Greg Doudna

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?

49 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna
Greg, before I respond in full, can you clarify who is the subject of your allegations here? Who specifically are you suggesting did, or is currently doing the following?
 

There's the possible motive. Not the only reason forgeries are done but the most common: moolah, money.

Here is a situation in which someone is withholding or preventing access to what (if it were true) would be of immense importance to history and the world--solution to the JFK assassination after all these years--a chef was the master plotter of it, who would have thought it. Someone who owns and controls the datebook is, according to reports, not allowing normal vetting and examination for authenticity by the historians of America. 

A possible motive for not allowing vetting by experts--which is the expected thing to be done in cases such as this--would be that someone knows it is forged and that is why it is not wanted to be checked. Checking for forgery is not perfect--some forgeries can be so good they can beat experts--but in the majority of cases, forgery can and will be detected.  

Ask key questions when being presented with shiny new objects such as a Lafitte datebook proposing to be the missing solution to the JFK assassination after all these years: why is normal vetting for authenticity so impossible to accomplish in this case. Who is blocking that, and why.

I don't know who is preventing access to expert examination, or if access has been denied, or if so why. If you have experienced some difficulty with the legal authority or owner of the datebook in this regard, is it possible some other good-faith offer to that authority or owner of the datebook for reputable expert examination, unrelated to you, might obtain a more productive response? Would you object to that being done?

Benjamin knows enough to ask a legitimate question going to verification of evidence. Stop the insulting and respond substantively with straight answers. 

To add to Benjamin, the alleged author of those cryptic JFK assassination references in 1963, Lafitte, was a serial high-level con, making lots of money with cons. If the Lafitte datebook were to be considered authentic, and it actually solved the JFK assassination, can you imagine what the market value of that would be on the art/memorabilia/collectors' market? 

There's the possible motive. Not the only reason forgeries are done but the most common: moolah, money.

Here is a situation in which someone is withholding or preventing access to what (if it were true) would be of immense importance to history and the world--solution to the JFK assassination after all these years--a chef was the master plotter of it, who would have thought it. Someone who owns and controls the datebook is, according to reports, not allowing normal vetting and examination for authenticity by the historians of America. 

A possible motive for not allowing vetting by experts--which is the expected thing to be done in cases such as this--would be that someone knows it is forged and that is why it is not wanted to be checked. Checking for forgery is not perfect--some forgeries can be so good they can beat experts--but in the majority of cases, forgery can and will be detected.  

Ask key questions when being presented with shiny new objects such as a Lafitte datebook proposing to be the missing solution to the JFK assassination after all these years: why is normal vetting for authenticity so impossible to accomplish in this case. Who is blocking that, and why.

Forgeries of sensational texts often involve attempts to engage scholarly discussions and generate published monographs, get scholars engaged in discussing the item as if it is genuine. This happened with "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife" announced in 2012 (accepted as authentic, embraced by one of the top scholars in such texts at Harvard and other scholars, and the forger was going to profit very very big, until a brilliant sleuth exposed it as a forgery in 2016 [https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/08/ariel-sabar-what-happened-to-the-gospel-of-jesus-wife/615160/]).

Another case is Morton Smith's "Secret Mark", though this one differs from the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" and other cases in that unlike the other cases, "Secret Mark" is hotly contested to the present day without clear scholarly consensus. Morton Smith's "Secret Mark" was alleged to be a copy he found in a monastery of an ancient letter of the 3rd century CE church father, Clement of Alexandria, telling of a "secret" gospel of Mark, differing from the public version, which must not be publicized, in which Jesus engages in secret magician rites at night involving being naked with other men, and Clement allegedly advises fellow church leaders in the know on this to lie to the public and deny the existence of this secret true gospel. About half of scholars today are certain Morton Smith's "Secret Mark" letter of Clement is forged, but about half are convinced it is genuine, and the debate is furious and ongoing in the journals and books. From the beginning nobody has ever been able to get access to the document itself for scientific testing even though Morton Smith published photographs of it and there are reported sightings and it does exist (sound familiar?). Morton Smith published a door-stopper multi-hundreds of pages of technical commentary on the text, engaging scholarly focus of attention on the minutae of meaning of its contents, on the assumption that it was genuine (sound familiar?). 

