Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

Evidently Ernie Lazar believes that the FBI would tell him if they had any secret files on the JFK murder; down to the file numbers themselves!

LOL,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, you STILL don't understand. Let's be honest about this -- just one time OK?

1. You have NO knowledge about any "secret files" pertaining to Harry Dean or the "JBS plot". If you had such specific knowledge, you would quote from or refer us to some document which lends credence to your assertion about the possibility that such files or serials exist.

2. Instead, you have just INVENTED your assertion from whole cloth.

<snip>

I'm honest, Ernie. You just misunderstand me.

I'm not saying that I KNOW that there are FBI secret files about Harry Dean.

I'm saying that you DON'T KNOW that there AREN'T any.

You claim that there's no way I can possibly be right, based on the partial evidence you've seen.

So, your logic is simply incorrect, that's all.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 15, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Evidently Ernie Lazar believes that the FBI would tell him if they had any secret files on the JFK murder; down to the file numbers themselves!

LOL,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, you STILL don't understand. Let's be honest about this -- just one time OK?

1. You have NO knowledge about any "secret files" pertaining to Harry Dean or the "JBS plot". If you had such specific knowledge, you would quote from or refer us to some document which lends credence to your assertion about the possibility that such files or serials exist.

2. Instead, you have just INVENTED your assertion from whole cloth.

<snip>

I'm honest, Ernie. You just misunderstand me.

I'm not saying that I KNOW that there are FBI secret files about Harry Dean.

I'm saying that you DON'T KNOW that there AREN'T any.

You claim that there's no way I can possibly be right, based on the partial evidence you've seen.

So, your logic is simply incorrect, that's all.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

"In other words, Ernie, it's obvious that the FBI has some super-duper, extra-special, top-top-top-top secret files on Harry of which you are totally unaware.

The fact that you can't prove that they don't only confirms my theory."

LOL

-Tommy

Edited October 15, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

"In other words, Ernie, it's obvious that the FBI has some super-duper, extra-special, top-top-top-top secret files on Harry of which you are totally unaware.

The fact that you can't prove that they don't only confirms my theory."

LOL

-Tommy

Not at all, Tommy. I only claim that it leaves the matter OPEN. Ernie is trying to say that the matter is CLOSED.

That's our difference.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Evidently Ernie Lazar believes that the FBI would tell him if they had any secret files on the JFK murder; down to the file numbers themselves!

LOL,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, you STILL don't understand. Let's be honest about this -- just one time OK?

1. You have NO knowledge about any "secret files" pertaining to Harry Dean or the "JBS plot". If you had such specific knowledge, you would quote from or refer us to some document which lends credence to your assertion about the possibility that such files or serials exist.

2. Instead, you have just INVENTED your assertion from whole cloth.

<snip>

I'm honest, Ernie. You just misunderstand me.

I'm not saying that I KNOW that there are FBI secret files about Harry Dean.

I'm saying that you DON'T KNOW that there AREN'T any.

You claim that there's no way I can possibly be right, based on the partial evidence you've seen.

So, your logic is simply incorrect, that's all.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, I do not "misunderstand" you. I have recognized your defective logic since the very first time you employed it. As I have said from the very beginning of our debate, our ultimate problem is epistemological. YOU invent and employ rules of evidence and logic which are NOT accepted by anybody.

The principle of logic you are asserting is as follows:

1. Everything which human beings can use their intellect to imagine is potentially true because there is no way to disprove an assertion which requires specific detailed knowledge of every conceivable unknowable.

For example: it is possible (using our imagination) that spider webs and moon dust might be cures for cancer since nobody has ever done any research into their medicinal properties which means we should not exclude the possibility that they are cures for cancer.

2. Consequently, current accumulated knowledge about any subject matter (such as FBI files) is (in your scheme of things) totally worthless because by its very nature accumulated knowledge about any subject matter is "PARTIAL" and INCOMPLETE. There is ALWAYS the possibility that new previously unknown information might be discovered.

What you need to explain is how (in your scheme of things) it would EVER be possible to disprove your assumptions?

No matter how much evidence was presented, you would ALWAYS be able to claim that it is "partial" evidence -- since there could ALWAYS be something MORE which you could allege to be in existence somewhere (or which you could claim has been destroyed or withheld.)

You boldly state that I have seen only "partial" evidence.

Think of your statement in terms of a pie. The whole pie is represented by the figure 100%.

The ONLY way you can rationally make a statement that I have only seen a portion of a pie (i.e. "partial" evidence of its existence) is if YOU have seen the ENTIRE pie.

In the context of Harry Dean, the only way you can state with rational confidence that I have seen only "partial" evidence is if you have seen ALL the evidence.

1. SO....please tell us WHERE this OTHER evidence exists?

2. What, specifically, do I need to see which I have NOT yet seen? BE SPECIFIC.

3. WHY do you think that the alleged remaining evidence would contradict all of our accumulated knowledge about Harry Dean and about the subject matters he has discussed?

4. If you contend that I have not seen 100% of all existing evidence -- then what percentage of evidence do you think I have seen -- and WHY would the remaining evidence be likely to contradict the existing knowledge we have about Harry and his assertions?

5. In short (and in summary) you have created a flawless circular and self-sealing proposition which can NEVER be disproven because it is designed to preclude the possibility of falsification by creating an irrational principle of reasoning.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Thomas Graves]

"In other words, Ernie, it's obvious that the FBI has some super-duper, extra-special, top-top-top-top secret files on Harry of which you are totally unaware.

