Greg Doudna

Interesting suggestion Robert Reeves but I don't think there is an identity for this reason: complexion. DCM at Dealey Plaza looks maybe Indian or Pakistani, or maybe a darker-skinned Cuban, but the man with the similar cap at Parkland is white, which can be seen by comparison to African Americans at the back of the photo near the building. The man with the cap in the front of the photo is white like most of the rest of the people in the photo, therefore is not the DCM of Dealey Plaza. 

I don't need this. I'm out of here. If someone else wants to follow up on the inquiry to Aginsky, or obtaining the written report on the forensic testing that has been done from Leslie which she has now said she has in hand, have at it. 

Because I think the chances of this text being a forgery are approximately 100 percent, I have no interest in this text or its discussion.

I stand by what I wrote though. 

David, I don't think you're understanding what is going on. Let's just leave it at that. 

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

So far, the reasons you've offered for the forgery have not panned out for you, the idea it's a fraud is easily dismissed... deeming something "authentic" does not establish factual integrity.

So how about trying the "factual integrity" course for a little while and move on already.  

How much whining about the same exact thing can one man do?

David, do I understand you correctly--that you personally are confident beyond reasonable doubt that the Lafitte datebook is authentic (written by Lafitte in 1963); that you see no need for forensic examination to check to see if it was forged; and that the JFK assassination research community should accept those first two propositions as settled at this point, "and move on already"? 

Three statements--do I have you right that you agree on all three of those? 

Wait a minute Leslie. You never identified those two names you gave before as having been involved in having examined the Lafitte datebook. You just out of the blue blasted two names at me repeatedly, in bold, demanding to know if I had been in contact with them or knew them, without saying who they were, why you wanted to know, or how it related to anything on topic.

I wrote concerning the forensic examination that has been done: "The reason nobody has asked is because nobody is able to know who to ask, who they are."

You reply now: "LS I've provided you with two names. Go for it, Greg. Let's see how far you get in persuading them to break a legally binding agreement."

Are you saying that the two names, Valery Aginsky of Michigan, and Oliver Thorne of London, did forensic work on the Lafitte datebook?

You never said that before. Can you confirm that clearly--both of them? 

I might be willing to attempt a phone call to Aginsky of Michigan if you will help me a little here: are you certain there is a legally binding agreement that would be broken if he were to talk to me? Can you identify the nature of that agreement and with whom? (So that if that was a block, I could contact and request a release?)

You write: "LS Who said it was a UK company, Greg?"

Didn't you say Albarelli flew to London, Lafitte datebook in hand, so it could be filmed in London by a documentary filmmaker? Just going by what you wrote, best as I could make it out. Oh.... OK, maybe it was a US filmmaker flying to London, and had Albarelli also fly to London, datebook in hand, to film a forensic examination in London, because that is where the examiner was? Whatever. Please clarify if you care to say. 

You write (quoting me first): "'secret and forbidden knowledge' 'Remains somewhere in England?' Huh? That's weird. I'm looking at it in New Mexico."

Now you disclose for the first time that you have received a written report of the forensic examination on the Lafitte datebook, your possession of which not to my knowledge previously disclosed. The last information I read on that was in 2021 when you reported frustration that you did not have that. Said you wished you had it as much as anyone else.  

Glad you got it! Well done! 

Would you be willing to let me, and other JFK researchers, see that?

Would it be accurate to say that written report is no longer "secret and forbidden" for JFK researchers to see, since you have it and are willing to make it accessible?

That is truly good news!

I wrote: "It is not possible for anyone to ask because no JFK assassination research knows whom to ask, except Leslie, and Leslie has not seen fit to disclose."

You reply now: "LS That is now an inaccurate statement. Please retract."

If you will confirm clearly that the two names you said to me (Aginsky in Michigan and Thorne in London), both are ones who did that forensic work on the Lafitte datebook, I will be most happy to update a clear correction.

That is the kind of correction I would love to make. 

Forensic ink analysis of the physical object, the Lafitte datebook

As I understand it, the ink on the Lafitte datebook has already been examined by a reputable forensic agency. 

Nobody here knows the results of that examination, except in a hearsay form reported by Leslie in 2021.

The reason nobody knows those results, may be because nobody in the JFK research community has asked that agency or its examiners or the film producer who hired them. 

The reason nobody has asked is because nobody is able to know who to ask, who they are.

In reporting this, Leslie said she was not legally restricted from saying who the forensic examining agency was, said both the filmmaker and examining agency were free to come forward, but that she was not going to disclose their identities to JFK assassination researchers.

Analysis of the ink is likely one of the two best opportunities or means for detection of forgery relevant to the Lafitte datebook--to find out if it was a forgery, if it was--the other being handwriting analysis.

This expert ink analysis that was done--mention is made of "hours" of expertise time involved in the undertaking--was not commissioned by Albarelli or Leslie. Leslie has explained that Albarelli's position was "take it or leave it", disinterest in having any test done of the physical item to check for forgery, since Albarelli, who first saw the item post-2000, had determined that he knew it was genuine from 1963 and everyone else should take his word for it, "take it or leave it", without forensic examination.