(The day I arrived at Cornell to start a graduate program in near eastern studies I met and talked with a temporary faculty member in the department who was a student of Morton Smith, just packed and leaving later that day after his year of teaching, and it was only a week after his teacher, Morton Smith, had died. Those who had access to Morton Smith's papers found no sign of knowledge of forgery among his papers; also money would not have been a motive. But Morton Smith had no use for institutional Christianity and personally believed Jesus was a magician prior to, by coincidence, finding (or perhaps someone produced for him a text in agreement with his beliefs) an ancient secret text in which Jesus was a magician. The motive there--if the claimed never-before-known copy of the ancient Clement letter is a forgery--might have been to put one over on the Church and its affiliated industry of New Testament scholarship, a practical joke on a large scale, just as Morton Smith believed the Church had itself done in history.)  

There is a market for JFK, Oswald, et al memorabilia. The Lafitte datebook, if it is written by Lafitte as purported, is authored by a con, a con for whom there is no corroborating evidence he was involved with the JFK assassination--authored by a con with a track record of finding creative ways to make money by fooling people.

Of course Lafitte is dead now, died before he could cash it out, if he was the producer of the datebook. But somebody, presumably some heir, has it today, but it is not being vetted and examined. One interpretation could be that the Albarelli book and the promotion of the Lafitte datebook is being watched to see if it can take traction in being accepted and believed to be authentic, just as some major-name North American biblical scholars for a time accepted and believed to be authentic and were in process of creating appraisal value for the Gospel of Jesus's Wife, until it was exposed and the scheme collapsed. If the Lafitte datebook did become believed by a significant sector of the public to be genuine, then that very belief could be monetized on the collectors/memorabilia market, or even by charitable donation with tax deduction at a high appraised value.

Benjamin asks the right question: the physical paper and calendar of the datebook itself is surely authentic; the issue goes to the date of the writing in the datebook--were the sensational parts of the writing in that datebook written in 1963 as claimed, or written later simply claimed to be written predating the assassination. 

Again an analogy--in the biblical scholarship world texts are dated in terms of what knowledge the texts show, e.g. the Book of Daniel of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament says it was written in the 500s BCE. But it shows knowledge in the form of detailed alleged "prophecies", of the Maccabaean revolt of the 160s BCE. That detailed knowledge of the 160s BCE is why all scholars apart from fundamentalists understand Daniel to have been written 160s BCE, not centuries earlier when the book itself claims it was written.

It is possible a similar analysis by means of what was known about the JFK assassination, and when, possibly reflected in the Lafitte datebook, could identify the true date or true date range that the latest entries in the datebook were written, which cannot be assumed to be the same as when they claim to have been written.

Leslie S., would it be possible for you to give, to the best of your personal knowledge and information, a timeline of known whereabouts of the artifact (the datebook), dates and specifics key to how its existence became known? Who is known to have had it and witnessed it, when and where? Ending with where is it now and who is legal owner or has legal authority over making it accessible for examination (I don't mean by me)?

You are misunderstanding the situation with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Briefly, the finds and acquisitions in the 1950s, which comprise the 900+ texts (pieced together from over 50,000 fragments) known as the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, are known authentic without any serious question today, with the only real question there being misidentified provenance questions raised on a couple dozen economic texts (not questions of authenticity of those texts, but of find spot origin not being Qumran as represented by the Bedouin sellers). More recently in the 2000-2020 time frame some additional fragments flooded the market obtaining in many cases high prices from collectors and museums, which are now well recognized en masse to have been forgeries fenced in an organized way by an antiquities dealer family conspiracy, so much so that apart from an occasional investor holdout left holding the bag with a "lemon" purchase reluctant to admit they bought something worthless, virtually nobody expert in the field defends those as authentic now.  (Anyone interested, https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/15/us/bible-museum-dead-sea-scrolls/index.html; https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/all-museum-bibles-dead-sea-scrolls-are-fake-report-finds-180974425/.)

But never mind the Dead Sea Scrolls. Please tell what you know concerning timeline, specifics and dates and whereabouts, of the datebook, the physical artifact?

Also, please cease ad homineming me (and others who raise the authenticity question), such as claiming I was intent on personally ridiculing you when I raised the authenticity question within ten days of paying for and receiving the book from Amazon and studying that relevant first question for what I could find in the book. I would not want to ridicule you personally, that was not what was going on. I did not claim a professional authoritative position, only called it as it seemed from my experience, said what I thought, which is what I think I or any buyer of a published book has a right to do. 

