Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Harry J.Dean]

Now scrolling on page 10. Posted 8 May 2014

titled "DETAILS" covers the subject Kathy Beckett

mentions above.

" I have no mind slip of that history" The problem is,

the contrary mind of these slippery diggers for details

as outlined in the 8th May post.

[Ernie Lazar]

Now scrolling on page 10. Posted 8 May 2014

titled "DETAILS" covers the subject Kathy Beckett

mentions above.

" I have no mind slip of that history" The problem is,

the contrary mind of these slippery diggers for details

as outlined in the 8th May post.

Not sure what you mean by "no mind slip of that history" but it is "common knowledge" (to use one of Paul's favorite phrases) that accurate memory diminishes with both time and age. In fact, when scientists have tested humans for memory acuteness, (both short-term and long-term memory) tests have conclusively shown rapid deterioration.

As one observer has noted:

A classic experiment on fast forgetting was carried out by Peterson and Peterson (1959). They asked participants to memorise a three-letter sequence, then count backwards in sets of threes. Participants were then asked to try and recall the three-letter sequence after different lengths of time counting backwards. Participants did surprisingly poorly on this test. After only six seconds of counting backwards in threes, on average half of the original three letters had disappeared from memory. By the time participants had been counting backwards for 12 seconds, less than 15% of the original memory remained. Finally after 18 seconds it was all but gone.

Long-term memory decay produces similar results. It is very common for people to "remember" things that never actually occurred or to embellish the plain original truth with additional new material in the light of subsequent developments -- but their original memory is no longer accurate.

I previously posted an article regarding why "eyewitness" testimony is almost universally regarded as the least-reliable -- because so many different factors impact what people see and hear. Obviously being in a stressful situation affects memory as does being under duress. In addition, when there are multiple actors involved it often is impossible to accurately recall what everybody said or did in any given moment -- not to mention distractions that occur. For example: person "A" is having an intense conversation with persons "B" and "C" -- and that conversation is interrupted by person "D" or by some environmental distraction (loud music, street noise, a shouting argument in same or another room, or a TV news report about something important to the people participating in the discussion, etc. etc.) --- ALL of these types of environmental factors affect accurate perception --- not to mention the SUBJECTiVE factors such as how someone interprets what was intended to be a humorous or sarcastic comment but somebody might think it was intended to be serious.

How many times in our lives have we all heard somebody say something like "I'm gonna kill you"? during a conversation OR some comparable comment which betokens a desire to commit some kind of physical assault on some other person --- BUT -- in reality, it was just a figure of speech used for emphasis during a conversation. HOWEVER, somebody in another room (such as upstairs apartment) who hears only a loud "I'm gonna kill you" does not see the participants nor understand the CONTEXT in which the comment was made.

It is these sorts of things which make "eyewitness" or "ear-witness" testimony so unreliable.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Since Harry raised this point, let me give a good example of why "eyewitness memory" is ALWAYS subject to extreme skepticism.

First, we need to go back to April 2012 and read Paul Trejo's message #145 -- copied below. I will enter new comments after the end of Paul's message.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4269&hl=ernie1241&page=10

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:22 AM

Harry Dean's statement about the JFK assassination is the most most direct witness that I know of by any living witness. By 1962, Harry Dean had successfully completed a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on Fidel Castro in Cuba. Now, in 1963, Harry Dean was on a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on the John Birch Society in Southern California. Here's how I read Harry Dean's witness:

(1) Some day in September, 1963 (Harry does not remember the exact day) in Southern California, Harry Dean attended a John Birch Society meeting along with Cuban Exile advocates Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard, former Marine hero Guy Gabaldon, Congressman John Rousselot, David Robbins, Eugene Bradley and former Major General Edwin A. Walker (resigned).

(2) In that meeting a great deal of money changed hands, from John Rousselot to Guy Gabaldon.

(3) Rousselot, the Southern California leader of the John Birch Society, was able to collect large amounts of money for secret political projects.

(4) Guy Gabaldon was selected as the leader of this current project. Gabaldon was originally from Southern California, but now he had his business offices in Mexico City. He had traveled north for this meeting. Gabaldon collected a lot of money for a special political project.

(5) Loran Hall (who virtually worshipped Guy Gabaldon) and Larry Howard (who always tagged along with Loran Hall) were selected to be Guy Gabaldon's foot soldiers.

(6) The special project was the assassination of JFK.

(7) At this particular meeting, the patsy for the plot was identified as Lee Harvey Oswald.

(8) Oswald was selected because he was a Communist who was easily manipulated.

(9) At this meeting evidence was produced that Oswald was a regional leader of his own FPCC organization in New Orleans, that his picture was in the papers to this effect, and radio recordings and TV recordings demonstrated clearly that Oswald was supporting Communism with every move he made.

(10) At the same time, the co-plotters in New Orleans had a firm control on Oswald, and could place him anywhere they liked, at any time they liked. General Walker was in continual contact with the co-plotters from Dallas. Oswald was completely under their control (either by blackmail or money, or both, or some other means).

(11) Guy Gabaldon collected funds in that meeting, to distribute partly to Loran Hall, partly to Lawrence Howard, and partly for Lee Harvey Oswald.

(12) Loran and Lawrence accompanied (or closely followed) Lee Harvey Oswald to Mexico. Mexico was the location in which Guy Gabaldon would deliver cash to Lee Harvey Oswald.

This is the extent of Harry's memoirs so far. (Harry, please correct me if I am substantially mistaken about one or more points above).

Although Harry reported all this to the FBI at the time, the FBI continues to deny any knowledge of Harry's 1963 reports. Also, since the time Harry first exposed this to the whole world (on the Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder) he has been confronted with a wall of skepticism

To explore this avenue of research more thoroughly, I think some patience is required on the part of researchers.

I have already contacted David Robbins and have confirmed parts of Harry's account: namely, that the Southern California John Birch Society definitely was led by John Rousselot, and Guy Gabaldon was certainly a frequent visitor, and Loran Hall was also a visitor, and so was Eugene Bradley. Robbins says he barely remembers Harry Dean. As we should expect, he denies any role in any plot to kill JFK. Aside from the critical meeting in question, most of the elements of Harry's account were confirmed by Robbins.

In my opinion, we should plead with Harry Dean to "develop the negatives" of his memories of that day. Quiet meditation and contemplation might be used to recollect the exact date and time -- which I believe will be useful.

