Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Thomas Graves]

Thanks for clarifying that, Ernie.

So when Word Twister Trejo said "deposition," I guess he really meant to say suppository supposition.

--Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

My remarks about the murder of JFK and suspicious charactrers in the John Birch Society (JBS) have clearly hit a sensitive note with those who would say anything to protect the name of these pseudo-patriots.

Yet the JBS have cleary taken McCarthyism to its extreme point by accusing sitting US Presidents of Communism. The JBS fomented a culture of disloyalty in the USA during the JFK administration, and it is finally time for historians to openly recognize their Un-American hypocrisy in 1963.

Those associated with the Southern California JBS included Congressman John Rousselot, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon.

Those associated with the Louisiana JBS included Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier and Kent Courtney.

Those associated with the Dallas JBS included Ex-General Edwin Walker, H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Lester Logue, Robert Morris, Joseph P. Grinnan, Bernard Weissman, Larrie Schmidt, Robbie Schmidt and Robert Allen Surrey.

It is no accident and no mistake that all of these people were at some point named by the Warren Commission, the FBI, Jim Garrison and/or the HSCA with regard to their investigation of the murder of JFK.

Harry Dean's MEMOIRS, which basically remain unchanged since 1965, have named four of those individuals above in connection with the murder of JFK.

The JBS smells like a stinking fish when a Unified Field Theory of the 1963 murder of JFK is researched properly, and all the evidence is allowed impartially to emerge.

Despite those who would nit-pick at my English grammar, it should be clear that what motivates their criticisms of my position is their own envy of the consistency, the plausibility as well as the originality of my theory.

The pieces are falling together as in no other time in the past half-century. These JBS members are more suspicious now than ever before. The testimony of Silvia Odio and the memoirs of Harry Dean are harmonious. We now have "the proof of the plot."

As time progresses my position -- originally speculative -- will continue to be revealed by history to be correct. Only bias and envy motivate my opposition on this thread. That should be clear to all readers.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit font>

Edited May 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

My remarks about the murder of JFK and suspicious charactrers in the John Birch Society (JBS) have clearly hit a sensitive note with those who would say anything to protect the name of these pseudo-patriots.

Yet the JBS have cleary taken McCarthyism to its extreme point by accusing sitting US Presidents of Communism. The JBS fomented a culture of disloyalty in the USA during the JFK administration, and it is finally time for historians to openly recognize their Un-American hypocrisy in 1963.

Those associated with the Southern California JBS included Congressman John Rousselot, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon.

Those associated with the Louisiana JBS included Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier and Kent Courtney.

Those associated with the Dallas JBS included Ex-General Edwin Walker, H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Lester Logue, Robert Morris, Joseph P. Grinnan, Bernard Weissman, Larrie Schmidt, Robbie Schmidt and Robert Allen Surrey.

It is no accident and no mistake that all of these people were at some point named by the Warren Commission, the FBI, Jim Garrison and/or the HSCA with regard to their investigation of the murder of JFK.

Harry Dean's MEMOIRS, which basically remain unchanged since 1965, have named four of those individuals above in connection with the murder of JFK.

The JBS smells like a stinking fish when a Unified Field Theory of the 1963 murder of JFK is researched properly, and all the evidence is allowed impartially to emerge.

Despite those who would nit-pick at my English grammar, it should be clear that what motivates their criticisms of my position is their own envy of the consistency, the plausibility as well as the originality of my theory.

The pieces are falling together as in no other time in the past half-century. These JBS members are more suspicious now than ever before. The testimony of Silvia Odio and the memoirs of Harry Dean are harmonious. We now have "the proof of the plot."

As time progresses my position -- originally speculative -- will continue to be revealed by history to be correct. Only bias and envy motivate my opposition on this thread. That should be clear to all readers.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

TRANSLATION OF PAUL'S MESSAGE -- WHICH CLEARLY REVEALS HIS MEGALOMANIA:

According to the "logic" employed by Paul Trejo (revealed in the first paragraph of his message)

1. ANY critique of ANY comment ever made by Trejo is indisputable evidence that Trejo's critic(s) are "trying to protect" whomever is mentioned in the critique. [incidentally, this thought process is identical to the process used by Birchers---which is how they developed their concept of "Insiders"].

2. Consequently, there is no possibility that Trejo is, or ever can be, mistaken about any substantive matter---which is why nobody may contradict or correct anything which Trejo writes. [This point is also shared by Birchers. Robert Welch developed a concept which he described as "principle of reversal" to make it impossible to falsify anything which Welch stated.]

3. This explains why I have previously written that conspiracy theorists (like Paul) consciously and deliberately construct self-sealing circular arguments. There is never even the hypothetical possibility of falsifying anything which they believe because their rules of evidence and logic are constructed to make falsification impossible -- which is why they are NOT actually proposing a genuine "theory".

4. Paul also reveals (again) that his mind operates in an IDENTICAL fashion to Birchers. The ONLY difference in the "logic" used by Birchers and that used by Paul is that they identify different villains whom each believes are responsible for "criminal", "un-American" "disloyal" and "treasonous" views and positions.

5. Given political power and (in particular) access to our judicial system, both Birchers and Paul would destroy our civil liberties, open gulags, and arrange show trials whose ultimate purpose would be to murder their perceived political enemies.

6. ALL political conspiracy theorists cannot cope with ambiguity, complexity, incompleteness, contradictions or puzzles. Instead, their minds require order and clarity and tidiness aka "unified field theory" to explain everything -- so they INVENT whatever they need to produce that order and clarity and tidiness so that specific villains can be identified and vanquished. Not surprisingly, the "villains" are ALWAYS their political opponents. It is exceptionally rare for any political conspiracy theory to be developed to explain the behavior or motives of persons thought to be political or philosophical allies who share basic political principles and public policy objectives with the political theorist.

7. Any substantive errors discovered in any political conspiracy theory will always be dismissed or de-valued or ignored by adherents of the theory with words or phrases like "nit-pick", or "minor edits" while attributing dishonorable motives (such as "bias" and "envy") to anybody whom discovers or discusses those substantive errors...The purpose of this ploy is to convey the notion that the conspiracy theorist has a manifestly superior intellect and a superior moral compass which should NEVER be challenged or corrected by lesser beings.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

TRANSLATION OF PAUL'S MESSAGE -- WHICH CLEARLY REVEALS HIS MEGALOMANIA:

According to the "logic" employed by Paul Trejo (revealed in the first paragraph of his message)

1. ANY critique of ANY comment ever made by Trejo is indisputable evidence that Trejo's critic(s) are "trying to protect" whomever is mentioned in the critique. [incidentally, this thought process is identical to the process used by Birchers---which is how they developed their concept of "Insiders"].

2. Consequently, there is no possibility that Trejo is, or ever can be, mistaken about any substantive matter---which is why nobody may contradict or correct anything which Trejo writes. [This point is also shared by Birchers. Robert Welch developed a concept which he described as "principle of reversal" to make it impossible to falsify anything which Welch stated.]

3. This explains why I have previously written that conspiracy theorists (like Paul) consciously and deliberately construct self-sealing circular arguments. There is never even the hypothetical possibility of falsifying anything which they believe because their rules of evidence and logic are constructed to make falsification impossible -- which is why they are NOT actually proposing a genuine "theory".

4. Paul also reveals (again) that his mind operates in an IDENTICAL fashion to Birchers. The ONLY difference in the "logic" used by Birchers and that used by Paul is that they identify different villains whom each believes are responsible for "criminal", "un-American" "disloyal" and "treasonous" views and positions.

5. Given political power and (in particular) access to our judicial system, both Birchers and Paul would destroy our civil liberties, open gulags, and arrange show trials whose ultimate purpose would be to murder their perceived political enemies.

