Paul Trejo Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 (edited) DEAN-RELATED FBI FILES UPDATE 1. I have paid for Harry's FBI HQ file (62-109068) which is 162 pages. (Previous estimate of 200 pages was just that---an estimate. This time they actually counted all the pages.) 2. I have also paid for Rousselot's HQ file (94-54427) which is 97 pages. 3. However, today I received an email from NARA which stated that: "Our office experienced technical issues with our electronic redaction tool which resulted in processing delays for several weeks. We are currently resolving several issues and have began scanning cases just recently. Your case is at the top of the queue to be scanned."[/size] So, there will be a short delay but still hope to have everything posted on Internet Archive within the next 2-3 weeks. Ernie, despite your negative position on the claims of Harry Dean, I still salute your efforts to obtain all these FBI resources with regard to Harry Dean's case. Of course, interpretation of the results will be essential -- still -- without the raw materials there's no question of interpretation in the first place, so I publicly acknowledge your progress and public sharing. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited September 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 (edited) DEAN-RELATED FBI FILES UPDATE 1. I have paid for Harry's FBI HQ file (62-109068) which is 162 pages. (Previous estimate of 200 pages was just that---an estimate. This time they actually counted all the pages.) 2. I have also paid for Rousselot's HQ file (94-54427) which is 97 pages. 3. However, today I received an email from NARA which stated that: "Our office experienced technical issues with our electronic redaction tool which resulted in processing delays for several weeks. We are currently resolving several issues and have began scanning cases just recently. Your case is at the top of the queue to be scanned."[/size] So, there will be a short delay but still hope to have everything posted on Internet Archive within the next 2-3 weeks. Ernie, despite your negative position on the claims of Harry Dean, I still salute your efforts to obtain all these FBI resources with regard to Harry Dean's case. Of course, interpretation of the results will be essential -- still -- without the raw materials there's no question of interpretation in the first place, so I publicly acknowledge your progress and public sharing. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Also received a response from the the successor agency to Office of Naval Intelligence regarding the three ONI file numbers which are referenced in an Air Force Intelligence document as pertaining to Harry. As I predicted, those files are no longer available through the Naval Investigative Service. However, if the FBI or another agency received a copy of an ONI report which the agency placed in one or more of its files, then there is still the possibility of seeing the original documents. I also have received more of the serials which were listed on the FBI "search slips" in Harry's HQ and Los Angeles files. However, so far, none of these serials are about our Harry Dean. Instead, they pertain to other individuals in the 1920's and 1930's and 1940's who were involved in various criminal matters such as bank robbery. In one case, the serial containing the name "Harry Dean" referred to an Assistant District Attorney by the name Harry Dean who was prosecuting a case. My FOIA requests which still are being processed which may have some information about Harry are in files pertaining to FPCC, Alpha 66, "Anti-Castro Activities", JURE, and FBI Agents Ferd J. Rapp and Wesley Grapp. Paul is certainly correct about how interpretation of available information is critical. However, the absence of information is also something very important to candidly recognize. Not sure if I mentioned this previously or not but for clarity: When the FBI had any sort of ongoing relationship with an information source whom they considered to be an informant there would be a minimum of TWO main files created. The first file (for lack of a better term) might be described as just a general administrative file. Typically, the FBI file number would begin with a "62" prefix (just like Harry's HQ file) or "100" (just like Harry's Chicago and Los Angeles files). To be clear: I am NOT saying that every "62" or "100" file was an "informant" file. Quite the contrary. A "62" file classification was designated by the FBI as "Administrative Inquiry" and it was meant to archive all sorts of documents -- usually incoming inquiries or complaints about a person or organization along with the Bureau's replies, plus newspaper and magazine articles in which a person or organization is mentioned. In addition, any background information about the person(s) providing information would be put into this general administrative file. For example, the FBI HQ file on the John Birch Society is HQ 62-104401. A "100" file classification was for capturing information received from anybody who contacted the FBI about any sort of matter which might be categorized as related to "Domestic Security". So, for example, if Paul Trejo wrote a letter to the FBI in Texas in which Paul declared that he suspected that Communist sympathizers might be trying to takeover his local union, then, almost certainly, Paul's letter would be put into some field office file whose prefix was "100" and if any sort of formal investigation was opened, it is entirely possible that HQ would also open a "100" file on that subject matter. And the FBI field office would probably ask "Who is Paul Trejo?" -- and, consequently, his background information would be placed into that "100" file. So the FBI created a main administrative file to archive documents pertaining to incoming inquiries and complaints and background information. BUT a second file was created for every informant or confidential source who had any sort of ongoing relationship with the FBI. That second file was devoted exclusively to archiving reports made by the informant or confidential source. The reason for this was to make it easier for the FBI to retrieve documentary evidence which might be needed for use in court or other legal proceedings. So, instead of having to rummage through potentially thousands of pages of miscellaneous documents, FBI employees could, instead, immediately find sworn statements and eyewitness testimony which could be turned into a prosecutive summary. That second file (the informant/confidential source file) typically began with a "134" prefix which is now the FBI designation for "foreign counterintelligence assets". In 1948, Hoover directed field offices to maintain separate files for every regular informant and then in 1952 Hoover directed that all field offices use "134" designation files for all current or potential security informants who provided information about suspected subversive organizations -- especially the CPUSA. And in 1959, white extremist/racial hate group informants were separated out and designated as "137" classification informants. In subsequent years, other file prefixes were used for other types of informants. So how were FBI employees (at HQ or at FBI field offices) able to ascertain whether or not any specific informant or confidential source was providing the information that appeared in the FBI summary memo or FBI report which they were reading? Especially when they saw that memo or report in an administrative file (such as 62 or 100 prefixes)? Several different ways, but the most obvious was simply by looking for the cross-references at the bottom of the memo or report (or sometimes at top in the subject line) which referenced the relevant "134" or "137" etc. prefix files. Although Paul does not want to (and he will never) acknowledge this, the single most critical piece of information to know about Harry Dean is that the FBI never created a non-administrative file on Harry Dean -- and, specifically, a file with an informant/confidential source classification code. Edited September 25, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) Although Paul does not want to (and he will never) acknowledge this, the single most critical piece of information to know about Harry Dean is that the FBI never created a non-administrative file on Harry Dean -- and, specifically, a file with an informant/confidential source classification code. Well, Ernie, let's take a step back and examine this claim critically, please. It actually makes no difference at all to my case if the FBI took Harry Dean seriously or not. It actually makes no difference at all to my case if the FBI thought of Harry as a "mental case." What is critical for my case is that Harry Dean actually did associate with the people that he claimed, and that he really did contact the FBI and provide them with information about his associates -- even if unsolicited. What the FBI did with that information is secondary, or even tertiary to my case. What your research so far has shown, in my interpretation, is that the FBI really and truly did keep files about Harry Dean's phone calls and visits, and really did record information from Harry about the FPCC in Chicago, and the radical right-wing in Southern California from 1961-1963. That little bit is already confirmation that Harry Dean is telling the truth today, and has been telling this same truth since 1965, when he first came out publicly with his story. The evidence we've seen so far (and we both agree that some FBI evidence has still not been made public) does tend to suggest that the FBI failed to take Harry Dean seriously. Some of the FBI Agents made insulting remarks about Harry Dean. But more importantly, according to my theory, all FBI Agents after 11/22/1963 were under orders to promote the Lone Nut theory of the JFK murder as proposed by J. Edgar Hoover, and to smash all theories that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices. To this end, nearly everybody who contradicted J. Edgar Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory since 11/22/1963 has been labeled a "mental case" by the FBI. I include here Silva Odio, Harry Dean and later, Jim Garrison and his information sources. So, in my theory, the jury is still out. We still haven't seen all the FBI files related to the case of Harry Dean. Yet I repeat -- even if the FBI never created a non-administrative file on Harry Dean with an informant/confidential source classification code -- that still doesn't invalidate my theory. If the FBI failed to accept the word of an eye-witness to the JFK murder plot, that's their own failing. Harry Dean did his duty -- he gave it his best shot -- much like Jim Garrison. The fuller truth will emerge about Harry Dean's story, especially as it relates to the resigned Major General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century), and I expect to read more and more about Edwin Walker as we approach the new JFK Information Act deadline of 2017. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited September 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) Although Paul does not want to (and he will never) acknowledge this, the single most critical piece of information to know about Harry Dean is that the FBI never created a non-administrative file on Harry Dean -- and, specifically, a file with an informant/confidential source classification code. Well, Ernie, let's take a step back and examine this claim critically, please. OK -- let's do that. But "critically" means you have to accept the fact that your interpretation or analysis could be fundamentally flawed or unreasonable. It actually makes no difference at all to my case if the FBI took Harry Dean seriously or not. THAT is an astonishing statement for you to make after all this time. But here again, one has to understand the way YOU use language. What does "seriously" mean in the context of our larger debate? The ENTIRE thrust of Harry's argument for 50 years depends upon the predicate that he WAS taken "seriously" by the FBI and that they "asked" him to provide information not just once or for a short period of time but continuously over a period of YEARS! It actually makes no difference at all to my case if the FBI thought of Harry as a "mental case." Again -- if THAT is actually now YOUR position, then why bother publishing an eBook whose entire focus is upon Harry's story? If you subtract from Harry's narrative the alleged FBI (and CIA) connections, then there is absolutely no value to what Harry has to say because there is absolutely NO verifiable documentary or oral history evidence to support his contentions about his alleged assistance to, and reports to "intelligence agencies" --- during a long period of time which they supposedly requested Harry to provide! What is critical for my case is that Harry Dean actually did associate with the people that he claimed, and that he really did contact the FBI and provide them with information about his associates -- even if unsolicited. Here is the fundamental problem Paul. You use the word "information" as an all-purpose slogan without regard to discerning whether or not the "information" provided was