Also, we should remember that Loran Hall told Jim Garrison many of these same events and named many of these same names in 1968 (which was after Harry Dean first began to report this, as I recall). So we have an independent record to begin verification.

However, in Paul’s eBook, there is a much different “memory” presented.

Harry discusses a meeting “in the final weekend of August 1963” during which Guy Galbadon allegedly told Harry a “secret”. According to Harry, Galbadon asked Harry if he agreed that JFK was “a traitor” and Harry said “yes”.

But let’s let Harry speak with his own words. I quote Harry’s “memory” as reflected in Paul’s eBook. I bold and italicize what purports to be Harry’s words.

Galbadon asks Harry:

“We also agree that JFK is a traitor, right? I mean, he’s out there supporting the Communists in every move they make, and undermining patriotic Americans at home, right?

“That’s right,” I said, “It’s a fact.”

“We’re at war here, Harry. We don’t only have foreign enemies, we also have very real enemies right here at home. Right here in our own country. Are you with me?”

“Of course,” I replied.

“So it’s our duty, the duty of all patriots, to destroy all these enemies of our great Republic, right? Just like Washington and Jefferson and all the great patriots who were willing to sacrifice everything for the good of their country, right?”

“Yes, I’m with you one hundred percent.”

At this point Gabby began what seemed to me to be a prepared speech. “Then I know that your thoughts are like mine today, Harry, and you realize that at any cost we must get rid of JFK as soon as possible. So here it is: we finally have a real opportunity to end the Communist takeover. It’s now within our grasp to finally destroy America’s enemies, including Castro, JFK and world Communism.”

“You’ve said something great here,” I acknowledged. “What’s our next move?”

“This comes from the highest levels, Harry. Welch, Walker and Rousselot have entrusted me with a mission, and I need your help. It’s now or never. Do or die.”

“You know you can count on me in, Gabby. Just tell me.”

At this point, Gabby tells Harry about “the plot” to make Oswald into a patsy for the murder of JFK in November. And Harry is then asked to accompany Gabby to a meeting in San Marino with Rousselot. During this meeting, the amount of money required to carry out the “plot” was allegedly discussed and according to Harry, the $10,000 figure was mentioned for the first time. Rousselot allegedly agreed to obtain the money in cash.

Now, let’s let Harry continue with his own words from the eBook but I am going to bold and underline one point which is CRUCIAL:

To the best of my recollection, it was on the following Saturday, 7 September 1963, that I again drove Gabby to Rousselot’s office in San Marino. He was deep in his thoughts, probably about the promised $10,000. The main thing I remembered from our brief conversation that morning was that Gabby strictly instructed me to never mention a word about this to anybody – not even to Larry or Loran or David or anybody else in the John Birch Society.

“I’ll handle Larry and Loran,” said Gabby, “and I don’t want any loose lips around here. Got that? Nobody is allowed to speak about this mission without me being personally present.”

Naturally I understood – military conditions had long been my second nature. Yet, at the same time I noticed that Gabby was already feeling the pressure mount as one would expect for a captain with secret duties.

When we arrived at Rousselot’s office I stayed in the car as Gabby went up to speak with the Congressman. After only about ten minutes Gabby returned with a big smile. I asked, “Did you get the full ten grand?” Gabby, clearly pleased with himself, smiled proudly as he confirmed: “Yes.” (I was suitably impressed because in 1963, adjusted for inflation, ten grand was one hundred grand in today’s dollars.)

SO…let’s now summarize what we can learn from all this

1. During our debate in this thread, Paul has taken extreme exception to the idea that Harry ever described himself in any way which suggested that he was some sort of “agent” for any U.S. intelligence service. Paul has repeatedly declared that I have maliciously INVENTED that accusation OR that other people who have described Harry as an “agent” must have relied upon false statements made by W.R. Morris.

2. However, we see that in April 2012 Paul Trejo explicitly described Harry as an “agent” when he wrote (my bold type for emphasis):

By 1962, Harry Dean had successfully completed a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on Fidel Castro in Cuba. Now, in 1963, Harry Dean was on a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on the John Birch Society in Southern California

3. Consequently, cannot we not be forgiven if we accept at face value what Paul himself has written regarding Harry’s status vis-à-vis the FBI? Must we be subjected to constant calumny just because we believe the description which Paul has written as well as what Harry himself has said to many different people in many different contexts which also caused them to arrive at the EXACT SAME conclusion?

4. In April 2012, Paul tells us that Harry DOES NOT remember the date in September when the Rousselot meeting took place. But when the eBook was published a year later, Harry suddenly “remembers” that it was probably Saturday September 7^th.

5. But now comes the biggest whopper of them all. According to Paul Trejo (I bold type and underline key assertions:

"Some day in September, 1963 (Harry does not remember the exact day) in Southern California, Harry Dean attended a John Birch Society meeting along with Cuban Exile advocates Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard, former Marine hero Guy Gabaldon, Congressman John Rousselot, David Robbins, Eugene Bradley and former Major General Edwin A. Walker (resigned). In that meeting a great deal of money changed hands, from John Rousselot to Guy Gabaldon."

6. BUT ACCORDING TO HARRY:

When we arrived at Rousselot’s office I stayed in the car as Gabby went up to speak with the Congressman. After only about ten minutes Gabby returned with a big smile. I asked, “Did you get the full ten grand?” Gabby, clearly pleased with himself, smiled proudly as he confirmed: “Yes.” (I was suitably impressed because in 1963, adjusted for inflation, ten grand was one hundred grand in today’s dollars.)

In addition, Harry claims that "Gabby strictly instructed me to never mention a word about this to anybody – not even to Larry or Loran or David or anybody else in the John Birch Society" -- referring to the $10,000 given by Rousselot to Gabby. BUT, according to Paul Trejo, all those JBS people (including Harry) "ATTENDED" the very "meeting" where the money transfer took place---so they presumably already knew about it as witnesses! Not sure why they needed to attend a "10-minute" meeting -- but that is Harry and Paul's story!

7. Then, as Harry continues his “recollection” in the eBook version of his narrative, he mentions that “one day” [in September 1963], FBI Special Agent Wesley Grapp came by Harry’s home “for a visit”. But we know that Grapp did not arrive in Los Angeles until March 6, 1964 and we also know from Wesley Swearingen that SAC’s did NOT perform field work [because their responsibilities were office administrative functions and external public relations duties.]