The fact that you can't prove that they don't only confirms my theory."

LOL

-Tommy

Not at all, Tommy. I only claim that it leaves the matter OPEN. Ernie is trying to say that the matter is CLOSED.

That's our difference.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

According to your way of thinking, it will either: 1) always remain open, or 2) it will be proved that Harry did what he said he did with the FBI.

I.e., by definition can never be "closed" with negative results; it must always remain "open" at the very least.

I've always heard that it's much harder to prove a negative than a positive. Even though you've been insisting that Ernie prove a negative, it appears to me that he's already done so.

Top Secret FBI and CIA, etc, documents, although generally unavailable to the public, still have reference numbers which can be known. Ernie has shown that there are no such reference numbers pointing to any available or unavailable "secret documents" about Harry.

--Tommy

Edited October 16, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Ernie Lazar]

"In other words, Ernie, it's obvious that the FBI has some super-duper, extra-special, top-top-top-top secret files on Harry of which you are totally unaware.

The fact that you can't prove that they don't only confirms my theory."

LOL

-Tommy

Not at all, Tommy. I only claim that it leaves the matter OPEN. Ernie is trying to say that the matter is CLOSED.

That's our difference.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

According to your way of thinking, it will either: 1) always remain open, or 2) it will be proved that Harry did what he said he did with the FBI. I.e., by definition can never be "closed" with negative results.

I've always heard that it's much harder to prove a negative than a positive. Even though you've been insisting that Ernie prove a negative, it appears to me that he's already done so.

Top Secret FBI and CIA, etc, documents, although generally unavailable to the public, still have reference numbers which can be known. Ernie has shown that there are no such reference numbers pointing to any available or unavailable "secret documents" about Harry.

--Tommy

Actually, Tommy, Paul's "logic" is even more insidious.

According to Paul's logic, FBI employees during the 1960's DELIBERATELY LIED TO THEMSELVES about the existence of OTHER files and documents pertaining to Harry and his purported relationship with the FBI.

The FBI, as an agency (both HQ and field offices), consciously decided from 1961 thru 1963 to deliberately OMIT from its own internal communications every reference to anything which might support Harry Dean's narrative. So, for example, when Assistant Directors or Section Chiefs or SAC's of field offices instructed their subordinates to find all references in FBI files which pertained to Harry Dean, those subordinates were secretly instructed to eliminate all references to any file number or serial which MIGHT be used by Harry 30 or 40 years later to prove the accuracy of his story.

EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT (according to Paul) --- when Harry decided to write a letter to J. Edgar Hoover three days before the assassination of President Kennedy, Harry consciously and deliberately omitted any reference to the JBS, to Rousselot, to Galbadon, to Edwin Walker, and to Wesley Grapp because (presumably) he thought at that time that such details were of utterly no significance or importance.

[Paul Trejo]

It's not only my theory that the FBI LIED TO THEMSELVES about the JFK murder. One only needs to read the accounts of former FBI Agents Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen to see the hard facts and the absolute truth of that statement.

Furthermore, it's already well known, and admitted by the US Government (i.e. the HSCA) that the Lone Nut theory of J. Edgar Hoover was a fiction designed for political purposes. The fact that many FBI Agents still repeat the Lone Nut theory to this very day is proof *positive* that the FBI LIED TO THEMSELVES in actual history.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 16, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

It's not only my theory that the FBI LIED TO THEMSELVES about the JFK murder. One only needs to read the accounts of former FBI Agents Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen to see the hard facts and the absolute truth of that statement.

Furthermore, it's already well known, and admitted by the US Government (i.e. the HSCA) that the Lone Nut theory of J. Edgar Hoover was a fiction designed for political purposes. The fact that many FBI Agents still repeat the Lone Nut theory to this very day is proof *positive* that the FBI LIED TO THEMSELVES in actual history.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

As I previously brought to your attention, when FBI employees requested a Name Check on any person or organization, the unit responsible for searching the FBI's Central Records System produced "search slips" which contained EVERY reference in FBI files (subject to parameters set by the requester).

Consequently, your comment regarding Don Adams and Swearingen is totally irrelevant because (1) neither of them worked in the Name Check Unit and (2) neither of them worked at HQ and (3) neither of them has ever (to my knowledge) claimed that "search slips" or "correlation summaries" deliberately omitted anything.

Furthermore, as previously brought to your attention, our nation's most accomplished scholars on the FBI -- (and they also happen to be severe critics of both Hoover and the institution during his tenure) have NEVER found evidence that the Name Check Unit ever deliberately lied to superiors about references contained in FBI index systems.

You are, once again, confusing applies and oranges. What was done with information in FBI files is entirely different from understanding how FBI employees discovered the existence of information in their filing system. Nobody (except you) has ever suggested that the filing system was corrupt, i.e. that FBI employees in the Name Check Unit deliberately LIED to their superiors who wanted to know what was in FBI files.

IN ADDITION: NOBODY has ever researched the statements and accusations made by Swearingen and Adams so it is not possible for ANYBODY (me, you, or anybody else) to state that they have provided "absolute truth" or "hard facts" in their writings. As previously pointed out, Swearingen uses PSEUDONYMS in his book -- so there is no possible way for you or me or anybody else to ascertain if Swearingen's comments (which are anecdotal to begin with) are accurate and truthful.

Your approach is as follows:

1. Form a conclusion

2. Then seek out ANY source which has said or written something that conforms to your pre-existing conclusion.

3. NEVER apply your previous "independent confirmation" "rules" to any statements made by people like Adams and Swearingen. INSTEAD, just ASSUME they are correct because it helps advance your larger argument.

4. NEVER ask any independent scholar or anybody familiar with FBI history (including other FBI Agents who served in the same locations as Adams and Swearingen) if their statements are accurate and truthful. INSTEAD, just ASSUME that any contradictory evaluations are irrelevant evidence to consider.

5. The "US Government" is not comprised of any single department, agency, commission, or legislative committee. You cannot, therefore, attribute a conclusion to "the US Government" by citing just ONE source.

6. Lastly, nobody has ever surveyed current or former FBI Agents regarding their personal evaluation or opinions about what you call the "Lone Nut Theory" -- so it is mystifying how YOU arrived at your definitive conclusion regarding what FBI Agents believe regarding this matter.

Altogether, there probably are about 15,000-20,000 FBI Agents (current employees, current living but retired Agents, and deceased Agents who were alive during the 1960's) who have awareness of the Warren Commission Report. So WHAT NUMBER constitutes (in your judgment) "many" who "repeat the Lone Nut theory" and WHY is their personal opinion significant -- especially if they have no personal knowledge of all the available evidence??

CHALLENGE FOR PAUL

1. Since you are so certain about your personal opinions regarding the FBI Name Check Unit -- I suggest you write a well-documented article to carefully explain your theory so that interested parties can then review your evidence and critique your article.

2. If you are unwilling to write something in support of your contentions which can be subjected to the normal, customary rules of evidence and logic --- then there is no reason to believe your assertions.

3. IF, however, you have actual verifiable factual evidence that FBI employees in the Name Check Unit or in any other unit, routinely LIED to their superiors when they received requests to search FBI indexing systems for relevant files and serials and, furthermore, that those employees deliberately omitted certain types of references on their search slips --- THEN, your information would provide a VERY important service to historians and researchers who have studied the FBI --- AND, even more important (in my personal judgment) you would provide an exceptional public service to FOIA requesters who rely upon FBI "search slips" for research purposes.

IN FACT, you almost certainly would be in contention for various journalism awards because you would become the FIRST person to discover, document, and reveal such data.

Keep in mind that the FBI Name Check Unit was responsible for providing the raw data which was used to:

1. determine whether or not somebody should be granted security clearances

2. determine whether or not somebody could be hired or appointed to Federal positions

3. find criminal records which then could be used by state and federal agencies

CONSEQUENTLY, if your "theory" is accurate and truthful --- this information would have ENORMOUS consequences.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Ernie, I never even mentioned the Name Check Unit. That's your thing.

I'm referring to the writings by former FBI Agent Don Adams, and his book, From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle, in which he says the FBI acted to vigorously to suppress the information that he brought to the FBI about the JFK assassination.

I'm also referring to the writings by former FBI Agent M. Wesley Swearingnen, and his book, To Kill a President, in which he says the FBI also acted to vigorously to suppress the information that he brought to the FBI about the JFK assassination.

These are important reports from FBI men who were there and who know what they're talking about. They're not armchair amateurs.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 16, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Well, Ernie, I never even mentioned the Name Check Unit. That's your thing.

I'm referring to the writings by former FBI Agent Don Adams, and his book, From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle, in which he says the FBI acted to vigorously to suppress the information that he brought to the FBI about the JFK assassination.

I'm also referring to the writings by former FBI Agent M. Wesley Swearingnen, and his book, To Kill a President, in which he says the FBI also acted to vigorously to suppress the information that he brought to the FBI about the JFK assassination.

These are important reports from FBI men who were there and who know what they're talking about. They're not armchair amateurs.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

I was addressing your larger argument that

1. FBI employees LIED to themselves about JFK's murder -- as if they have suppressed knowledge about the existence of certain files/serials which contradict the "lone nut theory" (your message #1388)

2. FBI employees would NOT tell FOIA requesters about all files and serials (your message #1381)

3. With respect to Adams and Swearingen -- AGAIN -- NOBODY has performed research into their assertions nor has anybody interviewed the Agents who worked in their office locations to ascertain to what extent the recollections and anecdotal evidence presented by Adams and Swearingen are accurate and truthful. Nobody has seen Swearingen's or Adam's FBI personnel file and nobody has seen any memos or reports which they wrote regarding JFK's murder -- so there is no current way to ascertain if they are being accurate and truthful.

ONLY people like yourself believe that mere ASSERTIONS are correct -- even if nobody has located the relevant documents and independently confirmed those ASSERTIONS. INSTEAD, you just immediately conclude "they know what they are talking about" without performing due diligence.

LET's BRIEFLY RECAP PAUL TREJO'S RECORD

1. Harry Dean and Paul Trejo "knew what they were talking about" -- when they emphatically declared that the "long version" of Harry's 11/19/63 letter to Hoover was an FBI forgery -- particularly because it was typed in ALL CAPS whereas the redacted (correct) version in "Crosstrails" was in sentence case.

2. Harry Dean and Paul Trejo "knew what they were talking about" -- when they both claimed that Harry was given and "had successfully completed a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent" and "undercover informant" and "political spy" and "double agent" for the FBI.

3. Harry Dean and Paul Trejo "knew what they were talking about" -- when they both claimed that Harry "met with" and "drove around with" Wesley Grapp in September 1963 -- a claim which The Sainted Wes Swearingen described as preposterous.

4. Harry Dean and Paul Trejo "knew what they were talking about" -- when they both emphatically declared that Harry provided information about the JBS to the FBI-Los Angeles -- even though no such evidence exists in Harry's FBI-Los Angeles file.

5. Paul Trejo "knew what he was talking about" -- when he claimed that J. Edgar Hoover described the John Birch Society as "un-American" in 1959

6. Harry Dean "knew what he was talking about" -- when he returned to his LDS/JBS accusations earlier this year.

7. Paul Trejo "knew what he was talking about" - when he declared that "H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison were also ranking members of the John Birch Society in Dallas" and Robert Morris was also a JBS member.

8. Paul Trejo and Harry Dean "knew what they were talking about" -- when they both affirmed that "Harry Dean reported that he attended a meeting in which WW2 hero Guy Gabaldon was given a briefcase full of money by high-ranking leaders of the JBS, including ex-General Edwin Walker, to guide Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard in a plot to keep Lee Harvey Oswald in a position where he could be easily manipulated. That is empirical evidence for Harry -- he was there" .... even though at other times Harry has definitively stated that he "stayed in the car" -- while Galbadon allegedly met with Rousselot in September 1963 to obtain the briefcase containing $10,000!

Edited October 16, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Ernie, you have misrepresented my position yet again, mainly by slanting the wording.

I must again set the record straight.

First of all, I find the report by former FBI Agent Don Adams to be believable when he claims that the Lone Nut fiction by J. Edgar Hoover unfairly suppressed his solid evidence of a conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

Also, I find the report by former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen to be believable when he claims that the Lone Nut fiction by J. Edgar Hoover unfairly suppressed his solid evidence of a conspiracy in the murder of JFK. (I would add here that Wesley Swearingen sharply disagrees with your understanding of FBI procedures -- I have his Email to that effect.)

As for the numbered points that you cited above:

1. I recanted long ago that the "long version" of Harry's 11/19/63 letter to Hoover was an FBI forgery, because Harry Dean himself finally remembered (a half-century later) that it was his own letter.

2. Harry Dean and I have REPEATEDLY disclaimed any notion that Harry was an official, Undercover Agent for the FBI. We have done that so many times, over YEARS now, that it's simply disingenuous for you to keep getting this wrong. Harry Dean volunteered information to the FBI about the FPCC and the JBS over several years. That's what Harry claims, and we have ample evidence from the FBI themselves about the FPCC matter. The JBS matter, however, is related to the JFK murder -- for which the FBI admits they still have not released all their files.

3. Harry Dean still maintains that he met with and drove around with Wesley Grapp in Southern California around the end of 1963 and/or the beginning of 1964. Wesley Swearingen misunderstands Harry's claim (because of the wording that you gave him) so naturally his opinion is questionable. Until the FBI releases all its JFK-related files, I will keep an open mind about this.

4. Harry Dean still maintains -- and I believe -- that he volunteered information to the FBI about the JBS in 1963. Yet because that information was related to the JFK assassination, and because the FBI has not released all of its files about the JFK assassination, there is no way to confirm or deny Harry Dean's claim today. I don't claim that it's proven -- I only claim that it isn't disproven. You're closed mind on the topic is your own mainstay for YEARS on this thread. I am giving Harry Dean the benefit of the doubt.

5. The historical fact is that J. Edgar Hoover disapproved of the John Birch Society doctrine that sitting US Presidents were committed COMMUNISTS, and Hoover thought of that as Un-patriotic. If you deny that, Ernie, then your bias is simply out of control.

6. I have consistently disagreed with Harry Dean about his opinion that the LDS assumed a leadership role in the JBS.

7. I've read that Hunt, Murchison and Morris were members of the JBS in Dallas, in high social standing in Dallas, and considered leaders of political opinion in Dallas. Larrie Schmidt told me personally that Robert Morris personally arranged for Larrie to lead his own JBS cell in Dallas. You haven't provided proof of your skepticism, Ernie -- and all you really have to offer here is skepticism.

8. Harry Dean still maintains that he interacted with Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Guy Gabaldon, John Rousselot and Ex-General Edwin Walker in Southern California in September 1963, in the context of framing Lee Harvey Oswald in their plot to murder JFK. We have evidence from Jim Garrison that Loran Hall and Larry Howard were real suspects in the JFK conspiracy, and there is other evidence, e.g. from Silvio Odio, that they were seen with Lee Harvey Oswald in September 1963, as Harry Dean was aware.

I repeat -- the only factors that you, Ernie, bring to this discussion are: (I) skepticism; (II) mockery; (III) your claim that the FBI files that the FBI has shared with you so far must be conclusive, even BEFORE all their secret files on the JFK assassination have been released; and (IV) your poor grasp of the time sequence of Harry's claims.

Enough said.

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Let's see the email from Swearingen.

[Ernie Lazar]

Well, Ernie, you have misrepresented my position yet again, mainly by slanting the wording.

I must again set the record straight.

First of all, I find the report by former FBI Agent Don Adams to be believable when he claims that the Lone Nut fiction by J. Edgar Hoover unfairly suppressed his solid evidence of a conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

Also, I find the report by former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen to be believable when he claims that the Lone Nut fiction by J. Edgar Hoover unfairly suppressed his solid evidence of a conspiracy in the murder of JFK. (I would add here that Wesley Swearingen sharply disagrees with your understanding of FBI procedures -- I have his Email to that effect.)

As for the numbered points that you cited above:

1. I recanted long ago that the "long version" of Harry's 11/19/63 letter to Hoover was an FBI forgery, because Harry Dean himself finally remembered (a half-century later) that it was his own letter.

2. Harry Dean and I have REPEATEDLY disclaimed any notion that Harry was an official, Undercover Agent for the FBI. We have done that so many times, over YEARS now, that it's simply disingenuous for you to keep getting this wrong. Harry Dean volunteered information to the FBI about the FPCC and the JBS over several years. That's what Harry claims, and we have ample evidence from the FBI themselves about the FPCC matter. The JBS matter, however, is related to the JFK murder -- for which the FBI admits they still have not released all their files.

3. Harry Dean still maintains that he met with and drove around with Wesley Grapp in Southern California around the end of 1963 and/or the beginning of 1964. Wesley Swearingen misunderstands Harry's claim (because of the wording that you gave him) so naturally his opinion is questionable. Until the FBI releases all its JFK-related files, I will keep an open mind about this.

4. Harry Dean still maintains -- and I believe -- that he volunteered information to the FBI about the JBS in 1963. Yet because that information was related to the JFK assassination, and because the FBI has not released all of its files about the JFK assassination, there is no way to confirm or deny Harry Dean's claim today. I don't claim that it's proven -- I only claim that it isn't disproven. You're closed mind on the topic is your own mainstay for YEARS on this thread. I am giving Harry Dean the benefit of the doubt.

5. The historical fact is that J. Edgar Hoover disapproved of the John Birch Society doctrine that sitting US Presidents were committed COMMUNISTS, and Hoover thought of that as Un-patriotic. If you deny that, Ernie, then your bias is simply out of control.

6. I have consistently disagreed with Harry Dean about his opinion that the LDS assumed a leadership role in the JBS.

7. I've read that Hunt, Murchison and Morris were members of the JBS in Dallas, in high social standing in Dallas, and considered leaders of political opinion in Dallas. Larrie Schmidt told me personally that Robert Morris personally arranged for Larrie to lead his own JBS cell in Dallas. You haven't provided proof of your skepticism, Ernie -- and all you really have to offer here is skepticism.

8. Harry Dean still maintains that he interacted with Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Guy Gabaldon, John Rousselot and Ex-General Edwin Walker in Southern California in September 1963, in the context of framing Lee Harvey Oswald in their plot to murder JFK. We have evidence from Jim Garrison that Loran Hall and Larry Howard were real suspects in the JFK conspiracy, and there is other evidence, e.g. from Silvio Odio, that they were seen with Lee Harvey Oswald in September 1963, as Harry Dean was aware.

I repeat -- the only factors that you, Ernie, bring to this discussion are: (I) skepticism; (II) mockery; (III) your claim that the FBI files that the FBI has shared with you so far must be conclusive, even BEFORE all their secret files on the JFK assassination have been released; and (IV) your poor grasp of the time sequence of Harry's claims.

Enough said.

--Paul Trejo

1. I have never "misrepresented" your position -- which is why (unlike yourself) I always include DIRECT QUOTATIONS of what you have previously written OR I refer interested parties to the message # where you made your comments.

2. DON ADAMS: You continue to miss the salient point. NOBODY (including you) has ever seen Adams' FBI personnel file and nobody will see it until he passes away (assuming someone makes an FOIA request for it). Since we do not know what "report" Adams made or what "solid evidence" he allegedly presented nor do we know what was done with that information (i.e. how it was analyzed, interpreted, and weighed for significance within the FBI -- in the context of the mountains of incoming raw information which the Bureau was receiving), we cannot make any informed judgment about Adams (or about Swearingen). ONLY people like yourself RUSH to conclusions in the absence of primary source documentation. You "find" the report by Adams to be "believable" SOLELY because it conforms to your pre-existing conclusions -- and NOT because you have ever done any research into his "reports".

3. SWEARINGEN: Same comments as just made re: Adams apply to Swearingen as well.

And, again, whatever disagreements I have with Swearingen pale in comparison to his abject dismissal of your story with respect to Harry Dean. Furthermore, Swearingen's understanding regarding "FBI procedures" are subject to investigation and confirmation or denial -- just like any other assertions made by any "witness". Once again, YOUR approach is to believe ANYTHING you read IF it conforms to your pre-existing conclusions while you summarily DISMISS or DE-VALUE factual evidence which contradicts your preferred conclusion. I know for a fact that some of Swearingen's comments (in his book FBI Secrets as well as in his private emails to me) are FALSE. Nevertheless, I am totally willing to listen to whatever he has to say. BUT the difference between YOU and ME is that I do not mindlessly accept whatever I am told -- just because it might help support something I believe to be true.

4. HARRY's 11/63 letter: The issue here Paul is NOT whether or not you "recanted" anything. The issue is your profound and malicious ineptitude with respect to INTERPRETING evidence. You could have written something like this at the beginning of our dispute regarding the 11/63 letter: "I need to obtain more information about this letter so I will suspend judgment until more information becomes available". That is what NORMAL, RATIONAL people do. But instead, you IMMEDIATELY ridiculed or mocked as stupid every question I presented and you IMMEDIATELY declared that Harry's recollection was SUPERIOR to anything which I or anybody else could present.

WORST OF ALL -- you INVENTED a malicious and libelous falsehood because you were so emotionally invested in defending Harry at all costs (your "#1 defender" and "ally" role) --- which is the ULTIMATE problem with people who are NOT impartial, independent, and fair investigators.

The SAME mental process which caused your unconditional support for Harry's false recollections -- is now at work with respect to Adams and Swearingen. Instead of saying: "I need to wait until I have more primary source factual documentation before I make any judgments about their assertions" -- you IMMEDIATELY declare "they know what they are talking about".

5. HARRY as "OFFICIAL UNDERCOVER AGENT FOR FBI"

Neither you or Harry have EVER "disclaimed" anything much less done so "repeatedly".

Let's now consider your use (and mis-use) of the word "official".

What does "official" mean in the context of our debate?

What sort of language would someone use to convey the notion that he or she was an "official undercover agent for FBI"?

FIRST -- let's consult a dictionary: a person holding public office or having official duties, especially as a representative of an organization or government department.

SYNONYMS for "official" include: authorized, functionary, representative

NOW-- here is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT factor for having "official" status: Being ASKED or INSTRUCTED or AUTHORIZED to do something on behalf of any person, business, organization, agency, or other entity.

BY CONTRAST, what does "unofficial" mean? It means NOT being asked, instructed, or authorized to do something on behalf of any person, business, organization, agency, or other entity.

SO---the ONLY relevant question which applies to Harry Dean is: HOW did he DESCRIBE HIMSELF? [A corollary is: how did people PERCEIVE him based upon their PERSONAL CONTACT with him?]

Harry has been exceptionally clear about this matter. He has EXPLICITLY said that he was recruited (i.e. ASKED) by "intelligence agencies" to provide "information" to them. Furthermore, this was not a one-time occurrence nor was it limited to one location nor was it limited to a brief period of time. Instead, according to Harry's OWN WORDS, he was ASKED by "intelligence agencies" to continuously provide them with information about all sorts of subject matters starting in the summer of 1960 and continuing FOR YEARS in both Chicago and southern California.

Furthermore, Harry has EXPLICITLY stated that he was assigned a "code name" by the FBI and, even more significantly, he allegedly reported to specific FBI case agents who were ASSIGNED to him.

Everything just summarized above is what identifies an "OFFICIAL undercover agent" for the FBI. And that is PRECISELY how numerous people perceived Harry based upon their PERSONAL contacts and conversations with him.

Furthermore, that is how Harry described himself in his November 1975 "affidavit" posted online here by Bill Kelley. I quote the relevant portion:

"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. In the time of being appointed acting Secretary of the “front”, I was assigned the task of entering Cuba to gather information for U.S. intelligence."

BY HARRY'S OWN WRITTEN WORDS HE MEETS EVERY TEST FOR "OFFICIAL"

1. He was "recruited" (i.e. ASKED)

2. He was "assigned by internal security intelligence..." (i.e. INSTRUCTED)

3. He was "assigned the task of entering Cuba to gather information for U.S. intelligence" (i.e. AUTHORIZED)

4. He was given specific duties (on a continuous basis over a LONG period of time, i.e. 1960-1965)

5. Furthermore, Harry even says that he was "paid expenses" by U.S. intelligence agencies

As I have repeatedly told you --- there is NO example of Harry EVER correcting the record regarding his association with "U.S. intelligence agencies".

1. In 1961, in his letter to JFK, Harry stated about the FBI-Chicago.. "...they ask me to stay in [the FPCC] and pass on all information. I did so gladly, recently they stated I have done a great one-man undercover job against the Fair Play Communists."

2. In his November 1963 letter to J. Edgar Hoover, Harry described himself as "an undercover agent"

3. In his December 1964 letter to the Director of the Joe Pyne Program, Harry described how the FBI "ask if I would pass info to them..." and "FBI said best one man undercover informante (sic) job seen,,,"

4. In 1966, he solicited subscriptions to his bi-weekly newsletter by describing himself as "an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation"

5. In April 2012, YOU described Harry as follows:

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.

6. AT NO TIME has Harry EVER stated that his relationship with the FBI (or his relationship to "intelligence agencies") was that he "volunteered information" .

INSTEAD, he has used every conceivable linguistic and public relations device to convey the impression (successfully) that he was ASKED BY, RECRUITED BY, AUTHORIZED BY, AND GIVEN ASSIGNMENTS (or "mission"---YOUR word) BY "U.S. intelligence agencies" over a period of 5 years! [NOTE: YOUR word "mission" is defined as: an important assignment carried out for political, religious, or commercial purposes, typically involving travel. Synonyms for "mission" include: purpose, function, job, operation, assignment.

(6) SWEARINGEN: Your comment reveals your extreme bias. I did not "give" wording to Swearingen. Swearingen had read Harry's booklet, "Crosstrails" and I gave Swearingen the exact information which YOU provided in YOUR eBook.

CONSEQUENTLY, IF (and this is only your unproven assumption) Swearingen "misunderstood" Harry's claims -- then the misunderstanding is YOUR responsibility and Harry's -- because of YOUR words and Harry's words - NOT MINE. What, exactly, do you think he misunderstood?

This raises a second question: WHY IS IT that Harry is so often allegedly "misunderstood" and by so many different people?

WHY does an ORDINARY person so frequently describe Harry's sentences or words as "inscrutable" or "rambling" or "incoherent"?

AGAIN: Harry could totally eliminate this problem simply by (even at this late date) making a DEFINITIVE FINAL statement regarding his alleged relationship with the FBI.

I previously gave you one possible version of what Harry could write and I challenged you to get Harry to AGREE with my summary.

The BURDEN OF PROOF is upon YOU and HARRY -- not his targeted audience which you think always "misunderstands" what Harry has explicitly and repeatedly stated!

(7) HARRY's JBS INFORMATION

You have made an assertion for which there is not ONE IOTA of factual evidence to support.

You claim that because Harry made comments "related to the JFK assassination" -- that information would be located somewhere which is NOT currently known.

However, MANY people have made claims "related to the JFK assassination" and their FBI files have been released and that information is already known publicly.

Since Harry's FBI files are in date sequence and in order by serial number -- IF something had been ripped out of a file, we would know about it because there would be the standard "deleted page information" notice which identifies the missing serial number and where it was sent and why it might exempt from disclosure.

Unfortunately, there is nothing to support your delusion. Which is why Harry's HQ file DOES contain serials pertaining to the JFK assassination and those serials reference the HQ file on JFK's murder, i.e. 62-109060.

So, Paul, INVENT a new more plausible excuse. [And, incidentally, when you check the FBI files of other personalities whom Harry allegedly reported on -- they also are not missing any serials OR such missing serials are clearly identified with respect to where they were moved. ]

Lastly, when "search slips" are used by FBI employees to list ALL references contained in FBI files about a specific subject, they DO NOT exclude JFK-related serials. Those ARE listed.

BUT---Significantly, Harry's 12/18/63 HQ search slip contains NO reference to the JFK-assassination file number AND Harry's 11/19/64 Los Angeles search slip contains NO reference to either the Los Angeles JFK-assassination file number or the HQ JFK-file number. Nor does the Los Angles search slip contain ANY references to file numbers of Rousselot, Walker, Galbadon, Minutemen, etc. So, again, Paul, try INVENTING a more plausible excuse for your delusion.

With respect to your comment about what has been "disproven" -- there is NO CONCEIVABLE METHODOLOGY which will EVER satisfy you in terms of falsifying your "belief". You will dismiss or de-value EVERYTHING presented by claiming that "secret" files still exist OR they have been destroyed or withheld for "national security" reasons.

That is the beauty of a self-sealing argument. It is designed to preclude falsification by rhetorical tautological gibberish!

(8) J. EDGAR HOOVER on JBS

Nice try Paul, but no cigar! You have deliberately changed what you originally stated in order to construct a straw-man argument to deflect our attention from your original FALSE assertion. Here is what YOU originally wrote in August 2012: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19417

"In 1960, says Harry, the FBI gave him a further request -- to spy on the JBS (John Birch Society) in Southen California, and to send the FBI any seditionist information that he picked up. (By the way, we know the FBI had already spied on the JBS in 1959, because Hoover declared them Unamerican in 1959, and set a policy that no FBI agent could ever become a member of the JBS.)"

LET'S RECAP ALL THE FALSEHOODS CONTAINED IN THIS ONE PARAGRAPH:

1. Notice that Paul again characterizes the nature of Harry's relationship with the FBI. It was NOT (as Paul's current message falsely claims) that Harry was providing the FBI with unsolicited voluntary information. INSTEAD, "the FBI gave him a further request--to spy on the JBS in southern California..."

2. The FBI never "spied on the JBS in 1959". They conducted a preliminary inquiry into the JBS by using public source information (newspapers, magazines, incorporation documents filed with Massachusetts along with looking at a "Who's Who" directory for New England re: Robert Welch)

3. Hoover never "declared them un-American" in 1959 or at any other time---nor did he consider JBS members "unpatriotic".

Hoover's first PUBLIC statements regarding Welch or the JBS were in 1963 and 1964. Furthermore, if Hoover had ever actually believed that the JBS was "un-American" as well as "unpatriotic" there would have been very certain and dramatic consequences to that judgment. For example:

(1) FBI HQ would have instructed ALL field offices to open a formal investigation into the JBS (but the FBI never investigated the JBS)

(2) Like ALL other organizations which the FBI considered "un-American", FBI field offices would have been instructed to prepare quarterly summary reports about the JBS in their territory. Those reports would summarize JBS activities, identify the primary officials of the organization in their territory and report upon what FBI files contained regarding the background of those individuals (BUT there were no such quarterly reports) and

(3) FBI offices would have listed the JBS every month in the FBI file captioned "Thumbnail Sketches of Subversive Organizations" (but neither the JBS or any of its officers or members are so-listed) and

(4) Any time the FBI investigated someone who was being considered for a sensitive government position (i.e. appointed or hired), the FBI summary report would have dwelled at length upon their JBS connections because positions requiring security clearances (including, for example, military positions) would be denied to a JBS member.

INSTEAD, many JBS members were able to obtain security clearances and many were appointed to or hired into federal government positions -- including, of course, John Rousselot (and he had a security clearance).

(5) Hoover never "set a policy" stating that JBS members could not become FBI Agents. IF Paul had proof for that, he would have QUOTED the "policy" statement made by Hoover OR referred us to a specific bibliographic reference which we could read for ourselves to prove that Paul was telling the truth about this matter. But AGAIN, Paul makes definitive bold declarations and he demands we believe him -- even when he has NOT ONE IOTA of verifiable factual evidence to support his statements.

(6) Lastly, if the FBI considered someone "un-American", THEN at every opportunity it would have used its contacts to discredit the JBS and/or individual JBS members and the FBI would actively have assisted media and friendly politicians so that they could use information supplied by the FBI (public source, without footprints leading back to the FBI) to discredit the JBS.