accurate, truthful, relevant, exaggerated, flawed, rumor, gossip, hearsay or entirely false. Those persons who believe that no human has ever actually landed on the moon, or who believe that the earth is flat, or who believe that Ebola was manufactured by western countries to annihilate Africans -- are ALL providing "information". What the FBI did with that information is secondary, or even tertiary to my case. Well, it should not be secondary or tertiary. It should be extremely important primary source data which you analyze and weigh for significance and value and then decide how it fits into your larger argument.. What your research so far has shown, in my interpretation, is that the FBI really and truly did keep files about Harry Dean's phone calls and visits, and really did record information from Harry about the FPCC in Chicago, and the radical right-wing in Southern California from 1961-1963. The FBI did not "keep files" about Harry's "phone calls and visits". The FBI had ONE main file in Los Angeles and ONE main file in Chicago. The Los Angeles file covers the longest period of time -- and Harry claims he was providing intelligence information to Los Angeles FBI during that time. However, Harry's files contain only a handful of individual serials (i.e. FD-71 contact forms, not "files") to summarize what Harry told FBI Agents (by phone or via interview in person). In most cases, those serials re: FBI contacts with Harry were very brief -- i.e. often only 4 to 6 sentences. Which, again, shows you how unimportant his information was. In short, it was merely a CLERICAL function to record Harry;s contacts with an FBI field office --- just as occurred THOUSANDS of times a year from other persons who provided unsolicited information. This is also why so many of the contact forms are labeled "for information" or "file for record of call" or they are marked for filing into Harry's administrative file -- BUT they were not routed to any other file!) That little bit is already confirmation that Harry Dean is telling the truth today, and has been telling this same truth since 1965, when he first came out publicly with his story. Paul -- you still don't get it! EVERY human being in the United States can, if they want to, contact their local FBI office or FBI HQ in Washington DC. Merely contacting the FBI is NOT any indication of whether or not the person is "telling the truth" about whatever "information" is provided. RAW information, BY DEFINITION, needs to be critically examined and evaluated and then weighed for significance and accuracy and relevance. OFTEN, persons who contacted the FBI provided raw information which was contradicted by information provided by other persons! You seem incapable of understanding this hugely important point. RAW information has to be vetted which means subjected to careful examination. By itself, RAW information has no significance. What you are doing is pretending that ALL "information" is equally valid and it has equal significance or importance. In your scheme of things, there is no such thing as false or distorted or flawed or grossly exaggerated "information". You think that individual kernels of fact validates whatever the person is saying. So, for example, if two witnesses to a bank robbery state that they saw a red Chevrolet drive away from the bank about the time of the robbery -- then that means (1) the vehicle was "red" and (2) that "red" vehicle was a "Chevrolet" and (3) that "red Chevrolet" was involved in the robbery. BUT all 3 premises could be false! BUT to you, if a police department or the FBI records their "contact" with those two witnesses (i.e. they fill out a contact form summarizing what the witnesses said) -- THEN, in your scheme of things, that means the witnesses are "telling the truth". The evidence we've seen so far (and we both agree that some FBI evidence has still not been made public) does tend to suggest that the FBI failed to take Harry Dean seriously. Some of the FBI Agents made insulting remarks about Harry Dean. I would use different terminology. Your approach is to discredit the FBI as an institution because of the comments made by two or three Agents whom (as a result of their personal contacts with Harry) thought he was not presenting credible or relevant information. You characterize ALL negative references to Harry as "insulting" because, in your scheme of things, nothing must be allowed to challenge Harry's narrative or his character. Nevertheless, you have REPEATEDLY made statements in this thread about people whom YOU claim have "lied" when they testified before the Warren Commission or in their public statements. BUT you do NOT consider YOUR pejorative characterizations of their character and integrity to be "insulting". You reserve the term "insulting" ONLY to situations where someone adopts the exact same sentiments which you have -- but they apply the pejorative characterization to Harry. But more importantly, according to my theory, all FBI Agents after 11/22/1963 were under orders to promote the Lone Nut theory of the JFK murder as proposed by J. Edgar Hoover, and to smash all theories that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices. I don't think you can find verifiable evidence about any "orders" given to FBI Agents to promote any specific theory. The final interpretations or conclusions of available evidence were made by senior FBI employees (at FBI HQ) -- not by field office personnel. To this end, nearly everybody who contradicted J. Edgar Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory since 11/22/1963 has been labeled a "mental case" by the FBI. I include here Silva Odio, Harry Dean and later, Jim Garrison and his information sources. This may shock you Paul. But if you talk to ANY law enforcement or intelligence agency professional they will tell you that high profile criminal cases OFTEN attract unbalanced people who use those events to promote their own agendas. It is not uncommon for people to claim responsibility for crimes they did NOT commit. When law enforcement asks the public to call in to provide "tips" which might help police solve a crime, often there are HUNDREDS if not thousands of phony leads. AND, yes, whether you want to admit it or not, MANY of those phone calls come from "mental cases". [i'm sure you have read about the "stalking" cases involving famous personalities -- including people who have broken into the homes of movie stars, etc. These folks are also "mental cases". I suggest you read John Hinckley's letter to Jodi Foster! http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/letter.htm The fundamental problem here Paul is that you apparently have had no significant personal experience dealing with the public (in large numbers on an ongoing basis). I suspect that in your current occupation, you may deal with perhaps 10 or 15 co-workers and that's it --- so your analysis or interpretation of human behavior is based upon your very limited personal experiences. However, there are many occupations which require very extensive daily public contact (in person or on the phone). At one time (for example) I worked for Western Union. In any given week, I probably answered 450 phone calls from all sorts of people from all over the country. Some were very friendly. Others were extremely hostile or impatient or rude. I also worked for major retailers (in both California and in Illinois) for many years and I dealt with many hundreds of customers every week. Again, some customers were friendly and polite; others were extremely rude and demanding and, yes, some WERE "mental cases". I was physically assaulted by one such customer in downtown San Francisco. It is NOT "insulting" to mention that or for someone who has had personal experience with someone to conclude that they have a mental issue. As I have told you previously, ANY fast food restaurant employee knows which of their regular contacts have "problems". They don't have to be psychiatrists to recognize homeless people, drug addicts, alcoholics, and persons who have a chip on their shoulder and a very short fuse. So, in my theory, the jury is still out. We still haven't seen all the FBI files related to the case of Harry Dean. Actually, Paul, we have seen them or summaries of their contents. BUT if you know about the existence of any SPECIFIC file which YOU think contains unique and important insights which we must review before making final conclusions, THEN please TELL US what specific files you are referring to. Don't just assert that such files exist if you have no specific knowledge about their existence. Yet I repeat -- even if the FBI never created a non-administrative file on Harry Dean with an informant/confidential source classification code -- that still doesn't invalidate my theory. You have so many "theories" nobody could invalidate any of them because NONE of them require verifiable factual evidence. I think Larry Hancock provided a better term for your use, i.e. "hypothesis". What you present does NOT rise to the level of a genuine "theory". If the FBI failed to accept the word of an eye-witness to the JFK murder plot, that's their own failing. Harry Dean did his duty -- he gave it his best shot -- much like Jim Garrison. "Eyewitness" testimony is not, ipso facto, credible or true. As previously noted, we can (if you want) entirely eliminate the FBI. The FACT remains that virtually none of the most prominent JFK-assassination researchers even mention Harry Dean in their books and articles -- much less believe him. For example: as I previously pointed out, when I contacted Joan Mellen, she stated that nobody she interviewed ever mentioned Harry Dean! Furthermore, as I have pointed out, you cannot even find copies of Harry's pamphlet "Crosstrails" in any U.S. library -- nor is it for sale in any online used bookstore or other outlet. By contrast, every other JFK-related book or booklet can be obtained somewhere (library or online) because somebody believed the author presented something useful or worthy of being considered. The fuller truth will emerge about Harry Dean's story, especially as it relates to the resigned Major General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century), and I expect to read more and more about Edwin Walker as we approach the new JFK Information Act deadline of 2017. I have REPEATEDLY asked you if there is ANY mention of Harry Dean in Walker's papers? OR any mention of the "JBS plot"? OR any mention of Galbadon? You have refused to answer. For that matter, is there ANY mention of Harry Dean, the "JBS plot" or Galbadon in the personal papers of ANYBODY (alive or dead)? Best regards, --Paul Trejo Paul -- my comments appear underneath yours in BLUE font Edited September 26, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) The ENTIRE thrust of Harry's argument for 50 years depends upon the predicate that he WAS taken "seriously" by the FBI and that they "asked" him to provide information not just once or for a short period of time but continuously over a period of YEARS! No, Ernie, I disagree with this. While Harry Dean might have been misled by the FBI to believe that they were taking him seriously (and I take that to be the case) we can see clearly from the FBI records that we have seen so far that the FBI was barely tolerating Harry Dean after the murder of JFK. The reason why should be obvious: Harry Dean was contradicting the FBI Director's own doctrine that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "Lone Shooter" and "had no accomplices." Therefore, given that FBI Agents would never cross the FBI Director (or they would be fired and thus no longer be FBI Agents), it was utterly and absolutely impossible for the FBI, at any time after J. Edgar Hoover announced the "Lone Shooter" doctrine, to take Harry Dean seriously. According to History Professor David R. Wrone of Wisconsin University, the hour at which J. Edgar Hoover announced his "Lone Shooter" theory was within an hour after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was booked by the DPD at about 2pm CST on 11/22/1963, so by 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, the FBI had its tacit orders to SMASH any claims that Lee Harvey Oswald had associates, i.e. co-conspirators. As it turns out, Harry Dean was one of the many people in the next five years to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald had associates, i.e. co-conspirators. In 1965, Harry Dean came forward on the Joe Pyne Show -- against the wishes of the FBI -- and named various people in connection with the JFK murder, including Loran Hall, a mercenary closely related to radical Cuban Exiles in New Orleans. Three years later, in 1968, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison would interrogate Loran Hall to ascertain his possible role in the murder of JFK. In the next decade, Gaeton Fonzi would claim that not enough attention had been paid to Loran Hall in connection with the murder of JFK. In the 21st century, Joan Mellen has also named Loran Hall as one of her many suspects, connected with the Cuban Exile and radical rightist community in New Orleans. Current writers like Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich resonate with her findings. It all goes back to Harry Dean in 1965. But in 1965 the FBI spoke out against Harry Dean. In 1968 the FBI also spoke out against Jim Garrison. (The story goes even deeper than this -- yet I feel sure that I've covered this ground so much in the past year that every reader here knows all the details I've presented.) To get back to the point -- the FBI did not take Harry Dean's story seriously. Yet they most likely "patronized" Harry Dean, and this gave Harry Dean false hopes that his ideas were being heard. Harry knew they were true, and he continued to have faith in our US Government and in the FBI in particular. But the FBI failed Harry Dean, just as they failed the American People, when it came to the topic of TRUTH about the JFK murder. J. Edgar Hoover pronounced the doctrine -- Oswald was the "Lone Shooter" and the FBI stomped on anything that contradicted Hoover. We have further confirmation of this in the past year from two former FBI Agents -- Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen. Even though they were FBI Agents themselves, they were also stomped on -- hard -- because they proposed that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. The truth is coming out. In fact, it really came out in 1977 when the US Government re-opened the JFK murder case under the auspices of the House Select Committee on Assassination (HSCA) who published in 1979 that "President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy." In fact, 1979 was the end of the "Lone Shooter" theory. But by that time, very few people paid attention. Even today, most Americans seem to think that the Warren Report still has the last word. In fact, it seems that most FBI Agents still think that the Warren Report still has the last word. How out of touch can people be? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited September 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) The ENTIRE thrust of Harry's argument for 50 years depends upon the predicate that he WAS taken "seriously" by the FBI and that they "asked" him to provide information not just once or for a short period of time but continuously over a period of YEARS! No, Ernie, I disagree with this. While Harry Dean might have been misled by the FBI to believe that they were taking him seriously (and I take that to be the case) we can see clearly from the FBI records that we have seen so far that the FBI was barely tolerating Harry Dean after the murder of JFK. The answer should be obvious. Harry Dean was contradicting the FBI Director's own doctrine that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "Lone Shooter" and "had no accomplices." Therefore, given that FBI Agents would never cross the FBI Director (or they would be fired and thus no longer be FBI Agents), it was utterly and absolutely impossible for the FBI, at any time after J. Edgar Hoover announced the "Lone Shooter" doctrine, to take Harry Dean seriously. According to History Professor David R. Wrone of Wisconsin University, the hour at which J. Edgar Hoover announced his "Lone Shooter" theory was within an hour after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was booked by the DPD at about 2pm CST on 11/22/1963, so by 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, the FBI had its tacit orders to SMASH any claims that Lee Harvey Oswald had associates, i.e. co-conspirators. As it turns out, Harry Dean was one of the many people in the next five years to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald had associates, i.e. co-conspirators. In 1965, Harry Dean came forward on the Joe Pyne Show -- against the wishes of the FBI -- and named various people in connection with the JFK murder, including Loran Hall, a mercenary closely related to radical Cuban Exiles in New Orleans. Three years later, in 1968, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison would interrogate Loran Hall to ascertain his possible role in the murder of JFK. In the next decade, Gaeton Fonzi would claim that not enough attention had been paid to Loran Hall in connection with the murder of JFK. In the 21st century, Joan Mellen has also named Loran Hall as one of her many suspects, connected with the Cuban Exile and radical rightist community in New Orleans. Current writers like Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich resonate with her findings. It all goes back to Harry Dean in 1965. But in 1965 the FBI spoke out against Harry Dean. In 1968 the FBI also spoke out against Jim Garrison. (The story goes even deeper than this -- yet I feel sure that I've covered this ground so much in the past year that every reader here knows all the details I've presented.) To get back to the point -- the FBI did not take Harry Dean's story seriously. Yet they most likely "patronized" Harry Dean, and this gave Harry Dean false hopes that his ideas were being heard. Harry knew they were true, and he continued to have faith in our US Government and in the FBI in particular. But FBI failed Harry Dean, just as they failed the American People, when it came to the topic of TRUTH about the JFK murder. J. Edgar Hoover pronounced the doctrine -- Oswald was the "Lone Shooter" and the FBI stomped on anything that contradicted Hoover. We have further confirmation of this in the past year from two former FBI Agents -- Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen. Even though they were FBI Agents themselves, they were also stomped on -- hard -- because they proposed that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. The truth is coming out. In fact, it really came out in 1977 when the US Government re-opened the JFK murder case under the auspices of the House Select Committee on Assassination (HSCA) who published in 1979 that "President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy." In fact, 1979 was the end of the "Lone Shooter" theory. But by that time, very few people paid attention. Even today, most Americans seem to think that the Warren Report still has the last word. In fact, it seems that most FBI Agents still think that the Warren Report still has the last word. How out of touch can people be? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo 1. Why should we assume that the FBI "misled" Harry about anything? The FBI-Chicago made it explicitly clear that they did not want his assistance. Subsequently, the FBI made it even more clear in direct communications with Harry (which he AGREED WITH) that he should NOT refer to himself as an informant and not claim he had been asked by the FBI to do anything. So how, exactly, was Harry "misled"?? 2. This FBI attitude toward Harry was in evidence YEARS before JFK was assassinated. 3. There is very clear evidence that Hoover did not even know who Harry was -- which is why he asked Chicago and Los Angeles to provide all information they had about Harry in their files before he (Hoover) would respond to Harry's 11/19/63 letter. 4. Harry's personal opinions were of no consequence to Hoover or to the FBI. He had no significant audience. The ONLY reason the FBI was even involved was because of inquiries sent to the FBI from media (TV programs and newspapers). If Harry had not sought to align his personal opinions with the FBI (by claiming he had been an "undercover agent for the FBI") -- there would have been no FBI files on Harry and no FBI interest in Harry. 5. You are making assumptions about FBI Agents that are not warranted. FBI Agents in field offices did not directly contact Hoover to inquire what conclusions he wanted reported in their investigations. There are thousands of documents in FBI files re: JFK's assassination that contradict Hoover's personal opinions. The reason we know about all those contradictory statements and assertions is because FBI agents interviewed people and reported what they said. 6. Your comments about the Joe Pyne show are absurd. Harry appeared on the Joe Pyne program -- despite whatever the FBI thought about Harry. The FBI factually responded to inquiries from the Pyne program about Harry's status. That is all they did. Period. End of story. And, then, the Pyne program promptly ignored what they were told by the FBI -- just like the Valley Journal newspaper did -- and both of those media outlets gave prominent publicity to Harry's story. 7. It does not "all go back to Harry Dean in 1965". Harry was presenting his story to "organizations, individuals, and government officials" at least as early as January 1964. 8. You constantly make the charge that "in 1965 the FBI spoke out against Harry Dean". BUT all the FBI did is accurately and truthfully answer questions about Harry's status vis-a-vis the FBI. This happened SOLELY as a consequence of Harry's relentless attempts to generate publicity for his story -- which was based, primarily,upon Harry's claim that he was an undercover agent for the FBI. Doesn't a government agency have the right to correct the public record when somebody FALSELY claims that they are associated with that agency? 9. You are correct. The FBI did NOT take Harry's assertions seriously. 10. But you are totally incorrect in your next statement. The FBI did NOT patronize Harry. The FBI made it explicitly clear on multiple occasions (from 1961 forward) that they not only did NOT want Harry's assistance...but they also did not like the fact that Harry was constantly attempting to link himself to the FBI. The FBI listens to everybody who contacts the FBI. So what? How does being "heard" translate into the DELUSION that a person has become an "undercover agent" who is completing "an assignment" for the FBI or CIA or anybody else? 11. When and where were Adams and Swearingen "stomped on hard" -- and by whom? I guess YOUR position is that everybody should accept at face value and believe whatever is asserted?? 12. If there are powerful forces within our government at the highest levels that can "stomp" on even former law enforcement professionals to prevent them from disseminating their assertions -- then why didn't those same forces "stomp on hard" on the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977 or 1979 to compel them to endorse the Warren Commission conclusions and preclude publication of anything which suggested or stated that there was "a conspiracy"? 13. I suggest that everyone carefully this new absurdity by Paul Trejo at least TWICE: In fact, 1979 was the end of the "Lone Shooter" theory. But by that time, very few people paid attention. Even today, most Americans seem to think that the Warren Report still has the last word. In fact, it seems that most FBI Agents still think that the Warren Report still has the last word. How out of touch can people be? AND THEN COMPARE TO GALLUP POLLING ON JFK'S ASSASSINATION HERE: http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx As can be immediately seen from this Gallup website, from the very beginning of polling starting in 1963, the MAJORITY of Americans have ALWAYS believed that "a conspiracy" which involved "more than one person" was responsible for Kennedy's murder. See, in particular, this paragraph: Americans were skeptical about the "lone gunman" theory almost immediately after Kennedy was killed. In a poll conducted Nov. 22-27, 1963, Gallup found that 29% of Americans believed one man was responsible for the shooting and 52% believed others were involved in a conspiracy. A majority of Americans have maintained that "others were involved" in the shooting each time Gallup has asked this question over the past 50 years, except December 1966, when exactly half of Americans said someone in addition to Oswald was responsible. Which only goes to prove, YET AGAIN, that we CANNOT rely upon Paul Trejo for an accurate understanding of complex historical matters. Furthermore, "1979" was NOT (as Paul claims) "the end of the Lone Shooter theory". That theory was discredited from day one -- in the the minds of most Americans. Nor has there ever been any sort of study made regarding the beliefs of current or former FBI Agents regarding JFK's murder -- so, once again, Paul just INVENTS stuff in his mind and expects us to accept it as reasonable and factual. Edited September 26, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) 1. Some FBI Agents were friendly to Harry Dean, here and there. This encouraged Harry to contribute more to them. Harry was blind-sighted and dismayed when he was first told near the middle of 1961 by the Chicago FBI that his information was "no longer needed." It came as a suprise to Harry. From 1960 until that point, somebody at the FBI was accepting Harry's unsolicited information for weeks and months. So, it's still plausible that Harry was misled -- or led on -- by the FBI. 2. A negative FBI attitude toward Harry showed up in 1961, but it was also ambivalent. During 1962, in Southern California, Harry again began furnishing (unsolicited) information to the FBI. There are ample FBI records confirming this.3. Just because J. Edgar Hoover didn't know who Harry Dean was in November 1963 -- that's irrelevant. There were many FBI Agents in Chicago and in Southern California who clearly did know who Harry Dean was, from 1960-1963. 