It was a UK film company, arranged by Albarelli to do a film featuring the sensational Lafitte datebook, which obtained the ink analysis. This ink analysis which the film company had done, information which presently exists of forensic examination already carried out, remains secret and forbidden knowledge to the JFK assassination researchers, remains undisclosed somewhere in England, with the filmmaker free to disclose it, if it were possible to ask.

The hearsay of the findings of that ink analysis suggested a finding of anomalies in the ink used in the handwriting of the Lafitte datebook that could not be matched to standard inventories of known inks from 1963. In the case of those anomalies, according to the hearsay, the expert said the ink of the datebook's writing could have come from some other part of the world not in the expert's known ink types inventory/databases for 1963. Or, well, (beginning to sound like Pat Speer here) maybe the ink used by the writer wasn't from 1963, and was from a later date. Maybe that's the reason the ink of the 1963 Lafitte datebook entries could not be matched by the analyst to any of the known inks for 1963, 

It is not possible to understand with further clarity the expert interpretation of those anomalies which could not be matched to known 1963 ink type inventories, because it is not known who to ask.

There also was forensic analysis at the same time looking at the handwriting. According to the hearsay report, the handwriting analysis found that the handwritten entries of the Lafitte datebook "were all made by one and the same individual within a constricted timeframe". 

Now that last detail, that the writing of all entries of twelve months of calendar were all done "within a constricted time frame", could be a detail of interest meriting closer inquiry.

The general principle is authentic writing of calendars and appointment books and ledgers show varied kinds of writing indicating writing at different times over a span of time. But in forgeries, all of a calendar year's date entries might be written at one or two or three goes over only a few days' time, or in some cases even in a single sitting. Most forgers, aware of this, will attempt to disguise that by intentionally trying to show variety, but such attempts are not necessarily successful. Skilled examiners can often spot the difference between real and fake on this point. I understand that IRS criminal investigators deal with this issue all the time with enterprising taxpayers' attempted retroactive fraudulent creation of expense books and calendars and ledgers--first thing they look at is do all the entries look the same and written by the same pen. That principle. 

Therefore an expert finding concerning the Lafitte datebook, told in hearsay form to have found that all the writing on the datebook was done "within a constricted timeframe"--what does that mean? Was that expert suggesting possible indication of forgery with that language? Or not?

It is not possible to know more specifically, because the examiners and their findings are not available to ask.

It is not possible for anyone to ask because no JFK assassination researcher knows whom to ask, except Leslie, and Leslie has not seen fit to disclose. 

~ ~ ~ from Leslie Sharp, Dec. 22 and 24, 2023 (link is at the end below) ~ ~ ~ 

"He [Hank] had NOT [emphasis added] initiated authentication himself because he knew the chain of custody of the Lafitte records firsthand; however he recognized that the proposed authentication process would provide compelling visuals that could advance public knowledge of these exclusive revelations of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy—End Quote. I explain that the documentary film co. contracted with Hank to produce a multi-series based on the book; the initial foray would be to film the first phase of authentication of the Lafitte datebook in London so Hank made arrangements to have the datebook in his possession for that filming. 

"... Within the first few hours of handling the datebook, the analyst in London assured his client, the documentary producer, as well as Hank, that his instinctive reaction (based on decades of experience in his field) was the instrument, cover and paper, is a 1963 traditional, commercial datebook and that the entries were all made by one and the same individual within a constricted timeframe.  

"...  The ink analyst also offered a preliminary assessment. After taking hundreds of samples from the datebook, he told Hank that he was persuaded that the only anomalies were likely the result of rare writing instruments Lafitte could have picked up during 1963 while traveling that would not necessarily be in the analyst’s database. 

"... The contractual agreement in this instance is related to the parties that hired the analysts, and has nothing to do with the owners of the datebook ... 

"... For the record, all parties involved, including the analysts and the film group, have had ample opportunity to distance themselves, and even disavow the record of their participation in the preliminary findings and their conversations with Hank and me. To date, to our knowledge, no such public or private pronouncement has been made. They’re all invited to come forward with their version of events, anytime. In the meantime, there is nothing contractual to preclude me from identifying those parties; however, out of professional courtesy, I will refrain, for now.

"... The science of authentication … paper and ink dating, etc … is fundamental. I can assure you that the analyst did not hesitate to confirm to Hank that the instrument itself comports with products available in 1962; the cover stamp is 1963 (the Christmas gift distributed for the forthcoming year), and the frontmatter including calendars, etc. align with a 1963 (and ensuing years) publication. I’ve addressed ink analysis previously. This leaves us with handwriting analysis, and as stated before, the expert told Hank within hours, before he spent the requisite time applying the tools of his trade, that he believed the datebook was maintained by one and the same person in a constricted timeframe. You want to see the written preliminary report? That is understandable. So do we.

"I shared with a colleague just this week that I’m prepared to receive a call or a letter to indicate that the analysists consider the datebook “highly dubious.” But I ask, why have they not issued a statement to the effect to those involved, and/or why are they unwilling to respond to my inquiries? Thus far, the response, “non-disclosure” remains in play, which I respect objectively; but what if theirs is an ongoing exercise that could result in a documentary that excludes the authors and publisher, and presents the Lafitte story in an alternative context and narrative?"

