There is no mumbo jumbo secrecy around the datebook, so don't be discouraged, @Benjamin Cole 

That said, could you repeat specifically what "secrecy" you're worried about?  Monté can't possibly address that concern for you.

I assume Monté will respond to your inquiries related to what drives him to rely (or not) on entries in the Lafitte records, but I request that if you have questions specific to how the entries read and how they make sense when considered in full context - not isolated aspects of any given series of entries - you please confer with me, Hank's coauthor of Coup in Dallas.  You could even private message me, Ben.
 

On 7/26/2023 at 1:25 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

That is fine. 

I wish I knew the true history of the Lafitte notebook. 

It may be a good researcher went through available JFKA docs, and compiled the notebook, paying special attention to Nazi-related material. 

Of equal concern, if the notebook is not now in secure, independent hands, it could be "updated" by incorporating evidence you have uncovered. 

I am hardly derailing this thread by asking that the uncertain provenance of the Lafitte notebook, when mentioned, be noted. 

That is good practice. 

Ben, have you read Coup in Dallas?

I posted an excerpt from Albarelli's introduction to Coup on the Pierre Lafitte 1963 thread which provides you the "true history" of the Lafitte datebook. Please read it, instead of attempting to distract from @Robert Montenegro's deep dive into this long buried operation, AECASSOWARY.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

RM--

Thanks for your sensible comments. 

"As for somebody utilizing documents in order to concoct a forgery—that would be impossible, simply because information in the Lafitte materials has not been available to the general public in the form of documents until 2023."--RM

Can you provide two examples of this, examples that we laypeople can verify? 

I am happy to accept, or reject, any JFKA documents, or purported documents, but based upon independent evaluation by a panel of smart people. Not just the datebook, but any purported document of consequence.  

The mumbo-jumbo and secrecy around the datebook is not encouraging. 

 

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

As you've pointed out Leslie. RK was actually discouraging the demographic groups from taking the vaccine who need it most.

I also agree. Why would he even have opened up that door if he, himself didn't believe it?

I guess better late than never though.

But now the critical test. Will his followers follow the RK admission that it was a mistake or still insist he's a victim of the "Deep State" and "Operation Mockingbird".

 

Agree, Kirk.  The victimhood is an appeal to emotion not dissimilar to Trump. His lack of understanding of the contemporary "deep state" is alarming.  Will he accept money from Harlan Crow and the No Labels?

And why didn't someone in his camp advise him very early on to dampen down the emphasis on his personal tragedies. I think it skirts on exploitation.  I venture JFK wouldn't recognize many of his proposed policies.

News Corp's Fox News — mainstream media disguised as news for 'everyman' just like the Murdoch's: 

He [RFK Jr.] also said that moving forward, he will be more cautious before speaking in public. 

"It’s clear to me now that I need to be much more careful," Kennedy told JNS.

"I have to learn a lesson from this, and the lesson I learn is that I have to understand that the words that I use have impact, and they can be misused and misinterpreted," he said. "I regret talking about that study, and I am going to be careful to make sure that I don’t do anything like that in the future."

huh? In other words, I can't be caught on mic espousing what I really think?

6 hours ago, John Cotter said:

It was the then Taoiseach, Charlie Haughey, some time back in the 1980s.

Why did I suspect that.

My brother-in-law was Dublin Garda, moonlighted as security for Charlie.

Charlie befriended Otto and Ilse Skorzeny.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

So now you're saying it’s not about RFK Jr being a racist.

It’s about how I might interpret (through my “lens”) an unspecified interpretation by you through your (politically-biased) lens of a black woman’s unspecified interpretation through her (politically-biased) lens of something RFK Jr said concerning black people’s safety vis-à-vis covid.

In other words, it’s about what an Irish politician once described as “nods, winks, hints and innuendos”.

Thanks for confirming that your purported custard pie is really just a nothing burger.

Would that be an Irish politician in The North or in the Republic?

. . . I had learned through my Olson research that Pierre [Lafitte] and his family lived in New Orleans during the 1960s and that Pierre had been briefly employed by the William Reily Coffee Company where alleged JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald had also briefly worked in May and June 1963. I had been warned several times by writer Peter Janney, and other close friends who were also writers, to stay clear of the Kennedy assassination. “It’s a black hole that draws you in deeper and deeper, until you cannot extract yourself,” said Janney. He was right. But that’s another story that can be discussed at another time. 