4. It doesn't matter if Harry's personal opinions were of any consequence to the FBI -- as I said. What matters is that Harry Dean told us the TRUTH when he claimed that he took all the information he had to the FBI and gave it to them. It makes no difference if they just laughed at Harry behind his back after he left their offices. That is utterly irrelevant. Harry Dean did his DUTY -- he gave his information to the FBI. What the FBI did (or didn't do) with it after that point must be their own responsibility, for which history will be their judge. 5. The truth is that the FBI immediately began smashing any and all information which might demonstrate the existence of more than one, solitary "Lone Shooter." This activity began before the sun went down on the day that JFK was murdered. This is an elementary knowledge based on objective readings of the JFK Research literature from the past 50 years. The Cover-up of the Conspiracy to murder JFK began one hour after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested. All evidence of more than one shooter was meddled with IMMEDIATELY. The originator of the "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK murder was J. Edgar Hoover himself. That's a historical fact. The FBI had control of all the evidence of the JFK murder, and the Warren Commission did no investigation on their own, but received all its information from the FBI. That's also a historical fact. Whoever is ignorant of those facts with regard to the JFK assassination is ignorant of the basics. 6. I have seen no proof that Harry Dean himself claimed to be an FBI Agent, or an official, paid informant of the FBI. Harry Dean informally "reported" his knowledge to the FBI. They wrote it down and put it in an official file. That's all that Harry knew. We have reports from TV and newspaper staff who CLAIM that Harry Dean said he was an FBI Agent or other nonsense. But that could easily have been their misunderstanding. The FBI quickly told the station manager for the Joe Pyne Show, for example, that Harry Dean was never an FBI Agent, and they advised that media station to remove Harry Dean from their program. We have the FBI documents showing this. However, the Joe Pyne Show did actually have Harry Dean appear on TV (just as the Valley Journal newspaper printed its story) -- so evidently the FBI missed its mark. At no time on the Joe Pyne Show was Harry Dean referred to as an FBI Agent or an FBI Informant. It wasn't important to the show's content. The FBI was confused about that. The Valley Journal made some wild statements about Harry Dean -- but there is no proof that these wild remarks came from Harry Dean himself. In fact, it is more likely they had a source like W.R. Morris, who misrepresented Harry Dean thoroughly.7. If anybody has evidence that Harry Dean was presenting his information about the JFK murder as early as January 1964, then they must recognize that they are confirming my theory, and not disputing it. In that case, the facts go back even farther than my records indicated. 8. In fact, in 1965 the FBI spoke out against Harry Dean. One might claim that the FBI was "only telling the truth," but that is a matter of political opinion. Harry Dean was not claiming that he was an FBI Agent -- Harry Dean was claiming that JFK was murdered as the result of a Conspiracy. The FBI did whatever they could to discredit Harry Dean in the eyes of the media. Nor was this mere "publicity seeking." Harry Dean had a moral DUTY to tell the TRUTH about the JFK murder to the American People. He was suppressed on all sides, and he paid a terrible price for his honesty and courage. Harry Dean is a GREAT AMERICAN, and I salute him today. 9. Whoever keeps repeating the myth that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI Agent is simply repeating the myths laid by W.R. Morris, the great fiction writer. The myths were also fed by the FBI. In fact, the FBI is a major source of that myth.10. Clearly the FBI patronized Harry Dean by building up dozens of FBI files about his unsolicited information. Harry's contacts with the FBI were many, and their kicks at Harry were few and far between. Only with Harry's going public in 1965 did their break become final. Further, it is unkind to refer to Harry Dean's unsolicited reports to the FBI as a "DELUSION." Unkind? More than that, it's personally insulting and should be reviewed by a Moderator here.11. Former FBI Agents Don Adams and Wes Swearingen both claim that the FBI harsly suppressed their claims, their stories and their writings. I've read their works, and it's clear from start to finish. The only thing that these men asserted was that they saw evidence while working for the FBI that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT ALONE in the murder of JFK.12. The FBI can stomp on its own Agents, and on individual US citizens, but it could not stomp on the US Congress, the US Sentate or the HSCA. Besides, by 1977, when the HSCA opened its doors, J. Edgar Hoover had already died. At that point, the harsh motivation for defending Hoover's ridiculous "Lone Shooter" doctrine was gone. Sincerely,--Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited September 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) 13. I suggest that everyone carefully this new absurdity by Paul Trejo at least TWICE: In fact, 1979 was the end of the "Lone Shooter" theory. But by that time, very few people paid attention. Even today, most Americans seem to think that the Warren Report still has the last word. In fact, it seems that most FBI Agents still think that the Warren Report still has the last word. How out of touch can people be? AND THEN COMPARE TO GALLUP POLLING ON JFK'S ASSASSINATION HERE: http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx As can be immediately seen from this Gallup website, from the very beginning of polling starting in 1963, the MAJORITY of Americans have ALWAYS believed that "a conspiracy" which involved "more than one person" was responsible for Kennedy's murder. See, in particular, this paragraph: Americans were skeptical about the "lone gunman" theory almost immediately after Kennedy was killed. In a poll conducted Nov. 22-27, 1963, Gallup found that 29% of Americans believed one man was responsible for the shooting and 52% believed others were involved in a conspiracy. A majority of Americans have maintained that "others were involved" in the shooting each time Gallup has asked this question over the past 50 years, except December 1966, when exactly half of Americans said someone in addition to Oswald was responsible. Which only goes to prove, YET AGAIN, that we CANNOT rely upon Paul Trejo for an accurate understanding of complex historical matters. Furthermore, "1979" was NOT (as Paul claims) "the end of the Lone Shooter theory". That theory was discredited from day one -- in the the minds of most Americans. Nor has there ever been any sort of study made regarding the beliefs of current or former FBI Agents regarding JFK's murder -- so, once again, Paul just INVENTS stuff in his mind and expects us to accept it as reasonable and factual. Well, Ernie, because of your bias against me (and Harry Dean) you completely missed my point (yet again). My statement was a focus was on American culture as reflected in the American mass media. This media gives the impression of loyalty to the Warren Commission, so that it "seems" (which is the word I used) that the American people still believe in the Warren Commission's "Lone Shooter" doctrine. It's the media message that affects us. Add to this the startling popularity of books like Posner's, Case Closed (1993), or Bugliosi's Reclaiming History (2007), and their tacit claim to be loyal and conservative Americans (in spite of the HSCA findings of 1979). The Amercian mass media remains biased to this very day. For only one example, a current cable TV serial, named, Covert Affairs, about a female CIA Agent. In the first season portrayed a kook off the street who walks into CIA offices to report that he knows who killed Kennedy. Our CIA Agent sighs and says, "It's well documented that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy." It was supposed to be humorous, to poke fun at JFK researchers and show what nonsense the modern CIA still has to endure from the public. For another example, last year Oliver Stone was interviewed about the JFK assassination and was taken to task over his "hostile" attitude toward the allegedly official "Lone Shooter" position. The journalist in that interview was unaware of the official HSCA position, and put Oliver Stone on the defensive over this obsolete point. It's the mass media. Journalists continue to milk the "Lone Shooter" nonsense as though it still has traction. Then there's the very recent book by Ed Bauer, The Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK Assassination (2012), which again repeats the "Lone Shooter" theme as though it remains authoritative to this very day. The American mass media continues to represent the JFK Research Community like Keystone Kops. Yet the essence of our position -- that the Warren Commission, based as it was on J. Edgar Hoover's "Lone Shooter" strategy, was totally backward -- remains stable, logical and sound, and anyway it is actually confirmed by the official US Government position as stated by the HSCA in 1979. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited September 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) 1. Some FBI Agents were friendly to Harry Dean, here and there. This encouraged Harry to contribute more to them. Harry was blind-sighted and dismayed when he was first told near the middle of 1961 by the Chicago FBI that his information was "no longer needed." It came as a suprise to Harry. From 1960 until that point, somebody at the FBI was accepting Harry's unsolicited information for weeks and months. So, it's still plausible that Harry was misled -- or led on -- by the FBI. I sincerely do not understand your comment Paul. FBI Agents at field offices listen to, talk to, and respond to everybody -- even rude and hostile people or people whom FBI Agents think are not rational or credible or whom they believe may not be the sharpest tool in the tool box. I suggest you review the FBI HQ file on the JBS when I post it online in a few weeks as well as the field office files which I have already posted online. Even though (privately)... (1) Hoover instructed all field offices to be wary of all contacts from JBS members and from JBS officials, and even though (2) Hoover instructed FBI field offices to decline requests for speakers coming from JBS front-groups and decline requests from groups which had JBS members in leadership positions, and even though (3) Hoover instructed all field offices to decline JBS requests for FBI publications AND even though (4) senior FBI officials from Hoover on down described the JBS as a "right wing extremist" organization which was "irrational", "irresponsible", and "fanatics" --- NEVERTHELESS, you will see in all FBI files on the JBS (HQ and field office) very polite letters from Hoover or from SAC's at field offices to JBS members thanking them for their praise of Hoover and the FBI and thanking them for whatever information they wanted to share with the FBI and "encouraging" them to report any other information or concerns to their local field office -- and Hoover normally provided the address of the local field office in the replies sent out under his name. SO WHAT? You seem to have a MASSIVE BRAIN FREEZE about this. The FBI "accepts unsolicited information for weeks and months" from EVERYBODY! This does not amount to being "misled". it is the normal operating procedure of our nation's primary law enforcement and internal security agency -- if only for public relations purposes to make the public believe that the agency is responsive to citizen concerns and questions and complaints. 2. A negative FBI attitude toward Harry showed up in 1961, but it was also ambivalent. During 1962, in Southern California, Harry again began furnishing (unsolicited) information to the FBI. There are ample FBI records confirming this. There was no "negative attitude". They politely informed Harry that their background check about him made it impossible for the FBI to accept him as an informant BUT YES---when Harry moved to Los Angeles and he AGAIN contacted the FBI -- they "accepted" his unsolicited information -- just like they did in Chicago and just like they did at HQ when Harry wrote to Hoover. Actually, you are (perhaps unintentionally) supporting MY argument - which previously you ridiculed. I previously offered my explanation for why Harry could have misunderstood his relationship with the FBI --- which you falsely characterized as my "theory". NOW, however, you are adopting my predicates -- i.e. that because Harry had multiple contacts with FBI offices in both Chicago and Los Angeles and those offices answered his phone calls, read his mail, and even sent Agents to interview him about the information he provided and they "accepted" the documents which he gave to them regarding (especially) his pro-Castro activities (particularly FPCC-related) -- THUS Harry concluded that he had some sort of formal relationship with the FBI and he was even functioning in an intelligence or agent capacity. I also made the argument that this could explain OUR differences WITHOUT calling Harry "a xxxx" or "a mental case". 