6. ALL political conspiracy theorists cannot cope with ambiguity, complexity, incompleteness, contradictions or puzzles. Instead, their minds require order and clarity and tidiness aka "unified field theory" to explain everything -- so they INVENT whatever they need to produce that order and clarity and tidiness so that specific villains can be identified and vanquished. Not surprisingly, the "villains" are ALWAYS their political opponents. It is exceptionally rare for any political conspiracy theory to be developed to explain the behavior or motives of persons thought to be political or philosophical allies who share basic political principles and public policy objectives with the political theorist.

7. Any substantive errors discovered in any political conspiracy theory will always be dismissed or de-valued or ignored by adherents of the theory with words or phrases like "nit-pick", or "minor edits" while attributing dishonorable motives (such as "bias" and "envy") to anybody whom discovers or discusses those substantive errors...The purpose of this ploy is to convey the notion that the conspiracy theorist has a manifestly superior intellect and a superior moral compass which should NEVER be challenged or corrected by lesser beings.

Actually, Ernie, my messages don't need translation -- they are very clear on their own.

1.0. I can tolerate any legitimate and logical criticism of my theory -- however, your criticisms are shallow and sophomoric.

1.1. Your self-contradictory defense of these neo-Fascist Birchers and your attempts to link my arguments with Bircher arguments merely betrays the weakness of your approach.

2.0. I'm always open to solid arguments, Ernie -- but you've offered nearly none. Your arguments are consistently weak.

2.1. Years ago you claimed that there were no FBI records about Harry Dean. Today, after hundreds of pages of FBI records on Harry Dean have been identified, you scramble to justify your old bias. It's pathetic.

2.1. Most recently you quoted KKK writer, Keith Gilbert here, in order to show that "there are many examples of 'plots' which mention Oswald but which did NOT mention one word about Walker, Rousselot, Welch, Galbadon, or the JBS." In doing so, you stepped in cow manure, because you missed the fact that Keith Gilbert repeats two key elements from Harry Dean's story: (1) that Loran Hall knew Lee Harvey Oswald; and (2) that both men were associated with the Southern California Minutemen.

2.2. FBI records clearly link Loran Hall with the John Birch Society -- so you are caught in a major blunder -- but you STILL refuse to admit when you're wrong! LOL.

3.0. My arguments aren't self-sealing -- I'm open to valid arguments, yet you have presented nearly none. That's the first problem. The second problem is that when I show the several fallacies in your amateur logic, you refuse to admit that you were mistaken.

3.1. If anybody is self-sealing here, Ernie, it's clearly yourself.

4.0. By trying to link me with the Birchers, Ernie, you show the weakness of your hand. You're here to defend the Birchers, and also to deny the fact that you're defending them. You resemble nothing so much as their paid shill.

4.1. Don't pretend that nobody at all is responsible for "criminal", "un-American" "disloyal" and "treasonous" views and positions, Ernie -- because anybody who claims that US Presidents were Communist is clearly disloyal to the USA.

5.0. I believe in Freedom and the US Constitution -- and in loyalty to these. The 1963 JBS was manifestly composed of neo-Fascists, and they evidently overstepped their legal boundaries insofar as they knowingly supported criminals who intended to murder JFK.

5.1. These criminals need to be brought to Justice. That's a good old American virtue.

6.0. I cope very well with ambiguity, complexity, incompleteness, contradictions and puzzles. But people like you, Ernie, who begin sentences with abstract universal terms, like "ALL Theorists" as you often do, are clearly challenged with regard to nuanced thinking -- you're so one-sided that it's actually silly.

7.0. The facts show, Ernie, that your arguments amount to minor complaints, nit-picking, bias and envy. That is intuitively obvious to the impartial reader here.

7.1. This is no ploy, Ernie -- and so until you finally present a worthwhile argument, I'm going to keep rebuking your cantankerous posts.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

TRANSLATION OF PAUL'S MESSAGE -- WHICH CLEARLY REVEALS HIS MEGALOMANIA:

According to the "logic" employed by Paul Trejo (revealed in the first paragraph of his message)

1. ANY critique of ANY comment ever made by Trejo is indisputable evidence that Trejo's critic(s) are "trying to protect" whomever is mentioned in the critique. [incidentally, this thought process is identical to the process used by Birchers---which is how they developed their concept of "Insiders"].

2. Consequently, there is no possibility that Trejo is, or ever can be, mistaken about any substantive matter---which is why nobody may contradict or correct anything which Trejo writes. [This point is also shared by Birchers. Robert Welch developed a concept which he described as "principle of reversal" to make it impossible to falsify anything which Welch stated.]

3. This explains why I have previously written that conspiracy theorists (like Paul) consciously and deliberately construct self-sealing circular arguments. There is never even the hypothetical possibility of falsifying anything which they believe because their rules of evidence and logic are constructed to make falsification impossible -- which is why they are NOT actually proposing a genuine "theory".

4. Paul also reveals (again) that his mind operates in an IDENTICAL fashion to Birchers. The ONLY difference in the "logic" used by Birchers and that used by Paul is that they identify different villains whom each believes are responsible for "criminal", "un-American" "disloyal" and "treasonous" views and positions.

5. Given political power and (in particular) access to our judicial system, both Birchers and Paul would destroy our civil liberties, open gulags, and arrange show trials whose ultimate purpose would be to murder their perceived political enemies.

6. ALL political conspiracy theorists cannot cope with ambiguity, complexity, incompleteness, contradictions or puzzles. Instead, their minds require order and clarity and tidiness aka "unified field theory" to explain everything -- so they INVENT whatever they need to produce that order and clarity and tidiness so that specific villains can be identified and vanquished. Not surprisingly, the "villains" are ALWAYS their political opponents. It is exceptionally rare for any political conspiracy theory to be developed to explain the behavior or motives of persons thought to be political or philosophical allies who share basic political principles and public policy objectives with the political theorist.

7. Any substantive errors discovered in any political conspiracy theory will always be dismissed or de-valued or ignored by adherents of the theory with words or phrases like "nit-pick", or "minor edits" while attributing dishonorable motives (such as "bias" and "envy") to anybody whom discovers or discusses those substantive errors...The purpose of this ploy is to convey the notion that the conspiracy theorist has a manifestly superior intellect and a superior moral compass which should NEVER be challenged or corrected by lesser beings.

Actually, Ernie, my messages don't need translation -- they are very clear on their own.

1.0. I can tolerate any legitimate and logical criticism of my theory -- however, your criticisms are shallow and sophomoric.

Just another example of how you attempt to de-legimitize all criticism by using pejorative descriptive terms like "shallow and sophomoric".

Nevertheless, it has been my criticisms (and my research) which has revealed major substantive errors in both your eBook and in Harry's narrative. Nothing in this thread or in your eBook (which you ultimately acknowledged to be erroneous or in need of "minor edits") was ever discovered as a result of your research. Instead, you had to be dragged kicking and screaming into recognizing obvious mistakes and inconsistencies. And there will be more in the future when I present additional information from my research.

1.1. Your self-contradictory defense of the Birchers and your attempts to link my arguments with Bircher arguments merely betrays the weakness of your tactics.

Translation: Paul is incapable of recognizing the similarities between his thought process and the process used by Birchers (or other political extremists).

And, once again, Paul cannot distinguish between someone correcting his profound mistakes versus somebody creating a "defense of the Birchers".

In Paul's scheme of things, facts or truth do not matter. The ONLY thing which matters to Paul is relentless and omnipresent hostility toward every person and every group Paul does not like. Paul prefers cartoon caricatures ("good guys" vs "bad guys"). This truly is an example of Paul's "shallow and sophomoric" mentality.

2.0. I'm always open to solid arguments, Ernie -- but you've offered nearly none. Your arguments are consistently weak.

Nobody believes you Paul. Nobody comes to your defense here. Nobody knowledgeable about Harry's story cites it as credible or even worthy of further research.

2.1. Years ago you claimed that there were no FBI records about Harry Dean. Today, hundreds of pages of FBI records later, you scramble to justify your old bias. It's pathetic.

I never made the claim which you attribute to me. You are a chronic, habitual, pathological xxxx -- which is why you never QUOTE what I have written -- because you know if you did, everybody would immediately recognize your deliberate LIES.