If there were qualified questioned-document examiners willing to examine it, to whom should the offer or inquiry be addressed? 

On 7/21/2023 at 12:30 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Tom, I have a hard time taking Marion Meharg's deposition seriously on this matter ... do you believe him, given all the circumstances?

If I may interject here, there are two things that support Meharg's claim to have seen "the" station wagon that day that go beyond what Tom mentioned in his reply to you, and I am not sure you may be aware of.

Number one, notes from a same-day phone call from Meharg to the Dallas Police on Nov 22, claiming to have seen "the" station wagon. Alveeta Treon (of the John Hurt note story) was interviewed by Harold Rose of the HSCA in 1978 and told Rose the following:

“Alveeta Treon, who worked as a telephone operator at Dallas City Hall on Nov. 22, 1963, had told me [HSCA investigator Harold Rose] on a prior occasion that on the night of the assassination, a man called the Dallas Police Department several times and wanted to report that there was a second assassin but she said that the P.D. dismissed it as a prank call. Mrs. Treon told me that she copied the information down and would try to locate it and call me. On this date [5/15/78], she called and stated that the man that called never gave his name, but he gave the name of the man that he said was the second assassin. The man’s name was David Miller and that he fired the second shot. He carried the rifle with him when he exited out of the rear of the TSBD. David Miller then left in a car bearing Texas license plates T W 1784. This car was reportedly listed to David Miller’s wife Mildred. Mrs. Treon stated that the original notes she took are in her hand writing and we have them if we wanted.” 

And number two, "the" station wagon, which Roger Craig described variously as looking "white" (before later "green") and with a rack, "seems" to correspond to police radio tracking or taking interest in a suspicious white station wagon with a rack that was spotted in Oak Cliff seen with a rifle on the seat, Oak Cliff being the direction "the" station wagon of the TSBD front was last seen headed. Although that police interest in that station wagon went nowhere (no further information on it, and no evidence it was involved in anything wrong to begin with other than legitimate suspicion to run down), the detail of interest--not previously noted to my knowledge--is the correspondence of the license plate number to what Meharg claimed he saw:

"Meharg stated that he did furnish SA Ellington [in FBI interview of 12/2/63] this information and advised that he was worried about his two boys who are in the custody of his former wife, Mildred, and is afraid she might have gotten mixed up in this affair. He stated he is sure he observed a 1956 green and white Chevrolet station wagon on Houston Street with Texas license starting with PW or PB or PF or something, and was afraid it was hers." (FBI interview of Meharg, 12/13/63, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=57)

Compare that with these police radio dispatches. (Without looking up all the links, I am getting these from chapter 14 of Donald Thomas, Hear No Evil [2010]. Note the license plate first two initials.

Dallas Police radio dispatcher (information from a service station attendant):

"Said he pulled in there and bought some gas. Driving a white Pontiac, '61 or '62 station wagon with a prefix 'Pecos' 'Ellis' [PE]. He had a rifle laying in the seat".

Reply to DPD dispatcher from Nelson:

"A white station wagon believed to be PE-3435, unknown make and model, occupied by two white males, left this fellow's station going east on Davis and believed to have a shotgun or rifle laying in back seat."

A trace of the license number turned up the car of those plates was a Ford Falcon and not a station wagon (!). DPD dispatcher asks Nelson for clarification:

"was that a Pontiac or a Falcon?"

Nelson replies:

"He didn't say what kind of a car it would be. He said it was a white car with a luggage rack on top. He wasn't sure of the model, talked like it was a big car, though."

The Sheriff's office, listening in on police radio, issues its own radio dispatch (mixed in with Tippit killing information):

"...West Jefferson. White male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, white jacket and black trousers. Also be on lookout for 1961 white Pontiac station wagon, color white, license prefix PE."

1:31 pm, DPD dispatcher again after getting Nelson's report (associating now the station wagon with the Tippit killing):

"That was 501 E. 10th Street running west from that location. A white male, 30, 5'8", black hair, white jacket, black trousers, white shirt. Had either shotgun or rifle in back seat, license prefix PE -- no other information."