8. And we know from Harry’s Los Angeles FBI file that there is no mention of any kind whatsoever about anybody meeting with Harry in September.

In fact, Harry's Los Angeles file is totally DORMANT from April 1963 until November 1963 when Harry wrote his letter to J. Edgar Hoover.

AND GUESS WHAT!!! In his letter to J. Edgar Hoover – Harry does not mention ONE WORD about the Birch Society, about his meeting with Galbadon and Rousselot or about the alleged subsequent meeting where $10,000 supposedly was picked up OR about his alleged meetings with Los Angeles SAC Wesley Grapp.

INSTEAD – the ENTIRE purpose of Harry’s 11/19/63 letter to Hoover was to ask for Hoover's assistance to “clear” his name by which Harry means that he wanted to somehow expunge the reference appearing in the Senate Subcommittee Report which described his participation in FPCC-Chicago three years before! The most momentous event in modern U.S. history is about to occur in three days and Harry knows about it – BUT all Harry is concerned about as of 11/19/63 is the ONE reference to his name in an obscure Senate Report which nobody even knows about!

THAT is the story and quality of evidence which Paul Trejo and Harry want us to believe!

Edited August 3, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Thomas Graves]

Since Harry raised this point, let me give a good example of why "eyewitness memory" is ALWAYS subject to extreme skepticism.

First, we need to go back to April 2012 and read Paul Trejo's message #145 -- copied below. I will enter new comments after the end of Paul's message.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4269&hl=ernie1241&page=10

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:22 AM

Harry Dean's statement about the JFK assassination is the most most direct witness that I know of by any living witness. By 1962, Harry Dean had successfully completed a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on Fidel Castro in Cuba. Now, in 1963, Harry Dean was on a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on the John Birch Society in Southern California. Here's how I read Harry Dean's witness:

(1) Some day in September, 1963 (Harry does not remember the exact day) in Southern California, Harry Dean attended a John Birch Society meeting along with Cuban Exile advocates Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard, former Marine hero Guy Gabaldon, Congressman John Rousselot, David Robbins, Eugene Bradley and former Major General Edwin A. Walker (resigned).

(2) In that meeting a great deal of money changed hands, from John Rousselot to Guy Gabaldon.

(3) Rousselot, the Southern California leader of the John Birch Society, was able to collect large amounts of money for secret political projects.

(4) Guy Gabaldon was selected as the leader of this current project. Gabaldon was originally from Southern California, but now he had his business offices in Mexico City. He had traveled north for this meeting. Gabaldon collected a lot of money for a special political project.

(5) Loran Hall (who virtually worshipped Guy Gabaldon) and Larry Howard (who always tagged along with Loran Hall) were selected to be Guy Gabaldon's foot soldiers.

(6) The special project was the assassination of JFK.

(7) At this particular meeting, the patsy for the plot was identified as Lee Harvey Oswald.

(8) Oswald was selected because he was a Communist who was easily manipulated.

(9) At this meeting evidence was produced that Oswald was a regional leader of his own FPCC organization in New Orleans, that his picture was in the papers to this effect, and radio recordings and TV recordings demonstrated clearly that Oswald was supporting Communism with every move he made.

(10) At the same time, the co-plotters in New Orleans had a firm control on Oswald, and could place him anywhere they liked, at any time they liked. General Walker was in continual contact with the co-plotters from Dallas. Oswald was completely under their control (either by blackmail or money, or both, or some other means).

(11) Guy Gabaldon collected funds in that meeting, to distribute partly to Loran Hall, partly to Lawrence Howard, and partly for Lee Harvey Oswald.

(12) Loran and Lawrence accompanied (or closely followed) Lee Harvey Oswald to Mexico. Mexico was the location in which Guy Gabaldon would deliver cash to Lee Harvey Oswald.

This is the extent of Harry's memoirs so far. (Harry, please correct me if I am substantially mistaken about one or more points above).

Although Harry reported all this to the FBI at the time, the FBI continues to deny any knowledge of Harry's 1963 reports. Also, since the time Harry first exposed this to the whole world (on the Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder) he has been confronted with a wall of skepticism

To explore this avenue of research more thoroughly, I think some patience is required on the part of researchers.

I have already contacted David Robbins and have confirmed parts of Harry's account: namely, that the Southern California John Birch Society definitely was led by John Rousselot, and Guy Gabaldon was certainly a frequent visitor, and Loran Hall was also a visitor, and so was Eugene Bradley. Robbins says he barely remembers Harry Dean. As we should expect, he denies any role in any plot to kill JFK. Aside from the critical meeting in question, most of the elements of Harry's account were confirmed by Robbins.

In my opinion, we should plead with Harry Dean to "develop the negatives" of his memories of that day. Quiet meditation and contemplation might be used to recollect the exact date and time -- which I believe will be useful.

Also, we should remember that Loran Hall told Jim Garrison many of these same events and named many of these same names in 1968 (which was after Harry Dean first began to report this, as I recall). So we have an independent record to begin verification.

However, in Paul’s eBook, there is a much different “memory” presented.

Harry discusses a meeting “in the final weekend of August 1963” during which Guy Galbadon allegedly told Harry a “secret”. According to Harry, Galbadon asked Harry if he agreed that JFK was “a traitor” and Harry said “yes”.

But let’s let Harry speak with his own words. I quote Harry’s “memory” as reflected in Paul’s eBook. I bold and italicize what purports to be Harry’s words.

Galbadon asks Harry:

“We also agree that JFK is a traitor, right? I mean, he’s out there supporting the Communists in every move they make, and undermining patriotic Americans at home, right?

“That’s right,” I said, “It’s a fact.”

“We’re at war here, Harry. We don’t only have foreign enemies, we also have very real enemies right here at home. Right here in our own country. Are you with me?”

“Of course,” I replied.

“So it’s our duty, the duty of all patriots, to destroy all these enemies of our great Republic, right? Just like Washington and Jefferson and all the great patriots who were willing to sacrifice everything for the good of their country, right?”

“Yes, I’m with you one hundred percent.”

At this point Gabby began what seemed to me to be a prepared speech. “Then I know that your thoughts are like mine today, Harry, and you realize that at any cost we must get rid of JFK as soon as possible. So here it is: we finally have a real opportunity to end the Communist takeover. It’s now within our grasp to finally destroy America’s enemies, including Castro, JFK and world Communism.”