3. Just because J. Edgar Hoover didn't know who Harry Dean was in November 1963 -- that's irrelevant. There were many FBI Agents in Chicago and in Southern California who clearly did know who Harry Dean was, from 1960-1963. I challenge your adjective "many". I also challenge your conclusion. And, frankly, Paul, if you review FBI files you will notice that Hoover was familiar with FBI confidential sources and informants so his unfamiliarity with Harry is NOT "irrelevant" -- UNLESS you are extremely biased and you reject everything which contradicts what you prefer to believe. 4. It doesn't matter if Harry's personal opinions were of any consequence to the FBI -- as I said. What matters is that Harry Dean told us the TRUTH when he claimed that he took all the information he had to the FBI and gave it to them. It makes no difference if they just laughed at Harry behind his back after he left their offices. That is utterly irrelevant. Harry Dean did his DUTY -- he gave his information to the FBI. What the FBI did (or didn't do) with it after that point must be their own responsibility, for which history will be their judge. Once again you mis-characterize what happened. The FBI did not "laugh" behind Harry's back and it is critically important what was done with Harry's "information". The problem here is simply that YOU don't want to accept what the documentary evidence reveals. Once again, you want to reduce everything down to lowest-common-denominator. According to your scheme of things, ANYBODY who contacts the FBI for whatever reason is "telling the truth". HOWEVER -- it now appears that you are FINALLY changing your position in a round-about sort of way. You appear to now FINALLY accept what I have been arguing since June 2010, i.e. that (1) Harry had NO formal relationship with the FBI (2) Harry was NOT "asked" by the FBI to do anything for them (3) Harry was NOT an "undercover agent" or "undercover operative" or "FBI spy" or any sort of intelligence asset or useful "confidential source" (4) Harry did not "infiltrate" any organization at the request of the FBI or any other government agency and he did NOT make reports to them "as asked". INSTEAD.... as I have maintained from the very beginning -- Harry provided UNSOLICITED information on the schedule which HE thought was sensible or desirable, and Harry provided whatever information or documents HE thought the FBI (or CIA?) might want to know about. Which means that like TENS OF THOUSANDS of other Americans -- Harry contacted the FBI upon his own volition and he was not "encouraged" to do anything OTHER THAN the standard practice of the FBI to suggest to ALL of their public contacts that they share with the FBI whatever information might be of interest to the FBI. 5. The truth is that the FBI immediate began smashing all information related to more than a "Lone Shooter," and this activity began before the sun went down on the day that JFK was murdered. This is an elementary knowledge based on objective readings of the JFK Research literature from the past 50 years. The Cover-up of the Conspiracy to murder JFK began one hour after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested. All evidence of more than one shooter was meddled with IMMEDIATELY. The originator of the "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK murder was J. Edgar Hoover himself. That's a historical fact. The FBI had control of all the evidence of the JFK murder, and the Warren Commission did no investigation on their own, but received all its information from the FBI. That's also a historical fact. Whoever is ignorant of those facts with regard to the JFK assassination is ignorant of the basics. So what, Your previous point was that Americans believed that story -- when as Gallup polls reveal -- they DID NOT. 6. I have seen no proof that Harry Dean himself claimed to be an FBI Agent, or an official, paid informant of the FBI. Harry Dean informally "reported" his knowledge to the FBI. They wrote it down and put it in an official file. That's all that Harry knew. We have reports from TV and newspaper staff who CLAIM that Harry Dean said he was an FBI Agent or other nonsense. But that could easily have been their misunderstanding. The FBI quickly told the station manager for the Joe Pyne Show, for example, that Harry Dean was never an FBI Agent, and they advised that media station to remove Harry Dean from their program. We have the FBI documents showing this. However, the Joe Pyne Show did actually have Harry Dean appear on TV (just as the Valley Journal newspaper printed its story) -- so evidently the FBI missed its mark. At no time on the Joe Pyne Show was Harry Dean referred to as an FBI Agent or an FBI Informant. It wasn't important to the show's content. The FBI was confused about that. The Valley Journal made some wild statements about Harry Dean -- but there is no proof that these wild remarks came from Harry Dean himself. In fact, it is more likely they had a source like W.R. Morris, who misrepresented Harry Dean thoroughly. Once again, you use the term "paid informant" which is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT and you do that repeatedly and deliberately to misdirect and CONFUSE the issue. Harry has REPEATEDLY described himself as an "undercover informant" and "political spy" and he also used terminology which ANY normal person would interpret as meaning "AGENT" -- including YOU! (see below) The key issue remains how people PERCEIVED Harry -- as a consequence of how HE described himself. As I have pointed out repeatedly, EVEN YOU described Harry as an informant and "agent" in your April 2012 message here in this thread. You went even further by embellishing the description to state that Harry was given "a mission" by the FBI If somebody with your intimate familiarity with Harry's story could make such a HUGE mistake, then it is self-evident that other people (having no intimate knowledge of Harry) could easily make the SAME mistake, YOUR COMMENT FROM APRIL 2012 "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." 7. If anybody has evidence that Harry Dean was presenting his information about the JFK murder as early as January 1964, then they must recognize that they are confirming my theory, and not disputing it. In that case, the facts go back even farther than my records indicated. 8. In fact, in 1965 the FBI spoke out against Harry Dean. One might claim that the FBI was "only telling the truth," but that is a matter of political opinion. Harry Dean was not claiming that he was an FBI Agent -- Harry Dean was claiming that JFK was murdered as the result of a Conspiracy. The FBI did whatever they could to discredit Harry Dean in the eyes of the media. Nor was this mere "publicity seeking." Harry Dean had a moral DUTY to tell the TRUTH about the JFK murder to the American People. He was suppressed on all sides, and he paid a terrible price for his honesty and courage. Harry Dean is a GREAT AMERICAN, and I salute him today. The FBI did NOTHING to "discredit" Harry OTHER THAN tell the truth about his status with respect to the FBI. I do not know (do you??) how many media interviews Harry has had since 1963. We only have specific knowledge about those appearing in Harry's FBI files. The FBI became involved ONLY because of INQUIRIES they received from media outlets that were considering publicizing Harry's story. As I told you before about a dozen times, if Harry had disseminated his EXACT SAME STORY about a "JBS plot" -- and just left the FBI out of his story --- there would have been no FBI response of any kind. What you mis-characterize as FBI "discrediting" Harry is SOLELY a function of Harry associating himself (FALSELY) with the FBI. 9. Whoever keeps repeating the myth that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI Agent is simply repeating the myths laid by W.R. Morris, the great fiction writer. The myths were also fed by the FBI. In fact, the FBI is a major source of that myth. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! EVEN YOU (in 2012!!!) described Harry as "an undercover agent" performing "a mission" he was given from the FBI. Any NORMAL person understands the import of that description! 10. Clearly the FBI patronized Harry Dean by building up dozens of FBI files about his unsolicited information. Harry's contacts with the FBI were many, and their kicks at Harry were few and far between. Only with Harry's going public in 1965 did their break become final. Further, it is unkind to refer to Harry Dean's unsolicited reports to the FBI as a "DELUSION." Unkind? More than that, it's personally insulting and should be reviewed by a Moderator here. There are NOT "dozens of FBI files" about Harry's "information". This is ANOTHER attempt by you to use language to deliberately mislead people because most people think of an "FBI file" as meaning some formal investigative entity involving highly confidential, secret information. Harry provided NO SUCH THING. There are not even "dozens" of serials about his "information". Many of the serials are DUPLICATES of the SAME information, so if you subtract out the duplications, there are only about 6-8 serials not "DOZENS" Why can't you FACTUALLY and ACCURATELY summarize what is clearly evident in his Los Angeles file? 11. Former FBI Agents Don Adams and Wes Swearingen both claim that the FBI harsly suppressed their claims, their stories and their writings. I've read their works, and it's clear from start to finish. The only thing that these men asserted was that they saw evidence while working for the FBI that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT ALONE in the murder of JFK. How, exactly, did the FBI "harshly suppress their claims, their stories, and their writings"?? BE SPECIFIC. Don't just assert something that serious without providing EVIDENCE. Swearingen has published 2 books -- and he has been interviewed numerous times and tells his story to whomever he wants. So what is the basis of your claim? 12. The FBI can stomp on its own Agents, and on individual US citizens, but it could not stomp on the US Congress, the US Sentate or the HSCA. Besides, by 1977, when the HSCA opened its doors, J. Edgar Hoover had died. At that point, the harsh motivation for defending Hoover's ridiculous "Lone Shooter" doctrine was gone. Who cares if Hoover believed in a "Lone Shooter" explanation? The point remains that the American people NEVER believed it -- regardless of whatever "suppression" efforts you think the FBI was party to. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo My replies appear underneath your comments Edited September 27, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) Once again you mis-characterize what happened. The FBI did not "laugh" behind Harry's back and it is critically important what was done with Harry's "information". The problem here is simply that YOU don't want to accept what the documentary evidence reveals. Once again, you want to reduce everything down to lowest-common-denominator. According to your scheme of things, ANYBODY who contacts the FBI for whatever reason is "telling the truth". HOWEVER -- it now appears that you are FINALLY changing your position in a round-about sort of way. You appear to now FINALLY accept what I have been arguing since June 2010, i.e. that (1) Harry had NO formal relationship with the FBI (2) Harry was NOT "asked" by the FBI to do anything for them (3) Harry was NOT an "undercover agent" or "undercover operative" or "FBI spy" or any sort of intelligence asset or useful "confidential source" (4) Harry did not "infiltrate" any organization at the request of the FBI or any other government agency and he did NOT make reports to them "as asked". INSTEAD.... as I have maintained from the very beginning -- Harry provided UNSOLICITED information on the schedule which HE thought was sensible or desirable, and Harry provided whatever information or documents HE thought the FBI (or CIA?) might want to know about. Which means that like TENS OF THOUSANDS of other Americans -- Harry contacted the FBI upon his own volition and he was not "encouraged" to do anything OTHER THAN the standard practice of the FBI to suggest to ALL of their public contacts that they share with the FBI whatever information might be of interest to the FBI. You're the one who mis-characterizes what happened, Ernie. We have FBI documentation of an Agent who, in his own handwriting at the bottom of a Harry Dean record, writes, roughtly, 'Is this guy a mental case? No reply needed.' That's not a medical question -- that's a plain old American insult. As such, it's sophomoric, immature, and amounts to grade-school humor. It's exactly the same as "laughing behind his back." You don't want to admit it, but it's plain to the rest of us. That fact is critically important when we examine what the FBI did with the information that Harry Dean volunteered to them. I welcome the FBI documentary evidence -- but I interpret it differently than you do, Ernie. For one thing, I read