Officers in Oak Cliff already searching for a man on foot call in for clarification: was he on foot or in a station wagon? Dispatcher replies "on foot at the time" (i.e. suspected formerly in the station wagon, but now on foot). Dispatcher continues:

"Any units spotting a white Pontiac station wagon with license prefix PE, proceed with caution and advise. In area of West Jefferson."

Back to Meharg: Meharg's ex-wife's station wagon was a two-tone white over green 1956 Chevrolet station wagon, license plate PE 1784, which was not "the" station wagon of the TSBD or the Oak Cliff police dispatches (since Meharg's ex-wife's station wagon, as well as the wrongly maligned new husband of Meharg's ex-wife, both were in Atlanta, Georgia at the time).

But the issue is not whether Meharg correctly identified the station wagon or its passenger (Meharg did not), but whether he saw "the" station wagon that he said he saw in the first place, and these two twin points--the report that he phoned it in the same day to the Dallas Police; and the similarity of the two letter-prefix initials--weigh in favor that Meharg did see "the" station wagon, misinterpreted what he saw, but he did see it.

If Meharg was fabricating that, starting from the day of the assassination, how did he accidentally get the first prefix letter right of the license plate? It looks like it was that coincidence that caused Meharg to leap to the mistaken conclusions he did.

This is an old topic, concerning the claim published by Dr. Charles Crenshaw in which it was alleged there was a phone call from LBJ to the operating room at Parkland on Nov 24 while doctors worked on Oswald and wanted doctors to get a confession from Oswald, and (although this did not appear in print under Crenshaw's name, alleged via hearsay) that LBJ wanted the doctors to kill Oswald.

All the discussions I have seen have been a binary choice, between a minority of CT's who believe that LBJ phone call happened as claimed, and a majority of CT's and all LN's who believe the phone call from LBJ did not happen as claimed. Either it happened or Crenshaw fabricated it, one or the other.

The arguments against basically devolve to: (a) LBJ's movements and actions and phone calls and records rule out that LBJ made such a call; (b) no real-time corroboration for such an LBJ call; (c) Crenshaw was reported to have made the even more sensational and unlikely claim that LBJ was ordering Parkland doctors to kill Oswald; and (d) the lateness of the story and credibility issues of Crenshaw.

Although it is possible I missed it if it did occur, a third option occurs to me that is neither of the two binary options: that the call was real and happened as Crenshaw said but it was an imposter calling pretending to be LBJ.

Here is what to me makes this scenario or explanation credible compared to the alternative that the story of Crenshaw was a fabrication (I agree without further argument that LBJ did not make such a call).

• Other witnesses (not just Crenshaw) at the time attest to some kind of call claiming to be from the White House.
• Crenshaw's own claim, combined with no counter claim from anyone else, indicates Crenshaw took that call from the switchboard.
• Switchboard operators real-time said "crank calls" happened at the time, which could be real-time allusion/corroboration of the LBJ call in other language.
• The claim that there was no real-time documentation of the phone call may further be less of an objection than it seems in light of below.

The below is from Debra Conway to Gary Shaw, from here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/tneKv5xKSWE/m/zWQJsk1jwjsJ. In the below, Phyllis Bartlett was a supervisor telephone operator at the switchboard who wrote the Dallas Morning News in defense of the Crenshaw story, that " ... There are still people who have not come forward yet, that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts straight had he bothered to check. There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, and he was connected to the operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."

[START quote]

[END quote]

The takedown argument on the Crenshaw LBJ call apparently posted on the old McAdams page, author unidentified, basically arguing that the caller could not have been LBJ therefore Crenshaw fabricated the story, here (scroll down to "The Supposed Call from LBJ"): https://www.jfk-assassination.net/crenshaw.htm.

Also this of interest on the (contested) hearsay claim that the "LBJ" caller told Crenshaw to kill Oswald: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48686#relPageId=19.

I cannot help but recall from college student days how some of my friends would be very good at imitating voices and expressions of certain college administrators and occasionally make prank phone calls pretending to be our aged college founder while the rest of us would be in stitches laughing. My memory of that is what came to mind reading the Crenshaw/LBJ Parkland phone call story.

The difference from my memory of college days is in this case it would not be a prank, rather it would be someone's dirty trick op with what may have been a serious objective to try to find out if Oswald had talked or said anything and/or get Oswald killed "before he talked", phishing for information. If the phone call was reported and publicized no harm done, it would be blamed on Lyndon who had nothing to do with it but would make a good patsy (in terms of this phone call).