“You’ve said something great here,” I acknowledged. “What’s our next move?”

“This comes from the highest levels, Harry. Welch, Walker and Rousselot have entrusted me with a mission, and I need your help. It’s now or never. Do or die.”

“You know you can count on me in, Gabby. Just tell me.”

At this point, Gabby tells Harry about “the plot” to make Oswald into a patsy for the murder of JFK in November. And Harry is then asked to accompany Gabby to a meeting in San Marino with Rousselot. During this meeting, the amount of money required to carry out the “plot” was allegedly discussed and according to Harry, the $10,000 figure was mentioned for the first time. Rousselot allegedly agreed to obtain the money in cash.

Now, let’s let Harry continue with his own words from the eBook but I am going to bold and underline one point which is CRUCIAL:

To the best of my recollection, it was on the following Saturday, 7 September 1963, that I again drove Gabby to Rousselot’s office in San Marino. He was deep in his thoughts, probably about the promised $10,000. The main thing I remembered from our brief conversation that morning was that Gabby strictly instructed me to never mention a word about this to anybody – not even to Larry or Loran or David or anybody else in the John Birch Society.

“I’ll handle Larry and Loran,” said Gabby, “and I don’t want any loose lips around here. Got that? Nobody is allowed to speak about this mission without me being personally present.”

Naturally I understood – military conditions had long been my second nature. Yet, at the same time I noticed that Gabby was already feeling the pressure mount as one would expect for a captain with secret duties.

When we arrived at Rousselot’s office I stayed in the car as Gabby went up to speak with the Congressman. After only about ten minutes Gabby returned with a big smile. I asked, “Did you get the full ten grand?” Gabby, clearly pleased with himself, smiled proudly as he confirmed: “Yes.” (I was suitably impressed because in 1963, adjusted for inflation, ten grand was one hundred grand in today’s dollars.)

SO…let’s now summarize what we can learn from all this

1. During our debate in this thread, Paul has taken extreme exception to the idea that Harry ever described himself in any way which suggested that he was some sort of “agent” for any U.S. intelligence service. Paul has repeatedly declared that I have maliciously INVENTED that accusation OR that other people who have described Harry as an “agent” must have relied upon false statements made by W.R. Morris.

2. However, we see that in April 2012 Paul Trejo explicitly described Harry as an “agent” when he wrote (my bold type for emphasis):

By 1962, Harry Dean had successfully completed a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on Fidel Castro in Cuba. Now, in 1963, Harry Dean was on a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on the John Birch Society in Southern California

3. Consequently, cannot we not be forgiven if we accept at face value what Paul himself has written regarding Harry’s status vis-à-vis the FBI? Must we be subjected to constant calumny just because we believe the description which Paul has written as well as what Harry himself has said to many different people in many different contexts which also caused them to arrive at the EXACT SAME conclusion?

4. In April 2012, Paul tells us that Harry DOES NOT remember the date in September when the Rousselot meeting took place. But when the eBook was published a year later, Harry suddenly “remembers” that it was probably Saturday September 7^th.

5. But now comes the biggest whopper of them all. According to Paul Trejo (I bold type and underline key assertions:

"Some day in September, 1963 (Harry does not remember the exact day) in Southern California, Harry Dean attended a John Birch Society meeting along with Cuban Exile advocates Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard, former Marine hero Guy Gabaldon, Congressman John Rousselot, David Robbins, Eugene Bradley and former Major General Edwin A. Walker (resigned). In that meeting a great deal of money changed hands, from John Rousselot to Guy Gabaldon."

6. BUT ACCORDING TO HARRY:

When we arrived at Rousselot’s office I stayed in the car as Gabby went up to speak with the Congressman. After only about ten minutes Gabby returned with a big smile. I asked, “Did you get the full ten grand?” Gabby, clearly pleased with himself, smiled proudly as he confirmed: “Yes.” (I was suitably impressed because in 1963, adjusted for inflation, ten grand was one hundred grand in today’s dollars.)

In addition, Harry claims that "Gabby strictly instructed me to never mention a word about this to anybody – not even to Larry or Loran or David or anybody else in the John Birch Society" -- referring to the $10,000 given by Rousselot to Gabby. BUT, according to Paul Trejo, all those JBS people (including Harry) "ATTENDED" the very "meeting" where the money transfer took place---so they presumably already knew about it as witnesses! Not sure why they needed to attend a "10-minute" meeting -- but that is Harry and Paul's story!

7. Then, as Harry continues his “recollection” in the eBook version of his narrative, he mentions that “one day” [in September 1963], FBI Special Agent Wesley Grapp came by Harry’s home “for a visit”. But we know that Grapp did not arrive in Los Angeles until March 6, 1964 and we also know from Wesley Swearingen that SAC’s did NOT perform field work [because their responsibilities were office administrative functions and external public relations duties.]

8. And we know from Harry’s Los Angeles FBI file that there is no mention of any kind whatsoever about anybody meeting with Harry in September.

In fact, Harry's Los Angeles file is totally DORMANT from April 1963 until November 1963 when Harry wrote his letter to J. Edgar Hoover.

AND GUESS WHAT!!! In his letter to J. Edgar Hoover – Harry does not mention ONE WORD about the Birch Society, about his meeting with Galbadon and Rousselot or about the alleged subsequent meeting where $10,000 supposedly was picked up OR about his alleged meetings with Los Angeles SAC Wesley Grapp.

INSTEAD – the ENTIRE purpose of Harry’s 11/19/63 letter to Hoover was to ask for Hoover's assistance to “clear” his name by which Harry means that he wanted to somehow expunge the reference appearing in the Senate Subcommittee Report which described his participation in FPCC-Chicago three years before! The most momentous event in modern U.S. history is about to occur in three days and Harry knows about it – BUT all Harry is concerned about as of 11/19/63 is the ONE reference to his name in an obscure Senate Report which nobody even knows about!

THAT is the story and quality of evidence which Paul Trejo and Harry want us to believe!

Excellent post, Ernie.

But maybe Harry's memory isn't so suspect. Maybe Trejo just over did the word-twisting a bit.

LOL

--Tommy

[Ernie Lazar]

Well, Tommy, to accept your premise we would have to simultaneously consider these options:

1. In April 2012, Paul Trejo did NOT have an accurate understanding regarding Harry's story -- but why would that be the case?