(Dec 22 and 24, 2021, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27407-coup-in-dallas/page/6/)

~ ~ ~

I looked up the two names, Valery Aginsky and Oliver Thorne.

Oliver Thorne is Forensic Manager, Forensic Document Examination at LGC Forensics, London, England (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/oliver-thorne-27a31040).

Valery Aginsky runs Aginsky Forensic Document Dating Laboratory in East Lansing, Michigan. Look at his credentials and the laboratory method for determining age of inks described at the end.

"Valery N. Aginsky, Ph.D. is a forensic chemist of over 37 years of experience specializing in the field of ink analysis (ink comparison, ink dating) and document dating. He has worked for a major government laboratory for twenty years (1980 - 2000) as a Forensic Chemist and Document Analyst. Since 2001, he has worked full time in the private sector.

"Dr. Aginsky has conducted seminars on ink analysis and dating in the United States, Canada, Russia, Israel, Turkey, Spain, Columbia, and Australia. He testified regarding ink (paper, toner) analysis and ink and document dating in criminal and civil matters and in arbitrations in the United States, Canada, England, Russia, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Israel, China, Iceland, Poland, and Gibraltar. (See Statements by Courts of Law and Cases of Note)

"Dr. Aginsky is experienced in a wide range of physical (optical) and chemical examination techniques, including the analysis and dating of ink on documents and the comparative analysis of inks, toners and paper by Microscopy, Microspectrophotometry, Ultraviolet/Visible and Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR microscopy), Thin-Layer Chromatography, and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. He is the author of more than 25 peer-reviewed articles on ink analysis and dating, including chapters in several books and encyclopedias. (See Publications)

"Dr. Aginsky is the author of two ink aging methods that analyze ink volatile components (not ink dye components) and that have been tested and applied to actual cases by multiple forensic laboratories. These two ink aging methods are the Sequential Extraction Technique (SET) and Solvent Loss Ratio Method (SLRM). The SET and SLRM measure certain parameters of ink that decrease as ink ages on paper. Other ink entries are not necessary for comparison.

"Dr. Aginsky has developed the SET as a result of many years of research of the "extent (percent) of extraction" ink aging methodology developed and published by Dr. Antonio A. Cantu in the 1980s. The SET is the only ink aging method that has proven its reliability through outside proficiency testing using "blind" samples (outside proficiency tests in 1995, 2001, and 2011)." (https://www.documentdating.com/about-valery-aginsky)

Leslie's whole reaction of personal attacks and deflection in response to questions raised regarding the authenticity question is so bizarre. It is how a wilful forgery operation would respond, not how most sincere researchers would respond. And Leslie seems to be on a continuum in disdaining of questions raising the authenticity question from Albarelli.

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

So, you've spent the past week or so, and another few weeks in early 2022, lobbing accusations that the datebook is fraudulent when you actually know nothing about ink and paper analysis or handwriting examination?  Do I have that right?

Could you rephrase that to "raising questions concerning authenticity" instead of characterizing it as "accusations"? 

It is an issue of scientific method process.

Why not take a different tack of transparency and welcoming of critical questioning, and use the powers at your disposal to aggressively pursue ink and paper analysis and handwriting examination?

No, you and I are both not experts on this, and few on this forum you are asking to engage in hundreds of hours of research on this artifact are. And your point?

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Correct me if I've misunderstood: you present as an expert in carbon dating, ink and paper analysis, handwriting examination, do you not?

I am not expert in ink and paper analysis or modern handwriting examination. On radiocarbon dating I have some knowledge and publications.   

3 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Have you crossed paths with Valery Aginsky and/or Oliver Thorne?

Beats me. Who are these people and what does this have to do with anything. This is just deflection. Knock it off. If I did know these people, which I don't, it would be none of your business anyway. 

I noted earlier that, to my surprise, I found no reference to Jean-Pierre Lafitte in Ralph Ganis's book The Skorzeny Papers (2018)--even though Coup in Dallas (2021) claims Skorzeny was "chief tactician" and Jean-Pierre Lafitte immediately under Skorzeny was "project manager" of an international conspiracy which assassinated JFK. However I was unaware when I wrote that of the actual true reason why Lafitte is missing in Ganis's book.

The true reason was explained by Leslie in a different thread that I did not see until yesterday. The reason is because Ganis had developed significant skepticism about the Lafitte datebook, the only document known that purports to connect Jean-Pierre Lafitte either to Skorzeny or to the assassination of JFK.

Therefore without the Lafitte datebook, whose authenticity Ganis considered questionable, there was no other basis or reason for including any mention of Lafitte in a book dedicated to arguing that Skorzeny assassinated JFK, even if there had not also been a non-disclosure agreement.

The non-disclosure agreement prevented Ganis from discussing the Lafitte datebook, which Albarelli, who lived in North Carolina for two years with access to Ganis's Skorzeny papers, did not allow Ganis, who lived in North Carolina, to see in the United States, or to cite the Lafitte datebook even if Ganis had believed it to be authentic. 

From the thread, "Skorzeny's papers in context of Albarelli's 'Coup in Dallas'", Leslie Sharp, July 4, 2023:

"A research friend recently asked: What does Ganis say about Souetre and/or his relationship with Skorzeny? Does Lafitte appear in the book as well? 