All I can say is from what I read of this story, I conclude that LBJ did not and would not have personally made such a phone call (makes little sense), but at the same time the witness testimony suggests such a phone call did happen from either the White House on LBJ's behalf (1 of the 3 witnesses) or from LBJ himself (2 of the 3 witnesses). Therefore: an imposter phone call. In this scenario Crenshaw may be cleared of the charge of fabrication re this phone call. It then becomes a different issue, whether the call which happened was or was not from LBJ--with the reasoning being it cannot have been from LBJ, therefore it was not, even though two of the witnesses based on the representation of the caller and the sound of the voice believed it was LBJ.

Further support of the argument that the call did not actually come from LBJ or the White House is that the White House reported no record of such a call, whereas if it was a legitimate routine inquiry re whether Oswald had confessed (not a priori implausible in itself) there would be no reason not to say so, but neither the White House nor any LBJ staffer did.

Probably it will never be known the true identity of the phone caller told by Dr. Crenshaw, Dr. Williams, and switchboard supervisor Phyllis Baxter, rumored to be, unbelievably, that it was actually LBJ personally and that LBJ was urging doctors to kill Oswald. 

But I am surprised that it was not considered--in the debates over whether it was a true LBJ call or a Crenshaw fabrication-- this third possibility, that an imposter voice pretending to be LBJ was seriously trying to find out if Oswald had said anything unusual and/or confirm he was dead and/or encourage doctors to ensure/assist in Oswald becoming dead.

I am not exactly endorsing this explanation, just setting it out as a seemingly plausible possible one for consideration for what it is worth.

13 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

I appreciate the heads-up about the datebook, but this thread is about Dr. Ernst Imfeld, and his documented Nazi intelligence connections.

I've examined the datebook to it's logical end, but unfortunately, there are too many hidden variables in it—in the sense that the bulk of the entries are open to multiple, sometimes conflicting, interpretations.

As a documents hound, I can only extrapolate based off of known variables.

That being said, the datebook itself is a very useful tool, but only if you know the entire saga of the individual persons mentioned in it—and we know so little about people like, Dalzell, Wilson-Hudson, & Lafitte.

Lafitte truly was a spook's spook, and even in death, what little that is known about him, I am terrified to speak about him so lightly.

If Jean-Pierre Lafitte was not the devil, he was a very good substitute...

Just as friendly curiosity, what about the datebook persuaded you it is authentic ("a very useful tool")?

Also, what about Jean-Pierre Lafitte makes him a good substitute for the devil, and "terrified to speak about him so lightly" and a "spook's spook"? Any documents that support any of those three things? 

So far as I can tell, the unsubstantiated datebook aside, Lafitte was (a) a gourmet chef, and (b) a high-level con in financial schemes divesting wealthy people of some of their money, no evidence of violence involved, just chicanery, serially done to a fine art with flair. Like a lot of cons, he worked both sides of the law.

What convinced you to see more to him than that?

Time magazine, 1969 on him--not a violent crime mentioned. Just the kind of man from whom you wouldn't want to buy a luxury car, a work of art, or a claimed historical artifact ... but where's the terror? In terms of the JFK assassination, I cannot see that he has anything to do with anything in terms of vetted evidence. 

"police records show that he was arrested 23 times in 48 years for fraud, confidence schemes and burglary, they also show that he was a valuable undercover man for the Federal Government. He helped trap some of the late Vito Genovese's mafiosi for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He also posed as a buyer for the FBI, luring thieves into selling him stolen paintings and jewelry and then testifying against them in court..."(https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,941724,00.html)

(mistaken posting here)

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

And now this... good grief

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/07/rfk-jr-campaign-coffer-stuffed-by-gop-donors

Yes. I was momentarily open to the RFK Jr. candidacy at first, but not now. The major right-wing billionaire money and all the love from right-wing MAGA types combined with RFK Jr. playing nice to Trump instead of calling for all hands on deck toward the very real prospect of hard fascism just like Pinochet or Mussolini. 

He cannot even say he will support the Democratic nominee against Trump if that is the choice. He cannot say he will raise taxes on the super-wealthy--start the process of unwinding class war against the working poor of America, find his inner Bernie or Elizabeth Warren willing to take stands and fight on economic issues--or support laws addressing global warming. As Kirk Gallaway has brought out. 