2. By September 2013 (just before publication of the eBook) Harry presumably had read a draft copy of what Paul put together (and which was scheduled to be published the next month), but Harry chose NOT to correct what, presumably, are Paul's errors in reporting?

OR

3. Harry's story (and memory) has morphed over time to accommodate the pre-existing conspiracy theory narrative which he wants audiences to buy into -- but he changes or embellishes the details because (frankly) he does not accurately recall what happened, when it happened, and who was present.

[Thomas Graves]

Well, Tommy, to accept your premise we would have to simultaneously consider these options:

1. In April 2012, Paul Trejo did NOT have an accurate understanding regarding Harry's story -- but why would that be the case?

2. By September 2013 (just before publication of the eBook) Harry presumably had read a draft copy of what Paul put together (and which was scheduled to be published the next month), but Harry chose NOT to correct what, presumably, are Paul's errors in reporting?

OR

3. Harry's story (and memory) has morphed over time to accommodate the pre-existing conspiracy theory narrative which he wants audiences to buy into -- but he changes or embellishes the details because (frankly) he does not accurately recall what happened, when it happened, and who was present.

Ernie,

I'm guessing that Trejo didn't have an accurate understanding, that Harry's memory has morphed a bit, and Trejo has tried to accommodate it all by "word twisting".

--Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

Actually, despite the single question about the dates in which Harry Dean spoke with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp (yes, I still believe Harry Dean) the eBook which we published is solid as a rock.

Harry Dean provides, in fact, a viable account of the JFK assassination from an eye-witness very close to Loran Hall, Larry Howard and other well-discussed accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The fact that I defeated Tommy's flimsy theory about Bernardo De Torres being "Leopoldo", and the fact that I've torn hole after hole in the extremely poor logic and bias of Ernie Lazar's claims about the FBI (claims which even his erstwhile hero, FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen now mocks and ridicules) is alone the motivation which causes them to criticize our eBook.

The 2nd Edition of "Harry Dean's Confessions" will have only minor modifications -- a clarification of the dates of Harry's talks with Wesley Swearingen, and corrected names of the actual FBI Agents that Harry spoke with in 1963. Also, FBI documents will be added to the Appendix.

Further information about Ex-General Edwin Walker is also emerging as I write these words. Scholars from various US Universities have requested copies of my manuscript about Walker's personal papers (2012) and perhaps by the end of this year a major book by a significant researcher will be published outlining in great historical detail the case against Edwin Walker in the murder of JFK.

Keep vigilant -- keep watching this space for updates. The JFK case will finally be solved with this theory -- after 50 years of flailing about with half-truths and nonsense of the kind offered by Tommy and Ernie.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 4, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Harry J.Dean]

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:28 PM

Details.

The post from 8 May 2014

If only the vociferous/argumentative persons interested in Cuba & JFK histories had not remained in their yet unenlightened early teens when history happened, they could have been more than 'note writing, record keeping' constructive/critiques.

But alas they remain young in their sixties, that is, compared to we then in our 30s who experienced the making of those

often seriously dangerous and yes, patriotic histories. Those histories that flash so clear and unforgettable in every detail

across more than a mere fifty years, and now closer to 87 have not created mind-slip with me. Such is the excuse only of

they who are faulty-fishers for information and baiter's of traps to enhance their already faltering reputations as would-be

and self aggrandizing historians, and/or ?

My manuscript/book written in 1990 was intended to assist any interested in such history and for future family members. It

is the only record to date that I will recommend. An eBook titled Confessions of Harry Dean, by Paul Trejo had some interest

to me, though I would have liked to have been permitted to first read and make some serious corrections before it was published. It is now determined to withdraw from any further association or attempts to contribute to the histories mentioned above.

My past involvements in the Cuba/JFK case makes it unnecessary to display FBI/NARA records as having been there they

will only tell what is already known to me also the great cost involved makes the purchase impossible, therefore the records would serve no other purpose perhaps than one future day a genuine book on these historic details be seriously undertaken.

[Ernie Lazar]

Actually, despite the single question about the dates in which Harry Dean spoke with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp (yes, I still believe Harry Dean) the eBook which we published is solid as a rock.

Harry Dean provides, in fact, a viable account of the JFK assassination from an eye-witness very close to Loran Hall, Larry Howard and other well-discussed accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The fact that I defeated Tommy's flimsy theory about Bernardo De Torres being "Leopoldo", and the fact that I've torn hole after hole in the extremely poor logic and bias of Ernie Lazar's claims about the FBI (claims which even his erstwhile hero, FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen now mocks and ridicules) is alone the motivation which causes them to criticize our eBook.

The 2nd Edition of "Harry Dean's Confessions" will have only minor modifications -- a clarification of the dates of Harry's talks with Wesley Swearingen, and corrected names of the actual FBI Agents that Harry spoke with in 1963. Also, FBI documents will be added to the Appendix.

Further information about Ex-General Edwin Walker is also emerging as I write these words. Scholars from various US Universities have requested copies of my manuscript about Walker's personal papers (2012) and perhaps by the end of this year a major book by a significant researcher will be published outlining in great historical detail the case against Edwin Walker in the murder of JFK.

Keep vigilant -- keep watching this space for updates. The JFK case will finally be solved with this theory -- after 50 years of flailing about with half-truths and nonsense of the kind offered by Tommy and Ernie.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I must have missed your messages where you "tore hole after hole" in my messages and evidence here. However, everybody remembers your absurd psychobabble when you created an elaborate hoax to "prove" that Harry was correct and the FBI was "lying" (oops -- there's that word again) -- concerning Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover which you claimed WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY was a fake.

There will be no "FBI documents" added to your "second edition" Appendix UNLESS you plan to copy documents which I discovered and have posted online -- which again serves to prove that you are not capable of performing any research of your own and you merely copy what is handed to you by others who take the time and expend the resources to discover and then release relevant documentary evidence. BUT -- I will have something new and important to share in the near future.

And I just noticed Harry's message which states that he wished he could have made some "serious corrections" to your eBook. Ouch!

Edited August 4, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:28 PM

Details.

The post from 8 May 2014

If only the vociferous/argumentative persons interested in Cuba & JFK histories had not remained in their yet unenlightened early teens when history happened, they could have been more than 'note writing, record keeping' constructive/critiques.