33 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

The disposition of the physical instrument is mine to make, so I trust you and others will cease making demands that are outside your legal standing.

Thank you for clarifying and answering the question of who is in control of disposition of the physical instrument of the datebook, with ability to have gotten it vetted for authenticity.

And all along you have been giving the misimpression that you were somehow prevented by forces beyond your control from having examination done by responsible questioned-document examiners.

17 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

RO:  This isn't a case of records being lost or destroyed, Leslie.  You would retain a copy of the datebook.  You could write another book based on it. So could others if it was public. 

One  of the reasons I raised NARA, besides the fact that if it is authentic that's where it belongs (you did say it should be in the public domain), is the possibility that offering it to NARA could get the authentication process off dead center. A good thing, no?

On 7/4/2023 at 3:12 PM, Leslie Sharp said:

A research friend recently asked: What does Ganis say about Souetre and/or his relationship with Skorzeny? Does Lafitte appear in the book as well? 

My response: I believe Major Ganis [author of "The Skorzeny Papers: Evidence of the Plot to Kill JFK"] relies primarily if not solely on Otto's Skorzeny's papers along with open source material related to OAS Captain Jean Souetre. The dissolution agreement of the Ganis-Albarelli collaboration prohibits him from including anything Hank may have shared in confidence from the Lafitte datebook about Souetre's movements in November 1963. 
 

Major Ganis was also prohibited from mentioning Pierre Lafitte in context of the Dallas plot for the same reason. It is my understanding that he developed significant skepticism about the datebook so he was entirely comfortable with the restriction. He argued with me that Hank never showed him the physical instrument. I've made attempts to explain to him that — to my knowledge — Hank did not actually take physical possession of the datebook until November 2018; he invited the Major to meet him in London for the launch of authentication and Ganis declined the invitation. By then, their collaboration was "in trouble" primarily over the characterization of Otto Skorzeny as a "FORMER" N.a.z.i.. Hank contended Skorzeny wasn't a "former" N.a.z.i. (see, for example, evidence in the film footage from his 1975 military funeral.)

Lafitte hints strongly at an active fascist ideology fueling the plans for the assassination in Dallas. We now realize that "Rudel", Hitler's ace pilot Hans-Ulrich, appears in Lafitte's '63 notes, and that after more than a decade in pursuit of a visa for entry into the US, he suddenly landed one, and landed on the continent around October 9 to attend a conference at Wright-Patterson. The October 9 Lafitte datebook entry spells out active contributors to the plot for Dallas, including Jean Souetre. 
 

On Hank's behalf, I should make clear he also believed strongly that the information from Ganis's Skorzeny collection which he presented in "The Skorzeny Papers" would some day prove invaluable to serious historians.

8 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

p.s. on page 576 of Coup in Dallas, the Nov 20 entry is transcribed as "Lanny-Filiol ... call Storey ... DeM ... Frank B...."

However the photograph of the Nov 20, 1963 entry has only the first three of those four names. The fourth, "Frank B", is non-existent in the photograph, and instead (where "Frank B" would be) there is something different: "Rifle into building..."

Is that a typo, or is that a relic of an earlier composition draft by the author(s), prior to the writing of that entry in the datebook, inadvertantly surviving into the published book? 
 

 

Greg, good sleuthing, and Iwon't make excuses, but suffice to say: Hank's unexpected (and personally destabilizing) death, complications with access to the datebook in the early months, Covid, and life, impacted bringing a perfectly edited version of our M/s across the finish line under pressure of the last available pub date.

Frank B here does not appear in the November 20, and yes, a relic of the pre-final edit of the M/s.  

I am looking at the original text as I type.  November 20 reads:
Lamy - Filiol at

hotel (names)

Call Storey - Duvall

DeM.—

Rifle into building —

yes/ok/DPD —

(DUUM) 

(I'm anxious to get with David J. to determine whether the last word or acronym, or string of letters is DUUM. If so, I believe I have an interpretation.)

Reference to Brandstetter appears in the October 21 entry:
 

Frank B. here - others

Jack - 1/day - MC

Thanks for this (I have added the bold above), clarifying that various pressures understandably "impacted bringing a perfectly edited version of our M/s across the finish line under pressure of the last available pub date".

But do you see, this comes close to looking like an indication of forgery.

For there is a clear, non-trivial, non-typo difference in the final element of the Nov 20, 1963 entry, between a written transcript source (call that "T") reflected in the publication of the book, and what shows in the photograph which was actually handwritten in the datebook (call that "D").

Now there are only two possible ways this can go, and the question is which was first in chronological sequence: creation of T, or creation of D?

Option #1 (D is first). In this reconstruction, D reflects handwriting of Jean-Pierre Lafitte on Nov 20, 1963. Much later, in the ca. 2000s or 2010s, someone looked at the datebook, saw with their eyes in the photo "Rifle into building —yes/ok/DPD —(DUUM)"  ... and transcribed that as "Frank B".

Is that a plausible error that anyone could easily make? Think about it. 

Or Option #2 (T is first). In preparation for a forgery, at some point well after 1963, the true author first prepared a draft of the various entries which in planning to be, at a final stage, handwritten into a 1963 calendar book with handwriting falsely purported to be that of the late Jean-Pierre Lafitte.