Unlike yourself, I always QUOTE what you write - and I frequently identify the specific page and message number where your comment can be found.

For anybody who wants to see what I actually wrote (as contrasted with Paul's DELIBERATE LIE), see page 9 of this thread, message #123 - here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4269&page=9&hl=ernie1241#entry194732

2.1. Most recently you quoted KKK writer, Keith Gilbert here, in order to show that "there are many examples of 'plots' which mention Oswald but which did NOT mention one word about Walker, Rousselot, Welch, Galbadon, or the JBS." In doing so, you stepped in cow manure, because you missed the fact that Keith Gilbert repeats two key elements from Harry Dean's story: (1) that Loran Hall knew Lee Harvey Oswald; and (2) that both men were associated with the Southern California Minutemen.

You still miss the point (probably deliberately). There is no "fact" in Keith Gilbert's message. There are only his unproven anecdotal comments concerning an alleged conversation he had with Dennis Mower.

Gilbert subsequently told a police department interviewer that he had NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE concerning whether or not Oswald was involved with southern California Minutemen. Your standard procedure is to cite ANY source and then claim that the source is credible.

That is why you consistently present FALSEHOODS -- which even "intelligent and courageous" (your words) Wesley Swearingen characterized as "fiction".

2.2. FBI records clearly link Loran Hall with the John Birch Society -- so you are caught in a major blunder -- but you STILL refuse to admit when you're wrong! LOL.

I challenged you to QUOTE what I have written about Loran Hall in order to illustrate what you refer to as my alleged "blunder". You refuse to QUOTE anything I have written about Hall because, once again, you are deliberately LYING.

3.0. My arguments aren't self-sealing -- I'm open to valid arguments, and you have nearly none. That's the first problem. The second problem is when I show the fallacies in your amateur logic, you refuse to admit you were mistaken.

You have never demonstrated any deficiencies in either my logic or in my evidence. Instead, (as one example) you devoted thousands of words to INVENT a story about Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover which ultimately was proven to be a complete HOAX.

You dismissed all of my questions concerning the authenticity of the "short version" of that letter (which Bill Kelly presented) and you dismissed my analysis which inquired into what advantage for the FBI or disadvantage to Harry would even hypothetically be possible if the FBI wanted to "forge" such a letter and then claim that it was written by Harry. Instead, your entire approach to that dispute was to merely parrot every word which Harry told you because you are NOT CAPABLE of analyzing disputed evidence.

In that case, I presented "valid arguments" and NON-fallacious logic --- but YOU preferred to create from whole cloth your elaborate psychiatric HOAX --- because your intellect is so atrophied that you cannot interpret evidence correctly.

You also presented as factual, every word which Harry told you regarding Harry's alleged "meetings" with Wesley Grapp in September 1963. That, too, was a HOAX which you authored.

By contrast, you have never once provided any verifiable factual evidence to falsify what I have presented. The ONLY thing you have EVER done is make assumptions, unsubstantiated allegations, wild suppositions, or concoct deliberate LIES --- such as your statement above regarding my "blunder" with respect to Loran Hall or your previous DELIBERATE LIE when you accused me of "misrepresenting your position" that you and/or Harry had "proof" or "final proof" regarding Harry's meetings with Grapp.

3.1. If anybody is self-sealing here, Ernie, it's clearly yourself.

You obviously do not even understand the meaning of self-sealing. Anybody can falsify ANYTHING which I have written simply by presenting verifiable factual evidence.

I have nothing invested in Harry's story (as you do), nor am I invested in defending the FBI or the Birch Society nor do I have any interest in protecting ANY other source. But facts matter. I cannot agree with your LIES just because I do not like somebody who is the object of your LIE. I have spent my entire adult lifetime criticizing the Birch Society.

In fact, I am the ONLY person who has ever used sources of information which the JBS itself has recommended to its readers as credible and authoritative sources (such as FBI, HUAC, SISS, and conservative authors whose writings are recommended by the JBS) to refute the core ideological beliefs of the JBS -- which is what enrages the JBS so much about my anti-JBS online reports and writings. THAT is why one JBS member sent me an email stating that I was "worse than Al Qaeda".

No Bircher cares ONE WHIT about anything Paul Trejo has ever written. No Bircher cares ONE WHIT about anything which Harry Dean has said or written. The reason is because Birchers know that NOBODY believes Paul or Harry!

And the primary reason why nobody believes either Paul or Harry is because neither of them has ANY verifiable documentary evidence to support their statements and assertions. Which is why Paul's eBook contains...

* NOT ONE footnote

* NOT ONE bibliographic citation

* NOT ONE notarized affidavit

* NOT ONE oral history transcript

* NOT ONE email text

* NOT ONE transcript of a tape recording (audio or video)

* NOT ONE scanned copy of a letter or postcard

* NOT ONE document obtained through FOIA requests

BY CONTRAST: Whatever Paul or Harry or a Bircher or anybody else thinks about me or about my messages/debates, or my online reports, there is one INDISPUTABLE FACT, i.e. I have presented HUNDREDS OF PAGES of heavily documented material -- including:

* scanned copies of private correspondence not available anywhere else

* scanned copies of documents which have never previously been publicly available

* voluminous bibliographic references so that any interested party may pursue data which interests them

THAT is why scores of well known historians, sociologists, political scientists, and authors have contacted me over the years (including JFK conspiracy theorists!) to request my assistance with their research and/or request copies of documents or correspondence in my possession

CAN PAUL TREJO SAY THE SAME?

4.0. By trying to link me with the Birchers, Ernie, you show the weakness of your hand. You're here to defend the Birchers, and also to deny the fact that you're defending them. You resemble nothing so much as their paid shill.

You cannot escape the obvious similarities between you and the JBS by accusing me of something which is so preposterous that nobody on this planet believes you -- least of all the JBS!

4.1. Don't pretend that nobody at all is responsible for "criminal", "un-American" "disloyal" and "treasonous" views and positions, Ernie -- because anybody who claims that US Presidents were Communist is clearly disloyal to the USA.

Which is why intelligent rational Americans must be on guard against political extremists of all stripes -- including people like yourself who are just as dangerous as the JBS is because all political extremists use the same type of "logic".

5.0. I believe in Freedom and US Constitution -- and in loyalty to these. The JBS is evidently composed of neo-Fascists, and they evidently overstepped their legal boundaries insofar as they knowingly supported criminals who intended to murder JFK.

Every political extremist in our nation's history has claimed to believe in freedom and the U.S. Constitution. If you consult the bylaws of KKK groups and neo-fascist organizations such as National Renaissance Party, you will readily discover that they ALL claim to believe in freedom and the US Constitution

No serious person believes the JBS is "composed of neo-fascists" -- not even the most severe academic critics of the JBS nor its traditional enemies (such as ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center and People For The American Way) / Many of the officers and writers for these organizations are Jewish. [For an accurate description of the JBS, see Samuel Brenner's 2009 doctoral dissertation.]

Again, this reveals your total profound ignorance about JBS ideology and demographics and your inability to make rational distinctions --- plus your preference for cartoon caricatures.

First of all, the JBS believes that all forms of collectivism (fascism, nazism, communism, socialism, liberalism, fabianism, etc.) belong on the LEFT side of the political spectrum and they describe ALL left-wing persons and groups in hostile terms. See, for example, the Birch Society's 4-volume "Biographical Dictionary of the Left" which excoriates virtually every left-of-center person and group and movement in 20th century American history.

Second, when you research what ACTUAL neo-fascists in our history thought about the JBS during the 1960's and 1970's -- you will discover that they uniformly despised the JBS--particularly when they discovered that the JBS could not be infiltrated and manipulated into adopting their views and goals. Just like Communists despised "liberals" and "reformers" and "democratic socialists".

Third, no genuine "neo-fascist" organization in our nation's history has ever attracted as members, as officers, and as writers and speakers, hundreds of minorities (including Jews, African-Americans, hispanics, asians, etc).

