Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

CORRECTION re: WESLEY GRAPP

I think in a previous message, I stated that Wesley Grapp was SAC in New Jersey in 1963 but that is mistaken. He was SAC in Miami.

I found a newspaper article published on 1/30/64 in the Collier County News (Naples FL) on page 2 which mentions Grapp. See article link below "FBI Nabs Man For Tennessee Bank Robberies" -- (second column from right side) which points out in paragraph #2 that Grapp was then SAC Miami.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00079904/00007/2?search=grapp

In addition, I have a copy of a memo written by Grapp on 2/29/1963 when he was also SAC Miami. [So, obviously, if Grapp was SAC Miami from at least February 1963 until March 1964), Harry did not meet with him or drive around in a car with him in 1963 because Grapp was not in Los Angeles -- despite what Harry recently claimed in a message here.]

After I receive his personnel file, I will be able to provide a very detailed summary of Grapp's exact FBI assignments because every FBI employee personnel file contains an "Assignment History" (see sample attached) which reflects every office to which an Agent was assigned (and the date) plus their salary history.

In addition, the FBI always prepared a document entitled "Permanent Brief" on every Agent which presented a synopsis of every Performance Report which the Agent received during his entire career and those reports indicate which field office or HQ unit the employee worked at and what type of cases he worked, plus comments about letters of censure or commendation etc. SAC's also had summaries regarding the annual Inspection Reports of their offices.

FBI Assignment History.PDF

Edited April 17, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Today, I performed yet another "advanced search" on NARA's search webpage. I used all of the following search terms:

* Harry Dean

* Harry J. Dean

* Dean, Harry

* Dean, Harry J.

* Dean and Grapp

* Dean and FBI

* Dean and Chicago

* Dean and Los Angeles

* Dean and 1961

* Wesley Grapp

* Wesley G. Grapp

* Grapp, Wesley

* Grapp, Wesley G.

* Grapp and FBI

* Grapp and Dean

* Grapp and 1961

After spending about 45 minutes searching all of these search terms, I did not find ANY reference on NARA to ANY "file" or "document" which Paul Trejo claims exists at NARA.

So...unless Paul provides us with a link to the specific webpage where he claims he found such a reference, there is absolutely no reason to believe he is telling the truth.

Thanks for double-checking that, Ernie. It seems that I was mistaken in my reading of the NARA Indexes.

Still -- you need to relax about these matters, Ernie. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean I'm trying to deliberately lie about matters.

When I'm mistaken, I admit it.

I still need more time to gather all the documents about Wesley Grapp and Harry Dean from 1964 forward.

I still maintain that Harry Dean and Wesley Grapp rode in a car together in Los Angeles in 1964, discussing Harry's beliefs about the John Birch Society and the murder of JFK. Harry's recollections of these events a half-century ago have been remarkably accurate.

Nothing you've shown so far disproves Harry's claim -- and in fact, you've provided much information to substantiate Harry's claim that he had multiple interactions with the FBI during the years in question.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

CORRECTION re: WESLEY GRAPP

I think in a previous message, I stated that Wesley Grapp was SAC in New Jersey in 1963 but that is mistaken. He was SAC in Miami.

I found a newspaper article published on 1/30/64 in the Collier County News (Naples FL) on page 2 which mentions Grapp. See article link below "FBI Nabs Man For Tennessee Bank Robberies" -- (second column from right side) which points out in paragraph #2 that Grapp was then SAC Miami.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00079904/00007/2?search=grapp

In addition, I have a copy of a memo written by Grapp on 2/29/1963 when he was also SAC Miami. [So, obviously, if Grapp was SAC Miami from at least February 1963 until March 1964), Harry did not meet with him or drive around in a car with him in 1963 because Grapp was not in Los Angeles -- despite what Harry recently claimed in a message here.]

After I receive his personnel file, I will be able to provide a very detailed summary of Grapp's exact FBI assignments because every FBI employee personnel file contains an "Assignment History" (see sample attached) which reflects every office to which an Agent was assigned (and the date) plus their salary history.

In addition, the FBI always prepared a document entitled "Permanent Brief" on every Agent which presented a synopsis of every Performance Report which the Agent received during his entire career and those reports indicate which field office or HQ unit the employee worked at and what type of cases he worked, plus comments about letters of censure or commendation etc. SAC's also had summaries regarding the annual Inspection Reports of their offices.

Well, Ernie, the PDF you provided was about an FBI agent named Leo Laughlin who started in 1935 with a salary of $3,200 and retired in 1962 with a salary of $19,500.

That's not really relevant here. I think you're hoping to find a similar report about FBI agent Wesley Grapp, but you haven't found it yet.

By the way, just because Wesley Grapp was an FBI SAC in Miami from about 2/1963 to 3/1964, that in no way makes it impossible for Harry Dean to have met with him in Los Angeles in early 1964, as he claims.

Just because Grapp wasn't assigned to the Los Angeles FBI until March 1964, that in no way precludes the possibility of Grapp traveling to Los Angeles from Miami.

You might object that this goes against FBI procedure -- but as former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen alluded, the field offices were more decentralized than one might imagine.

Now -- you say you're looking for an FBI "Assignment History" belonging to Wesley Grapp, so we gather you haven't yet found it. When you find it, I hope it contains more detail than the mere locational salary history posted within the PDF you found on Leo Laughlin above.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

CORRECTION re: WESLEY GRAPP

I think in a previous message, I stated that Wesley Grapp was SAC in New Jersey in 1963 but that is mistaken. He was SAC in Miami.

I found a newspaper article published on 1/30/64 in the Collier County News (Naples FL) on page 2 which mentions Grapp. See article link below "FBI Nabs Man For Tennessee Bank Robberies" -- (second column from right side) which points out in paragraph #2 that Grapp was then SAC Miami.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00079904/00007/2?search=grapp

In addition, I have a copy of a memo written by Grapp on 2/29/1963 when he was also SAC Miami. [So, obviously, if Grapp was SAC Miami from at least February 1963 until March 1964), Harry did not meet with him or drive around in a car with him in 1963 because Grapp was not in Los Angeles -- despite what Harry recently claimed in a message here.]