After planning and preparing what would be written in the datebook (making use of, in some cases, later-date-available JFK assassination lore and details, e.g. the ones identified by Dick Russell), at a final stage (not the first stage), the planned entries would be, and were, handwritten into the physical datebook by the forger.

In that process, the forger "improved" the Nov 20 entry, changing the final item for that date entry to allude to the story of Castor taking a rifle in to the TSBD on Nov 20.

However, through an oversight, the already-existing transcript or working copy, T, prepared by the forger, was not updated and not corrected by the forger to match what the forger actually wrote in the datebook for Nov 20.

Through the circumstances you describe, that discrepancy was overlooked and went undetected. No one manually at the editing stage cross-checked the forger's transcript (or copy thereof), T--which preceded the forger's writing in the datebook--to update and harmonize T with what was actually in the datebook for Nov 20.

Under this scenario, Option #2, the transcript for Nov 20 published in Coup in Dallas reflects a stage of composition development prior to when the Nov 20 entry was handwritten in the datebook. 

The very lack of editorial checking and harmonization between the two (T and D), that you have confirmed, at the point of publication of Coup in Dallas, therefore explains how the earlier stage of the forger's composition, T, survived to publication in disagreement with D, the final production of the forger.

In Option #1,  D precedes T, consistent with authenticity, but suffers from questionable plausibility as to mechanism of the error.

In Option #2, T precedes D, meaning forgery, with plausible mechanism/explanation for the discrepancy.

Disclaimer: I would not consider this point stand-alone proof of forgery in itself, considered in isolation, because I have enough experience with study of errors in handwritten copies of ancient texts to know that copyist errors can happen (Option #1).

However, I also know from experience in studying scribal copying errors the most common kinds and causes of copying errors, with names such as homeoteleuton (eye-skip due to words or phrases having the same ending); homeoarchy (eye-skip due to words or phrases having the same beginning); dittography (mistaken repetition of a sequence); transposition or metathesis (switching or reversing the order of words, or letters in a word); contamination (extraneous element from elsewhere mistakenly copied on the page); and deliberate alteration (copyist acts as editor to correct and improve the original) ... and the discrepancy under consideration in this case is not one of those.

The problem here is the error which must be supposed in Option #1 (consistent with authenticity of D) does not easily fall into a common and known cause or kind of copying error.

Defenders of Option #1 should seriously consider how such an error in copying could occur like that, and if there is no good explanation, compare that to the ease or natural explanation for the discrepancy under the scenario of #2, forgery.  

So while not decisive (to me), this error does look funny, and is on a continuum with other things suggestive of suspected forgery. 

Although I do not regard this point as ultimately decisive, and others' individual judgments may vary, all else being equal I believe this point adds weight in favor of the datebook being a forgery, rather than authenticity.  

I also add this: if Option #2 is true, then it is a forgery; that is evidence of forgery. If it is Option #1, it could be authentic (it would be consistent with it being authentic) but that is not positive evidence that it is authentic.  

Leslie would it be possible for you to stop further deflecting (most recently on my east Texas personal history, as if trying to make that some focus of attention, as if that is relevant) and at long last say straight, who is the legal owner of the datebook? 

And, who would financially benefit if, hypothetically, the legal owner were to choose to sell it?

Do you have a financial interest in the appraisal value of the datebook (the physical item), affected by whether it is authentic or forged? 

6 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I think even you will admit that yours is an embarrassingly unscientific argument, and possibly an unconscious projection of an early experience during your own education or career? You seem obsessed with conmen; growing up in Texas there was no greater religious conmen than the radio evangelists Herbert and Garner T. Armstrong. 

I've been reticent to provide an essay on East Texas which addresses the socio-political-religious ethos and how that spirit fueled the assassination of John Kennedy.  Specifically, and briefly, it can be argued that the heart of the Texas branch of the Military - Industrial Complex was East Texas = Lone Star Steel, Le Tourneau Mfg., Delta Drilling, and the munitions plant at Daingerfield.  Big Sandy was/is a pivot point in the geographic setting.  Armstrong found it fertile soil for his satellite college, and you apparently were drawn there for some reason. 

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Why be reticent?

I always knew Big Sandy was the center of something. I wrote a book about Big Sandy. It is titled Showdown at Big Sandy: Youthful Creativity Confronts Bureaucratic Inertia at an Unconventional Bible College in East Texas (2006). You can look it up on amazon. 

Here is my description of what you term this "pivot point in the geographic setting" of the "Texas branch of the Military-Industrial Complex", opening words of Chapter 1:

To get to the Big Sandy campus of Ambassador College in the early 1970s, you would go about a hundred miles east from booming Dallas on Highway 80. After you journeyed beyond the effects of Dallas's wealth and sprawl, Highway 80 gradually turned into long stretches of sometimes rolling but mostly flat, rural countryside. You would see cows by the side of the road, oil derricks here and there, lean old men in ten-gallon hats who waved, women in faded print dresses, children playing. Your drive would be punctuated by passing through sleepy, old-timey towns. After feeling that civilization had been left behind and the clock turned back, you would finally come to the site--former site, now--of Ambassador College on the left two miles after passing through the bustling metropolis of Big Sandy (population 1600). If you continued further on Highway 80, you would come to the larger cities of Gladewater and Longview. The city of Tyler, meanwhile, is nearby to the southwest. This is east Texas, the atmosphere of which is portrayed so well in the Sam Shepard movie, Paris, Texas.