IN FACT -- off the top of my head, I cannot think of any fascist or neo-fascist or neo-nazi organization in our history which has accepted ethnic or racial minorities as members. And they certainly did not knowingly accept any Jew!

BY CONTRAST: the Birch Society has David Eisenberg on its National Council and there are several rabbis who have joined or endorsed the JBS over the years -- not to mention that many of the most prominent and prolific JBS writers and speakers and Chapter and Section Leaders have been Jewish -- such as Gary Allen and Alan Stang and Samuel Blumenfeld and Andy Dlinn.

IN FACT -- in the mid-1960's, JBS members created "The Jewish Society of Americanists" with chapters around the country (although primarily in New York and Los Angeles). The Chairman was Joseph Siegel (Colorado Springs CO) and the Vice-Chairman was Samuel Blumenfeld (who was on JBS Speakers Bureau for several decades) and W.C. Solomon was Executive Secretary. The National Advisory Council of JSA included: Dr. Barney Finkel, Michael S. Kogan, Georgia Gabor, Mildred Kaplan.

No serious rational person believes that Jews would ever consider joining, much less become officers of, any pro-fascist organization.

5.1. These criminals need to be brought to Justice. That's a good old American virtue.

There is no prosecutor in the U.S. who would even entertain charging anybody of anything based upon what YOU consider "evidence". And any jury would see through your irrational malice instantly.

6.0. I cope very well with ambiguity, complexity, incompleteness, contradictions and puzzles. But people like you, Ernie, who begin sentences with abstract universal terms, like "ALL Theorists" as you often do, are clearly challenged with regard to nuanced thinking -- you're so one-sided that it's actually silly.

You have never presented a "nuanced" thought in the entire history of this thread. Instead you always present us with bogus "either/or" options. You do not even know the meaning of the term "nuance". See (for example) my previous comment in reply to your characterization of the JBS as "neo-fascist".

7.0. The facts show, Ernie, that your arguments amount to minor complaints, nit-picking, bias and envy. That is intuitively obvious to the impartial reader here.

Well, since you appear to be very certain about that -- then why don't you get other readers who agree with your conclusion about me to post messages here supporting your assertion?

I recall at least 5 or 6 messages here which have complimented me (and I have received about a dozen more via private emails). Larry Hancock (whom you claim to respect) complimented me. So, perhaps you need a reality-check regarding your own bias and envy?

7.1. This is no ploy, Ernie -- so until you finally present a solid argument I'm going to keep rebuking your ridiculous posts.

Your definition of "solid argument" is so absurd that nobody bothers to quote your writings anywhere.

No serious person thinks you are a competent researcher or analyst. Your profound errors of fact, analysis, and judgment have convinced everyone here that you are nothing but a shill for Harry Dean -- which is why no academic or knowledgeable author cites anything by you or by Harry as being credible.

The most you will find in the hundreds of JFK-related books is a brief neutral comment which merely summarizes some of Harry's assertions (such as the brief entry on Harry appearing in Michael Benson's 1993 book, "Who's Who in the JFK Assassination". And even that entry is primarily a summary based upon W.R. Morris's mistaken comments about Harry --- such as claiming that Harry was born in Cuba and that he learned of a conspiracy to kill JFK in 1962.)

Other JFK-conspiracy authors dismiss Harry's narrative because neither Harry or yourself has ever presented ANY credible or verifiable evidence. And when Wesley Swearingen went to great lengths to discredit both you and Harry -- the last shred of "respectability" you sought to bring to yourself and Harry disappeared.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

My replies are underneath your absurdities.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

As I was doing some research this evening, I came across this list of everyone who has, over the years, been accused of some sort of involvement in the assassination of JFK. Apparently, this list originated in "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi.

As previously observed, an interested party could spend their entire adult lifetime researching this subject -- and STILL not produce conclusions acceptable to most conspiracy believers.

-----------------------------------------------

1. CIA

2.Organized Crime

3.FBI

4.Secret Service

5.Office of Naval Intelligence

6.KGB (Soviet Union)

7.American Communist

8.Cuba

9.Anti-Casto Cuban Exiles

10.Germany

11.U.S. Army

12.Military Industrial Complex (The joint Chiefs of Staff and leaders of American Business, particularly the defense industry)

13. Dallas Police Department

14. Dallas County Sheriff Department

15. Dallas Morning News

16. Texas Oilman

17.Internatioal Banking Cabal

18. Illuminati

19. Majesty TWELVE( MJ12), the secret shadow government of the U.S.

20. Minutemen

21. Dallas oligarchy (wealthy civic leaders in Dallas who are believed to rule the city)

22. Right Wing in America

23. Mossad (Israeli intelligence agency)

24. Government of South Vietnam

25. Red China

26. Nationalist China

27. Poland

28. Anti-Defamation League

29. French OAS

30. Renegade members of Hitler's elite staff who fled Germany after WW2

31. Republican Party of Omaha

32. Mayor Daley machine of Chicago

33. Catholic Church

34. U.S. Department of Agriculture

35. Forces behind the 1964 U.S.-Belgian rescue operation in the Congo

36. Martians and Venusians

37. American Council of Christian Churches

38.Exziled czarist Russians

39. Eastern establishment

40. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

41. Defense Industrial Security Command

42. U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency

43. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

44. KKK

Accused of Complicity and/or co-conspirator to murder of JFK (at some point at least once...by someone): list incomplete

1. Tony Accardo

2. Dean Andrews

3. Joseph Alsop

4. James Jesus Angleton

5. Bobby Baker

6. Robert "Barnes" Baker

7. Guy Banister

8. W.O. Bankston

9. Benard Baker

10. Charles Batchelor

11. Benjamin Bauman

12. Thomas Beckham

13. Jerry Belknap

14. Paul Bethel

15. Louis M. Bloomfield

16. Hale Boggs

17. Martin Bormann

18. Orlando Bosch

19. George Bouhe

20. Jack Bowen

21. Eugene Hale Brady

22. Edger Eugene Bradley

23. Leslie Norman Bradley

24. "Brother in law"