After I receive his personnel file, I will be able to provide a very detailed summary of Grapp's exact FBI assignments because every FBI employee personnel file contains an "Assignment History" (see sample attached) which reflects every office to which an Agent was assigned (and the date) plus their salary history.

In addition, the FBI always prepared a document entitled "Permanent Brief" on every Agent which presented a synopsis of every Performance Report which the Agent received during his entire career and those reports indicate which field office or HQ unit the employee worked at and what type of cases he worked, plus comments about letters of censure or commendation etc. SAC's also had summaries regarding the annual Inspection Reports of their offices.

Well, Ernie, the PDF you provided was about an FBI agent named Leo Laughlin who started in 1935 with a salary of $3,200 and retired in 1962 with a salary of $19,500.

That's not really relevant here. I think you're hoping to find a similar report about FBI agent Wesley Grapp, but you haven't found it yet.

By the way, just because Wesley Grapp was an FBI SAC in Miami from about 2/1963 to 3/1964, that in no way makes it impossible for Harry Dean to have met with him in Los Angeles in early 1964, as he claims.

Just because Grapp wasn't assigned to the Los Angeles FBI until March 1964, that in no way precludes the possibility of Grapp traveling to Los Angeles from Miami.

You might object that this goes against FBI procedure -- but as former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen alluded, the field offices were more decentralized than one might imagine.

Now -- you say you're looking for an FBI "Assignment History" belonging to Wesley Grapp, so we gather you haven't yet found it. When you find it, I hope it contains more detail than the mere locational salary history posted within the PDF you found on Leo Laughlin above.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

You still have a reading huge comprehension problem Paul.

I clearly stated that I was providing that "Assignment History" as an example of the type of document which exists in EVERY FBI Agent personnel file -- and I also mentioned that there is also a "Permanent Brief" in EVERY Agent file --- and I mentioned that when I get Grapp's personnel file, I will have his entire assignment history to PROVE precisely when and where he was located.

Obviously it is "relevant here" because when I get Grapp's personnel file, I will provide exact dates (and lengths of time) for Grapp's assignments.

Now -- with respect to your absurdity that:

"Just because Grapp wasn't assigned to the Los Angeles FBI until March 1964, that in no way precludes the possibility of Grapp traveling to Los Angeles from Miami."

Any human being can travel to a location away from where he lives and works. But your comment reveals the absurd lengths your mind is prepared to go in order to pretend that Harry's narrative is credible. But I will play this game with you for a moment. Let's proceed.

1. Grapp decides to visit the Los Angeles area from Miami where he lives and works.

2. How would Grapp even know about the existence of Harry Dean?

3. Why would Grapp want to meet with Harry -- given the evaluation of the Los Angeles field office Agents who were most knowledgeable about Harry?

4. Do you honestly believe that FBI Special Agents just willy-nilly traveled around the country and inserted themselves into local matters at any field office of their choosing, i.e. they decided to travel across country, spend a day or two talking with somebody they've never heard of, and then they returned home to their base of operations? This has nothing to do with what you refer to as "FBI procedure". It is just common sense. [Go back to question #2 above]

5. What does your "decentralized" comment mean? As Swearingen pointed out, SAC's did NOT perform field work. Did you contact Swearingen and ask him to evaluate your idea, i.e. if it might be possible for a Miami SAC to travel to another territory and meet with someone whom he never has heard of before? If you did ask Swearingen, what was his reply (after he stopped laughing?)

6. Lastly, the entire point of my comment was that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (something you have contempt for) disproves the entire narrative which Harry has presented.

7. Oh wait! I know! There is nothing to "preclude the possibility" that Lee Harvey Oswald traveled to Los Angeles and met with Grapp, Harry Dean, Walker, Hall, Rousselot, and Galbadon and they all "discussed" the forthcoming murder of JFK.

[Ernie Lazar]

Today, I performed yet another "advanced search" on NARA's search webpage. I used all of the following search terms:

* Harry Dean

* Harry J. Dean

* Dean, Harry

* Dean, Harry J.

* Dean and Grapp

* Dean and FBI

* Dean and Chicago

* Dean and Los Angeles

* Dean and 1961

* Wesley Grapp

* Wesley G. Grapp

* Grapp, Wesley

* Grapp, Wesley G.

* Grapp and FBI

* Grapp and Dean

* Grapp and 1961

After spending about 45 minutes searching all of these search terms, I did not find ANY reference on NARA to ANY "file" or "document" which Paul Trejo claims exists at NARA.

So...unless Paul provides us with a link to the specific webpage where he claims he found such a reference, there is absolutely no reason to believe he is telling the truth.

Thanks for double-checking that, Ernie. It seems that I was mistaken in my reading of the NARA Indexes.

Still -- you need to relax about these matters, Ernie. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean I'm trying to deliberately lie about matters.

When I'm mistaken, I admit it.

I still need more time to gather all the documents about Wesley Grapp and Harry Dean from 1964 forward.

I still maintain that Harry Dean and Wesley Grapp rode in a car together in Los Angeles in 1964, discussing Harry's beliefs about the John Birch Society and the murder of JFK. Harry's recollections of these events a half-century ago have been remarkably accurate.

Nothing you've shown so far disproves Harry's claim -- and in fact, you've provided much information to substantiate Harry's claim that he had multiple interactions with the FBI during the years in question.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. I do not mind if you make honest mistakes (as I have written here before).

2. What I mind is your constant snotty and false and arrogant adverse assumptions about my character, integrity, motives, and intellectual ability to discern fact from fiction such as stating in your message that I am "so prejudiced" that I "overlooked" something and I "refuse to listen to reason".

3. This is particularly offensive because you NEVER provide verifiable factual evidence for your assertions---not even so much as a reference to a book or newspaper/magazine article to support your statements.