But alas they remain young in their sixties, that is, compared to we then in our 30s who experienced the making of those

often seriously dangerous and yes, patriotic histories. Those histories that flash so clear and unforgettable in every detail

across more than a mere fifty years, and now closer to 87 have not created mind-slip with me. Such is the excuse only of

they who are faulty-fishers for information and baiter's of traps to enhance their already faltering reputations as would-be

and self aggrandizing historians, and/or ?

My manuscript/book written in 1990 was intended to assist any interested in such history and for future family members. It

is the only record to date that I will recommend. An eBook titled Confessions of Harry Dean, by Paul Trejo had some interest

to me, though I would have liked to have been permitted to first read and make some serious corrections before it was published. It is now determined to withdraw from any further association or attempts to contribute to the histories mentioned above.

My past involvements in the Cuba/JFK case makes it unnecessary to display FBI/NARA records as having been there they

will only tell what is already known to me also the great cost involved makes the purchase impossible, therefore the records would serve no other purpose perhaps than one future day a genuine book on these historic details be seriously undertaken.

Well, Harry, I've never seen your 1990 manuscript. At first I thought it was a "book" because of the way you and others described it -- but in reality it is just a 68 page pamphlet or booklet. Significantly, it is NOT available in any library in the United States -- which is another sign that it contains nothing of historical value. BUT -- I suspect that if I actually could obtain a copy of your pamphlet, I would discover even more anomalies and contradictions than what have already become apparent.

One wonders what this comment by you means?

My past involvements in the Cuba/JFK case makes it unnecessary to display FBI/NARA records as having been there they will only tell what is already known to me also the great cost involved makes the purchase impossible, therefore the records would serve no other purpose perhaps than one future day a genuine book on these historic details be seriously undertaken.

Are you saying that you were told by the FBI that they have NO documents about you because everything was transferred to NARA (as a result of Mark Allen's 1981 FOIA request which asked for all FBI records pertaining to the murders of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr. which the FBI submitted to the House Select Committee on Assassinations?

Mark Allen had to expend a lot of time and money (including on lawsuits) to force the FBI to release hundreds of thousands of documents in 1985. But your two FBI files (HQ and Los Angeles) can be obtained from NARA for $360 (total cost). Surely, you have 18 admirers and believers who would be willing to contribute $20 each so that you could obtain your two NARA files? You only need 18 people -- OR -- only 9 if you are willing to pay half the cost yourself.

Let's be honest Harry -- just once -- OK?

It is NOT (as you wote) the "great cost". You just don't want to do anything which facilitates having your FBI files (or CIA files) released to the public. But put your mind at rest. Probably by the end of September they both WILL be posted online on Internet Archive and on Democracy Now websites (maybe even sooner than that). And with any luck, I should be able to summarize what is contained in supplementary files (FPCC, JURE, Alpha 66, Wesley Grapp, Ferd Rapp, etc) by the end of this year or early next --- depending upon how fast the FBI processes my requests.

I have already posted online Edwin Walker's FBI HQ file (along with the correlation summaries regarding all files which contain references to him) and I recently uploaded here on EF Rousselot's Los Angeles file. Your shill, Paul Trejo, refuses to upload Rousselot's HQ file which I sent to Paul, because he does not want anybody to see what is contained in that file. But all of this WILL be online in the near future.

In some ways, Harry, your story is unique. But in many other ways it is rather typical. You never had "15 minutes of fame". More like 5 minutes. But nobody believes your story --- which is why there are so few books about JFK's assassination by serious researchers that even mention your story. Even other conspiracy theorists have discounted it. Only people like Paul Trejo believe you -- because (as in Paul's case) it fits into his pre-existing paradigm and there is no possibility that Paul will ever acknowledge that he has been gravely mistaken about anything. Instead, he will create more layers of absurdity and contradictions to defend you to the very end.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Actually, despite the single question about the dates in which Harry Dean spoke with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp (yes, I still believe Harry Dean) the eBook which we published is solid as a rock.

Harry Dean provides, in fact, a viable account of the JFK assassination from an eye-witness very close to Loran Hall, Larry Howard and other well-discussed accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The fact that I defeated Tommy's flimsy theory about Bernardo De Torres being "Leopoldo", and the fact that I've torn hole after hole in the extremely poor logic and bias of Ernie Lazar's claims about the FBI (claims which even his erstwhile hero, FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen now mocks and ridicules) is alone the motivation which causes them to criticize our eBook.

The 2nd Edition of "Harry Dean's Confessions" will have only minor modifications -- a clarification of the dates of Harry's talks with Wesley Swearingen, and corrected names of the actual FBI Agents that Harry spoke with in 1963. Also, FBI documents will be added to the Appendix.

Further information about Ex-General Edwin Walker is also emerging as I write these words. Scholars from various US Universities have requested copies of my manuscript about Walker's personal papers (2012) and perhaps by the end of this year a major book by a significant researcher will be published outlining in great historical detail the case against Edwin Walker in the murder of JFK.

Keep vigilant -- keep watching this space for updates. The JFK case will finally be solved with this theory -- after 50 years of flailing about with half-truths and nonsense of the kind offered by Tommy and Ernie.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

SOLID AS A ROCK?

Remember when I posted this message back in March?

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND YOU THEN REPLIED:

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

As it turns out -- my purported "hostile and misrepresenting bias" STILL continues to represent "a fair summary of our status today".

[Ernie Lazar]

UPDATE and SUGGESTION FOR HARRY

Today I received from the FBI, a portion of the HQ file on Juan Del Rosario which is HQ 105-94423. The equivalent Chicago field file is Chicago 105-8823.

Unfortunately, I never could find any definite information concerning Juan's birthdate (or possible death) -- so the documents I received are heavily redacted. I had only asked for documents in the time period from June 1960 through July 1961 --- to cover the period when Harry could have provided the FBI with information about Juan. There are numerous redacted references to persons who provided information to the FBI starting in the summer of 1960 ( they are identified as CG T-1 thru CG T-6).

The total number of pages released to me =128 (but there were 161 pages reviewed and the remaining docs have been referred to other agencies for review before release).