25. McGeorge Bundy

26. George Bush (Sr.)

27. George Butler

28. Harold Byrd

29. General Charles Cabell

30. Earle Cabell

31. Claude Barnes Capehart

32. Carlos (unknown last name)

33. Alex Carlson

34.Dan Carswell

35. Cliff Carter

36. Lt. Colonel Bevin Cass

37. Luis Castillo

38. Fidel Castro

39. Max Cherry

40. Joe Civello

41. Ed Clark

42.Thomas Clines

43. Joseph R. Cody

44. Roy M. Cohn

45. Lucien Conein

46. John Connally

47. Ramon Cortes

48. Kent Courtney

49. William Crarver

50. John Crawford

51. Robert Crowley

52. Kenneth Hudson Croy

53.Jesse Curry

54. William Dalzell

55.I. Irving Davidson

56. Harry Dean (aka Harry Fallon)

57. Patrick Dean

58. Bill Decker

59. Louise Decker

60. Eladio del Valle

61. John De Mencil

62. George de Mohrenschildt

63. Herminio Diaz

64. Joe DiMaggio

65. Walter Dornberger

66. Robert Eastering

67. Jack Faulkner

68. Fernandez Feito

69. David Ferrie

70. Abe Fortas

71.Will Fritz

72. Maurice Gatlin

73. William Gaudet

74. Sam Giancana

75. G. Wray Gill

76. Manual Garcia Gonzales

77. T. Gonzales

78. William Greer

79. Peter Gregory

80. Antoine Guerini

81. Billy James Hargis.

82. Roy Hargraves

83. William "Blackie" Harrison

84. William Harvey

85. Richard Helmes

86. Gerald Patrick Hemming

87. Jim Hicks

88. Jimmy Hoffa

89.Chauncy Holt

90. J. Edger Hoover

91. Lawrence Howard

92. David Hoy

93. Patrick Hoy

94. Howard Hughes

95. E. Howard Hunt

96. H.L. Hunt

97. Morris Jaffe

98. Walter Jenkins

99. Lyndon Baines Johnson

100. Mr. Jones (fake name)

101. Clarence Jones

102. Clifford Jones

103. Sam Kail

104. Roy Kellerman

105. Nikita Khrushchev

106. Jules Ricco Kimble

107. Pat Kirkwood

108. Fred Korth

109. Jake Kosloff

110. Valeriy Kostikov

111. Larry LaBorde

112. Ed Lansdale

113. Myer Lansky

114. Richard Lauchli

115. Jack Lawrence

116. Yves Leandez

117. James Melvin Liggett

118. Gilberto Policarpo Lopez

119. Grayston Lynch

120. Quinton Pino Machado

121. General John Magruder

122. Robert Maheu

123. George Mandel (aka Giogio Mantello)

124. Amos Manor

125. Carlos Marcello

126. Layton Martens

127. Jack Martin

128. John Martino

129. Rolando Masferrer

130. John McCloy

131. John McCone

132. Carl McIntire

133. Robert Mckeown

134. Mike McLaney

135. Gordon Mclendon

136. Jim McMahon

137. I.J. McWillie

138. Major General John B. Medaris

139. I.D. Miller

140. Joseph Milteer

141.William Monteleone

142. David Sanchez Morales

143. Clint Murchison

144. Ferenc Nagy

145. Madame Nhu

146. Richard Nixon

147. Gorgen Noval

148. Dr. Alton Ochsner

149. Ken O'Donnell

150. Harry Olsen

151. Aristotle Onassis

152. Marino Oswald

153. Michael Paine

154. Ruth Paine

155. Kim Philby

156. David Atlee Philips

157. Robert "Tosh" Plumlee

158. Luis Posada

159. James W. Powell

160. Jack Puterbaugh

161. Carlos Quiroga

162. Paul Raigorodsky

163. William Reily

164. Sid Richardson

165. William Robertson

166. Charles Rogers

167. Alexander Rorke

168. Johnny Roselli

169. Eugene Rostow

170. John Rousselot

171. James Rowley

172. Jack Ruby

173. Ruth Ann (last name unknown)

174. Mike Ryan

175. Emilio Santana

176. Felipe Vidal Santiago

177. Saul (Last name unknown)

178. Aldo Vera Seraphine

179. Theodore Shackly

180. Clay Shaw

181. Walter Sheridan

182. Charles Siragusa

183. "Slim"

184. Mr. Smith (fake name)

185. Sergio Arcacha Smith

186. Carlos Prio Socarras

187. Jean Rene Souetre

188. Arlen Spector

189. Lew Sterrett

190. Adlai Stevenson

191. Frank Sturgis (Frank Fiorini)

192. William Sullivan

193. Kerry Thornley

194. J.D.Tippit

195. Santo Trafficante

196. "Troit"

197. Tammi true

198. Igor Vagonov

199. Adolf Vermont Jr.

200. Wernher Von Braun

201. Igor Voshinin

202. Henry Wade

203. General Edwin Walker

204. Brock Wall

205. George Wallace

206. Harry Weatherford

207. Ed Weisl

208. Mitch WerBell

209. LT. Colonel George Whitmeyer

210. General Charles Willoughby

211. Edwin Wilson

212. Louie Witt

213. Mr. X

214. Abraham Zapruder

[Paul Trejo]

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).

Getting back to the topic of this thread, what we're finding from the tireless efforts of Ernie Lazar to deny this thread's claims about Harry Dean's many years of interaction with the FBI, continue to crumble before Ernie's eyes, as the FBI produces more and more documentation about Harry Dean.

In desperation, Ernie Lazar hopes to find evidence in these FBI records to show that Harry Dean was somehow a mere gadfly for the FBI -- somebody to ignore.

Yet the mere preponderance of FBI papers and files accumulated over years of interaction increasingly frustrates Ernie's tireless efforts. This is one of most entertaining spectacles available on the Internet today.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 12, 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).

Getting back to the topic of this thread, what we're finding from the tireless efforts of Ernie Lazar to deny this thread's claims about Harry Dean's many years of interaction with the FBI, continue to crumble before Ernie's eyes, as the FBI produces more and more documentation about Harry Dean.

In desperation, Ernie Lazar hopes to find evidence in these FBI records to show that Harry Dean was somehow a mere gadfly for the FBI -- somebody to ignore.

Yet the mere preponderance of FBI papers and files accumulated over years of interaction increasingly frustrates Ernie's tireless efforts. This is one of most entertaining spectacles available on the Internet today.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

What are you talking about Paul? What "more and more documentation" are you referring to? From the very beginning -- when I discovered material on Mary Ferrell's website, we have known that there are only a very small number of FBI documents pertaining to Harry.

I have no impact upon what FBI files and documents reveal about the FBI's interactions with Harry Dean. Significantly, you have discovered nothing whatsoever to support your extravagant claims or Harry's recollections.

Significantly, you have never produced any documentation to dispute what I have discovered. There is no "preponderance of FBI papers and files" regarding Harry. There are two FBI main files regarding Harry -- one HQ file and one Los Angeles file. Both of them are small files which contain numerous duplicative documents.

There are also some serials in other files which contain some reference to the name "Harry Dean". However, not all of those serials pertain to our Harry Dean --as the example I cited in the message you responded to reveals.

There are no "tireless efforts" by me (or anybody else) or any "desperation" regarding Harry. There is only something which you are incapable of understanding, i.e. normal research and fact-checking.

Obviously, you would prefer that nobody EVER do any independent research into Harry's story. Instead, you want everyone to accept at face value and without critique -- everything which you or Harry say or write.

[Paul Trejo]

What are you talking about Paul? What "more and more documentation" are you referring to? From the very beginning -- when I discovered material on Mary Ferrell's website, we have known that there are only a very small number of FBI documents pertaining to Harry.

I have no impact upon what FBI files and documents reveal about the FBI's interactions with Harry Dean. Significantly, you have discovered nothing whatsoever to support your extravagant claims or Harry's recollections.

Significantly, you have never produced any documentation to dispute what I have discovered. There is no "preponderance of FBI papers and files" regarding Harry. There are two FBI main files regarding Harry -- one HQ file and one Los Angeles file. Both of them are small files which contain numerous duplicative documents.

There are also some serials in other files which contain some reference to the name "Harry Dean". However, not all of those serials pertain to our Harry Dean --as the example I cited in the message you responded to reveals.

There are no "tireless efforts" by me (or anybody else) or any "desperation" regarding Harry. There is only something which you are incapable of understanding, i.e. normal research and fact-checking.

Obviously, you would prefer that nobody EVER do any independent research into Harry's story. Instead, you want everyone to accept at face value and without critique -- everything which you or Harry say or write.

Actually, Ernie, in 2013, for the article, "The Strange Love of Dr. Billy James Hargis," by "This Land Press," you declared forcefully and nastily (as is your habit) that there were no FBI papers *at all* about Harry Dean, and that Harry Dean didn't even have an FBI number.

Learning (with my help, which you conveniently forget) that Harry Dean does indeed have an FBI number, you suddenly turned up over a hundred FBI pages about Harry Dean.

Rather than thank me -- or apologize to Harry Dean for your disinformation in 2013 -- you continue to take a nasty tone. That's unforgivable, Ernie. Your bad manners will dog you forever -- you can count on it.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul inadvertently raises a legitimate question by what he intended as a sarcastic mocking reference to Harry's FBI files.

Specifically, Paul wrote: In desperation, Ernie Lazar hopes to find evidence in these FBI records to show that Harry Dean was somehow a mere gadfly for the FBI -- somebody to ignore.

Obviously, whether or not the FBI considered Harry as a "mere gadfly...somebody to ignore" has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Such a judgment or evaluation would depend upon what the documentary evidence reveals.