The name "Big Sandy" did not come from soil type (though cotton growing of earlier times had depleted the soil, requiring heavy fertilization to restore it), and the nearest beach is hundreds of miles away. Nor did the name come from any local misconception of the town's size or degree of importance.

Rather, the town received its name from its first sheriff, a big man named Sandy, hence "Big Sandy." It was an area of Texas where the custom of openly carrying guns on downtown streets had survived well into the twentieth century. Now (early 1970s) Big Sandy consisted of a drug store, a bank, a Dairy Queen, Howard Clifton's barber shop, a general store, miscellaneous other shops and offices, a couple of filling stations, a disreputable hotel, and a cantankerous and atrociously-printed Big Sandy weekly gazette with all-capitals, badly-misspelled, smudgily printed headlines and articles.

To the oasis-like Ambassador College campus, tucked away in a setting of lakes, woods, and acreage in this unlikely locale, I had come for the purpose of obtaining an education over the next four years: a liberal arts college education with emphasis on attaining true values unavailable in worldly universities.

Chancellor Herbert Armstrong frequently said all three of his Ambassador Colleges "mutually excel one another". (His other two campuses were at his headquarters in Pasadena, California, and in Bricket Wood, England) ... The Big Sandy campus, however, the youngest of the three, was the favorite of Herbert Armstrong's son Garner Ted. Garner Ted Armstrong was the voice of the "World Tomorrow" radio broadcast heard across America and, to repeat an over-used expression, Herbert Armstrong's "heir-apparent" ... None of the Ambassador Colleges were accredited ...

Chancellor Herbert Armstrong flew in to Big Sandy to greet the incoming freshmen and to give an orientation address. Though he had just turned eighty, he was filled with energy and humor. He warmly welcomed us. Then he launched into practicalities: There was to be No Necking.

This was in keeping with a book Armstrong had written, The Missing Dimension in Sex. Armstrong explained that amorous kissing or necking is the first stage of lovemaking and belongs only in marriage, not before. Socializing between the sexes was encouraged at Ambassador College, but was to be chaste. Chaste meant non-contact, except at dances where contact was compulsory. The elder Armstrong's rule against premarital necking was enforced on campus. Students were responsible for self-enforcement of the no-necking rule when they went off-campus on dates. College officials often did not inquire too closely on the matter of forbidden kissing in cases of engaged students or those imminently expected to become engaged. The college administrators did not have hearts entirely of stone. But no college official could admit this openly.

After his prohibition of Student Necking, our chancellor then asked a trick question. "How many of you men here want to become ministers?" Two hands were innocently raised by young men obviously unfamiliar with Worldwide Church of God cultural mores. This was not the right response to give to Chancellor Armstrong's question.

"Well, you two men probably won't become ministers," Armstrong replied. God called men to the ministry. It was not something that someone could just choose to be on one's own.

Actually, at least half of the young men present, by conservative estimate, did hope to become ministers. And a good number of the young women hoped, secretly or otherwise, to marry ministers. Being selected as a ministerial trainee after graduation and then becoming ordained meant status and material perquisites in the Worldwide Church of God. The ministry was the privileged elite. But it was not considered becoming or appropriate to say one wanted to become a minister. That was supposed to come four years later, as it were, as a complete surprise...

During my freshman year two enterprising coeds, fellow students, went to Dallas and personally visited H.L. Hunt, the man himself, and wrote an article about it in the college newspaper when they returned. How he was a gentleman, and had given a homeless woman who had turned up in his business building when they were there a week's free motel lodging.

Last time I was there, the population of Big Sandy had declined to about 1200 and my former beautifully landscaped campus looked windswept and like a ghost town.

The college when I was there had an airstrip (where I learned to fly) which with intentional self-parody had a sign calling itself "Big Sandy International Airport".

You are probably right there was a lot going on in east Texas in proximity. It was where HL Hunt started his oil fortune.

Anything you can contribute to showing how Big Sandy and my alma mater was pivotal on the world stage, I am all ears. 

12 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Not to switch gears, but in the event Greg Doudna remains interested in this thread, I want to call attention to the appearance of 'Rothermel' in the Lafitte records.  @Greg Doudna, did you discuss Paul Rothermel at length when you interviewed John Curington? 

Yes I did a little outside of my taped interview of Curington, in which Rothermel did not come up. Curington did not volunteer anything re Rothermel beyond what is generally known. He did not speak ill of him, but he just did not say much. I wish I had more but sorry I do not. By the time I talked to Curington Rothermel was of course dead (from a fall from a roof according to Joan Mellen in Our Man in Haiti). 

Rothermel in a confidential FBI interview sort of trashes Curington: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963#relPageId=117 

Here is the only obituary I could find of a Paul M. Rothermel, same name, same city of address (Richardson, Texas) as the FBI interview of HL Hunt's assistant Paul M. Rothermel ... same ex-FBI history ... but no mention in the obituary of having worked for H L Hunt. https://obits.dallasnews.com/us/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/name/paul-rothermel-obituary?id=51426158.