4. Instead, you think that writing a bold declarative sentence is qualitatively the same thing as "proof" of whatever your point is (such as your recent comment that in 1959 J. Edgar Hoover described the Birch Society as "un-American".

5. IF you ever bothered to DOCUMENT/SUBSTANTIATE your assertions and statements THEN we could then properly evaluate them. But, instead, you want us to ALWAYS accept your personal beliefs, opinions, speculations, and insinuations.

6. The indisputable FACT is that you have a long history of making stupid and false assertions in this thread and then you cast aspersions upon me just because I know (with 100% certainty) that you are presenting falsehoods and I say so. Such as my previous challenge to you to document your FALSE assertion about me "continuing" to "misrepresent" your (and Harry's) position -- i.e. I supposedly claimed that you had "proof" or "final proof" regarding when Harry met Grapp. -- when I never made such a statement in the first place, so, obviously, I did not then "continue" to misrepresent your position. And then you have the nerve to refer to me as "truth-challenged".

7. You can have all the "time" you need to "prove" whatever "case" you want to make with respect to Harry. But the problem is that (a) your standard for "proof" is very poor (often lowest-common-denominator reasoning or rank speculation---see your previous message for example) and ( -b-) you do NOT provide verifiable factual evidence nor do you provide ANY sort of corroboration or documentary evidence for your statements.

8. Lastly, I am compelled (again) to request that you invest in a dictionary.

(a) A "MISTAKE" is unintentional. In other words, you present some data in good-faith after performing due diligence without any intention of deceiving anybody and no intention of misrepresenting whatever subject is under scrutiny. [Example: you use information you see in a reputable newspaper or news magazine article or in a TV news broadcast which turns out to be false or grossly exaggerated. For instance, many times initial news reports in media turn out to be seriously flawed.]

(-b-) By contrast, a "LIE" is accomplished by one of two processes, namely, omission or commission.

A LIE by omission is achieved when you deliberately leave out materially important information which would change a reader's evaluation or understanding if it had been presented

A LIE by commission is achieved when you deliberately make a statement for which you have NO verifiable factual evidence OR you never performed due diligence to establish whether or not your statement/assertion is true or false but you presented the data anyway

I believe that a very substantial case can be made against you (not for unintentional "mistakes" which ALL of us make) but for deliberate omissions and commissions which are INTENDED by you to deceive and to manipulate your readers into believing what YOU want them to believe. It is YOUR prejudice and your credulous acceptance of EVERYTHING Harry tells you which is subject to scorn and disrepute.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

With respect to this comment by Paul (message #1037):

"Nothing you've shown so far disproves Harry's claim -- and in fact, you've provided much information to substantiate Harry's claim that he had multiple interactions with the FBI during the years in question."

This one statement by Paul, encapsulates everything which is deficient in his reasoning process.

As I mentioned in message #1040 (above), Paul often uses lowest-common-denominator reasoning and then he expects us to accept his assumptions

1. I have NOT provided "much information to substantiate Harry's claim" re: his "multiple interactions with the FBI".

2. The basic problem here is that Paul has NEVER defined what he means by "interaction". ANY human being in the United States (or elsewhere) could contact their local FBI office (or the FBI in Washington DC) by phone, by mail, or in-person. That is what I refer to as "lowest-common-denominator" [LCD] reasoning. LCD reasoning reduces and dumbs-down something to the point where there is no way to make intelligent distinctions. EXAMPLE:

-a- All elephants have four legs

-b- All cats have four legs

-c- Therefore, all cats are elephants (and vice versa)

In the example just provided, using number of legs (LCD) produces an entirely false ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION which prevents serious analysis of relevant evidence.

3. Just because someone decides (upon their own volition) to call their local FBI office at all hours of day and night to report their personal opinions or speculations or to provide rumors or gossip or anecdotes they've heard -- means absolutely NOTHING.

4. As I have previously pointed out, a HUGE percentage (over 85%!!) of the serials in the FBI HQ main file on the Birch Society (a 12,000 page file) consists of letters and telegrams received by the FBI in Washington DC from all sorts of people in every state of our country. Typically, those letters fall into the following categories:

* letters complaining about some local matter or activity which the letter-writer attributes to JBS members

* letters asking the FBI to evaluate a JBS or JBS-member statement or assertion which the letter-writer heard about or saw published somewhere

* letters asking the FBI whether or not the JBS was a patriotic and legitimate anti-Communist organization or in any way "subversive" or "un-American"

* letters asking for copies of FBI publications which pertain to subjects discussed in JBS literature (including copies of speeches made by FBI officials or testimony by Hoover before House Appropriations Committee, etc.)

* letters praising Hoover and the FBI for their anti-Communist work and specific Hoover public statements

5. ALL of these "multiple interactions with the FBI" were the result of individual people deciding to contact the FBI -- and often there were several letters from the same person over a period of time. These "multiple interactions" were NOT solicited by the FBI. They were NOT directed or encouraged or approved by the FBI.

6. In MANY cases, these letters were authored by individuals who self-described themselves as JBS members or JBS supporters or JBS officials (chapter leaders, section leaders, Coordinators, etc.).

7. And VERY frequently, the Bureau file copy of the incoming letter from a JBS member or supporter or official has a notation that the incoming letter should be IGNORED (and not replied to) precisely because it was from an adherent of the JBS!

[in fact, Hoover approved a recommendation that ALL field offices were to be instructed via a "SAC Letter" to DECLINE any request for FBI publications which came from JBS adherents!]

8. In other cases, the Bureau file copy notation states that the incoming letter from a Bircher was being ignored because of the tone and substance of the comments made by the Bircher -- i.e. those letters were considered "irrational" and examples of "right-wing extremist" beliefs which the FBI did not want to be associated with in any way -- not even through a Bureau reply to the letter-writer!

7. Now....in the Paul Trejo School of Evidence to the degree that the FBI did respond to a JBS member/supporter with a polite letter (such as when a Bircher praised Hoover or the FBI), all of those "multiple interactions" could be twisted by a JBS adherent to "prove" a "friendly" relationship with the FBI.