it with a critical eye. Nor do I believe that just ANYBODY who contacts the FBI and volunteers information is always "telling the truth". My point about Harry Dean was that he said in his book, Crosstrails, that he gave the FBI his information about the FPCC and the JBS. We now have proof from the FBI itself that Harry Dean really did give them the information about the FPCC and JBS that he claimed in Crosstrails. So that was the TRUTH. As for the four bullet points you cited: (1) Harry had no formal relationship with the FBI (2) Harry wasn't "asked" by the FBI to do anything for them (3) Harry wasn't an "undercover agent" or "undercover operative" or "FBI spy" or any sort of intelligence asset or useful "confidential source" (4) Harry didn't "infiltrate" any organization at the request of the FBI or any other government agency and he didn't make reports to them "as asked". These four bullet points have always been my position, from the beginning, and it's no change at all for me! I never claimed, for example, that Harry Dean infiltrated the JBS at the request of the FBI. That myth was started by W.R. Morris, and spread like wildfire. But it was always wrong. You, on the other hand, have had to change your position since 2010, when you originally claimed that the FBI had zero records at all about Harry Dean, and that Harry Dean didn't even have any FBI case number at all! Thanks to my connections and my research, you finally admitted that Harry did have an FBI case number, and that has allowed you to obtain hundreds of pages of FBI documents referencing our Harry Dean over the past year and a half. I will always stand by what Harry Dean told me personally: that he provided unsolicited information to the FBI when he felt that it was his Duty to do so, and that he never accepted money for providing that Information. Yes -- just like tens of thousands of other Americans who did the same thing. As for the question of whether Harry Dean was ever encouraged to do so by any FBI Agent from 1960-1963, that remains an open point. You've disclosed many FBI documents which suggest that the FBI merely tolerated Harry Dean. Yet Harry Dean got an impression from some of the FBI Agents that his information was welcome. Until we get all the FBI documents in hand, however, and can examine them and interpret them objectively and impartially, no conclusion can yet be drawn regarding the full sum of attitudes of all the FBI Agents who interacted with Harry Dean from 1960-1963. The critical question in all this, is the question about when Harry Dean reported the plot against JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald from the mouth of resigned Major General Edwin Walker at a private JBS meeting in Southern California in mid-September 1963. This is what the JFK Research Community wants to verify. It's a matter of historical importance as it relates to JFK Research. In my opinion, it's one of the most important questions of 20th century American History. So far we've seen no FBI records about this central claim of Harry Dean -- but as we know, FBI records about the JFK murder are still very difficult to obtain. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited September 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) 13. I suggest that everyone carefully this new absurdity by Paul Trejo at least TWICE: In fact, 1979 was the end of the "Lone Shooter" theory. But by that time, very few people paid attention. Even today, most Americans seem to think that the Warren Report still has the last word. In fact, it seems that most FBI Agents still think that the Warren Report still has the last word. How out of touch can people be? AND THEN COMPARE TO GALLUP POLLING ON JFK'S ASSASSINATION HERE: http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx As can be immediately seen from this Gallup website, from the very beginning of polling starting in 1963, the MAJORITY of Americans have ALWAYS believed that "a conspiracy" which involved "more than one person" was responsible for Kennedy's murder. See, in particular, this paragraph: Americans were skeptical about the "lone gunman" theory almost immediately after Kennedy was killed. In a poll conducted Nov. 22-27, 1963, Gallup found that 29% of Americans believed one man was responsible for the shooting and 52% believed others were involved in a conspiracy. A majority of Americans have maintained that "others were involved" in the shooting each time Gallup has asked this question over the past 50 years, except December 1966, when exactly half of Americans said someone in addition to Oswald was responsible. Which only goes to prove, YET AGAIN, that we CANNOT rely upon Paul Trejo for an accurate understanding of complex historical matters. Furthermore, "1979" was NOT (as Paul claims) "the end of the Lone Shooter theory". That theory was discredited from day one -- in the the minds of most Americans. Nor has there ever been any sort of study made regarding the beliefs of current or former FBI Agents regarding JFK's murder -- so, once again, Paul just INVENTS stuff in his mind and expects us to accept it as reasonable and factual. Well, Ernie, because of your bias against me (and Harry Dean) you completely missed my point (yet again). My statement was a focus was on American culture as reflected in the American mass media. This media gives the impression of loyalty to the Warren Commission, so that it "seems" (which is the word I used) that the American people still believe in the Warren Commission's "Lone Shooter" doctrine. It's the media message that affects us. Add to this the startling popularity of books like Posner's, Case Closed (1993), or Bugliosi's Reclaiming History (2007), and their tacit claim to be loyal and conservative Americans (in spite of the HSCA findings of 1979). The Amercian mass media remains biased to this very day. For only one example, a current cable TV serial, named, Covert Affairs, about a female CIA Agent. In the first season portrayed a kook off the street who walks into CIA offices to report that he knows who killed Kennedy. Our CIA Agent sighs and says, "It's well documented that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy." It was supposed to be humorous, to poke fun at JFK researchers and show what nonsense the modern CIA still has to endure from the public. For another example, last year Oliver Stone was interviewed about the JFK assassination and was taken to task over his "hostile" attitude toward the allegedly official "Lone Shooter" position. The journalist in that interview was unaware of the official HSCA position, and put Oliver Stone on the defensive over this obsolete point. It's the mass media. Journalists continue to milk the "Lone Shooter" nonsense as though it still has traction. Then there's the very recent book by Ed Bauer, The Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK Assassination (2012), which again repeats the "Lone Shooter" theme as though it remains authoritative to this very day. The American mass media continues to represent the JFK Research Community like Keystone Kops. Yet the essence of our position -- that the Warren Commission, based as it was on J. Edgar Hoover's "Lone Shooter" strategy, was totally backward -- remains stable, logical and sound, and anyway it is actually confirmed by the official US Government position as stated by the HSCA in 1979. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo (1) You totally lost me Paul. I need to you explain your point better. When somebody presents a bold statement about what the American people believe (as you did), normally that means that one resorts to providing evidence regarding what various polling organizations have found when they survey the American public about those subject(s). Now you use some sort of amorphous concept of "American culture as reflected in the American mass media". What the hell does that mean? Are you referring to newspaper reports? Magazine articles? Movies? Plays? TV programs? Radio programs? Internet? Public speakers? How can you make ANY general conclusion about "American culture" without specifically identifying the specific sourcesYOU claim reflect our cultural norm and then ALSO provide statistical evidence regarding the number of Americans who see or listen to those sources in any given week, month or year? More importantly, WHATEVER sources you rely upon to evaluate "American culture" the bottom-line still remains the same, i.e. WHAT IS THE END-RESULT? As the Gallup Poll clearly reveals...for 50+ years, the American people have NOT believed the "lone gunman theory" REGARDLESS of whatever they may or may not have seen reflected in "American culture" --- assuming that they read or saw or listened to whatever sources YOU believe are the most compelling examples of "American culture" which SHOULD have influenced their thinking. I am NOT "biased" nor did I miss your point. The problem here is that YOU NEVER PROVIDE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR GENERALIZATIONS WHICH YOU WANT ACCEPTED AS FACTUAL. I repeat: YOUR CONCLUSION is FALSE. The "American people" have NEVER or "still" believe(d) in the "lone gunman theory". THAT is your FABRICATION. (2) For every "example" you cite of a little-watched TV serial such as "Covert Affairs" there are DOZENS much more compelling examples that reflect the precise OPPOSITE theme. Conspiracy-based explanations of real and fictional historical events along with themes of massive corruption within the highest levels of our government are CONSTANT themes in American culture (particularly television and movies whose reach in terms of audience VASTLY exceeds some non-entity like "Covert Affairs"). In fact, there have been doctoral dissertations and books written about our country's pre-disposition for believing conspiratorial explanations of events. I recently posted (in this thread) an article from the Washington Post (message #1334) which clearly invalidates your assumptions. The Post (unlike Covert Affairs) impacts the judgments made by our nation's best and brightest minds. As the Post article pointed out: "The bold-faced names among the conspiracy theorists have included the president who established the commission. Lyndon Johnson said in the final years of his life that he believed that the Warren Commission was wrong and that Cuban leader Fidel Castro was behind the assassination. Another surprising conspiracy theorist: the slain president’s brother, former attorney general Robert Kennedy, who publicly supported the Warren Report even as he told friends and family he was convinced that Castro, the Mafia or even some rogue element of the CIA was responsible for his brother’s death. Last year, Secretary of State John Kerry told a television interviewer that “to this day, I have serious doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. And this month, on the eve of the report’s 50th anniversary, the roster of seemingly credible Americans willing to identify themselves as Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theorists has grown to include someone from within the Warren Commission itself: Charles N. Shaffer Jr., a former Justice Department prosecutor who served on the investigation’s staff in 1964 (he says he was dispatched by Attorney General Kennedy as “Bobby’s spy”) and went on to a headline-making career as a Washington-based criminal defense lawyer....Still, the fact that a Warren Commission staffer is now challenging the investigation’s central findings creates another dent in the commission’s already damaged legacy — and will only add to the skepticism that the truth about the assassination can ever be known. Warren bears much of the responsibility for his commission’s failures. Years later, he would admit that, in his own mind, he ruled out a conspiracy within days of the president’s murder. As a result, he frequently blocked staff lawyers from pursuing lines of investigation that might have pointed to co-conspirators." ... "Both the CIA and the FBI had Oswald under surveillance in the fall of 1963. But they withheld information from the Warren Commission about how much they knew about him before the assassination. The CIA never told the commission about its plots during the Kennedy administration to assassinate Castro — plots that the Cuban dictator discovered, giving him an obvious motive to kill Kennedy. The FBI destroyed evidence before it could reach the commission, including a handwritten, apparently threatening note that Oswald delivered to the bureau’s field office in Dallas in early November 1963. On the day Oswald was murdered by Ruby, FBI agents in Dallas, fearing that the note would be seen as evidence that they had been aware of the danger Oswald posed to the president, shredded the piece of paper and flushed it down a toilet. Its exact contents remain a mystery. So the Warren Commission record is incomplete. And conspiracy theories are likely to plague us forever." Edited September 27, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 In fact, despite the polls and despite the HSCA conclusion to the contrary, the "Lone Shooter" doctrine in the JFK murder continues to have social force in American conversation and in the American mass media. Ernie, it seems, will say anything just to contradict whatever I say. Enough said. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) Once again you mis-characterize what happened. The FBI did not "laugh" behind Harry's back and it is critically important what was done with Harry's "information". The problem here is simply that YOU don't want to accept what the documentary evidence reveals. Once again, you want to reduce everything down to lowest-common-denominator. According to your scheme of things, ANYBODY who contacts the FBI for whatever reason is "telling the truth". HOWEVER -- it now appears that you are FINALLY changing your position in a round-about sort of way. You appear to now FINALLY accept what I have been arguing since June 2010, i.e. that (1) Harry had NO formal relationship with the FBI (2) Harry was NOT "asked" by the FBI to do anything for them (3) Harry was NOT an "undercover agent" or "undercover operative" or "FBI spy" or any sort of intelligence asset or useful "confidential source" (4) Harry did not "infiltrate" any organization at the request of the FBI or any other government agency and he did NOT make reports to them "as asked". INSTEAD.... as I have maintained from the very beginning -- Harry provided UNSOLICITED information on the schedule which HE thought was sensible or desirable, and Harry provided whatever information or documents HE thought the FBI (or CIA?) might want to know about. Which means that like TENS OF THOUSANDS of other Americans -- Harry contacted the FBI upon his own volition and he was not "encouraged" to do anything OTHER THAN the standard practice of the FBI to suggest to ALL of their public contacts that they share with the FBI whatever information might be of interest to the FBI. You're the one who mis-characterizes what happened, Ernie. We have FBI documentation of an Agent who, in his own handwriting at the bottom of a Harry Dean record, writes, roughtly, 'Is this guy a mental case? No reply needed.' That's not a medical question -- that's a plain old American insult. As such, it's sophomoric, immature, and amounts to grade-school humor. It's exactly the same as "laughing behind his back." You don't want to admit it, but it's plain to the rest of us. That fact is critically important when we examine what the FBI did with the information that Harry Dean volunteered to them. I welcome the FBI documentary evidence -- but I interpret it differently than you do, Ernie. For one thing, I read it with a critical eye. Nor do I believe that just ANYBODY who contacts the FBI and volunteers information is always "telling the truth". My point about Harry Dean was that he said in his book, Crosstrails, that he gave the FBI his information about the FPCC and the JBS. We now have proof from the FBI itself that Harry Dean really did give them the information about the FPCC and JBS that he claimed in Crosstrails. So that was the TRUTH. As for the four bullet points you cited: (1) Harry had no formal relationship with the FBI (2) Harry wasn't "asked" by the FBI to do anything for them (3) Harry wasn't an "undercover agent" or "undercover operative" or "FBI spy" or any sort of intelligence asset or useful "confidential source" (4) Harry didn't "infiltrate" any organization at the request of the FBI or any other government agency and he didn't make reports to them "as asked". These four bullet points have always been my position, from the beginning, and it's no change at all for me! I never claimed, for example, that Harry Dean infiltrated the JBS at the request of the FBI. That myth was started by W.R. Morris, and spread like wildfire. But it was always wrong. You, on the other hand, have had to change your position since 2010, when you originally claimed that the FBI had zero records at all about Harry Dean, and that Harry Dean didn't even have any FBI case number at all! Thanks to my connections and my research, you finally admitted that Harry did have an FBI case number, and that has allowed you to obtain hundreds of pages of FBI documents referencing our Harry Dean over the past year and a half. I will always stand by what Harry Dean told me personally: that he provided unsolicited information to the FBI when he felt that it was his Duty to do so, and that he never accepted money for providing that Information. Yes -- just like tens of thousands of other Americans who did the same thing. As for the question of whether Harry Dean was ever encouraged to do so by any FBI Agent from 1960-1963, that remains an open point. You've disclosed many FBI documents which suggest that the FBI merely tolerated Harry Dean. Yet Harry Dean got an impression from some of the FBI Agents that his information was welcome. Until we get all the FBI documents in hand, however, and can examine them and interpret them objectively and impartially, no conclusion can yet be drawn regarding the full sum of attitudes of all the FBI Agents who interacted with Harry Dean from 1960-1963. The critical question in all this, is the question about when Harry Dean reported the plot against JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald from the mouth of resigned Major General Edwin Walker at a private JBS meeting in Southern California in mid-September 1963. This is what the JFK Research Community wants to verify. It's a matter of historical importance as it relates to JFK Research. In my opinion, it's one of the most important questions of 20th century American History. So far we've seen no FBI records about this central claim of Harry Dean -- but as we know, FBI records about the JFK murder are still very difficult to obtain. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo (1) Paul -- our disagreement is essentially this: You think that nobody who has personal experience with another human being should ever be allowed to make any sort of derogatory evaluation about a person's mental condition during their time together. To you, any such evaluation is "an insult" that amounts to "grade school humor" --- EVEN IF the person making the evaluation is a professional law enforcement official who has long experience interviewing all kinds of people and who spends years dealing with many different types of personalities. (2) In other words Paul, you are a literalist. You believe ONLY trained "medical personnel" should ever be allowed to offer any sort judgment about anybody's personality or their mental condition. I wonder, however, if you would object to equivalent "medical" characterizations of individuals whom you despise? In other words (for example), if a law enforcement professional came away from interviewing (or reading mail from or answering a phone call from), say, a member of a white hate group (such as KKK or Aryan Nations or National Socialist White Peoples Party) and that law enforcement officer characterized the person he interviewed as "a mental case" because the officer listened for 30 or 60 minutes to relentless bigoted slurs against blacks, latinos, Jews, Catholics, etc. etc. --- would you THEN object to that officer's descriptive comments and want to discredit both that law enforcement officer as well as the institution he worked for? (3) We have no "proof" that Harry gave any information to the FBI about the JBS. In fact, there is no reference to the JBS in ANY of Harry's communications with the FBI---not even Harry's 11/19/63 letter to Hoover. Obviously, the JBS was totally absent from Harry's mind ---even during that very eventful week. I know we have discussed your tortured logic before but your claim amounts to this: (4) Suppose on a Thursday I wrote a letter to, or I phoned the FBI, and I mentioned in passing that I saw John Smith, Sally Johnson, and Fred Nunes at a baseball game on Monday that week. Suppose I also said that John and Fred had some sort of personal disagreement about some matter. But that is the ONLY information I provided to the FBI. Suppose that YEARS LATER, you see a copy of an FBI memo which mentions my contact with the FBI described above -- i.e. the baseball game reference. Would there be ANYTHING in what I presented in #4 above that would make you believe that I was discussing the Birch Society in ANY WAY, SHAPE, or FORM? If the SUBJECT of my contact was my attendance at a baseball game and I mentioned, in passing, that I saw 3 people I knew -- BUT, I did NOT connect ANY of them to the Birch Society in ANY way --- how could you or anybody else claim that I provided the FBI with "information about the Birch Society" -- when I never even brought up that subject -- not even as a hint? (4) You and I have different understandings of the word "truth" OR perhaps we are applying that word differently in the context of our larger dispute. NOBODY is disputing that Harry contacted the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles). That is "truth". BUT---there IS a dispute regarding what Harry said or gave to the FBI. You characterize as "truth" that Harry provided information about the JBS to the FBI. He DID NOT DO SO and there is not ONE single iota of evidence to establish that he did. Harry's letters to the FBI do not contain the words "Birch Society", "John Birch Society" "JBS" or "Robert Welch" or "Edwin Walker" or "John Rousselot" or ANYTHING that establishes that Harry provided ANY information to the FBI regarding these topics. Period. IF you actually had such evidence, you would QUOTE it and everybody would then recognize it. But you CAN'T QUOTE IT -- because it does NOT exist. (5) Remember when Hoover testified before the Warren Commission and he was asked a question about an article appearing in the JBS magazine American Opinion ? He ignored the question he was asked and instead he used the opportunity to categorize positions everyone knew were associated with the JBS (i.e. Welch's libelous comments about Ike and the JBS campaign against Chief Justice Warren) as examples of right-wing political extremism and by implication he was using that as an example which he thought should apply to the AO article. My point is this: Hoover never mentioned Welch or the JBS by name. But he phrased his answer in a context so that everybody clearly understood his intended target. BY CONTRAST: Harry's letters to FBI-Los Angeles not only do not mention JBS or Welch by name; Harry did not even make ANY comment which any ordinary person could associate with the JBS or Welch or Rousselot or Walker!!! (5) With respect to your comments about my four bullet points: your comment is absolutely astonishing Paul. Because you have NEVER explicitly associated yourself with those points and, in fact, you have repeatedly criticized me for making those points starting in June 2010. Furthermore, you wrote a message posted on March 12, 2013 in which you declared the following (I highlight the points which CONTRADICT your current assurances) (5) Now that Harry had converted to the other side -- that is, he was an informant for the FBI regarding all FPCC and Communist activities -- he would not defend the FPCC. (6) Harry was also informing to the FBI about the John BIrch Society and Minutemen in California. This fact was also kept secret, obviously, from the men at these meetings And I have already repeatedly quoted from your April 2012 message in which you again CONTRADICT your current statements when you described Harry as "an undercover agent" who was given a "mission" by the FBI and, of course, Harry's own statement in 11/63 to J. Edgar Hoover when he lamented that "I could no longer continue as an undercover agent, I was saddened to tears…” -- which to any NORMAL laymen would clearly indicate a "formal relationship" in which he was "asked" by the FBI to do something for them. NONE of this began with W.R. Morris whom you CONSTANTLY and DISINGENUOUSLY use as your all-purpose whipping boy to cover-up and whitewash Harry's own repeated descriptions of himself!! (6) Once again, you repeat your malicious falsehood about what I wrote in 2010. And once again you refuse to QUOTE what I wrote -- because you know it does NOT support what you claim. Do you have no decency Paul? I have never EVER claimed that the FBI had no records about Harry. How could I do that in 2010? I never even heard about Harry Dean until late 2009 or early 2010 -- so, obviously, I had no clue regarding whether or not there were FBI records about him. What I said in 2010 and I have said repeatedly since then is exactly what my four bullets summarized in my previous message. You are either exceptionally malicious or profoundly ignorant if you cannot understand after all this time that the ONLY reason I even entered this debate in 2010 is because of Harry's claims about his alleged FBI association IN THE CONTEXT OF THE JBS and JBS-RELATED MATTERS. I had no knowledge in 2010 regarding whether or not the FBI had "records" regarding Harry about any other matters. So PLEASE STOP LYING IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. (7) Let's discuss your next absurdity below: Thanks to my connections and my research, you finally admitted that Harry did have an FBI case number, and that has allowed you to obtain hundreds of pages of FBI documents referencing our Harry Dean over the past year and a half. Paul -- will