Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

...

As far as Ernie's more remarks in the thread, my reaction is that he paints with an awfully broad brush in certain of them. As for myself, I set forth my criteria for acceptable evidence in my Preface, readers are at least forewarned. Personally i find the following generic remark a bit offensive:

"And, lastly, the adherents of conspiracy theories NEVER apply their declared standard of acceptable evidence TO THEIR OWN WRITINGS!"

-- Larry

Larry, that remark by Ernie Lazar is typical of his use of exaggeration to make his points.

All best,

--Paul Trejo

Well, if forced to choose between alleged "exaggeration" and outright falsehoods (such as you have circulated), I will always prefer "exaggeration".

[Larry Hancock]

Fair enough Ernie, I have my own issues with many conspiracy theories - far too easy to pick your preferred villain and work backwards. Seems to be the same in political conspiracies as in politics.

[Ernie Lazar]

Fair enough Ernie, I have my own issues with many conspiracy theories - far too easy to pick your preferred villain and work backwards. Seems to be the same in political conspiracies as in politics.

Frankly, Larry, I believe there are several immediate markers which separate PLAUSIBLE theories from what you correctly describe as "pick your preferred villain and work backwards" -- and which I have sometimes described in this thread as Paul Trejo's post hoc rationalizations which are manifestly absurd.

However, I do NOT require anybody to accept my "markers" for implausible theories. The only requirement should be some sort of clearly stated and agreed upon definitions of words (like "informant" or "undercover operative") and acceptance of some standard methodology (applicable to everyone) for separating fact from fiction. For example: if parties to a debate state, in advance, that ONLY certain types of evidence are permissible -- then that should apply to everyone equally.

[Ernie Lazar]

Update re: some of my FOIA requests and other matters.

1. As part of my continuing research, I have attempted to discover whether or not any of the FBI Agents whom Harry has come into contact with on more than one occasion might still be living. [Notice that this is something Paul Trejo never bothered to consider doing.]

I contacted the Society of Former FBI Special Agents, Inc. and they have informed me today that Richard L. Cromwell is deceased. I already knew that Ferd J. Rapp passed away. My contact at the Society is still searching for William J. McCauley (Los Angeles) and Mike Simon and J.B. Walker (Chicago).

2. Today I received a cost estimate letter from the FBI regarding their FPCC-HQ file. Surprisingly, it is still at the FBI (not NARA). The notice I got estimated total pages at 9500 -- but I think they meant for the entire file instead of the period which I asked about (June 1960 through July 1961 -- to cover the period when Harry was allegedly providing the FBI with info "as asked".

3. I also have requests pending for other FPCC files -- i.e. the Chicago field file, the Los Angeles field file AND the HQ file sections which are limited to both of those field offices (those are entirely separate files from the HQ generic file).

4. Some of the cross-references on Harry which I have requested have now been destroyed. Others are at NARA. After I get everything identified, I will submit a new request to NARA to obtain the ones which are archived there.

5. Some of the main HQ files on key figures whom Harry was involved with (such as Edgar and Marjorie Swabeck and Richard Criley) are also now at NARA. But I have not discovered the status of their field office files.

[Paul Trejo]

1. As part of my continuing research, I have attempted to discover whether or not any of the FBI Agents whom Harry has come into contact with on more than one occasion might still be living. [Notice that this is something Paul Trejo never bothered to consider doing.]

Actually, I've considered contacting everybody who ever contacted Harry Dean from 1959 through 1965 -- but I don't happen to be independently wealthy or even retired.

It paradoxically serves my purpose that somebody with some weird vendetta against Harry Dean's story would scour the whole wide world to try to discount that story -- because just about every bit of new information that comes up tends to support Harry Dean's story!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 19, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie - at least Trejo is honest about what he believes. You continually evade the question of what you believe...Where do you stand!

You didn't get an answer from Ernie on this, Paul B., because Ernie evidently keeps this a secret.

I've often wondered about it myself. Why does Ernie Lazar spend month after month on this Forum thread -- since 2010 -- to try to bring down the account told by Harry Dean about the murder of JFK?

I'm slowly developing a theory about it, based on the contradiction that Ernie seems to defend the JBS (John Birch Society) whenever I criticize them, and he seems to attack the JBS when I suggest that he's defending them. (Ernie takes somewhat the same attitude toward my position on the FBI.)

So, it's slowly dawning on me that Ernie has no firm position yet -- but he does have a claim to fame, namely, Ernie Lazar apparently wants to be recognized as the man who brought down the JBS.