8. OR -- to the degree that a Bircher (who did not acknowledge his/her JBS membership) sent a letter to the FBI to provide some information about a local clergyman, or a school teacher or library, or a pro-United Nations event, or a local/state politician, or an organization which the Bircher thought was "subversive" or "un-American" (such as ACLU, or National Council of Churches, or Council on Foreign Relations, or NAACP, etc. etc.) ---- then that Bircher could cite the friendly reply by the FBI as "proof" of their "association" with the FBI----particularly if an FBI Agent was dispatched to ask that person questions about whatever accusations they were making regarding "subversive" or "criminal" activities.

9. BOTTOM-LINE #1: There is absolutely no significance to the fact that Harry (upon his own volition) sent several letters to the FBI and made several phone calls to the FBI. Many tens of thousands of Americans did that EVERY YEAR.

10. BOTTOM-LINE #2: The most important factor is WHAT DID THE FBI DO with whatever information Harry provided? In instance-after-instance, Harry's letters are marked "for information only" and/or "no acknowledgement required" or comparable wording which the FBI used when they only filed a copy into Harry's file for future reference purposes -- but NOT for any particular investigative value.

11. BOTTOM-LINE #3: What is the empirical evidence for the conclusion just stated in item #2 above?

* Harry's Los Angeles file was "administratively closed" almost as soon as it was opened in 1962. It was ONLY "re-opened" as a result of inquiries received by the FBI about Harry as a consequence of Harry's relentless publicity-seeking activities.

* Harry was never called upon to testify before any local, state, or national legislative body or in any administrative or court proceeding or executive session

* Harry's Chicago field file was destroyed (as the original "originating office" -- Chicago would not destroy a file containing valuable information provided by an informant or confidential source)

* There are no references in Harry's HQ and Los Angeles files to information which the FBI considered actionable that originated from Harry (with one exception, i.e. FPCC-related matters when the FBI indexed names which Harry provided in his unsolicited phone calls and correspondence)

* The research which the FBI did on Harry on two separate occasions via their "Name Check Unit.

In both cases, Harry's "search slips" are ONE PAGE and there are very few serials shown (5 serials listed from Los Angeles in 7/62 (but even these were marked "NI?"; NI stands for Not Identical --- which means that Los Angeles was not even sure (in July 1962) that those serial references were about our Harry Dean....and then 15 in 11/64 for a potential grand total of 20).

Most of those refer to a single page of some serial which mentions Harry in some currently unknown context in a large file. It could easily be something totally irrelevant such as a comment that Harry stated he had been FPCC Secretary in Chicago in 1960 or perhaps a reference to his 11/63 letter to Hoover or a reference to his appearance on the Joe Pyne Program, etc. In the future, I will be able to share some of these serial cross-references (after I obtain them).

BY CONTRAST: if you look at the files of FBI informants or confidential sources whose files contain "search slips" -- it is not uncommon for there to be a dozen or more pages of references (i.e. SCORES of individual serials containing references). EXAMPLE: Ralph Van Deman was a "confidential source" for the FBI. His file contains OVER 300 serial references on his search slips!

[Paul Trejo]

1. I do not mind if you make honest mistakes (as I have written here before).

2. What I mind is your constant snotty and false and arrogant adverse assumptions about my character, integrity, motives, and intellectual ability...

<snip>

Ernie, you have a lot of nerve to call anybody else "snotty," You yourself are one of the most insulting writers I've ever seen on the Internet.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...Now -- with respect to your absurdity that:

"Just because Grapp wasn't assigned to the Los Angeles FBI until March 1964, that in no way precludes the possibility of Grapp traveling to Los Angeles from Miami."

Any human being can travel to a location away from where he lives and works. But your comment reveals the absurd lengths your mind is prepared to go in order to pretend that Harry's narrative is credible. But I will play this game with you for a moment. Let's proceed.

1. Grapp decides to visit the Los Angeles area from Miami where he lives and works.

2. How would Grapp even know about the existence of Harry Dean?

3. Why would Grapp want to meet with Harry -- given the evaluation of the Los Angeles field office Agents who were most knowledgeable about Harry?

4. Do you honestly believe that FBI Special Agents just willy-nilly traveled around the country and inserted themselves into local matters at any field office of their choosing, i.e. they decided to travel across country, spend a day or two talking with somebody they've never heard of, and then they returned home to their base of operations? This has nothing to do with what you refer to as "FBI procedure". It is just common sense. [Go back to question #2 above]

5. What does your "decentralized" comment mean? As Swearingen pointed out, SAC's did NOT perform field work. Did you contact Swearingen and ask him to evaluate your idea, i.e. if it might be possible for a Miami SAC to travel to another territory and meet with someone whom he never has heard of before? If you did ask Swearingen, what was his reply (after he stopped laughing?)

6. Lastly, the entire point of my comment was that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (something you have contempt for) disproves the entire narrative which Harry has presented.

7. Oh wait! I know! There is nothing to "preclude the possibility" that Lee Harvey Oswald traveled to Los Angeles and met with Grapp, Harry Dean, Walker, Hall, Rousselot, and Galbadon and they all "discussed" the forthcoming murder of JFK.

Well, Ernie, your prejudice gets in the way of clear thinking yet again.

1-2. You ask how Grapp would know about the existence of Harry Dean? For one thing, Wesley Grapp was once an FBI in Chicago, was he not? Further, he was an ambitious FBI agent -- and the big news in Chicago in 1960-1961 was the FPCC in Chicago. Now, even if Wesley Grapp wasn't officially assigned to the FPCC case, there was nothing to keep him from being personally involved, by reading the case files.

We see this in the case of former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen (who wrote two books on the topic) who admits that even though he was never assigned to the JFK murder investigation, he still took a personal interest and sought as many internal FBI records on the topic that he could obtain.