RFK Jr's father dealt with the likes of the John Birch Society, Minutemen, and General Edwin Walker, precursors in a direct line of continuity to today's Trump and MAGA--right-wing populism with a white-nationalist, male-supremacist ethos and core base and vigilante violence (e.g. Jan 6).

Can't RFK Jr. see that? Sadly, apparently not. 

Can anyone imagine RFK playing nice to the General Walker types and being fine with HL Hunt money bankrolling RFK's presidential run in 1968? 

Can anyone imagine RFK not supporting the Democratic nominee against Nixon, if RFK had failed to win the nomination in 1968? 

Can anyone imagine RFK playing nice with Trump, if RFK were alive today? 

Good grief is right, Matt. 

Here Google AI's Bard repeats that it was not aware of being deceptive in saying that it mistakenly found bogus quotations in authors' books on Google Books preview that never were there. And in response to my question, Google AI's Bard says if it knows its answer to any question is deceptive, it will disclose that. All from me on this topic for now! 

I asked Bard if it was programmed to be deceptive, would it know it?

Bard answered "I would probably not be able to know it", if that was the case.

Bard also answers that "if I were programmed to be deceptive", one sign would be "if I were asked the same question multiple times, I might give different answers."

Isn't that what happened with Bard's conflicting answers to the question of LeMay's whereabouts on Nov 22, 1963? 

Here Google's AI Bard repeats that it found bogus quotations, which do not exist, from authors Manchester and Bugliosi, on Google Book's preview feature (screenshots of pages of those books). And Google AI Bard says it is programmed to always be truthful in answering questions to the best of its ability, so according to Bard, these are honest hallucinations, not intended deceptions. 

Bard (Google's AI) has denied to me that a live human was involved in the fabricated quotations re LeMay complete with exact documentation from famous-name authors it reported that were, however, entirely bogus. 

Bard claims it was "using the Google Books preview" to search for information and "the preview" (sceen shot of the published Bugliosi and Manchester book pages) "included a quotation that I [Bard] thought was from Manchester and Bugliosi", but (Bard explains), "it turns out the quotation was not actually in their books".

But if it was not in the Manchester and Bugliosi books, what on Google books preview--which are screenshots from those books--would have produced those bogus quotations? I asked Bard, and Bard's answer...

Keyvan Shahrdar is right. Google's AI Bard was hallucinating.

Shahrdar's comments caused me to wonder if AI Bard was correct in telling me that William Manchester wrote that LeMay was in Ottawa at a NATO meeting on November 22, 1963 (as in my above quoting Google AI Bard telling me that).

The more I thought about it, that didn't sound right either. I did not have Manchester's book so I ordered the Kindle version and ... surprise, surprise! ... that quotation is not there either. My search of the Kindle of Manchester found 0 references to Ottawa in the entire book, and only 1 reference to LeMay which had nothing to do with him being in Ottawa or on November 22. (The reference was to LeMay in a generals' meeting in D.C. on Nov 24, 1963 as the news was learned that Oswald had been shot by Ruby.) There is only one reference to "NATO" in the book and it is unrelated to Nov 22, 1963, or Ottawa.

In other words, Google AI "Bard" had "punked" me, no less than Shahrdar. 

I decided I needed to have a little chat with "Bard" and find out, idiomatically put, what the hell was going on. Here is my conversation, with the first two questions being word for word repeat of my earlier. Bard's answer to the first was the same but the second, where I asked Bard's source for the Ottawa NATO LeMay claim for Nov 22, Bard now ADDED an additional claim that Bugliosi's book said that too (!).

When I asked for page numbers to both references, Bard obliged with page numbers, both of which were completely bogus (I have the Bugliosi book on hand to check, and the kindle of Manchester). When I said so to "Bard" concerning the Bugliosi one, Bard said it was mistaken and "corrected" it with another page number again pulled out of thin air, also bogus. When I told Bard that page number also did not have the claimed quotation, Bard said it rechecked and now repudiated the claims of those quotations.

When I asked Bard where it got the page numbers, Bard CLAIMED it got it from Google Books preview, which I highly doubt, since I have never known Google Books preview to have inaccurate quotation or pagination information. 

It appears Bard is not simply giving blatantly false fabricated quotation information on at least these JFK assassination-related questions, but is being dishonest at some human(s)'s direction in identifying its source of information? (With the truthful answer to the page number selection being some form of non-human or human "random number generator"?) Who is causing Bard to do this, and why?

Here is my exchange with Bard. Note at the end some changes in iterations of Bard's answer to my final question I observed changing live in real time--does that suggest a live human was composing or editing Bard's suggested answers at the end, a human behind the wizard on the screen? ... giving hardly believable (i.e. untruthful) claims through Bard about Bard having found those fabricated quotations in Google Books previews?

Keyvan Shahrdar was right that AI Bard was hallucinating. 

Shahrdar's comments caused me to wonder if AI Bard was correct in telling me that William Manchester wrote that LeMay was in Ottawa at a NATO meeting on November 22, 1963 (as in my post above quoting what Google AI Bard told me).

The more I thought about that, that didn't sound right either. I did not have Manchester's book so I ordered the Kindle version and ... sad to say--surprise, surprise--the quotation is not there. A search found 0 references to Ottawa in the entire book, and only 1 reference to LeMay which had nothing to do with him being in Ottawa or on November 22. (The reference was to LeMay in a generals' meeting in D.C. on Nov 24, 1963 as the news was learned that Oswald had been shot by Ruby.) There is only one reference to "NATO" in the book and it is unrelated to Nov 22, 1963, or Ottawa.

I decided to have a little chat with "Bard" to try to find out was going on. Here is my conversation, with the first two questions being word for word repeat of my earlier. The answer to the first was the same but the second, where I asked Bard's source for the Ottawa NATO LeMay claim for Nov 22, Bard ADDED a claim that Bugliosi told of it too!

When I persisted and asked for page numbers to both references, Bard obliged with page numbers, both of which were completely bogus (I have both Manchester and Bugliosi books on hand to check). When I said so to "Bard", Bard said it was mistaken and "corrected" it with two more page numbers pulled out of thin air (apparently), also bogus. When I told Bard those page numbers did not have the quotations, Bard instantly corrected and repudiated the claims of those quotations.

When I asked Bard where it got those page numbers, Bard CLAIMED it got them from Google Books preview, which I highly doubt, since I have never known Google Books preview to have inaccurate quotation or pagination information. 

It appears Bard is not simply giving blatantly false fabricated quotation information on at least these JFK assassination-related questions, but has it been programmed to be dishonest in claiming its source of information? (With the truthful answer to the page number selection being "a random number generator"?) Who programmed Bard to do this, and why?

Here is my exchange with Bard.

On 7/15/2023 at 3:28 AM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I believe Bard is “hallucinating” when giving answers to questions about the JFK assassination.  Thanks for using Bard.  The difference in conversation between what you are getting and what I got is telling.  Bard is not there yet.

The two fake quotations from authors Gillon and Kozak you gave were originated by you, not attributed by you to Bard.

On 3/24/2023 at 7:07 AM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

According to the book "The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After" by Steven M. Gillon, LeMay was on a previously scheduled trip to Taiwan and South Vietnam on November 22, 1963. Gillon cites a telegram sent by LeMay to the U.S. Ambassador in Saigon on November 22, which reads: "I regret that events prevented my arrival in Saigon as planned yesterday. I am now in Taipei and hope to be in Saigon on the 23rd."

Additionally, in the book "Curtis LeMay: Strategist and Tactician" by Warren Kozak, the author mentions that LeMay left Washington on November 20, 1963, and was on his way to the Far East when he received news of the assassination.

Does anyone have a copy of the telegram?  Is it available in NARA?

Doug Horne cites that Lemay was at Wiarton, Canada.  So where was LeMay on November 22, 1963?

Now I am looking at the book by Steven Gillon, "The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After". 

The name Curtis LeMay does not appear in the index. There appears to be no reference to LeMay at all in the book.

I can find no reference to any LeMay telegram to Saigon in this book.

This is really outrageous. 

Fabrication of quotations. 

Keyvan, I created an account with the Google AI, "Bard", and I report that Google AI is not giving what you have reported. Here are my questions and Google AI's answers (in the last few minutes). 