First of all, let's begin with a definition:

(1) What is a "gadfly"? Typically, a gadfly is considered somebody who is annoying -- often by presenting criticism.

Synonyms for gadfly include: annoyance, bother, nuisance, pest

This probably is what Paul intended to convey by his sarcastic comment.

(2) So what type of evidence would you expect to find in FBI files about a person whom FBI Agents considered an annoyance, a nuisance or a pest?

(3) Here is what I would expect to find. Let's see if Paul agrees with these criteria or elements:

* I would expect to find pejorative descriptive comments about the person who contacts the FBI (and probably those comments would be made by more than one Agent) --- such as describing the person as a "mental case" or "rambling" or "incoherent"

* I would expect to find notations on FBI internal documents which indicate that whatever was provided by the "gadfly" was being filed but no action was being taken

* I would expect to find FBI documents which reveal that Agents were instructed to contact the person to instruct him (or her) to stop claiming any association with the FBI

* I would expect to discover that there are very few references on FBI "search slips" in the gadfly's files. In other words, if the "gadfly" was providing valuable information, there should be numerous cross-references in other files which mention the gadfly -- especially if that gadfly was allegedly engaged in "many years of interaction" with the FBI.

With respect to Paul's other point regarding the "preponderance of FBI papers and files accumulated over years of interaction..."

Because Paul is so profoundly ignorant regarding content of FBI files, I thought it might be useful to prepare a statistical summary of Harry's Los Angeles field file (his largest FBI file). I present that summary below.

FROM / TO

Total

Serial Numbers

Boston to LAX

1

50

Chicago to HQ

1

8

Chicago to LAX

2

3, 65

Harry-HQ

1

6

Harry-LAX

9

19, 22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 55, 57

Harry-Joe Pyne

1

24

HQ to Chicago

2

7, 60

HQ to US Senator/Cong

2

52, 53

HQ to LAX

6

9, 13, 26, 36, 41, 44

LAX to Chicago

1

2

LAX to HQ

13

10, 11, 15, 17, 27, 35, 40, 43, 51, 61, 62, 63

LAX to LAX

19

1, 4, 5, 14, 16, 20, 21, 23, 25, 31, 37, 42, 45, 48, 49, 54, 56, 58. 59

Misc Other*

6

12, 18, 38, 46, 47, 64

*Miscellaneous Other = newspaper articles, transcript of Police Dept interview, letters to FBI from public inquiring about Harry or providing unsolicited info re Harry

The most striking aspect of Harry's alleged "interaction" with the Los Angeles FBI office, is that fully 50% of all the serials in his file consist of inquiries or instructions from HQ to Los Angeles and the replies made by Los Angeles to HQ. Those inquiries and instructions were almost entirely the result of Harry's publicity-seeking activities -- i.e. not anything to do with any information supplied by Harry to the FBI.

Of the remaining 50% of the serials in his Los Angeles file 12% of that 50% consist of Harry's unsolicited correspondence and phone calls to Los Angeles. These are the "interactions" which produced pejorative comments about Harry by several different FBI Special Agents in different years.

Of the remaining 38% of the serials in Harry's Los Angeles file, 16% consist of "miscellaneous" info such as copies of newspaper articles that discuss Harry and letters sent to the FBI by persons who asked questions about Harry's bona fides or they supplied information about Harry which they thought the FBI might want to have (such as the letter by the husband whose wife drove Harry's wife to work every day; and the letter from Arvidson concerning whether Harry might be the person shown in a Warren Commission Exhibit photo leaving the Soviet Embassy in Mexico and the letter from a public relations person who claims Harry wanted him to write a book or article about Harry).

So, now, we are down to the last 22% of Harry's Los Angeles file (i.e. approx 13 serials). Those consist of Harry's letter to the Joe Pyne Program, the inquiry received from Sen. George Murphy and the Bureau reply, an administrative form from Chicago field stating that they were destroying Harry's Chicago file, a transcript of an interview of Harry by a southern California Police Department, and Harry's letters to Los Angeles where he often asked for help in "clearing" his name or he speculated about some matter which he thought the FBI might be interested in.

IN SUMMARY:

What Paul describes as Harry's "interactions" with the FBI and the "preponderance of FBI papers" which document such "interactions" -- as though they reveal some sort of special relationship between Harry and the FBI is mostly...

(1) repetitive memos to/from HQ instructing the field to provide information about whether or not Harry was ever an informant or confidential source for their office (and the field offices told HQ that Harry was NEVER their informant or confidential source) and

(2) repetitive memos to/from HQ instructing the field to contact Harry and instruct him to stop claiming any association with the FBI

(3) repetitive memos within Los Angeles field regarding Harry's relentless publicity-seeking activities -- particularly in relation to Bob Hayward and the Joe Pyne Program and the La Puente CA Valley Journal newspaper interview by Bill Capps. [Incidentally, TEN of the FOURTEEN numbered serials in Harry's HQ file (75%!!!) are devoted to discussing just the Joe Pyne and Valley Journal episodes!]. THIS is what Paul Trejo wants us to believe are important "interactions" and critical dispositive evidence!

Postscript:

Unfortunately EF cannot reproduce the formatting of my chart re: Harry's Los Angeles file statistics -- but I will be incorporating the chart into my webpage on Harry in the future. The general information is as follows:

FROM/TO...............Number of Serials..............Serial Numbers

Boston-LAX............1........................................50

Chicago-HQ............1........................................8

Chicago-LAX..........2.........................................3, 65

Harry-HQ................1.........................................6

Harry-LAX...............9.........................................19,22,29,30,32,33,34,55,57

Harry-Pyne..............1.........................................24

HQ-Chicago.............2........................................7, 60

HQ-Senator..............2........................................52, 53

HQ-LAX....................6........................................9,13,26,36,41,44

LAX-Chicago............1........................................2

LAX-HQ.....................13.....................................10,11,15,17,27,35,40,43,51,61,62,63

LAX-LAX...................19......................................1,4,5,14,16,20,21,23,25,31,37,42,45,48,49,54,56,58,59

Misc Other.................6........................................12,18,38,46,47,64

Edited May 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul inadvertently raises a legitimate question by what he intended as a sarcastic mocking reference to Harry's FBI files.

Specifically, Paul wrote: In desperation, Ernie Lazar hopes to find evidence in these FBI records to show that Harry Dean was somehow a mere gadfly for the FBI -- somebody to ignore.

Obviously, whether or not the FBI considered Harry as a "mere gadfly...somebody to ignore" has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Such a judgment or evaluation would depend upon what the documentary evidence reveals.

First of all, let's begin with a definition:

(1) What is a "gadfly"? Typically, a gadfly is considered somebody who is annoying -- often by presenting criticism.

Synonyms for gadfly include: annoyance, bother, nuisance, pest

This probably is what Paul intended to convey by his sarcastic comment.

(2) So what type of evidence would you expect to find in FBI files about a person whom FBI Agents considered an annoyance, a nuisance or a pest?

(3) Here is what I would expect to find. Let's see if Paul agrees with these criteria or elements:

* I would expect to find pejorative descriptive comments about the person who contacts the FBI (and probably those comments would be made by more than one Agent) --- such as describing the person as a "mental case" or "rambling" or "incoherent"

* I would expect to find notations on FBI internal documents which indicate that whatever was provided by the "gadfly" was being filed but no action was being taken

* I would expect to find FBI documents which reveal that Agents were instructed to contact the person to instruct him (or her) to stop claiming any association with the FBI

* I would expect to discover that there are very few references on FBI "search slips" in the gadfly's files. In other words, if the "gadfly" was providing valuable information, there should be numerous cross-references in other files which mention the gadfly -- especially if that gadfly was allegedly engaged in "many years of interaction" with the FBI.

<snip>

No, Ernie, I don't accept those flimsy criteria as definitive of an FBI 'gadfly.'

The personal opinions of individual FBI agents are immaterial in building a factual case.