Given that Wesley Grapp was at least as ambitious as Wesley Swearingen, then we have no problem considering that Grapp knew about the existence of Harry Dean in 1960-1961 when they both lived in Chicago. Not that they met in Chicago -- but it is at least possible that Wesley Grapp heard about Harry Dean in those days, and possibly read his case files (the ones that were recently destroyed by the Chicago FBI, by their own admission).

So, that answers that question.

3. Now -- why would Grapp want to meet with Harry, even given the tremendous bias that Los Angeles FBI agents expressed about Harry? Simple -- if Wesley Grapp had previous knowledge about Harry Dean, from Chicago FBI files, then he knew more about Harry Dean than any Los Angeles FBI agent ever knew.

4. You ask if I "honestly believe that FBI Special Agents just willy-nilly traveled around the country and inserted themselves into local matters at any field office of their choosing." Well, Wesley Swearingen, a former FBI Agent, says in his book that he did exactly that. So, it's not hard to imagine at all.

What you call "common sense," Ernie, really seems to be nothing more than a rigid, bureaucratic fixation.

5. When I say that local field offices were "decentralized," I'm referring to the writings of Wes Swearingen. I don't need to contact him (further than I have) to double-check what he clearly published in black and white.

For example, contrary to your rigid, bureaucratic fixation in which an FBI agent would never give money to an FBI Informant without proper paperwork cleared with FBI Headquarters, Wesley Swearingen clearly stated that FBI Agents would reguarly give money to local Informers -- and as long as the amount was under $400 a month, they didn't need to even tell FBI Headquarters about it!

So, that's a complete contradiction of your claim, Ernie, and that's from Wes Swearingen himself, in his book To Kill a President, chapter 39.

Also, even though Wesley Swearingen said that FBI SAC's never performed field work, Wesley Grapp was not always a SAC!

6. Also, as for Empirical Evidence -- I base all my theories on Empirical Evidence -- yet I know that Empirical Evidence is generally much larger than most people presume that it is. (That's why I keep an open mind about my theories.)

You like to say you use Empirical Evidence, Ernie, but you jump to conclusions with only a little bit of Empirical Evidence -- and you don't wait until you've see all the Empirical Evidence. That's the major flaw in your methodology.

WIth utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

1. I do not mind if you make honest mistakes (as I have written here before).

2. What I mind is your constant snotty and false and arrogant adverse assumptions about my character, integrity, motives, and intellectual ability...

<snip>

Ernie, you have a lot of nerve to call anybody else "snotty," You yourself are one of the most insulting writers I've ever seen on the Internet.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

If you GENUINELY want a PRINCIPLED and POLITE discussion --- then STOP disseminating abject falsehoods like the ones I have repeatedly identified during the course of this thread.

I have no problem whatsoever with you writing something like this:

"Ernie, my interpretation of this particular matter is different from yours and here is why" -- then provide your specific argument BUT WITH DOCUMENTATION --- not just your personal opinions, speculations, and nasty insinuations.

When you do not have any verifiable factual evidence -- then you should simply state that fact, i.e. something like this: "My personal opinion or speculation is...." (fill in the blanks here) and then acknowledge that you DO NOT have any specific fact-based evidence to support your statement.

EXAMPLE:

1. You could write "My personal opinion is that J. Edgar Hoover probably thought the Birch Society was un-American".

2. But you should NOT boldly declare (as if it was factually true) that in 1959 Hoover stated that the JBS was "un-American" UNLESS you have a specific piece of verifiable evidence to support your claim such as:

* a copy of a newspaper or magazine article (and then give us the bibliographic citation), or

* a copy of a Hoover speech, (and give us the title and date) or

* a transcript of testimony before a Congressional Committee (and identify the hearing or report title and date) or

* a copy of a letter Hoover wrote to someone, (and give us the date and addressee name and where you found it) or

* a copy of an oral history transcript (and tell us where it is located), or

* an FBI document you obtained through FOIA or which is reproduced on a webpage somewhere (and give us the file/serial number or a link to the webpage).

3. You may not want to acknowledge this (to save face), but MOST of your comments in this thread regarding Robert Welch, the Birch Society, Welch's manuscript "The Politician" and its publishing history, the JBS position (during its formative years) regarding our Presidents, and what Edwin Walker taught his troops through his "Pro-Blue" program --- are either outright falsehoods or grossly distorted and bear little resemblance to factual reality. [And I am not even getting into all of your libelous falsehoods regarding what I believe or what my position is with respect to the FBI, Hoover, or the JBS.]

4. My experience with you in this thread over these past 6 or 8 months has been that politely bringing your attention to your egregious errors does NOT produce any admission by you of your mistakes.

5. UNLESS AND UNTIL you demonstrate some respect for facts -- there is no reason for anyone to accept that you are a principled or honorable antagonist.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

...Now -- with respect to your absurdity that:

"Just because Grapp wasn't assigned to the Los Angeles FBI until March 1964, that in no way precludes the possibility of Grapp traveling to Los Angeles from Miami."

Any human being can travel to a location away from where he lives and works. But your comment reveals the absurd lengths your mind is prepared to go in order to pretend that Harry's narrative is credible. But I will play this game with you for a moment. Let's proceed.

1. Grapp decides to visit the Los Angeles area from Miami where he lives and works.

2. How would Grapp even know about the existence of Harry Dean?

3. Why would Grapp want to meet with Harry -- given the evaluation of the Los Angeles field office Agents who were most knowledgeable about Harry?

4. Do you honestly believe that FBI Special Agents just willy-nilly traveled around the country and inserted themselves into local matters at any field office of their choosing, i.e. they decided to travel across country, spend a day or two talking with somebody they've never heard of, and then they returned home to their base of operations? This has nothing to do with what you refer to as "FBI procedure". It is just common sense. [Go back to question #2 above]

5. What does your "decentralized" comment mean? As Swearingen pointed out, SAC's did NOT perform field work. Did you contact Swearingen and ask him to evaluate your idea, i.e. if it might be possible for a Miami SAC to travel to another territory and meet with someone whom he never has heard of before? If you did ask Swearingen, what was his reply (after he stopped laughing?)