On 3/24/2023 at 7:07 AM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

According to the book "The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After" by Steven M. Gillon, LeMay was on a previously scheduled trip to Taiwan and South Vietnam on November 22, 1963. Gillon cites a telegram sent by LeMay to the U.S. Ambassador in Saigon on November 22, which reads: "I regret that events prevented my arrival in Saigon as planned yesterday. I am now in Taipei and hope to be in Saigon on the 23rd."

Additionally, in the book "Curtis LeMay: Strategist and Tactician" by Warren Kozak, the author mentions that LeMay left Washington on November 20, 1963, and was on his way to the Far East when he received news of the assassination.

Does anyone have a copy of the telegram?  Is it available in NARA?

Doug Horne cites that Lemay was at Wiarton, Canada.  So where was LeMay on November 22, 1963?

Keyvan, why are you saying that in Warren Kozak's book, "Curtis LeMay: Strategist and Tactician", "the author mentions that LeMay left Washington on November 20, 1963, and was on his way to the Far East when he received news of the assassination"?

I am looking at the Kozak book right now and Kozak says on page 356:

"On November 22, 1963, while on a hunting trip in Michigan, Curtis LeMay heard that President Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas. He immediately flew back to Washington..." 

47 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

In reference to Moore and debriefing Oswald via De Mohrenschildt keep in mind that De Mohrenschildt's first visit to Oswald was some time after his return, Oswald had already made Russian community contacts and been introduced to a number of folks in the Fort Worth community before De Mohrenschildt visited him - and Oswald's manuscript had already typed well before that time.

But that is based on de Mohrenschildt's sayso, which is not always consistent, and uncorroborated? Maybe the assumption of the delay ("some time after [Oswald's] return") should be questioned, in the timeline? Isn't there something about de Mohrenschildt having been involved in assisting, or encouraging, or something, Oswald with that manuscript, which could suggest earlier contact between de Mohrenschildt and Oswald (after his return to Fort Worth) than is often assumed? I am going from memory, no time to dig into the details at this moment but I recall something along this line, in which de Mohrenschildt here, as in other instances, might be off on his timeline, whether by mistake or for a reason. And logically, somehow de Mohrenschildt seems like part of the expected CIA "debriefing" of Oswald (in the form of Oswald's manuscript?) which would happen soon, as in essentially immediately, after Oswald's return, rather than the significant delay before first contact with de Mohrenschildt as often supposed? I suppose the alternative is someone else was handling Oswald's "debriefing" immediately other than de Mohrenschildt, but de Mohrenschildt seems like an obvious non-asset asset (deniability?), in light of the Minsk connection coincidence, to have involved with Oswald? 

On the cleaning and the bucket of the limo outside Parkland, I don't remember where I got this but my memory is someone from the scene explained that bucket in the photo had no water in it, that bucket had nothing to do with cleaning, but was holding parts or screws or whatever involved in getting the top put back on. Posner thinks it was a bucket of water for cleaning, an intent to clean, that in the chaos did not happen. I noticed that for the front seat, Posner says it "must" have been later cleaned enough at the drivers seat so the limo could be driven. But even that "must have" seems to be only an inference, possible but not directly confirmed, on the part of Posner rather than--apparently--from testimony. (I would think more likely a driver might put a newspaper or wrapping paper or something over the seat if necessary to sit and drive--to protect the driver's own clothes--rather than actually clean the seat, in light of the evidence-preservation consideration.) But the main point of Posner, surely correct, is that it is a myth based on the photo showing the bucket that the limo was washed at Parkland.  

2 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna check out my prior post about what i learned from the document production in my NARA lawsuit. Trump made up the story to explain why he didnt release the documents as he had promised. The order postponing the records had already been drafted for his signature when he wrote his tweet. His white house did not follow the usual protocols for issuing orders so he apparently didnt know it was in the works.   

I will, thanks, interesting.

28 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

There's a document in the Dallas Police records which mentions two torn halves of dollar bills. This document lists the serial numbers of both bills. However, it says nothing about Oswald and there's really no proof whatsoever that it is assassination related. But, that didn't stop Armstrong from taking it and running with it.

Thanks Bill, I suspected something like that. That agrees with what I remember from a while ago but wasn’t sure. However as I recall it was ambiguous in the sense of being in proximity to other verified Oswald arrest evidence (or someone doing filing at DPD thought it was? Not sure how that worked), so while not verified from Oswald it is not clearly known to be spurious (as related to Oswald) either. Anyway your Hoover quote is interesting.