you agree with me that prior to 2010 we never knew one another? If you will agree to acknowledge that point, then I direct your attention to my June 2010 message when I reported upon the contents of the 1977 letter by FBI-Los Angeles Assistant Director Gebhardt concerning Harry Dean. If you consult that letter you will notice two file numbers at the bottom of the letter -- one of which is Harry's Los Angeles file number (105-12933). So, I knew about the existence of Harry's file number YEARS before I even heard of Paul Trejo, because I received that section of the Los Angeles file on the JBS in April 2008. Then, I was able to see other file numbers pertaining to Harry on Mary Ferrell's website. There was NO connection between you or your "research" to me discovering Harry's FBI file numbers. The proof of that is that you have repeatedly admitted in writing that when I posted documents from Harry's FBI files here in this thread, that was the FIRST time you had ever seen them!!! (8) Harry has NEVER publicly stated (even to this day) that he provided "unsolicited information to the FBI". In fact, he has REPEATEDLY and EMPHATICALLY stated the PRECISE OPPOSITE --- including in his November 1975 "affidavit" in which Harry boldly declared (I use color to highlight key portions): I was recruited by U.S. National Security Intelligence by their uniquely convincing tactics that assure patriotic service from the right person, in the right place, at the right time. By that time, in 1960, I had been a humanitarian supporter of the Cuban revolution, and an active member of Castro’s 26th of July movement of two years. Now another flag was rising. The U.S. Communist Party began to exploit the Cuban problem to advance their national and international position. I was assigned by Internal Security Intelligence to infiltrate the newly organized “communist front” called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, Chicago, Illinois Chapter. I was to “blow the whistle” on both the FPCC and my associates in the 26th of July organization. This is another classic example of why we cannot rely upon Paul Trejo to tell us the truth about Harry -- particularly since Paul is on record numerous times declaring that he is Harry's friend, ally, and "#1 defender". Furthermore, Harry has stated that he accepted cash payments for "expenses" -- so it is not entirely accurate to state "he never accepted money". But since he has no proof of those payments, there is no way to know if he did actually receive any such payments. And you could not be more mistaken if you are now claiming that tens of thousands of other Americans "did the same thing", i.e. received cash payments for expenses. If you mean that thousands of Americans provided unsolicited information -- then fine -- but you constantly use sloppy or extravagant language which must be clarified. With respect to the following italicized blue font comments by you, my replies appear underneath them: As for the question of whether Harry Dean was ever encouraged to do so by any FBI Agent from 1960-1963, that remains an open point. You've disclosed many FBI documents which suggest that the FBI merely tolerated Harry Dean. Yet Harry Dean got an impression from some of the FBI Agents that his information was welcome. Not really "open" to any reasonable independent and unbiased researcher -- BUT -- yes, I am certain that SOME of the information Harry provided was helpful because the FBI indexed some names appearing in documents which Harry gave the FBI in 1963. Until we get all the FBI documents in hand, however, and can examine them and interpret them objectively and impartially, no conclusion can yet be drawn regarding the full sum of attitudes of all the FBI Agents who interacted with Harry Dean from 1960-1963. We have virtually all of the FBI documents in hand. What you keep ignoring is the amount of duplication which is standard in all FBI files (HQ and field office). There is no reason to expect that anything which still can be found that mentions Harry will contradict anything we already know from summary memos in the HQ file through the 1970's. But you unintentionally raise an important point. Anybody who was providing valuable information to the FBI (whether informant, or confidential source, or panel source, etc.) normally would be assigned two specific Agents to report to and those Agents were responsible for summarizing all information received as well as deciding the degree of reliability which their information source had. It is VERY significant that Harry's phone calls, letters, and in-person interviews while in Los Angeles were handled by whomever was assigned as their general intake person for that day or evening. While Agent McCauley reviewed all of Harry's contacts, there is nothing to indicate that Harry was ever assigned to anybody specific. And, as previously mentioned, the contact forms which memorialize FBI contacts with Harry are very brief -- often only 4,5, or 6 sentences -- which proves to any knowledgeable person who is familiar with FBI procedures that Harry provided little information of value. The critical question in all this, is the question about when Harry Dean reported the plot against JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald from the mouth of resigned Major General Edwin Walker at a private JBS meeting in Southern California in mid-September 1963. This is what the JFK Research Community wants to verify. It's a matter of historical importance as it relates to JFK Research. In my opinion, it's one of the most important questions of 20th century American History. You have provided several different and imprecise "dates" -- so I doubt there is any answer to your question -- and, in fact, I doubt Harry ever provided such information to the FBI -- at least in the sense which you mean. So far we've seen no FBI records about this central claim of Harry Dean -- but as we know, FBI records about the JFK murder are still very difficult to obtain. How would you know what records are difficult to obtain? Have you ever submitted any FOIA request? There are literally MILLIONS of pages of records which have been released -- and many of them have been available for over 30 years! Mary Ferrell's website has at least 500,000 pages. You make these broad generalizations about matters which you have never even bothered to pursue -- so why should anybody believe your evaluations? Sincerely, Edited September 27, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 In fact, despite the polls and despite the HSCA conclusion to the contrary, the "Lone Shooter" doctrine in the JFK murder continues to have social force in American conversation and in the American mass media. Ernie, it seems, will say anything just to contradict whatever I say. Enough said. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Paul, you can ALWAYS select something from the universe of available data to "prove" whatever you want to claim. I was merely QUOTING your original statement and PROVING that you were WRONG in your conclusion when you wrote "Even today, most Americans seem to think that the Warren Report still has the last word." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 (edited) ... (6) Once again, you repeat your malicious falsehood about what I wrote in 2010. And once again you refuse to QUOTE what I wrote -- because you know it does NOT support what you claim. Do you have no decency Paul? I have never EVER claimed that the FBI had no records about Harry. How could I do that in 2010? I never even heard about Harry Dean until late 2009 or early 2010 -- so, obviously, I had no clue regarding whether or not there were FBI records about him. What I said in 2010 and I have said repeatedly since then is exactly what my four bullets summarized in my previous message. You are either exceptionally malicious or profoundly ignorant if you cannot understand after all this time that the ONLY reason I even entered this debate in 2010 is because of Harry's claims about his alleged FBI association IN THE CONTEXT OF THE JBS and JBS-RELATED MATTERS. I had no knowledge in 2010 regarding whether or not the FBI had "records" regarding Harry about any other matters. So PLEASE STOP LYING IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. ... 1) Ernie, I think that FBI Agents have no business insulting people who come to them in good faith with information that they believe may be vital to the USA. The FBI Agent who wrote in his own handwriting that Harry Dean was a “mental case” should have been fired. It’s unprofessional, and un-American. (2) Yes, Ernie, I completely insist that only medically qualified personnel should be permitted to offer any sort of judgment about anybody’s mental condition within the context of official US Government records. I repeat – that FBI Agent should have been fired on the spot. As for KKK or other Aryan Supremacist groups, I don’t bother to consider their sanity or insanity – their position is political and depends entirely on the power they are able to obtain within a given governmental context. Thankfully, in the USA, they can obtain no more power than the Odd Fellows Society, and that is sufficient protection for the rest of us. And yes, even in the context of something as reprehensible as this sort of extreme rightist politics, it is offensive for any US Government official to record any non-medical opinion about the mental condition of these political partisans. (3) If Harry Dean actually gave information to the FBI about the JBS, as he said, then it would only have been in the context of the JFK murder. As we know, FBI records related to the JFK murder are still Top Secret and cannot be released to the public yet. Furthermore, Harry Dean’s unsolicited report to the FBI would have insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices, and absolutely did not act alone. Thus, Harry Dean’s information to the FBI would have contradicted J. Edgar Hoover’s enforced doctrine of Lee Oswald as the “Lone Shooter,” or “Lone Nut” as the FBI rendered that. Naturally, then, these records (if they were not destroyed) still remain to be released by the FBI. In all good faith and honesty, I expect the FBI to cough them up before the end of 2017. (4) You keep saying that Harry Dean never gave the FBI any information about the JBS (or its famous members) because you yourself haven’t yet seen “one single iota of evidence to establish that he did.” I simply keep reminding the readers here that you yourself haven’t seen all the FBI records that are still being held by the FBI, and so your hasty conclusions suffer from the faulty logic of concluding on the basis of incomplete evidence. Period. You keep insisting that it “DOES NOT EXIST,” but actually you don’t know that. Only the FBI knows whether that is true or false today. (5) From the beginning I have always characterized Harry Dean as a private citizen who courageously volunteered information to the FBI about the FPCC and the JBS entirely at his own risk and expense. Your attacks on Harry Dean on this very thread since 2010 have been most offensive and out of all proportion to the situation. It seems you are tracking some special agenda, without telling our readers here what that might be. I have always clarified that whenever the terms “undercover agent” might have been used to describe Harry Dean, it was always informally, colloquially, as an ‘agent’ may be simply anybody who acts on behalf of another, and ‘undercover’ may simply mean somebody who hides his intentions to pass information to the FBI or some other US Government group. The same applies to Harry Dean’s use of the terms – since the FBI’s official reservation of those terms was unknown to Harry at the time. Despite repeating this countless times, you continue to accuse me of claiming that Harry Dean was an Official FBI Undercover Agent. That accusation is unfair and inaccurate in the extreme. The malice by W.R. Morris was to switch Harry Dean’s informal usage of those terms into an official usage of those terms, for his own private gain. Harry Dean objected to this back in 1965. It is offensive to see anyone continue to make those claims of W.R. Morris with regard to Harry Dean today, or to continue to blame Harry Dean for the malice spread by W.R. Morris about Harry Dean. (6) I have plenty of documentation to support everything I write, Ernie. I even have email from you, personally, to back up my claims about you. Still, I’m under no obligation to produce all my documents with every post I write. Everything will be revealed in due season. In actual fact, you told me publicly that Harry Dean had no FBI case number. That was in the context of a 2012 discussion under the web article, The Strange Love of Dr. Billy James Hargis, which discussion has since been removed from that web article by the owner. But I also have your own email, and I can back up all my statements. Because that is the case, I am deeply offended by your unkind remarks and your claim that I’m lying here. I hereby ask the Moderator to step in and moderate this exchange. Enough said. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited September 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts