Stephen Roy

I don't know about expert - I prefer to be called a Ferrie specialist. I haven't yet come to Ferrie's death in my writing (but I'm getting close) and I haven't formulated a firm opinion. I used to think I was pretty sure, but others have caused me to re-think things. I'm not so sure those were suicide letters. One is a long screed against the justice system, and seems to refer to legal problems Ferrie had in 1961. The other could be construed as a farewell letter, of some sort. Neither was found in any obvious "suicide place," if you get my meaning. The first was in a pile of papers on a bookcase, and the second was in an envelope under a table, marked "to be opened in the event of my death." The envelope also contained a will from the previous July, burial instructions, who to notify, etc. As for delValle, I'm also not so sure he was a "good friend." Virtually all references to the friendship track back to an article in a Spanish-language newspaper by Diego Gonzales Tendedera. The article has Ferrie in Miami at a time when he was flying for Eastern Air Lines and a few other mistakes or problems. So I'm not sure about that article as a source. Escalante mentions Ferrie and delValle, but this, too may also have come from the Tendedera article. I'm still looking for confirmation of the relationship from other sources. AJ Weberman doesn't think they worked together.

I take it they were shot when they found Ferrie dead? Kathy C Yes. 2/22/67

I'm not surprised. There were hints of this going way back, to 1960 news coverage and Wise/Ross "The U-2 Affair." CIA never believed that the Sovs could shoot down a plane at 70-80-90,000 feet. They were right in a way - according to Powers, it wasn't a direct hit, but the consequence of a nearby explosion/shockwave. CIA presumed that if a U2 had a problem over Soviet territory, the pilot would explode the aircraft, or at least use the poison pin. They were stunned when Powers was reported as alive and well, and suspected a deliberate landing. They were even more stunned when, at the trial (attended by Snyder, among others), Powers offered certain classified info and seemed repentant. But when one reads his US testimony and his book, you can see his rationale: Confirm what the Sovs already know or can reasonably infer, while keeping more important things secret, and show the minimum amount of repentance necessary to satisfy the Sovs. But CIA (and Dulles) always faulted him for this.

Errr.... "large kitchen"? Uhhh... "underground laboatory"?

Dave Ferrie's kitchen, from several angles, taken while he lived there:

So, it would make more sense to give greater weight to witnesses who gave statements earlier, say, prior to 2000? Your "argument" is not the issue. It's your dismissal of someone who knows more abut the New Orleans case than you do. A serious scholar would want to know what those with expertise in the New Orleans aspects think about these issues: DiEugenio, Davy, Vea, Pease, Hewitt, Flammonde, Mellen, Epstein, Lambert, Biles, Turner, etc. What DO they think? We will see what my book - not a one-year-quickie - will have to say. Interesting comment by Baker. Most of the witnesses I've spoken with are still alive. How many of the people portrayed badly in her account are still alive to give their impressions?

I write as a person who has done quite a bit of primary documentary and witness research on the New Orleans aspects of the JFK case. While I occasionally disagree with Jim DiEugenio and his "brain trust" (Bill Davy, Peter Vea, Lisa Pease, Carol Hewitt and others), I have profound respect for his (and their) knowledge of the New Orleans aspects of the case. To suggest that their skills in this field are inferior to, equal to, or even in the same league as those of the people cited above is patently ridiculous.

Dean: I hate the condescension heaped upon you in this thread.

What??? Could you try this one again, in English this time?

We have nothing with which to assess the authenticity of this alleged "Psy-Ops Expert," if he(?) actually exists. We know nothing about what qualifies his expertise in "psychological operations" or the intelligence/espionage/covert action milieu, or what qualifies him to pontificate on these and other matters. Given the peculiarity of how his words come to this Forum, I cannot completely disabuse myself of the notion that this might be a persona adopted by another person in an attempt to give his comments the appearance of an expertise he does not possess. If he is a real person, there appear to be two possible means of qualification: 1) He is a former intelligence employee of some sort (who would clearly be disaffected with intelligence today); or 2) He is an outsider who has read books on intelligence, who believes this qualifies him to offer judgments about these matters (and if so, is clearly one who is both fascinated and repelled by intelligence). To me, this person sounds more like an outsider than a former intelligence employee. I have followed his "posts" in this Forum. At first, he made generalized comments about "psyops." He then graduated to specifics of the subjects of this thread. Next, he moved on to specific advocacy of certain books and people. Finally, he is now challenging specific people in this Forum. (In these last two stages, his views strikingly parallel those of his posting pal.) Throughout, his writings are peppered with jargon from intelligence books, and the peculiar use of transposed letters ("kontrol" vs. control). Hmmmmmm... And now, as we've seen, they contain mistakes, too. First, to Fetzer: I'm not surprised that you find it odd that not all books can be churned out in, say a year or two. For my book, it's a part time endeavor, I am shooting for a high level of detail, and I am trying to get it all right. When it's done, it's done. In the meantime, I have helped other writers and TV producers, I've spoken at conferences and I've posted a lot of stuff to the internet. But I guess you find that sinister. Back to "Mr. PsyOps": The correct spelling of my name is Stephen. I have never proclaimed myself a Ferrie expert, just a specialist. My comments to Jim yesterday were sarcasm. "The Company" is a euphemism used by CIA professionals to hide references to CIA from prying ears (in oral communications) and prying eyes (in written communications), and CIA was founded well after David Ferrie's adolescence. You can spin it as applying to earlier American Intelligence, but by all accounts, is was a confusing mismash of small, independent and competing agencies, into and including World War II. That's why it was centralized in 1947. I'm quite familiar with the history of intelligence in the US. My collection of intelligence books number more than 2000. If you are also an "outsider", my knowledge probably equals yours. Was Ferrie a normal person? Certainly, his earlier life would be classified as rather ordinary. You seem to be buying into the cartoon image of Ferrie as all-evil. Tell me what behavior at the time of the assassination "screams mind control." No, I'm not familiar with the "special little boys program." Is that the one where some NON-"company" group recruited Ferrie as a boy in the 30s, then kept him on ice to be used in an assassination plot 30 years later? Tell me ANY evidence which supports this. Ferrie did not train Barry Seal. Ferrie was in one squadron (briefly) and Seal was in another, in another city. No link has ever been shown between them, and this includes Hopsicker's book. The rest is just your musings about how you think everything is connected together, how some evil cabal controlled everything for years. Even if bits are true, the whole picture you present is extreme over-reaching. I'm sorry, Mr. Psy-Ops. You made mistakes in your claims about Ferrie, for which you should own up. I'm not going to make the error of others on this thread, and disregard everything you say because of a few mistakes, because of the rambling and opinionated nature of your writings or because your anonymity renders your credentials invisible. I'll read what you have to say, accept what is true and challenge what is not.

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED. Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years? Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE? Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective." Stephen, You're killing me! LOL -- "The Company" is a euphemism for the CIA. Jeez, Monk- Give me more credit than that! I didn't just fall off the turnip truck! The "psyops expert" claimed Ferrie was recruited by CIA as an adolescent, which would have been between 1918 and 1938. "The Company" didn't exist then, nor did its predecessor, the OSS. In fact, Ferrie's first contact with the CIA occurred much later. And he also goofed in claiming that CIA somhow "treated" Ferrie to make him lose his hair. I have medical records, seminary records, letters between Ferrie and his dad and pictures which establish that Ferrie developed Alopecia Areata in the early 1930s, long before "the Company" was formed.

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED. Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years? Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE? Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective."

Clever repose for a scholar like you. Ignore my detailed point, and advance right to the "I'm smarter than everyone" card. Where does that tactic come up in Critical Thinking? It's beneath me to do this, but I can play, too. I have somewhat more experience with research and scholarship on the topic of the New Orleans milieu and David Ferrie in particular. A scholar like you should be seeking information and opinion from someone with my chops. Have you ever deigned to ask any of the experts in the New Orleans milieu what they think of all this? No, the book you so highly tout is not "every" thorough, not "every" detailed and not painstaking. It's a good read and a good story, but it is not good history or evidence. You must not be reading my posts, for I posted this a few days ago. Before he published, Ed was a guy who wrote a book with Dave Ferrie as a central character; I am...a guy who wrote a book with Dave Ferrie as a central character. Ed worked on it for about 2 years and self-published it. I've worked on mine for more than 20 years. I've actually collected thousands of pages of primary documents and interviewed many primary witnesses. Do you want to continue with this? If you really want to compare, you can compare the fiar questions I've asked here with the book. What is the evidence that Ferrie had an "underground laboratory?" What is the evidence that Ferrie worked with Mary Sherman?

??? I haven't addressed Baker's story at all in this thread. I've discussed Ed Haslam's book. I'm not disregarding it; I'm indicating that it needs further corroboration. I would not shy away from contrasting my research on Ferrie with Ed's. I've done a lot of interviews and collected a lot of documents. Ed made a few mistakes in his Ferrie material, which I didn't bring up. Serious question: Do YOU "pick and choose by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eliminate...the rest?"

By "references," I think Jack means citations of evidence to support the assertions in the book. Photos and maps cobbled from the Internet or other sources, which do not prove or disprove anything, are not citations of evidence. While helpful, a bibliography does not point a reader to specific citations of evidence. The index is not a citation of evidence. The list above mentions about 314 end notes. In a 344 page book, that's less than one footnote per page. And there is a difference between footnotes which cite sources (SNs), and those which are parenthetical explanatory notes (ENs). Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 offer mostly source notes. Of the 5 endnotes for chapter 2, 2 are Source Notes while 3 are Explanatory Notes. Of the 7 endnotes for chapter 4, 1 is an SN while 6 are ENs. Of the 13 endnotes for chapter 7, 6 are SNs while 7 are ENs. There are no endnotes for chapter 10. Of the 11 endnotes for chapter 11, 1 is an SN while 10 are ENs. Of the 15 endnotes for chapter 13, 1 is an SN while 14 are ENs. Of the 2 endnotes for chapter 14, 1 is an SN while 1 is an EN. Of the 20 endnotes for the Appendix, 20 are ENs. Of the 16 endnotes for the Epilogue, 16 are ENs. So there are less source notes - actual references - than the list above suggests. There are a number of things in the book for which there are no cited sources. What matters is not quantity, but citations for the parts of the book most relevant to JFK researchers.

This is an attempt to use jargon to limit the universe of evidence to that which the writer thinks supports his case, and to define disagreement as irrational. It limits the evidence in quantity by failing to include relevant evidence from other sources. It limits the evidence in quality by failing to consider if the cited evidence is verifiable. What scholar would define the universe of evidence related to a controversial issue at just three items of unknown verifiability? Is that "all of the available relevant evidence" or just portions of it? What scholar would cite a book which that hasn't even been published yet as a requirement for rationality? How does one define rationality?

The allegation of a Ferrie-Sherman link is another case in point. As best I can see in DMM, the evidence Haslam cites is a comment by his mother that Sherman worked with Ferrie, and Jim Garrison's Playboy interview (leaving aside, for a moment, the whole JVB debate). I have searched through Garrison's available files, and I can find no mention of Sherman. (I've also found no mention in available contemporaneous FBI, CIA and other files.) I've interviewed a number of Ferrie's surviving associates and friends, and I can find nobody who remembers him associating with Sherman by name, by description or by pictures. How can that be? Sherman is alleged to have spent significant time with Ferrie, some of it in his apartment, and a number of Ferrie's friends hung out there, stayed over there, even lived there for periods of time. How could they have seen no trace of her? I suppose it is possible that they never crossed paths, or that she was hidden. I know a person who has done deep study of Sherman's life and death, who has not found evidence of a Ferrie-Sherman relationship. I know that the files of the late journalist Don Lee Keith, who wrote and published about Sherman, contain nothing on a Ferrie-Sherman relationship beyond one document written by reporter Hoke May, whose source was a conversation with Jim Garrison. But I never say never. Perhaps the relationship existed, and perhaps it so secretive as to leave no trail among documents or witnesses. In any case, I would say that the allegation has to be flagged as not proven.

Heeere we go again... I appreciate Jim Fetzer contacting Ed Haslam, and I appreciate Ed's response. I'm not sure whether Ed read my own words, or some distillation of them. I have no beef with Ed, and I wish him well on his project. I don't recall ever speaking with Ed on the phone, but I have been unsuccessful in trying to initiate a polite discussion via e-mail or Personal Messages. I thank Ed for the compliment in his second sentence, but I'm not sure which "side" of Ferrie he thinks I have missed. My study of Ferrie (about 20 years, every available document, interviews with many surviving acknowledged acquaintances) is a chips-fall-where-they-may endeavor. Of course I've heard of the allegation of a Ferrie-Sherman link. Of course I've read Ed's books - I ordered the first one from him, as I recall. And of course I've heard similar accounts. Taking an old school approach to research (evidence=working theories), I looked at the evidence in Ed's books and felt the need to take it further: Can I corroborate it through documents or primary interviews? Is there something wrong with that approach? How can Ed know that I'm missing one "side" of Ferrie when he hasn't read my book (still being written)? I think he will be surprised at how fairly I have included everything, with little judgment. He may even find out a few things he didn't know. Ed says I "don't believe that Ferrie had any mice." I can't expect Ed to have read everything I've posted on the internet or said at seminars, but I have found documentation and witnesses supporting the notion that Ferrie had mice in cages in 1957 at his home on Vinet Avenue, that he was interested in medicine and cancer research. I have not been able to find evidence to support the notion that he had such things in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway in 1963, and I am certain that he did not have such things in his apartment at the time of his death in 1967. Does Ed think that disqualifies me from having any opinions? If I have "misread or misinterpreted" what Ed has said, I would be pleased to hear his corrections and concede my mistakes here. But he says he doesn't want to discuss specific points "to raise [my] stature." I am what I am, and I aspire to nothing greater. I don't seek stature, and I'm not unhappy with where I stand right now. I don't think that discussing a few points, in private or in public, is going to have any effect on my "stature." My only interest is in nailing down which information about Ferrie can be proven. Before it was published, Ed was a guy writing a book with Ferrie as a central character. Today, I am a guy writing a book with Ferrie as a central character. Maybe he'd be more comfortable with discussing these points after my book is published (or otherwise comes out). Then comes a few gratuitous put-downs: "I don't know if he is capable of learning anything new, and I don't care what he says...a self-appointed fringe pundit...part of the Layton Martens disinformation crowd [whatever THAT is - SR]." I don't want to play that game. There is no degree in assassination research. Then he says he will ignore me and advise others to ignore me so that I will fade into the background "where belong." So be it, I guess. That's the wrong choice on his part. The smart choice would be to at least attempt to politely discuss legitimate questions. Jim indicated that he would contact Ed about discussing these matters, but I guess it will not happen. An opportunity lost. I congratulate Ed on writing an interesting and provocative book. I wish we had stronger evidence as to the existence of Ferrie's "underground medical laboratory," at either 3330 or 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. I wish we had stronger evidence of the alleged relationship between Ferrie and Dr. Mary Sherman. I wish we had stronger evidence of other things in Dr. Mary's Monkey. As it stands, I cannot personally endorse the book as providing sufficient evidence to support these things in an authoritative manner.

Judyth: Despite our differences - sometimes profound - I sense a certain level of respect between us. I've never wished you any ill will, and I have tried very hard to be polite and restrained, and to stay out of the way. I think you know what I mean. Still, I'm probably the last person from whom you would accept advice. Given all you've been through, I imagine it must be comforting to have a champion to help you deal with all this. I hold Martin and Howard in very high esteem, and I think my actions have reflected this. Now you have Jim Fetzer as your champion, and again, I have tried to stay out of the main lines of fire. As you recall, I have had a few reservations about Ed Haslam's books, and I carefully and gently mentioned them in this thread. You're a smart researcher - I'm sure you know he's made a few mistakes. But Jim's reaction was all out of proportion to my comments. I don't know if having him as your champion is doing you much good. He's a smart guy (don't tell him I said that) but he has a fatal flaw which brings him into conflict with people. Where he should be drawing people to serious discussion of your case, he is instead alienating people in droves. The good Jim is the smart scholar, but the bad Jim is the much more powerful guy who thinks he smarter than everyone else and can't abide anyone disagreeing with him. I don't suggest that you do anything drastic, but you might want to consider talking to him a bit about this. With your book coming out, you want to put your best foot forward, and "this ain't your best foot" right now. Forgive me for writing in public. I don't know how else to contact you. Steve

At that time, I was discussing the "underground laboratory" in Ferrie's apartment. Once I read the new book (at YOUR suggestion) and noted that he had changed focus to the other apartment (partly at MY suggestion, because I found evidence to the contrary through real research), I discussed that. Oh, I guess "critical thinking" doesn't adequately prepare one to see such a simple distinction. It sounds SO much better when one avoids elementary standards of research to make it sound >gasp< sinister!

Did you even read my post? I wrote briefly in paragraph 4 about the author's lack of evidence for his first supposition, that Ferrie had a lab in his apartment. Spin as you might, this IS a part of the book. Haslam wrote it, not me. And it is a part of...another account of 1963, shall we say. Then, in paragraph 5, I discuss the even more striking lack of evidence for the "underground laboratory" at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. The very thing you're accusing me of not mentioning. And how was his "mistaken belief of the past...corrected?" Apparently by something that I wrote some years ago, and ended up as a footnote in Dr. Mary's Monkey. And the obligatory denunciation: "indictment of your shoddy research methodology...qualifies as trash journalism..transparent attempt to deceive the members of this forum...reprehensible conduct on your part, which is disgusting...blatant, amaturish, and fradulent attempt to mislead..." By the way: The correct spelling is "amateurish." I am completely unimpressed with your your ability to acquire, analyze and present evidence. Were it possible, I would be even less impressed with your ability to engage in rational discussion without obsessively engaging in behavior unworthy of a true scholar. The readers here have had a good look at you for the last few months, and you're not fooling anyone. Your concept of "critical thinking" is to pontificate and demand agreement from those you denounce as lesser mortals, and you have violated the letter and spirit of the Forum rules in your replies to numerous posters. Time will tell who has the better knowledge of the New Orleans aspects of the case, who is better able to rationally analyze that evidence and separate the good stuff from the bad stuff, and who is better able to engage in a mutual learning process like an adult.

(Taking Evan's advice, and not quoting long passages from #1049) I obtained Dr. Mary's Monkey at your suggestion. "Superficial"? How can one deal with a 374 page book in a short forum post? "Unreliable"? On what basis? I provided page numbers and quotations. Feel free to invite Ed to respond; we may clarify some things. It is, indeed, part of Dr. Mary's Monkey that Haslam mentions Ferrie having "an underground lab in his apartment": 46: "a full scale laboratory in his apartment." 49: (before he hears of 3225) "David Ferrie's underground medical laboratory." Same phrase on page 63. And so on. How is my citation of this "exaggerated claims?" Why didn't I buy the book in 2007? I looked at it in a store, and saw that it was basically a re-write of a book I already had. I am a Ferrie specialist. I do not hold myself out as a Ferrie "expert," but I think I've heard Baker use that phrase. "The timing of this trash review, moreover, could hardly be more suspicious." Timing? You've been mentioning the book as a good source, and advising others to read it. So I bought it, read it, and gave my opinion. Trash review? I thought I was very restrained and polite. Suspicious? YOU brought it up and invited us to read the book. "I am not impressed and I am not alone." Could familiarity with the New Orleans evidence or the ability to rationally evaluate evidence play any role in it? If you're not alone, who else agrees? I'm beginning to suspect that nothing will make you look at this objectively.

When it came out in about 1995, I obtained Haslam's "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" (MFMV). Concerned about the book's thinness of evidenciary support for its assertions, I wrote about it on the JFK forums of the time, and again over the years (such as a 2004 Education Forum thread.) I was admonished recently to obtain the latest edition, "Dr. Mary's Monkey" (DMM), which I have done. First, DMM is absolutely an updated edition of MFMV; Large chunks of text are transposed from the latter to the former. My remarks here concern Haslam's material, not the added material concerning Baker. Nothing in DMM changes my original feelings about MFMV. It is largely a personal recollection of the author's impressions and conclusions over much of his lifetime, as opposed to the more common recitation of evidence and statements of conclusions. What troubled me in the first edition still troubles me: One searches in vain for the evidence to support various conclusions. The author's impressions become suspicions; those suspicions become specific questions; and those questions harden into conclusions. (I stand corrected on one difference: The first edition stated those questions in boldface; the new edition does it as part of the text.) The evidence for the story of the "underground laboratory" is a case in point. On pages 42-47 he is told by a high school student that Ferrie had "a full scale laboratory in his apartment with thousands of mice in cages." On page 49, he is told by his mother that Dr. Mary Sherman "was involved in David Ferrie's underground medical laboratory." Then, page 60, he relates New Orleans DA Jim Garrison's Playboy interview, that Sherman was associated with Ferrie. (Curiously, there is not a mention of Sherman anywhere in Garrison's existing files.) On page 63, the author asks: "Who was Dr. Mary Sherman? And what was she doing in David Ferrie's underground medical laboratory?" Page 64: "What was a highly-trained medical professional with impeccable credentials doing in an underground medical laboratory run by a political extremist with no formal medical training?" A story that such a lab existed has now become fact; and Sherman's connection with it now has become fact. In 1972, he visited an apartment at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway with "Barbara", and he notices a "musty smell." He is told that terrible men did terrible things to animals here, and he remembers Ferrie's "secret laboratory" (page 76). Around that time, a waterbed leaked and caused damage, but the landlord didn't seem overly concerned. But to the author, "it was clear that this was no ordinary apartment", page 86. A few years later, he learns that Ferrie lived in the area, but at 3330, not at 3225. Page 89: "Then it hit me: Ferrie's underground medical laboratory was not in his apartment, and he did not have to live in the lab. He lived near the lab, so he could manage its day-to-day operations, and kept a small number of mice mice back at his apartment for convenience. No, I had not been in Ferrie's apartment: I had been in his laboratory!" (Incidentally, I am mentioned - not by name - in a footnote. "One JFK researcher, who has interviewed a lot of Ferrie's 'young male friends' about this points out that none of them recall seeing mice at Ferrie's apartment on Louisiana Avenue Parkway in the summer of 1963. Even Perry Russo, a witness I interviewed who had seen mice at a previous apartment, said that he did not see any in Ferrie's apartment when he attended a party there in the summer of 1963." The author asked Baker about this, and later concluded that Ferrie "realized that having a bunch of people seeing mice at his apartment was not good security, so he moved the mice...to the apartment across the street.") (Also, let me reiterate what I have said before: Some claim that Garrison saw mice in Ferrie's apartment after Ferrie's death in 1967. Garrison, who was there only a couple of days after Ferrie's death, only claimed that there was a smell of mice. The first responding police, medical personnel, coroner's personnel and Assistant District Attorneys saw no mice or cages there. They are not mentioned in the reports or seen in the pictures, and none of them recalled such a thing in interviews. One police officer said the only trace of an animal he recalled was a dog dish on the floor.) The author suspects that a linear particle accelerator was used to kill Sherman (page 232), so he begins looking around New Orleans for one. He hears that secret activity MAY have occurred at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital (page 255). His friend tracks down a former building manager, who says that the hospital had a room with thick walls and high-voltage wiring. The author says (page 258) "That's it...That's the building the accelerator was in...It matches the description that was given by my source. It's exactly what we were looking for." On page 259, it becomes a fact: :'The accelerator had been located in the Infectious Disease Laboratory of the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital...a 5,000,000 volt linear particle accelerator had been quietly placed on the grounds of the U.S. Health Service Hospital so that cancer-causing monkey viruses could be roasted with radiation in secret." One of the chapters in DMM is "A Bishop in his Heart", a quick bio of David Ferrie, based largely on a report commissioned when his former employer was looking for dirt on Ferrie. Some of the info is fairly related by the author, but some is just plain wrong. He has Ferrie in Retalhuleu, Guatemala training pilots for the Bay of Pigs invasion, but Ferrie's work record with Eastern Air Lines for that period precludes any sort of extended stay there. He also uses info from Robert Morrow's "First Hand Knowledge" which I consider unreliable. I'll have more comments as I read more. I can't say for sure if Haslam is on to something or not, but I find it difficult to have confidence in the scarcity of the evidence he cites. I recommend that interested readers seek alternate primary sources wherever possible.

I just got Dr. Mary's Monkey. I've just scanned a few chapters briefly. I'll read it over the weekend and have some comments on Monday.

You missed the point. I was saying something uncharacteristic of me to...make a point.