To this end, Ernie has spent years on the Internet debating with members of the JBS. Also, Ernie has collected a massive amount of information from the FBI about the JBS and related cases.

That's how Harry Dean came into Ernie Lazar's radar in the first place.

It seems to me that years ago Ernie Lazar thought that he could just brush Harry Dean aside without much trouble. But when it couldn't be done, Ernie stepped up his efforts. Harry Dean is still standing after years of Ernie's struggle, and so Ernie has taken out all the stops and puts his whole energy into it.

Imagine spending years trying to bring down the JBS, but then watching in astonishment as some professional plasterer, some 8th grade graduate, some stately old Veteran of World War 2, effortlessly accomplishes what Ernie Lazar has struggled for a whole career to accomplish!

As superficial as that may sound, it's the only explanation that I see today that fits all the available evidence. Ernie is jealous of Harry Dean's historical role.

Insofar as Harry Dean's story is true and correct, then Ex-General Edwin Walker and other leaders in the JBS were at the center of a cyclone that murdered JFK -- and this is the most damaging testimony against the JBS in all of American history.

Ernie Lazar cannot abide that Harry Dean will get the credit for this historical revelation, so Ernie tries again and again to discredit Harry Dean's story -- through any means possible -- and Ernie seems to be getting desperate about it.

Yet the linkage between the JBS and the murder of JFK is not unique to Harry Dean. Professor David Wrone of the University of Wisconsin history department said this in the last decade:

"There was almost an immediate concern among people that I know that this murder had been brought about by the right wing. I know that in some communities where they had John Birch Societies men went out with axes and chopped down the John Birch Society advertisements -- immediately." (Dr. D.R. Wrone, 2005)

One needs a sense of history today to grasp the common sense of Harry Dean's story. The FBI and J. Edgar Hoover tried their best to prevent this common sense from spreading through the USA, perhaps because it could have started a Civil War. (Anyway, that is giving J. Edgar Hoover the extreme benefit of the doubt.)

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 19, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...I have my own issues with many conspiracy theories - far too easy to pick your preferred villain and work backwards. Seems to be the same in political conspiracies as in politics.

Larry, even though the method of 'pick your villain and work backwards' is an admittedly clumsy method -- when one is dealing with an unknown quantity of unknowns, that method at least remains a valid way of eliminating suspects.

Also, if one is unable to eliminate a given suspect after years of effort, a red flag should go up.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

That's an interesting thought Paul, but unless or until l someone conclusively "solves" the murder I'm not sure anyone will give up their favorite suspect - I see the same suspects discussed now that were on the very early lists but what I haven't seen is anyone giving up their favorites. We see that every time a poll is done. Now I've personally eliminated a lot of sources and leads, some I really hated to give up, but I didn't start with a particular villain so I haven't had to make that choice...

It would be interesting and educational to see a few volunteer posts from researchers who have given up a particular suspect whom they were very fixed on - and why.

[Ernie Lazar]

1. As part of my continuing research, I have attempted to discover whether or not any of the FBI Agents whom Harry has come into contact with on more than one occasion might still be living. [Notice that this is something Paul Trejo never bothered to consider doing.]

Actually, I've considered contacting everybody who ever contacted Harry Dean from 1959 through 1965 -- but I don't happen to be independently wealthy or even retired.

It paradoxically serves my purpose that somebody with some weird vendetta against Harry Dean's story would scour the whole wide world to try to discount that story -- because just about every bit of new information that comes up tends to support Harry Dean's story!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, your comment really is a flawless example of gross exaggeration which totally distorts what I am doing. First, I have no "vendetta" against Harry. Second, you have placed Harry in the public arena by publishing, yet again in 2013, another publication to repeat the same story he has been telling for 50 years. You claim that your eBook is a work of NON-fiction so, obviously, anybody interested in this subject is going to critique it. The fact that you regard the very act of examining the supporting evidence for Harry's assertions as "suspect" behavior tells us everything we need to know about your pretense.

And if you think almost every bit of new evidence "supports" Harry's story -- you have very serious intellectual defects which can never be corrected. To "support" a narrative means corroborate or prove. But every single document we have discovered so far, DISPROVES Harry's story concerning what he has always claimed with respect to his relationship with the FBI. How can (for example) Harry's story regarding his "September 1963" meeting with Grapp be "supported" by any document we have discovered when Grapp was not even in Los Angeles until March 1964? This is the reason nobody takes you seriously as either a competent researcher or an analyst. You do not even have the capacity to recognize when major components of your story have been falsified -- and then recognize the significance of that FACT. Instead, you prefer to believe your FICTION.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - at least Trejo is honest about what he believes. You continually evade the question of what you believe...Where do you stand!

