in bed with the Communists, and proved by the Brown Decision, and so its was up to the States -- and their Governors -- to protect the rights of Public Schools to remain All White if the local citizens demanded it. This was the real job of Walker -- the LIBERTY be a white racist if that's what the public wanted.

Well -- President Eisenhower simply denied Walker's resignation, and instead sent General Walker to Augsburg, Germany to command more than 10,000 troops and their dependents in their defense of the Berlin Wall. Walker took this job, and immediately set about a Troop Indoctrination program called "Pro-Blue" (meaning Anti-Red) and taught his troops radical right-wing dogma all throughout 1960. Walker's program included hiring speakers from the John BIrch Society stables, including Carl McIntire, Fred Schwarz, Admiral A.A. Burke, Robert Welch, and many others.

In early 1961, JFK took office. On 16 April 1961 the US Army newspaper, Overseas Weekly, published a scandal about General Walker, accusing him of calling President Harry Truman, "definitely pink" in a large public venue. Walker made the same remark about former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. The US Army, stung by the scandal, quickly removed Walker from his command and set him up in an office job a hundred miles away. Walker was investigated immediately by the US Army, and was also found guilty of trying to directly influence the voting choices of the troops under his command -- a violation of the Hatch Act.

JFK chose to offer Walker a job in Hawaii instead -- but General Edwin A. Walker submitted his resignation from the US Army for the second time -- and this time the President would accept it. This made Edwin Walker the only US General to resign in the 20th century. (Note that resigning is not the same as retiring -- or being asked to step down. Willful resignation is a hostile act, and entails the loss of one's Army pension. Edwin Walker knew very well that he was giving up a 30 year Army pension when he resigned in November, 1961.)

Walker immediately moved to Dallas, Texas, where the John Birch Society was very powerful -- and where H.L. Hunt would set Walker up in politics and in a nice home in the Oak Hills section of town -- where Hunt's relatives lived, on Turtle Creek drive. In December 1961 Walker was making political speeches to large crowds of rightists in Texas. In early 1962, Walker ran for the office of Governor of Texas -- without any previous political experience. Walker's financier was H.L. Hunt.

Walker's political speeches were full of hatred for JFK and the Civil Rights movement. Walker came in last in his bid for Texas Governor, but his small right-wing following was more loyal than ever. Then, in September 1962, as James Meredith chose to become the first Black American to successfully register at the all-white Ole Miss University in Oxford, Mississipi, with the help of Federal forces if necessary, the Governor of Mississippi called on Ex-General Edwin Walker for help.

Edwin Walker was on the scene front and center. Walker went on radio and television to call for "ten thousand strong from every State in the Union" to oppose the thousands of Federal Troops that JFK would send to Mississippi in defense of the Civil Rights of James Meredith. On the radio Walker said, "I was on the wrong side in Little Rock, -- this time, out of uniform -- I will be on the right side"

On the night of 30 September 1962 there were riots at Ole Miss in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. Walker was arrested, but in a few weeks time was completely acquitted by an all-white Grand Jury in Oxford, Mississippi. Upon his release Walker vowed to take his fight with the Kennedys to the next level -- to the Cuban Exiles.

As 1963 opens we find Edwin Walker on a speaking tour with segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis -- and when he returned home to Dallas in early April, he was greeted by Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet through his backyard window. (According to the personal papers of Edwin Walker, Lee Harvey Oswald was in DPD custody that night, but was released by order of Federal bureaucrats around midnight).

At this point we find Ex-General Edwin Walker increasingly in the company of Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. Personal letters by Gerry Patrick Hemming himself confirm this. We also find Walker making donations to the radical Cuban Exile group, DRE, and supporting Oswald's apparent nemesis, Carlos Bringuier.

So, it is no surprise that by September 1963, we can find Ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall and Larry Howard congregating with the John Birch Society in Southern California where Harry Dean is also active. Harry Dean's memoirs have the ring of truth and historical background to support them.

The congregation of these players is easily confirmed today by any casual contact with David Robbins -- who is the only remaining living person from that circle. David Robbins, an Event Coordinator for right-wing causes in Southern California, has confirmed and will continue to confirm the congregation of this personnel along with Guy Gabaldon and California Congressman John Rousselot in El Monte throughout 1963.

Harry Dean says he heard these key players plot to kill JFK and make Lee Harvey Oswald their patsy. Even if they were only secondary players in a larger plot -- this is still evidence of a conspiracy to murder JFK. Harry Dean claims that he brought this to the attention of the FBI in 1963, and they dismissed him. (This reminds us of the current account by former FBI Agent, Wesley Swearingen, who claims that he brought his evidence for a JFK conspiracy to his superiors in the FBI, and they dismissed him.)

The main points of Harry Dean's Confessions can withstand all the scutiny anybody wishes to bring. So bring it on.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 16, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Is there any independent confirmation for this statement by Paul?

"Walker's program included hiring speakers from the John BIrch Society stables, including Carl McIntire, Fred Schwarz, Admiral A.A. Burke, Robert Welch, and many others."

1. What association with the JBS is Paul claiming that Fred Schwarz had? When did Walker "hire" Schwarz?

2. When did Walker "hire" Robert Welch as a "speaker"? And when/where did Welch speak?

3. Admiral Arleigh Burke was Chief of Naval Operations starting in 1955 during the Eisenhower Presidency and then continuing into the JFK Presidency. When did Walker "hire" him?