For example, if a given FBI agent wrote his opinion that Harry Dean was a "mental case," that is merely an insult, since the FBI is not known for their psychiatric skills -- nor do they pretend to be qualified to make such judgments.

So -- insults have no bearing.

Rather -- a gadly to the FBI -- empirically speaking -- would be somebody whose communications were merely dimissed upon receipt.

The fact that there are records of hundreds of FBI pages about Harry Dean, ranging from 1960 through 1965, is ample proof that Harry Dean had a significant interaction with the FBI (as he claimed), despite the empirical fact that some FBI Agents were snotty, arrogant and insulting.

We gather that you've had ample time to read the various FBI records on Harry Dean that you've been able to accumulate this year, Ernie -- and we've been expecting to hear from you.

You are taking your sweet time offering your feedback -- perhaps you need more time to phrase your findings just right, so that their contradiction of your position won't be so blatant.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

What are you talking about Paul? What "more and more documentation" are you referring to? From the very beginning -- when I discovered material on Mary Ferrell's website, we have known that there are only a very small number of FBI documents pertaining to Harry.

I have no impact upon what FBI files and documents reveal about the FBI's interactions with Harry Dean. Significantly, you have discovered nothing whatsoever to support your extravagant claims or Harry's recollections.

Significantly, you have never produced any documentation to dispute what I have discovered. There is no "preponderance of FBI papers and files" regarding Harry. There are two FBI main files regarding Harry -- one HQ file and one Los Angeles file. Both of them are small files which contain numerous duplicative documents.

There are also some serials in other files which contain some reference to the name "Harry Dean". However, not all of those serials pertain to our Harry Dean --as the example I cited in the message you responded to reveals.

There are no "tireless efforts" by me (or anybody else) or any "desperation" regarding Harry. There is only something which you are incapable of understanding, i.e. normal research and fact-checking.

Obviously, you would prefer that nobody EVER do any independent research into Harry's story. Instead, you want everyone to accept at face value and without critique -- everything which you or Harry say or write.

Actually, Ernie, in 2013, for the article, "The Strange Love of Dr. Billy James Hargis," by "This Land Press," you declared forcefully and nastily (as is your habit) that there were no FBI papers *at all* about Harry Dean, and that Harry Dean didn't even have an FBI number.

Learning (with my help, which you conveniently forget) that Harry Dean does indeed have an FBI number, you suddenly turned up over a hundred FBI pages about Harry Dean.

Rather than thank me -- or apologize to Harry Dean for your disinformation in 2013 -- you continue to take a nasty tone. That's unforgivable, Ernie. Your bad manners will dog you forever -- you can count on it.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Oh really Paul? If what you claim is true, then why don't you QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE as a comment in Leroy Chapman's article instead of just attributing something to me?

IF you QUOTED EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE --- there could be no dispute between us, could there? You would have the "proof" to support your accusation.

Perhaps you would care to explain WHY you never quote what I write when you make these type of accusations BUT, instead, you merely ATTRIBUTE something to me (and to other people as well)?

There is no possible way I could have made the comment you attribute to me because (as I have repeatedly explained), I never requested Harry's FBI files prior to the end of 2013

Lee Roy Chapman's article was published in November 2012 -- so, obviously, the ONLY comment I would have made is precisely the same comment I made here on page 9 of this thread in June 2010 -- i.e. that there are no FBI documents in ANY Birch Society file which mention Harry Dean or anybody who matches his description. I also would have pointed out that the FBI never investigated the JBS and they never sought to place any informant inside the JBS because there was nothing they wanted to know about the JBS which required having an informant inside the JBS.

In addition, there are no FBI documents in any other JBS-related file which I have in my possession (such as Edwin Walker, John Rousselot, Robert Welch) which mention Harry Dean or anybody who matches Harry's description.

And, lastly, there are no FBI documents in the Minutemen-Los Angeles or Minutemen-HQ file that mention Harry Dean or anybody matching Harry's description.

That has been my position since day one of our dispute (when, incidentally, YOU LIED EVEN THEN by claiming the FBI "investigated" the JBS. And you lied YET AGAIN when you recently claimed that, in 1959, J. Edgar Hoover described the JBS as "un-American". WHY DO YOU CONTINUOUSLY LIE?

Instead of accurately presenting my position and apologizing to me for your incessant LIES about what I have written repeatedly both here and elsewhere -- you continue to DELIBERATELY LIE about my position.

Shame on you for your continuous disinformation. Obviously, your argument is so weak that you cannot afford to confront what is actually being written so you feel compelled to invent bogus straw-men to argue against in an effort to build up your own pitiful ego.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul inadvertently raises a legitimate question by what he intended as a sarcastic mocking reference to Harry's FBI files.

Specifically, Paul wrote: In desperation, Ernie Lazar hopes to find evidence in these FBI records to show that Harry Dean was somehow a mere gadfly for the FBI -- somebody to ignore.

Obviously, whether or not the FBI considered Harry as a "mere gadfly...somebody to ignore" has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Such a judgment or evaluation would depend upon what the documentary evidence reveals.

First of all, let's begin with a definition:

(1) What is a "gadfly"? Typically, a gadfly is considered somebody who is annoying -- often by presenting criticism.

Synonyms for gadfly include: annoyance, bother, nuisance, pest

This probably is what Paul intended to convey by his sarcastic comment.

(2) So what type of evidence would you expect to find in FBI files about a person whom FBI Agents considered an annoyance, a nuisance or a pest?

(3) Here is what I would expect to find. Let's see if Paul agrees with these criteria or elements:

* I would expect to find pejorative descriptive comments about the person who contacts the FBI (and probably those comments would be made by more than one Agent) --- such as describing the person as a "mental case" or "rambling" or "incoherent"

* I would expect to find notations on FBI internal documents which indicate that whatever was provided by the "gadfly" was being filed but no action was being taken

* I would expect to find FBI documents which reveal that Agents were instructed to contact the person to instruct him (or her) to stop claiming any association with the FBI

* I would expect to discover that there are very few references on FBI "search slips" in the gadfly's files. In other words, if the "gadfly" was providing valuable information, there should be numerous cross-references in other files which mention the gadfly -- especially if that gadfly was allegedly engaged in "many years of interaction" with the FBI.

<snip>

No, Ernie, I don't accept those flimsy criteria as definitive of an FBI 'gadfly.'

The personal opinions of individual FBI agents are immaterial in building a factual case.

For example, if a given FBI agent wrote his opinion that Harry Dean was a "mental case," that is merely an insult, since the FBI is not known for their psychiatric skills -- nor do they pretend to be qualified to make such judgments.

So -- insults have no bearing.

Rather -- a gadly to the FBI -- empirically speaking -- would be somebody whose communications were merely dimissed upon receipt.

The fact that there are records of hundreds of FBI pages about Harry Dean, ranging from 1960 through 1965, is ample proof that Harry Dean had a significant interaction with the FBI (as he claimed), despite the empirical fact that some FBI Agents were snotty, arrogant and insulting.

We gather that you've had ample time to read the various FBI records on Harry Dean that you've been able to accumulate this year, Ernie -- and we've been expecting to hear from you.

You are taking your sweet time offering your feedback -- perhaps you need more time to phrase your findings just right, so that their contradiction of your position won't be so blatant.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

But it is the CONTENT of those "hundreds of pages" which must be examined. Quantity, by itself, tells you NOTHING. Many of those pages are repetitive. For example: HQ instructs a field office to summarize what they know about Harry. The field office(s) reply and then HQ prepares a summary memo which repeats, verbatim, what the field offices have reported. In total, those documents might total 20 or 30 pages -- but they ALL SAY THE SAME THING.

With respect to your comments about "gadfly". If the evaluations made by the FBI Agents who dealt with Harry are meaningless to you -- then how could you possibly make any judgments? What you describe as "insults" reflect the exasperation which Agents felt when dealing with Harry.

However, I will agree with one aspect of your comment, namely, that when incoming information is "dismissed upon receipt" -- that is a definite indication that the FBI was not interested in whatever was being presented.