6. Lastly, the entire point of my comment was that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (something you have contempt for) disproves the entire narrative which Harry has presented.

7. Oh wait! I know! There is nothing to "preclude the possibility" that Lee Harvey Oswald traveled to Los Angeles and met with Grapp, Harry Dean, Walker, Hall, Rousselot, and Galbadon and they all "discussed" the forthcoming murder of JFK.

Well, Ernie, your prejudice gets in the way of clear thinking yet again.

THERE YOU GO AGAIN! Just because someone interprets available empirical evidence differently from what you prefer does NOT make them "prejudiced". For example: I do not describe you as "prejudiced" simply because you disagree with me. But if you cannot honestly report or paraphrase what somebody has explicitly written AND honestly address their core arguments --- THEN you ARE prejudiced.

1-2. You ask how Grapp would know about the existence of Harry Dean? For one thing, Wesley Grapp was once an FBI in Chicago, was he not? Further, he was an ambitious FBI agent -- and the big news in Chicago in 1960-1961 was the FPCC in Chicago. Now, even if Wesley Grapp wasn't officially assigned to the FPCC case, there was nothing to keep him from being personally involved, by reading the case files.

OK--this is a great example of what I am trying to get you to focus upon. WHEN was Grapp in Chicago? BE SPECIFIC. What is your source? Don't just boldly assert (or insinuate) something and expect us to accept your word.

Now, with respect to your second sentence -- actually, FBI Agents were compartmentalized and they shared information on a need-to-know basis. So, again, if you have some sort of specific verifiable FACTUAL evidence that Grapp was personally involved with FPCC-related cases OR that he was aware of or interested in Harry -- then share that specific detail with us but DO NOT expect us to accept your SPECULATION just because YOU think it is reasonable to ASSUME what YOU ASSUME.

We see this in the case of former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen (who wrote two books on the topic) who admits that even though he was never assigned to the JFK murder investigation, he still took a personal interest and sought as many internal FBI records on the topic that he could obtain.

FBI Agents in the field did NOT have access to information in HQ files unless they were assigned to work on the specific subjects of those files. In that case, they MIGHT see a HQ summary memorandum or they MIGHT have a phone conversation with the Section Chief or Supervisor responsible for a particular case. Let me give you a specific example of what I am referring to.

While Dan Smoot was still alive, I sent him several letters to inquire about his exposure to FBI HQ information -- particularly with respect to our civil rights movement because of his false statements (parroting the JBS-line) about our civil rights movement being Communist-inspired and Communist-dominated.

Keep in mind that Smoot actually did work on CP matters while he was stationed in Cleveland. He stated in his autobiography that he worked "exclusively on communist investigations" for "3 1/2 years".

HOWEVER, what Smoot does not mention is that he worked on LABOR-RELATED matters (i.e. Communist infiltration of labor unions). He had NO exposure of ANY kind to internal security matters outside of labor-unions! So does THAT make him an expert on our civil rights movement? Of course not! And he NEVER saw any of the HQ summary memos regarding civil rights organizations and their leadership.

Given that Wesley Grapp was at least as ambitious as Wesley Swearingen, then we have no problem considering that Grapp knew about the existence of Harry Dean in 1960-1961 when they both lived in Chicago. Not that they met in Chicago -- but it is at least possible that Wesley Grapp heard about Harry Dean in those days, and possibly read his case files (the ones that were recently destroyed by the Chicago FBI, by their own admission).

I do NOT accept your premise. Again, you are merely speculating (or inventing something in your mind).

BUT, if he did see Harry's case file, he would have noticed right away that the FBI in Chicago rejected Harry after their background check on him so there is no reason to believe that Grapp would have been interested in Harry --- who was just one of MANY people who contact every field office. The REAL star in the Chicago field office (i.e. security informant) was Morris Childs. Now if Grapp was interested in internal security matters -- he would have focused ALL his attention on Morris because of the exceptional importance of Morris Childs -- our single most important mole (ever!) inside the Communist Party.

So, that answers that question.

3. Now -- why would Grapp want to meet with Harry, even given the tremendous bias that Los Angeles FBI agents expressed about Harry? Simple -- if Wesley Grapp had previous knowledge about Harry Dean, from Chicago FBI files, then he knew more about Harry Dean than any Los Angeles FBI agent ever knew.

Nothing is "simple". FBI Agents do not waste their time on people who are rejected by case agents who are most knowledgeable about that person. Furthermore, IF your supposition was accurate, then there should be some kind of corroboration from some other FBI Agent who worked in Chicago with Grapp but nobody has ever come forward to make such a claim.

4. You ask if I "honestly believe that FBI Special Agents just willy-nilly traveled around the country and inserted themselves into local matters at any field office of their choosing." Well, Wesley Swearingen, a former FBI Agent, says in his book that he did exactly that. So, it's not hard to imagine at all.

I don't think Swearingen said what you claim but I will reconsider my statement if YOU QUOTE him not just attribute a comment or position to him.

What you call "common sense," Ernie, really seems to be nothing more than a rigid, bureaucratic fixation.

What you describe as a "rigid bureaucratic fixation" is another one of your snotty remarks designed to de-value factual evidence which contradicts what you prefer to believe. As I have said about a dozen times, ANYBODY can INVENT an "explanation" which might, superficially appear plausible. The essence of FICTION is to combine vivid imagination with occasional kernels of truth in such a way to advance a fictional plot narrative.

5. When I say that local field offices were "decentralized," I'm referring to the writings of Wes Swearingen. I don't need to contact him (further than I have) to double-check what he clearly published in black and white.