Book: Charles Hamilton, Great Forgers and Famous Fakes (1996)

"... Well-executed forgeries and fakes have fooled dealers and collectors for more than a century. This thoroughly documented book, containing hundreds of examples that show how to identify the best that the most skillful forgers have produced, will provide the expert and the amateur with tools for self-protection. Great Forgers and Famous Fakes is also a chronicle of the careers of America's most adroit and colorful manuscript forgers, telling who they were and how they swindled their victims. The fascinating stories of forgers and their works include: -the poet who forged hundreds of Robert Frost manuscripts -the multimillionaire industrialist and founder of RCA who got his start as a forger-and years later got fooled by his own fake -the American Nazi who forged John Howard Payne's "Home, Sweet Home" -a round-dozen forgers of Abe Lincoln's handwriting..." (https://www.amazon.com/Great-Forgers-Famous-Fakes-Manuscript/dp/0944435408 )

David Josephs, what most convinced you that the writing in the Lafitte datebook is genuine pre-Nov 22, 1963 writing of Lafitte, and that forgery can be excluded?

(Has anyone else noticed that there is no "strike through" option in editing like there used to be?)

David Josephs is correct on this: in a 1984 article Mae Brussell argued for a worldwide post-ww2 Nazi connection to the JFK assassination in which activities of many international post-WW2 Nazis are described including Skorzeny. Skorzeny is not claimed by name to have direct involvement in the JFK assassination in that article, but it is suggested based on some propinquity arguments that the international Nazi movement/domestic American fascists (e.g. General Walker, etc.) may have been involved in the assassination of JFK as well as "the mob, the CIA and fanatical exiles, each with its own reason for gunning for Kennedy". The Mae Brussell article: http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae Brussell Articles/Nazi Connection to JFK Assass.html.

I have updated my above to reflect this, and thank David Josephs for bringing that reference to attention.

Let's see if I have this straight: 

Fact #1: Nobody alleged Skorzeny carried out the JFK assassination in a direct way before Ralph Ganis". {{Bold reflects an edit of an original "was connected to the JFK assassination before Ralph Ganis". A 1984 article by Mae Brussell argued for a possible worldwide post-ww2 Nazi connection to the JFK assassination in which activities of international post-ww2 Nazis are described including Skorzeny.}} 

Fact #2: there is no evidence Skorzeny and Lafitte knew, met, or had anything to do with each other outside of the Lafitte datebook itself (and a decades-later reported and wholly unverified claim that Ilse Lafitte claimed to remember knowing Skorzeny, reportedly told by her in the same sentences as equally unverified claims in which she claimed to relate multiple social meetings with Lee and Marina Oswald, Thomas Eli Davis, and French assassin Souetre). 

Fact #3: In Ganis's book on Skorzeny, The Skorzeny Papers (2018), there is not a single mention of Lafitte. In my paperback edition of Ganis, 2020, the name of Lafitte does not even appear in the index. Also, in Albarelli's two earlier books, A Terrible Mistake (2009) and A Secret Order (2013), I notice Skorzeny is not in either of the indexes of those books. 

Fact #4: This sequence (I found exact dates hard to nail down, due to lack of a published timeline, but this is ca. 2010's). Lafitte dies; followed by Albarelli meeting Ganis; followed by Ganis telling Albarelli about Skorzeny; followed by Albarelli not telling Ganis immediately but later telling Ganis he (Albarelli) had previously seen Skorzeny's name in the Lafitte datebook just before meeting Ganis; followed by publication of the Lafitte datebook (Coup in Dallas, 2021) with multiple entries in the Lafitte datebook referring to Skorzeny.

Prima facie the Skorzeny references in the Lafitte 1963 datebook appear to date the writing of those Skorzeny references in that datebook to the time Albarelli met Ganis, ca. half a century later than 1963.

Prima facie, it appears Lafitte is not the author of the multiple Skorzeny written references in Lafitte's datebook, since the allusions to Skorzeny appear to postdate Lafitte's death.

Provisional conclusion: at least some of the writing in the Lafitte 1963 datebook was written later than Lafitte. 

Suggested means of testing or falsification of provisional conclusion: analysis of handwriting; analysis of ink; recheck known public domain information (e.g. Mary Ferrell Foundation site) for any known references or discussions to Skorzeny as suspected involved in the JFK assassination prior to Ganis.

Suggested method in the absence of a credible, objective vetting/analysis of the datebook's writing for authenticity: distinguish and segregate what is known of the various characters independently of the datebook, from what is derivative from the datebook. Avoid mixing and conflating those two categories unless and until authenticity of the datebook is checked on the basis of physical examination by reputable questioned-document examiners.  

Prima facie there are credible grounds to suspect this may be a forged document, although there appears to be no knowledge or information concerning the identity of the forger, who was witting and who unwitting to the forgery, if that was the case. 