What you need to understand is the terminology and protocols used by the Bureau when they wanted to dispose of something which is equivalent to your "dismissed upon receipt".

Here is the typical protocol:

1. If there was any significant information provided, the FBI would enter the appropriate file numbers on its file copies of memos or FD-71 contact forms where that new information would be placed. For example: if Harry provided something significant about J.U.R.E. or about the JBS -- then, his information would be serialized into those subject files.

2. For example, Harry's comments regarding Frank Vega DID get serialized into HQ files on Vega and on J26M as well as Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami and NYC field files. For instance, Harry's information was placed in Miami's "Cuban Intelligence Activities" file and it was also placed into HQ files on FPCC and J26M.

3. HOWEVER, when you look at other information sent to Los Angeles FBI by Harry. you will notice that his correspondence was NOT serialized into the subject files of the matters he discussed. INSTEAD, FBI Agents handwrote or typed comments such as "for information" or "Above furnished for information only" on the original documents. THAT is BureauSpeak for "dismissed upon receipt".

4. I will give you another specific example:

The file copy of the 4/3/65 contact form (FD-71) regarding Harry's phone call concerning information he provided regarding "Eddie Martinez" and "Minutemen" contains the following handwritten notation by the receiving Agent (J. Flynn Jr.): "File for record of call". BUT nothing was done with Harry's information. It was NOT filed in any MM file nor in any file on Martinez.

Furthermore, there are several serials which describe Harry as "unreliable" -- so why would the FBI care about information from an "unreliable" source?

IMPORTANT POSTSCRIPT

Another method which helps an impartial researcher determine whether or not the FBI did anything with unsolicited information is by checking the "search slips" prepared by HQ and field offices.

The reason is because if Harry provided something useful, it would be serialized as a cross-reference into those other files. [For example: see my previous message where I summarized my pending FOIA requests regarding Harry -- which lists almost all of the search slip references pertaining to Harry.]

So, for example, if Harry provided ANY useful information concerning the following subject matters, you would see references on "search slips" to that information being serialized as cross-references into the following file numbers:

PARTIAL LIST -- JUST FOR PURPOSES OF ILLUSTRATION:

John Birch Society = HQ 62-104401 OR Los Angeles 100-59001

Minutemen = HQ 62-107261 OR Los Angeles 62-5101 [and probably the originating office file, i,e. Kansas City 62-7797]

FPCC = HQ 97-4196 or HQ 97-4196-9 (Chicago chapter) or HQ 97-4196-26 (Los Angeles chapter) OR Los Angeles 105-8734 OR Chicago 100-37454

JURE = HQ 105-114542 OR Los Angeles 105-16406

The fact that you CANNOT FIND these files numbers listed on Harry's search slips (with a couple minor exceptions i.e. FPCC) tells you EVERYTHING you need to know!

You may not like to admit what that means Paul -- but it is REALITY and FACT -- nevertheless.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

I still cannot understand why Paul continuously refers to "hundreds of pages" as meaning something important about Harry's relationship with the FBI. And Paul does not want to explain what he means.

In my previous message, I summarized (by to/from category) each Los Angeles serial.

I could take this a step further. I could summarize the total number of pages which each SUBJECT produced.

For example: would Paul care to make an educated guess regarding how many pages of Harry's 265 page Los Angeles file (which, btw, is Harry's largest file--covering the longest period of time) -- how many pages were devoted ONLY to the back and forth regarding the Joe Pyne Program and the Bill Capps Valley Journal article?

And would Paul care to make an educated guess regarding what PERCENTAGE of the entire Los Angeles file was devoted to JUST those two subjects?

[Ernie Lazar]

Because Paul has made an issue about this matter, I am attaching the following documents:

1964 MEMO REFLECTING FPCC/J26M INFO FROM HARRY THAT WAS SERIALIZED INTO HQ AND FIELD OFFICE FILES

1. 1/28/64 SAC Los Angeles memo to J. Edgar Hoover re the information received from Harry when Agents McCauley and Cromwell went to Harry's home. At this time, Harry gave them 16 documents. The significance of this memo is to illustrate my previous point about how useful information would be serialized into relevant subject files. Notice the file references at the bottom of the memo.

HARRY'S LOS ANGELES SEARCH SLIPS

2. Copies of all of Harry's Los Angeles file search slips. FBI-Los Angeles checked their files on four occasions for all cross-references that mentioned someone by the name of Harry Dean.

2.1 The first search slip is dated 7/13/62 and it reflects that the Name Check Unit was not even sure that the 5 references they discovered were on the "Harry Dean" who was the subject of their Los Angeles file on Harry -- which is why the references are marked "NI?" -- which is the FBI code for potentially "not identical".

2.2 The second search slip is dated 11/19/64 and is the most comprehensive.

The subject matter of some of these file numbers can be identified. For example, the first number is Harry's Los Angeles file. The reference to file 105-16378 refers to the Los Angeles file on Frank Vega. Significantly, however, there is only ONE serial which contains a reference to Harry Dean. The reference to file 100-23933 refers to the Los Angeles file on Communist Party USA membership.

2.3 The third search slip is dated 12/17/64 and just repeats Harry's Los Angeles field file number and the L.A. file on Vega.

HOWEVER---There is something very significant on this search slip.

Notice that the right side of the form instructs the Name Check Unit to limit their search to only certain FBI file classifications, i.e. 100, 105, 134, and 137.

The 100 and 105 classifications refer to "Domestic Security" and "Foreign Counterintelligence" investigations.

The 134 classification refers to "Foreign Counterintelligence Assets" (which includes informants who provided information on subversive and non-subversive individuals/groups.

The 137 classification refers to criminal informants -- such as on bookmaking, prostitution, sports betting, theft rings, etc.

It is VERY significant that as of December 1964, FBI-Los Angeles had NO file references mentioning Harry Dean in any of those classifications other than Harry's Los Angeles main file and the file on Frank Vega.

THAT is why I can say, with certainty, that Paul is profoundly mistaken in his belief that the information provided by Harry was considered valuable.

In fact, this proves that virtually everything that Harry gave to the FBI matches Paul's criterion of "dismissed upon receipt".

2.4 The final search slip is dated 5/3/65, I think this roughly corresponds to the date when Harry claims he stopped his alleged relationship with the FBI. The 100-60840 file reference refers to the Los Angeles file on Edgar Swabeck. The probability is that the final two references to "Harold Dean" are not even about our Harry.

3. HARRY'S HQ FILE SEARCH SLIPS

Notice that there is ONE reference to an FPCC HQ sub-file (HQ 97-4196-9) which is the FBI HQ file on the Chicago chapter of FPCC. Notice that this ONE reference to Harry appears in ONE serial of that file (serial #114), on pages 84-85.

Notice that there is also ONE reference to another HQ FPCC file (i.e. HQ 97-4196 -- the primary HQ main file on FPCC). Notice however, that ONLY ONE serial of the HQ file on FPCC mentions Harry (serial #129, page #22).

This CONCLUSIVELY proves that Harry provided NO significant information to FBI-Chicago. What he gave them did not even rise to the level of being reported in more than ONE serial or on more than ONE page of that serial. My guess is that this reference merely states that Harry was identified as "Secretary" of the Chicago chapter of FPCC. When the FBI processes this file for me, I will be able to specifically identify and reveal what that ONE reference is.

As previously noted, Paul is obsessed over "number of pages" in a file -- as though quantity tells you anything regarding substance or content. The stark reality is quite different. FBI files are filled with duplicate and repetitive information of no real significance.

Obviously, Paul will not want to admit the significance of this data but here is the ultimate bottom-line:

Paul will NEVER provide ANY verifiable documentary evidence to dispute or falsify what I have presented. Instead, Paul will ONLY use weasel-words, hoaxes, tortured logic, speculation, and wishful thinking as substitutes for FACTS.

Harry's FBI-LAX Search Slips.PDF

Harry's FBI-HQ Search Slips.PDF