So, you are stating that you rely upon ONE and ONLY ONE source. That certainly gives us a window into your methodology. I suggest you go back several hundred messages ago where I discussed former Special Agent Jack Levine's 1962 comment about what he claimed were the number of FBI informants inside the Communist Party. If somebody like you relied upon what he "published in black and white" you would have been TOTALLY WRONG simply because you did not rely upon more than one source AND you did not investigate Levine's employment history to discover that he never had access to the type of information he claimed to be knowledgeable about.

For example, contrary to your rigid, bureaucratic fixation in which an FBI agent would never give money to an FBI Informant without proper paperwork cleared with FBI Headquarters, Wesley Swearingen clearly stated that FBI Agents would reguarly give money to local Informers -- and as long as the amount was under $400 a month, they didn't need to even tell FBI Headquarters about it!

Again, you just deliberately misrepresented what I have clearly written. Do you NEVER STOP THIS crap? And you are mistaken about the monthly amount and more importantly the KEY factor -- whether or not there were ongoing payments as opposed to (for example) one or two specialized payments for specific information considered valuable. This is another example of why I do NOT believe you are are honorable or principled person because you CONTINUALLY attribute positions or beliefs to me which are NOT factually accurate.

So, that's a complete contradiction of your claim, Ernie, and that's from Wes Swearingen himself, in his book To Kill a President, chapter 39.

ONE example from ONE book and ONE person is not reliable evidence. First, one has to understand the specific circumstances including what type of informant was involved (criminal, racial, ghetto, security, etc.) and what type of information was being paid for and for how long a period. If you want a BETTER (and more factual understanding), you should review the Church Committee hearings regarding FBI informants OR you could review the ACTUAL instructions which field offices were sent from FBI HQ regarding how to get authorization for an informant, how to pay an informant, and what kinds of paperwork and monitoring and approvals and evaluations were required.

Also, even though Wesley Swearingen said that FBI SAC's never performed field work, Wesley Grapp was not always a SAC!

Non-sequitir because at the time Harry (and you) claim Harry met with Grapp, he WAS a SAC.

6. Also, as for Empirical Evidence -- I base all my theories on Empirical Evidence -- yet I know that Empirical Evidence is generally much larger than most people presume that it is. (That's why I keep an open mind about my theories.)

You like to say you use Empirical Evidence, Ernie, but you jump to conclusions with only a little bit of Empirical Evidence -- and you don't wait until you've see all the Empirical Evidence. That's the major flaw in your methodology.

DEFINE "LITTLE BIT" in metric terms !

For example: prior to my sharing Harry's HQ and Los Angeles field office documents with you, YOU had seen NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE regarding Harry's relationship with the FBI. NONE WHATSOEVER!

NOBODY EVER SEES "ALL THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE". This is another example of your attempt to dismiss and de-value the significance of what is available by PRETENDING that there is some huge amount of materially important data out there (SOMEWHERE) even though you do not have ONE DAMN CLUE about ANYTHING that actually exists! It is ENTIRELY a FABRICATION of your mind.

Prior to me posting them online, you had seen NONE of Harry's letters to the FBI or to JFK or to Hoover -- right? So, I had seen 100% of that evidence whereas you had seen ZERO%.

And prior to me scanning and posting online Harry's letters to the Los Angeles field office, you had seen NONE of that -- right? Whereas I had seen 100%

Nevertheless you have the GALL to accuse me of relying upon "a little bit" of the evidence.

OK -- let's settle this once and for all Paul.

(1) 100% represents every document that ever existed concerning Harry Dean and his story.

(2) Tell everyone reading this thread, PRECISELY how much of that 100% still exists since you claim to know about everything in existence (which allows you to determine through calculation what constitutes "a little bit" of that whole.)

(3) Then tell everyone reading this thread, PRECISELY how much (i.e. what percentage of that total universe of documentary evidence) you have seen as of Thursday, April 17, 2014

(4) THEN tell everyone reading this thread PRECISELY how much (i.e what percentage of that total universe of documentary evidence) you think I have seen as of Thursday, April 17, 2014.

FOR EXAMPLE:

1. Let's suppose that you think that there were originally 10,000 pages of documentary evidence pertaining to Harry.

SO....how many pages still exist somewhere?

2. And how many pages do you estimate that you have seen of that 10,000 pages?

3, And how many pages do you estimate that I have seen of that 10,000 pages?

WIth utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

My replies appear underneath your comments.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Over the past seven months I've found this thread to be enormously informative in my quest to identify the murderers of JFK.

I especially appreciate the efforts of Paul Bancato and the scholarhip of Larry Hancock in this regard; they have made me re-think the priorities of the players involved in the murder of JFK. I'm now willing to grant the CIA a larger role in the JFK plot than I ever have before.

Harry Dean's memoirs remain valuable in my evolving theory, which still emphasizes Ex-General Edwin Walker more than any other theory I've ever seen. Yet my opinion of Harry Dean's memoirs has also changed over these several months.

Harry Dean's eBook, which we published six months ago on Smashwords, has been compromised by a key omission -- namely, the verifiable names of the Los Angeles FBI agents to whom Harry Dean first confessed.

In my eBook notes, I wrote down the name of FBI SAC Wesley Grapp, and that is probably false for 1963, and still in doubt for 1964. Harry Dean and I are in the process of locating relevant FBI records.

It may turn out that Harry Dean spoke with Wesley Grapp at a later in 1964 than my notes recorded. In any case, our eBook has been compromised by these factors -- which are central to the plot of our eBook.

Therefore, our eBook must be re-written, and it is no longer for sale at Smashwords (because of these factual changes).

The next version of our eBook will be nearly identical to the current version, with the exception of these factual identifications -- so central to the plot. It will also have a full Appendix of FBI records to confirm the dates, places and events in Harry Dean's actual story (which remains very different from the story told by W.R. Morris still in circulation today).

Finally, when our new eBook is ready for publication, those who purchased our original eBook will receive, upon request, a special voucher for the price they originally paid towards our new eBook.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Update re: My FOIA Requests For Cross-Reference Serials Pertaining To Harry

I have started to receive individual serials which are shown on "search slips" in Harry's Los Angeles and HQ files.