SUGGESTION FOR HARRY: Ask the FBI to process this file (HQ and Chicago field) for the period June 1960 through July 1961 and, of course, provide them with authorization to release any documents which might identify you. This will cost you either nothing whatsoever (if less than a total of 250 pages) or, at most, $15 if you request release of all documents on a CD. Chances are everything will be free since they have already processed the HQ file and that leaves only the Chicago file. Furthermore, since the portion of the HQ file already released is considered by the FBI to be a "pre-processed small track request" ---- Harry could probably receive it within 6 weeks or less.

IF Harry provided any useful information to the FBI about Juan del Rosario --- then when Harry authorizes release of documents containing Harry's name (presumably currently shown as a T-number symbol) -- that could be one piece of evidence to support Harry's contention that the FBI utilized information he provided.

On the other hand, if none of the information sources (T-1 through T-6) are identified as Harry --- then that would mean that the FBI already had many reliable sources of information regarding del Rosario and about his connection to FPCC and to the 26th of July Movement --- so the FBI just dismissed whatever Harry was providing. Either way -- we would get new insights into the credibility of Harry's narrative.

POSTSCRIPT:

I should add one important piece of information.

As many of you probably know by now, the FBI cross-references data into multiple subject files and when they prepare memos or reports they almost always show the other file numbers into which a copy of any memo or report has been placed OR from which information came.

Significantly, neither Harry's Chicago field file number (100-38257) nor his HQ file number (HQ 62-109068) nor his Los Angeles file number (105-12933) are shown on any serial contained in Juan Del Rosario's file.

ONE OTHER POINT:

Juan Del Rosario was placed on the FBI's Security Index. Which means anybody he came into contact with (particularly with respect to FPCC and 26th of July Movement) would be a person of interest to the FBI and there would be detailed notes regarding those contacts.

In addition, the FBI operated a "mail cover" on Del Rosario -- which means all incoming and outgoing mail was monitored with respect to names and addresses of senders and recipients of mail.

Beyond all that -- Del Rosario's phone and his bank accounts were monitored.

So, IF Harry had ANY connection to Del Rosario (directly or indirectly) -- there should be some documentary evidence of it.

In one June 28, 1961 summary report on Del Rosario, there are ELEVEN sources referenced (CG T-1 through CG T-11) who provided info about Del Rosario. Of course, some of those were probably NON-human -- such as the mail cover. CG-T-10 is apparently the single most important source of information about Del Rosario because the FBI states in their summary memo that all information in the memo is classified "secret" because "of the sensitive nature of CG T-10"

Edited August 4, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

...There will be no "FBI documents" added to your "second edition" Appendix UNLESS you plan to copy documents which I discovered and have posted online -- which again serves to prove that you are not capable of performing any research of your own and you merely copy what is handed to you by others who take the time and expend the resources to discover and then release relevant documentary evidence. BUT -- I will have something new and important to share in the near future.

Actually, Ernie, in early 2013 you were still writing in a web page entitled, "The Strange Love of Billy James Hargis," (on ThisLandPress.com) that Harry Dean had no FBI number at all.

The truth is that it was I, in 2013, who found that number and gave it to you, and started your buying spree of FBI materials on Harry Dean.

Since then, of course, the editors of that article subsumed our online debate in their article, so your deception is now covered. Yet you are frankly dishonest to claim that you "discovered" the FBI files on Harry Dean.

Harry Dean did call the FBI this year to obtain all FBI records about himself. The FBI responded by saying that all that material was sent to NARA. NARA, as we know, charges very high prices for their records -- so Harry Dean is basically locked out from viewing those records on his own.

Those are the facts. You might crow about being able to afford many of those NARA records, Ernie, but your blog about them still suffers from one major defect -- the Editor -- that's you.

Your collection of the Harry Dean material is questionable, because actually, who knows what you're withholding due to your bias?

Further, you provide a special link called "Analysis," which is nothing more than your bias and one-sided so-called logic having a field day in a web site that is completely protected from critiicism.

So what? Any objective reader can see through your bias.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Let's be honest Harry -- just once -- OK?

MODERATOR! MODERATOR! Is this form of insult still being allowed on John Simkin's Education Forum??

...Your shill, Paul Trejo, refuses to upload Rousselot's HQ file which I sent to Paul, because he does not want anybody to see what is contained in that file...

Well, you'll soon upload that silly little file of the FBI giving a green light to the JBS moron, former Congressman John Rousselot, to work for Ronald Reagan for two years as a "consultant," Ernie.

There's no need for me to sully my hands with it.

The FBI merely interviewed 33 of Rousselot's pals and provided no further investigation than that. It's extremely boring reading that all these neighbors and co-workers thought John was a "great guy." That's the sort of work we got from the FBI in response to a Presidential request. No cross-examination whatsoever.

I certainly don't care who sees that silly little file, Ernie. Still, your insults have for some reason obtained a new lease on life. Probably you're crowing because Harry Dean has divorced me -- by surprise -- using this very thread on the Education Forum.

I don't blame Harry Dean -- if Harry's exhausted from a lifetime of telling his truth, and being bashed in the teeth, to to speak, from FBI and JBS shills like yourself, then one can easily understand his exhaustion. A half-century of argumentation is long enough for anybody.

But I myself am not giving up. All FBI files on Harry Dean have still not been accounted for -- despite your biased web site, Ernie.

The TRUTH about the central role played by Ex-General Edwin Walker in the Dallas leg of the JFK murder plot has still not had its proper hearing.

BULLETIN: There is a new book coming out -- probably this year -- and probably more than a thousand pages long -- about the role of Ex-General Edwin Walker in the JFK murder plot. The scholar who's preparing this book has asked me to refrain from naming him until the book is in print. So, I'll honor his request. But get ready, dear readers; 2014 could be the year.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 5, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...There will be no "FBI documents" added to your "second edition" Appendix UNLESS you plan to copy documents which I discovered and have posted online -- which again serves to prove that you are not capable of performing any research of your own and you merely copy what is handed to you by others who take the time and expend the resources to discover and then release relevant documentary evidence. BUT -- I will have something new and important to share in the near future.

Actually, Ernie, in early 2013 you were still writing in a web page entitled, "The Strange Love of Billy James Hargis," (on ThisLandPress.com) that Harry Dean had no FBI number at all.

The truth is that it was I, in 2013, who found that number and gave it to you, and started your buying spree of FBI materials on Harry Dean.

Since then, of course, the editors of that article subsumed our online debate in their article, so your deception is now covered. Yet you are frankly dishonest to claim that you "discovered" the FBI files on Harry Dean.