You didn't get an answer from Ernie on this, Paul B., because Ernie evidently keeps this a secret.

I've often wondered about it myself. Why does Ernie Lazar spend month after month on this Forum thread -- since 2010 -- to try to bring down the account told by Harry Dean about the murder of JFK?

I'm slowly developing a theory about it, based on the contradiction that Ernie seems to defend the JBS (John Birch Society) whenever I criticize them, and he seems to attack the JBS when I suggest that he's defending them. (Ernie takes somewhat the same attitude toward my position on the FBI.)

So, it's slowly dawning on me that Ernie has no firm position yet -- but he does have a claim to fame, namely, Ernie Lazar apparently wants to be recognized as the man who brought down the JBS.

To this end, Ernie has spent years on the Internet debating with members of the JBS. Also, Ernie has collected a massive amount of information from the FBI about the JBS and related cases.

That's how Harry Dean came into Ernie Lazar's radar in the first place.

It seems to me that years ago Ernie Lazar thought that he could just brush Harry Dean aside without much trouble. But when it couldn't be done, Ernie stepped up his efforts. Harry Dean is still standing after years of Ernie's struggle, and so Ernie has taken out all the stops and puts his whole energy into it.

Imagine spending years trying to bring down the JBS, but then watching in astonishment as some professional plasterer, some 8th grade graduate, some stately old Veteran of World War 2, effortlessly accomplishes what Ernie Lazar has struggled for a whole career to accomplish!

As superficial as that may sound, it's the only explanation that I see today that fits all the available evidence. Ernie is jealous of Harry Dean's historical role.

Insofar as Harry Dean's story is true and correct, then Ex-General Edwin Walker and other leaders in the JBS were at the center of a cyclone that murdered JFK -- and this is the most damaging testimony against the JBS in all of American history.

Ernie Lazar cannot abide that Harry Dean will get the credit for this historical revelation, so Ernie tries again and again to discredit Harry Dean's story -- through any means possible -- and Ernie seems to be getting desperate about it.

Yet the linkage between the JBS and the murder of JFK is not unique to Harry Dean. Professor David Wrone of the University of Wisconsin history department said this in the last decade:

"There was almost an immediate concern among people that I know that this murder had been brought about by the right wing. I know that in some communities where they had John Birch Societies men went out with axes and chopped down the John Birch Society advertisements -- immediately." (Dr. D.R. Wrone, 2005)

One needs a sense of history today to grasp the common sense of Harry Dean's story. The FBI and J. Edgar Hoover tried their best to prevent this common sense from spreading through the USA, perhaps because it could have started a Civil War. (Anyway, that is giving J. Edgar Hoover the extreme benefit of the doubt.)

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

This is another flawless example of Paul's intellectual dishonesty. I gave my answer to Paul B. I said I did not believe JFK was murdered by one single person. I believe there was more than one person involved. I have no idea, however, which proposed theory is the correct one and there is no conceivable methodology that would resolve the question. For example: Paul Trejo's methodology requires me to accept that Harry is presenting accurate and truthful information but there is not a single document anywhere that supports Harry's story AND even within JFK conspiracy circles, Harry's story is not given any credence. I previously quoted the comment of Robin Ramsay. I could also quote Penn Jones' derogatory evaluation of Harry's story. And we all have seen the evaluation made by Wesley Swearingen.

ONLY in Paul's tortured and warped mental gymnastics does Harry's story make "sense".

And once again, Paul deliberately has lied about my position on the JBS. I have been so critical of the JBS (LONG BEFORE I got involved here), that the JBS has banned me from posting messages on their website. Nevertheless, Paul Trejo can make such incredibly stupid and malicious comments like "Ernie seems to defend the JBS (John Birch Society) whenever I criticize them, and he seems to attack the JBS when I suggest that he's defending them."

What Paul never understands is that presenting FALSE information will ALWAYS result in somebody knowledgeable correcting the record. Paul is an ignoramus about the JBS. He presents total falsehoods about the JBS which HE thinks are factual statements. There are many reasons to oppose the JBS but that does not mean we must accept every stupid comment made by every ignorant person (like Paul).