Readers may recall that in a previous message, I pointed out that one batch of cross-referenced serials which were listed on one of Harry's search slips were coded "NI?" --- which means, at the time the Name Check Unit prepared the search slip, they had no way of knowing if the "Harry Dean" shown in FBI indexes was the same Harry Dean as the one we are discussing.

Today, I received one of those cross-reference serials and it turns out that this particular serial (dated May 3, 1923) was about a crime spree (a robbery at a Post Office and a bank) involving several individuals, one of whom was named Harry Dean -- although, obviously, not our Harry Dean.

About half of the other cross-reference serials which I requested have produced letters from the FBI stating that they have been transferred to NARA. And another 3 or 4 were destroyed many years ago.

I still have about 15 pending FOIA requests on Harry-related subjects (consisting of specific files such as on FPCC and JURE and Alpha 66/SNFE) along with specific serials listed on search slips in Harry's files. All the specific serials (not transferred to NARA or destroyed) should be processed within the next 2-3 weeks since they are very small requests (usually 10 pages or less).

[Ernie Lazar]

Over the past seven months I've found this thread to be enormously informative in my quest to identify the murderers of JFK.

I especially appreciate the efforts of Paul Bancato and the scholarhip of Larry Hancock in this regard; they have made me re-think the priorities of the players involved in the murder of JFK. I'm now willing to grant the CIA a larger role in the JFK plot than I ever have before.

Harry Dean's memoirs remain valuable in my evolving theory, which still emphasizes Ex-General Edwin Walker more than any other theory I've ever seen. Yet my opinion of Harry Dean's memoirs has also changed over these several months.

Harry Dean's eBook, which we published six months ago on Smashwords, has been compromised by a key omission -- namely, the verifiable names of the Los Angeles FBI agents to whom Harry Dean first confessed.

In my eBook notes, I wrote down the name of FBI SAC Wesley Grapp, and that is probably false for 1963, and still in doubt for 1964. Harry Dean and I are in the process of locating relevant FBI records.

It may turn out that Harry Dean spoke with Wesley Grapp at a later in 1964 than my notes recorded. In any case, our eBook has been compromised by these factors -- which are central to the plot of our eBook.

Therefore, our eBook must be re-written, and it is no longer for sale at Smashwords (because of these factual changes).

The next version of our eBook will be nearly identical to the current version, with the exception of these factual identifications -- so central to the plot. It will also have a full Appendix of FBI records to confirm the dates, places and events in Harry Dean's actual story (which remains very different from the story told by W.R. Morris still in circulation today).

Finally, when our new eBook is ready for publication, those who purchased our original eBook will receive, upon request, a special voucher for the price they originally paid towards our new eBook.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I guess this is what Paul described in message #869 (3/12/14) on page 58 of this thread as the "minor edits" required --- and then again in message #897 (page 60) as:

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

[Ernie Lazar]

STILL WAITING FOR PAUL TREJO TO EXPLAIN THE METHODOLOGY HE USED IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT HIS CONCLUSION -- COPIED BELOW FROM HIS RECENT MESSAGE #1043:

"You like to say you use Empirical Evidence, Ernie, but you jump to conclusions with only a little bit of Empirical Evidence -- and you don't wait until you've see all the Empirical Evidence. That's the major flaw in your methodology."

MY REPLY TO PAUL'S MESSAGE #1043

DEFINE "LITTLE BIT" in metric terms !

For example: prior to my sharing Harry's HQ and Los Angeles field office documents with you, YOU had seen NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE regarding Harry's relationship with the FBI.

NONE WHATSOEVER!

NOBODY EVER SEES "ALL THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE". This is another example of your attempt to dismiss and de-value the significance of what is available by PRETENDING that there is some huge amount of materially important data out there (SOMEWHERE) even though you do not have ONE DAMN CLUE about ANYTHING that actually exists! It is ENTIRELY a FABRICATION of your mind.

Prior to me posting them online, you had seen NONE of Harry's letters to the FBI or to JFK or to Hoover -- right? So, I had seen 100% of that evidence whereas you had seen ZERO%.

And prior to me scanning and posting online Harry's letters to the Los Angeles field office, you had seen NONE of that -- right? Whereas I had seen 100%

Nevertheless you have the GALL to accuse me of relying upon "a little bit" of the evidence.

OK -- let's settle this once and for all Paul.

(1) 100% represents every document that ever existed concerning Harry Dean and his story.

(2) Tell everyone reading this thread, PRECISELY how much of that 100% still exists since you claim to know about everything in existence (which allows you to determine through calculation what constitutes "a little bit" of that whole.)

(3) Then tell everyone reading this thread, PRECISELY how much (i.e. what percentage of that total universe of documentary evidence) you have seen as of Thursday, April 17, 2014

(4) THEN tell everyone reading this thread PRECISELY how much (i.e what percentage of that total universe of documentary evidence) you think I have seen as of Thursday, April 17, 2014.

FOR EXAMPLE:

1. Let's suppose that you think that there were originally 10,000 pages of documentary evidence pertaining to Harry.

SO....how many pages still exist somewhere?

2. And how many pages do you estimate that you have seen of that 10,000 pages?

3, And how many pages do you estimate that I have seen of that 10,000 pages?

Edited April 21, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Another example of how FALSE information is spread through the internet:

This evening I came across an opinion article authored by the New York Daily News columnist, Stanley Crouch.

See: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/america-ugly-age-greed-fraud-article-1.1761488

In particular, notice this comment by Crouch because it is so reminiscent of Paul Trejo's methodology of making bold assertions without one scintilla of verifiable factual evidence to support his beliefs. I sent an email to Crouch to ask him to identify his source for his following comment. I predict that if he answers my inquiry -- he will NOT be able to identify ANY source -- because Fred Koch was NEVER "second in charge" of anything at the JBS!

"Remember that the Koch brothers are the children of the man who was second-in-charge of the John Birch Society."

Nevertheless, this is how FICTION begins.