Harry Dean did call the FBI this year to obtain all FBI records about himself. The FBI responded by saying that all that material was sent to NARA. NARA, as we know, charges very high prices for their records -- so Harry Dean is basically locked out from viewing those records on his own.

Those are the facts. You might crow about being able to afford many of those NARA records, Ernie, but your blog about them still suffers from one major defect -- the Editor -- that's you.

Your collection of the Harry Dean material is questionable, because actually, who knows what you're withholding due to your bias?

Further, you provide a special link called "Analysis," which is nothing more than your bias and one-sided so-called logic having a field day in a web site that is completely protected from critiicism.

So what? Any objective reader can see through your bias.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you have made a serious allegation about something I allegedly wrote in "early 2013".

And you have made that accusation before here in EF.

But as is your routine custom you never QUOTE what I wrote. SO WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU?

The "number" you are referring to was an FBI file number right? Would you care to share with everyone here "the number" you are referring to?

If you would QUOTE what I actually wrote -- then all of this disagreement would immediately be resolved. SO DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS AND COMMON DECENCY TO QUOTE WHAT I WROTE? And just for the record -- there was no "buying spree" commenced afterward. The most helpful information I discovered was NOT from you but from Marry Ferrell's website which identified ALL the pertinent files regarding Harry -- and NONE of those files discuss Harry's alleged reports about the Birch Society, about Rousselot, about Galbadon, or about any "JBS plot" or about ANYTHING with respect to Harry and Wesley Grapp.

Significantly, YET AGAIN, you leave out the relevant context. Our dispute with respect to this matter has ALWAYS been in the context of WHETHER OR NOT Harry was ever an FBI informant, or confidential source, or "undercover operative" or "undercover agent" (AS YOU FALSELY CLAIMED) or "spy" or whether or not the FBI ever "asked" Harry to perform any intelligence activity for the FBI.

I used the word "discovered" in its ordinary plain English meaning which is as follows:

verb

1. find (something or someone) unexpectedly or in the course of a search

And that is PRECISELY what happened. I "discovered" the existence of major portions of Harry's FBI files on Ferrell's website and THEN I "discovered" WHO was responsible for getting those files released THIRTY YEARS AGO ---- something which you NEVER did despite your intense interest in Harry's story.

FBI RECORDS AT NARA

So -- as I told you MONTHS AGO -- all FBI records are at NARA. There was nothing that you or Harry were going to see that I have not already summarized and posted online. I am not "crowing" about obtaining those records. Like Harry, I am retired and I live on a fixed income. I do not lightly decide to spend a total of $360 just to establish the truth about some matter.

But you have facilitated a fraud so I am happy to make these documents PUBLICLY available --- something which you (or Harry) could have done DECADES AGO at virtually no cost. [When the FBI only offered requesters the option of obtaining PAPER docs, the two files we are discussing (HQ and Los Angeles) would have cost you or Harry only $36.50 for everything (as a maximum)! And it is entirely possible you could have obtained everything totally FREE!] So stop whining and complaining about "the cost" of NARA -- because both of you were too damn lazy to submit an FOIA request and in Harry's case he probably did not want these files released because they conclusively establish that his story is phony.

With respect to this comment by you:

Those are the facts. You might crow about being able to afford many of those NARA records, Ernie, but your blog about them still suffers from one major defect -- the Editor -- that's you. Your collection of the Harry Dean material is questionable, because actually, who knows what you're withholding due to your bias?

Let's discuss this seriously --- ok Paul?

1. Once again, I would like to point out the difference between us (both morally and intellectually). I would NEVER make such an unkind insinuation or accusation without some kind of verifiable evidence --- but, significantly, this is your standard operating procedure.

2. What you still do not seem to understand is that I did NOT "edit" anything materially significant which appears on my webpage. INSTEAD, I typed VERBATIM from both Harry's own correspondence and from FBI documents --- and I even scanned online some of the more crucial documents. In 99% of cases, I typed the ENTIRE memo verbatim. [The major exception is Harry's interview with a southern California law enforcement agency which is too lengthy to retype all 22 pages in their entirety...but I clearly identify both the FBI serial number AND the NARA accession number so anybody can obtain a copy.] That is NOT the behavior of someone who is manipulating or "editing" data in the manner which you insinuate.

3. In a few weeks, both of Harry's files will be posted online in their entirety. At that point you can comb through all 465 pages and see for yourself that I have never "edited" anything. So the only question that remains is: Will you have the decency to behave honorably and PUBLICLY apologize to me for your malicious libels? I predict you WILL NOT.

4. Let's now turn to your innuendo about me "withholding" something. FIRST -- let's remember that this comes from a person who REFUSED to post online the HQ file on John Rousselot which I sent to him.

5. Let's also remember something else: I am the ONLY person in this thread whom has EVER uploaded ANY documents pertaining to Harry Dean or pertaining to the subjects which Harry and yourself have discussed.

6. What, EXACTLY, do you think I am "withholding"? How could I possibly make anything more disadvantageous to Harry than what has already come to light from the FBI documents appearing on the Ferrell website -- which establish, beyond dispute, (and even in Harry's own handwriting) that the FBI told him in 1961 that they did NOT want his assistance because of information they discovered about his background?

7. Give us some hypothetical examples of what YOU think I might be "withholding" -- so we can all see how your mind works -- and then we can compare your delusions to the files when they are posted online in a few weeks.

8. Lastly --- let's spend a moment on your word "bias". ONLY YOU have ever stated that you function as a friend, ally, and #1 defender of Harry. If THAT is not an admission of "bias" -- then what is? Furthermore, we have seen how YOUR "bias" operates. We saw with our own eyes how you attempted to merge your personal opinions and your belief in Harry's story with the "support" of "intelligent and courageous" Wesley Swearingen. You presented a self-promoting and delusional explanation of your contacts with Swearingen to make it seem like he had an "open mind" regarding Harry's story -- i.e. that Harry might have some valuable insights which need to be considered.

INSTEAD -- when Swearingen became aware of how YOU were FALSELY presenting his position (because of YOUR BIAS), he categorically dissociated himself from you and Harry and Swearingen declared that Harry was in need of professional help AND he added that Harry's story was NOT credible.

So---when you want to discuss "bias" -- I suggest you look into a mirror!

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ernie Lazar