With respect to Paul's other absurdities:

1. Consider the total irrationality of Paul's position: (1) Ernie is defending the JBS but (2) Ernie apparently "wants to be recognized as the man who brought down the JBS". THIS is the mentality of the person who demands that we respect his analytical abilities!

2. In Paul's warped mind, there is no possibility of legitimate criticism of Harry or his narrative. [And, incidentally, this is EXACTLY the attitude of the JBS about itself!] Consequently, Paul declares that ANY attempt to falsify what Harry (or Paul) has presented amounts to a personal vendetta without basis in fact (another JBS position about all of its critics!]

3. No serious person believes Harry or Paul. Only in Paul's mind does he think anybody is plotting to "brush aside Harry" or that Harry "is still standing" as some paragon of knowledge and truth.

4. Then Paul repeats his "imagine spending years trying to bring down the JBS" (referring to me) while, simultaneously, he tells us that I am "defending" the JBS. Can ANYBODY make any sense out of this irrational stupidity? But Paul does, at least, use one proper descriptive term for his comments, i.e. "superficial".

5. As I have previously written, Paul makes it manifestly self-evident that he PROJECTS his own worst qualities and intellectual deficiencies onto his critics. He is describing HIMSELF (not me or anybody else). HE wants the fame. HE wants to "bring down" someone -- anyone. HE is afraid that Harry's story will be totally discredited.

And just for the record, I have not devoted any significant amount of my time to Harry Dean. Most of his story (as told by Paul) can be falsified with very minimal research requiring very little time.

As I previously stated, Paul Trejo did not even have the common sense to fact-check Harry's assertion about meeting Wesley Grapp in September 1963 simply by checking the Los Angeles TImes archives -- nor, for that matter -- performing a 10-second internet search which would have produced numerous articles (particularly his OBITS) which stated that Grapp was not even in Los Angeles until 1964. For example see: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=wesley-g-grapp&pid=154533094

THAT is the quality of intellect we are confronting with respect to "researcher" and amateur historian Paul Trejo.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

That's an interesting thought Paul, but unless or until l someone conclusively "solves" the murder I'm not sure anyone will give up their favorite suspect - I see the same suspects discussed now that were on the very early lists but what I haven't seen is anyone giving up their favorites. We see that every time a poll is done. Now I've personally eliminated a lot of sources and leads, some I really hated to give up, but I didn't start with a particular villain so I haven't had to make that choice...

It would be interesting and educational to see a few volunteer posts from researchers who have given up a particular suspect whom they were very fixed on - and why.

It is exceptionally rare for any conspiracy theory author or adherent to publicly acknowledge that their preferred villain (theory) was fundamentally flawed (from the outset) and produced false conclusions.

Usually such adherents are so emotionally and intellectually invested in their "theory" that they automatically de-value, discredit, or ignore all contradictory evidence (such as Paul T does).

This is why I have stated that prior to beginning any discussions with a conspiracy theorist, basic terminology must be clearly defined and proposed methodology for resolving disputed or ambiguous evidence has to be explicitly stated and agreed upon. In fact, there should be a "3 strikes and you're out" rule applied to debates with conspiracy theorists. In other words, AFTER the definitions and methodology have been agreed upon, then each participant is allowed 3 violations of the rules -- and the 4th violation should automatically forfeit their argument.

So, for example, if several individuals are debating a particular theory and they agree that there must be "independent confirmation" for every assertion made but any participant does not provide such "independent confirmation" for one of his/her assertions (and prior to beginning, there must be a clear understanding and agreement regarding what "independent confirmation" means) -- then each violation of that rule becomes one strike.

However, in my experience, political conspiracy adherents become extremely hostile when asked to define words and explicitly discuss acceptable methodology because they DO NOT want ANY rules to be applicable to whatever they present.

As previously noted, a FICTION writer wants the freedom to invent whatever he/she thinks will move their pre-determined story-line to its desired conclusion.

Consequently, the fiction writer wants the unfettered ability to put thoughts and motives and words into the minds and mouths of his villains without being constrained by those pesky things called "provable facts".

In addition, fiction writers are congenitally allergic to documentary evidence. Again, no contemporaneous primary source document should be allowed (in their scheme of things) to restrain or limit whatever their imagination can produce -- which, often, is so much more satisfying than literal truth.