However, the FBI did very little to discredit the JBS by name because it knew they risked severe consequences to its reputation as a non-political entity because of the stature of many JBS members and endorsers (both Democrats and Republicans) including MANY very prominent elected public officials (Mayors, Governors, U.S. Congressmen, City Councilmen, Judges and Justices) along with numerous very famous Americans (authors, sports figures, Hollywood personalities, retired senior military officers, clergymen, newspaper publishers, corporate CEO's, etc. and even famous former FBI Agents and FBI or Justice Department or Police Department informants!)

So ONCE AGAIN -- Paul blithely disseminates ABSOLUTE FALSEHOODS in the service of his jeremiad against the JBS.

9. LDS/JBS

Who cares if Paul has "consistently disagreed" with Harry regarding the LDS? That is NOT the point. The point I made was in the context of Paul using the phrase "knew what they were talking about" -- as a general umbrella declaration which, presumably, he expects us to accept as gospel truth so we shut-down our critical reasoning abilities -- JUST BECAUSE Paul declares his belief in what people like Adams, Swearingen, or Harry state -- even though Paul has never researched their contentions --- which is why Paul's eBook contains not a single documentary footnote or other reference to anything which substantiates his personal OPINIONS.

10. JBS MEMBERS

So Paul "read" something about Murchison and Morris and Hunt. So what? I am not offering "skepticism" Paul. I am offering a statement made by a high official inside the JBS who has access to JBS membership records and that person declared emphatically that neither Hunt or Morris were JBS members -- much less how YOU described them in your original message.

Furthermore, there is no statement BY those individuals that I know about or which any other researcher has discovered which establishes that they were members -- whether "high ranking" or "low". Again -- the issue here is how YOU go about substantiating your bold statements. By what process would YOU ever be able to falsify the idea that ANYBODY was a "JBS member"? What source(s) would you use to discover the truth? It is your methodology that I was challenging. You believe EVERYTHING you read apparently??

BY CONTRAST: When I state that somebody was a JBS member or JBS endorser, I can PROVE it with indisputable factual evidence. So, for example, (as I previously mentioned), I am the ONLY person that has ever been able to demonstrate that Phyllis Schlafly and her husband joined the JBS in 1959 -- EVEN THOUGH she publicly has DENIED that she was a JBS member -- even to her biographers. THAT is the difference between you and me. You make assertions which you cannot or will not prove to be factual.

11. HARRY DEAN'S MEETING

Actually, Paul, if you carefully review all of the available evidence, there have been many different descriptions by Harry regarding his "interaction" or "meeting" with Hall, Howard, Galbadon, etc. I will be discussing this in more detail on my Harry Dean webpage in the future.

Unlike yourself -- I actually keep notes about all the discrepancies in Harry's alleged "eyewitness" testimony. As I have established from the various examples I have provided above, my notes and awareness of materially important errors are vastly superior to your own self-serving defensive comments where you ALWAYS try to evade YOUR responsibility for circulating entirely FALSE information.

Lastly, with respect to FBI files: My interest in FBI files is different from what YOU claim. In any event, as I have previously demonstrated, it turns out that FBI files pertaining to Harry have been VERY accurate.

When we first started our debate, neither of us had seen Harry's letters to Hoover, to JFK, to the Los Angeles field office, to the Director of the Joe Pyne program, to Senator Murphy, etc.

However, now we have seen those documents and, as a result, we can compare what Harry has claimed IN HIS OWN WRITING, to what FBI Agents summarized in their memos and contact forms.

VERY significantly, we can now state with absolute certainty, that FBI documentation is extremely accurate. For example: we now know that Chicago and Los Angeles field summary memos or reports accurately convey what Harry wrote in his own letters.

We know, for example, that Harry was in the habit of ROUTINELY typing ALL his correspondence in ALL CAPS --- even though YOU originally ridiculed me for suggesting that those documents were genuine and, even worse, you constructed an elaborate "critique" to "prove" that those documents must be FORGERIES because they were typed in ALL CAPS and you even went further to claim that the FBI was trying to make Harry look "unbalanced" or otherwise suspicious. IN REALITY, the FBI correctly summarized their contacts with Harry.

So it is YOUR reasoning ability which is suspect -- not mine. And it is YOUR "poor grasp" of important details which has been revealed -- not mine.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

WORST OF ALL -- you INVENTED a malicious and libelous falsehood because you were so emotionally invested in defending Harry at all costs (your "#1 defender" and "ally" role) --- which is the ULTIMATE problem with people who are NOT impartial, independent, and fair investigators.

<snip>

What "falsehood" are you talking about, Ernie? Why don't you just come out with it?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

WORST OF ALL -- you INVENTED a malicious and libelous falsehood because you were so emotionally invested in defending Harry at all costs (your "#1 defender" and "ally" role) --- which is the ULTIMATE problem with people who are NOT impartial, independent, and fair investigators.

<snip>

What "falsehood" are you talking about, Ernie? Why don't you just come out with it?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

1. I have repeatedly discussed your falsehoods with respect to the 11/63 letter. Why do you now pretend that you do not know what I am referring to?

2. Is THAT your ONLY reply to all of the FACTUAL evidence I provided in my message --- particularly with respect to how Harry has described himself and how YOU also described Harry's relationship with the FBI?

3. I'm still waiting for YOUR careful discussion which informs us how we should distinguish between an "official" FBI undercover operative, informant, or agent vs. a "non-official" one or whatever OTHER excuses you want to invent.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Ernie Lazar