Those who believe the datebook entries dated 1963 are authentically from pre-Nov 22, 1963 may wish to make inquiry whether the entire datebook has been photographed, in a verified dateable record, since only some of the pages of the datebook are reported published in Coup in Dallas, and no authentication has been done. Unless there is a verified dated set of photographs of the entire datebook, there is no protection against tampering or additions, future "sensational discoveries" emerging from the remaining unpublished portions. Alternatively, if any of the unpublished pages did happen to have authentic writing of Jean-Pierre Lafitte, that could be checked against the handwriting of the sensational JFK assassination-related entries on the pages for which photographs have been published.

Fact #5: there are also many specific claims as to facts published in the Albarelli books which are difficult or impossible to verify, independently of the datebook. For example, I see in A Secret Order (2013) claims that Lafitte murdered Frank Olsen (p. 107); was tasked by Gottlieb to use botulism-toothpaste to kill Patrice Lumumba in the Congo (p. 149); in 1961 was traveling to Europe, the Middle East, and Africa doing assassinations for the CIA (p. 322); was QJ/WIN (p. 438); was very close to mobster John Roselli (p. 438) ... Are any of these claims true? None can be verified by anyone here, so far as I can tell. You cannot find any of these things verified on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site's documents, or anywhere else online to my knowledge. One might reasonably suspect these claims are all fabrications out of whole cloth (not saying Albarelli himself did the fabricating). (At A Terrible Mistake, 801, I see Albarelli credits "several retired CIA and FBI officials who asked to be unnamed" for some of his information on Jean-Pierre Lafitte.)    

~ ~ ~

p.s. on page 576 of Coup in Dallas, the Nov 20 entry is transcribed as "Lanny-Filiol ... call Storey ... DeM ... Frank B...."

However the photograph of the Nov 20, 1963 entry has only the first three of those four names. The fourth, "Frank B", is non-existent in the photograph, and instead (where "Frank B" would be) there is something different: "Rifle into building..."

Is that a typo, or is that a relic of an earlier composition draft by the author(s), prior to the writing of that entry in the datebook, inadvertantly surviving into the published book? 

To intentionally try to cause failure of crops grown by poor people laboring hard to grow that food in their own country is totally reprehensible and indefensible. In a just world the perpetrating state would face stiff court-ordered reparations and there would be criminal penalties for the responsible officials who ordered it. 

And it is disheartening that there is no record of a single official present in these meetings speaking up and saying flatly “this is wrong”. Instead the sole reported concern appears to have been whether it could be done without detection. 

As JFK was reported to have said on another occasion irony intended, “And we call ourselves the human race”. 

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Yes, I would object to interference as I have noted to prominent authors who have wanted to pursue Hank's sources but have deferred to professional ethics, and hopefully to me as a colleague, that they will not obstruct the process in play. They are each under Non-Disclosure Agreements. 

Coup in Dallas is a joint-work copyright; the material Hank intended to include in additional publication is under that copyright. Interference would be subject to legal challenge.

Do not worry that the datebook is in a safe and secure location. Do not worry that the examination is ongoing but unfortunately incomplete. Do not worry that I am taking all necessary steps to access additional exemplars for final authentication.

Now, who were you accusing of what, in your comment?

On accusing, I already answered that: I do not know what is going on (and don't have motivation to go to a lot of work to find out if you're not willing to be transparent). So no one specifically has been accused of anything in the sense you mean. You are just trying to make me overreach in expressing some suspicion or something so you can pounce on that rather than address relevant issues. Just stop that, which you are only saying to deflect. 

Now on what you say here, are you saying you have legal authority to permit or refuse the owner to allow expert examination?

You have repeatedly said you have been blocked and refused access to the datebook, as beyond your ability or out of your control to accomplish expert examination, and that there was nothing further you could do.

But now, you are saying "do not worry ... examination is ongoing but unfortunately incomplete ... I am taking all necessary steps to access additional exemplars for final authentication".

Could you clarify the nature of the examination that is ongoing? Is it a secret who is currently doing examination now?

And you did give a straight answer to how you would regard any offer of independent expert review that does not pass through your control: no, as in N-O.

Is the legal owner of the datebook contractually or legally beholden to you not to allow expert review of the artifact without your control or consent?

I must say, I have been involved with five formal offers from scientific labs, one in Arizona and the other four in Europe, to conduct radiocarbon datings and other forms of scientific analyses on archaeological artifacts, in all cases with contested questions at issue potentially and actually affected by the lab findings. It never occurred to me that a letter of offer of scientific analysis for research purposes from a lab to a legal owner of record of an artifact, at no charge to the legal owner, would be considered "interference ... subject to legal challenge".

Also, in the four out of five cases where the offers were accepted, there were no non-disclosure agreements. Typically the lab does the analysis, and the owner or principals were involved and credited in the publication often with coauthorship (their museums and their careers get a boost), in a collaborative process in which the interest is in growing in understanding and information, whatever it may be. In none of the cases in which I was involved did the owners attempt to drive or direct the conclusions of the lab findings written up by the scientists and in due course announced to the media.  

The legal owner can always say "no" to such an offer. But someone else thinks they can sue that lab for offering, for sending that letter in the mail???

Or do I have this misunderstood and this is a case where, hypothetically, if the legal owner of the Lafitte datebook, whose identity you have yet to disclose, were willing or agreeable to do so, you would then oppose and be the block? To getting science done?