Literal truth is often just too messy, too nuanced, too ambiguous or incomplete or subject to varied interpretations. Fiction, by contrast, is much more emotionally and intellectually satisfying because it is complete; there are no questions left unanswered; no puzzles left to resolve; no tentative answers or explanations floating in air -- instead, everything is spelled out "A to Z" by the author and the narrative comes to its logical, intended, desired and planned conclusion.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

A Los Angeles FBI memo dated 4 Sep 1964 on the subject LORAN EUGENE HALL -- written around the time of Silvia Odio's questioning by the Warren Commission and the FBI -- describes a 17 Oct 1963 arrest of Loran Hall and William Seymour in Dallas, Texas. (It is included in FBI Record Number 124-10216-10157.)

The arrest occurred in the 6000 block of North Central Expressway by Officers KW Heard and RC Wagner. The charge was possession of dangerous drugs. They were driving a 1955 Oldsmobile with Florida plates and they possessed eight bottles of drugs, namely, Appetrol, Dexedrine and Paregoric.

The DPD called in the FBI regarding interstate transport. Loran Hall told the FBI that the accused were members of CRC (Cuban Revolutionary Council) based in Miami, and they collected these drugs from medical doctors in California, whose names he refused to disclose. The CRC conducted bombing raids on Castro's Cuba, and these doctors were sympathetic to the soldiers involved. Loran Hall said that the camera in his possession had been donated to him by the John Birch Society in Dallas. In his possession he also had a photograph of himself with Gerry Patrick Hemming. He used the alias Lorenzo Hall.

Detective Stringfellow described Loran Hall as 'emotionally disturbed' and William Seymour as 'definitely neurotic.' (Thus we confirm that police and FBI Agents often think of themselves as qualified psychologists.) The memo offered a further description of Loran Hall: Age 33, born 4 Jan 1930 in Newton, Kansas. Height 5'11" and weight 185 pounds -- his lawyer was Robert Morris who obtained bond for the two men and had them released.

I note for the Forum that this same lawyer, Robert Morris, was also associated with the John Birch Society, and he was also present at the hearing of Ex-General Edwin Walker before a Grand Jury at Oxford, Mississippi to argue for the acquittal of charges against Walker. Robert Morris won that argument.

Back in Kansas, the Wichita Crime Commission manager and director, Maurice Corcoran, advised that he knew Loran Hall to be a soldier of fortune, but that "Hall definitely is not the type of individual to set up a revolution." He said he considers Hall "the playboy type and not the revolutionary type."

Loran Hall is one of the person's whom Harry Dean claims to have known in Southern California in 1962-1963. Hall was a frequent speaker at the John Birch Society, where he raised funds for raids on Cuba.

Running guns from California to Miami in this way was perhaps Loran's Hall main source of income -- his livelihood. He was a mercenary, and he did fight with Interpen, but he also wanted to start his own group (CRC) so Hall was also in competition with Gerry Patrick Hemming.

According to Harry Dean, the two mercenaries, Loran Hall and Larry Howard, accompanied Lee Harvey Oswald to Mexico City during the final week of September 1963. Harry Dean adds that this was conducted as part of their regular drug-and-gun-running activities between Southern California and Florida.

ADDITION: Sylvia Odio confirmed that in the final week of September 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was driven to her doorstep by two Latinos from the radical right-wing, who claimed: (1) to have come from New Orleans: (2) to be members of JURE; (3) to have been in contact with her father languishing in a Cuban prison; and (4) that this American, "Leon Oswald", was intent on murdering JFK. The FBI, in response to her story, picked up Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- I'm still trying to find out why.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos; 1963, not 1962; Addition>

Edited March 20, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

So you don't believe Loran Hall when he said he had never met Odio?

[Paul Brancato]

So you don't believe Loran Hall when he told Garrison that he had never met Odio?

[Thomas Graves]

Paul,

You wrote:

"According to Harry Dean - and Silvia Odio - Loran Hall and Larry Howard accompanied Lee Harvey Oswald to Mexico City during the final week of September, 1962." [emphasis added]

I'm fascinated by the possibility that these three traveled together to Mexico City in late September, 1962. Could you please elaborate on this or point me in the direction of an earlier post that covers this interesting allegation?

Did you mean to say 1963? If so, was Odio basing her knowledge (of this 1963 MC trip by the dynamic trio) on what she learned from them during the infamous "Odio Incident"?

(I wonder if either Hall or Howard could speak "terrible, hardly recognizable Russian"...)

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited March 20, 2014 by Thomas Graves