What is important here is that I eventually gained conditional access to several of Lafitte’s datebooks and a precious handful of his letters. I would guess that you can imagine my surprise when I was able to make out Lee Harvey Oswald’s name in the 1963 datebook. Over a short period, I found other names connected to Oswald’s. Some identified only by initials: “O,” “OS,” “JA” and “T.” To make a long and convoluted story short, I was able to study Lafitte’s 1963 datebook. And as expected, although for entirely different reasons than my initial expectations, it was remarkable for its contents. Perhaps “remarkable” is not a strong enough word. 

There, in a worn, but well-preserved, leather-bound datebook, was a stunning parade of names: Angleton, Oswald, Joannides, Labadie, Martin—some under aliases, some coded, some not, some as bold as day, others scribbled in a hurried or tired hand, some of which I had no idea about, or even a clue as to who they were. Occasionally, I depended on expert assassination researchers like Steve Rosen, Malcolm Blunt, Dick Russell, and Stuart Wexler, and my cowriters Leslie Sharp and Alan Kent, to identify but a handful and for making sense of certain entries. At the start, I was near completely unfamiliar with the names R. G. Storey, Charles Willoughby, and Ilse Skorzeny. Through the datebook, the story of Lafitte’s involvement in the events of 1963 rolled out page by page. As hopefully will become clear to readers of this book, Lafitte played what, no doubt, was a crucial role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. 

One thing, however, should be made clear: I, as the author of this book, do not own any of Lafitte’s datebooks or letters. Fortunately, I have been granted the right to reproduce certain selections from the 1963 datebook. But, there are contents in those datebooks that the Lafitte family do not want published. Rene Lafitte was adamant about this and would not agree to anything else. It took considerable effort to convince her and others that I be allowed to reproduce her insightful comment about JFK’s death recorded in a November 23, 1963 entry: “Rene says, coup de grâce.”

Rene was a beautiful, petite woman who remarkably resembled actor Geneviève Bujold. Indeed, she was a former and successful fashion model. She was from a prominent French family and had been well educated in France, England and Brussels. She spoke and moved with an unearthly grace. She told me, “I fell hopelessly in love with Pierre from the moment I met him. He [radiated] mystery and grace, at the same time. His eyes always sparkled with joy and adventure. His smile conveyed that he understood more about the mysteries of life than anyone. The French say, ‘L’amour est l’emblème de l’éternité, il confond toute la notion de temps, efface toute la mémoire d’un commencement, toute la crainte d’une extrémité.’”

Rene explained: “I’m sharing parts of the datebooks with you because [there’s] a story that should be told. Pierre did many things in his life, inexplicable things, things I didn’t understand but always trusted him to know that they were wise and well chosen. The story of President Kennedy’s death may be one of those stories.” 

Significantly, Rene was not only well aware of Pierre’s entries in his datebooks—and in a few cases helped early on in deciphering his handwriting because, as she explained, Pierre had had a “mild stroke” in 1962 that affected his handwriting, which she said at one time was “near beautiful”—but in many cases she lived alongside Pierre during the instances he wrote about. Rene clearly remembered Otto Skorzeny: “He was imposing; his presence dominated a room, any room.” Ilse Skorzeny: “She was all business. Maybe the woman behind the man, meaning the brains.” Lee Harvey Oswald: “I only saw him a few times. Pierre didn’t care for him. A confused young man. Pierre always said: ‘He’s always desequilibre.’’' Marina Oswald: “We felt sorry for her. She had no idea what was going on. He seemed to stick to her like glue but shared nothing with her.” Jean Souetre: “Oh, he was very handsome, but a modest person, and very serious about his beliefs.” Thomas Eli Davis, Jr.: “You couldn’t help but like him.” Charles Willoughby: “A dedicated soldier. A little too dedicated, with a sky-is-falling mindset.”  

When I first received an email message out of the blue from Ralph Ganis in North Carolina, I was skeptical, but intrigued. Ralph explained that he had exclusive papers that were “incredibly connected to JFK’s murder.” Ralph asked me about the chapter on Thomas Eli Davis, Jr. he had read in a book I had written, A Secret Order. The book had been my first book-length foray into the JFK assassination. I had been fascinated by what I learned about Thomas Eli Davis, Jr. I instinctively knew there was far more to Davis’s story and that it was closely connected to the events of Dallas, November 22, 1963. I was also fascinated with certain events in Mexico City concerning Lee Harvey Oswald: a well-known poet and author Elena Garro, and her daughter; Warren Broglie at the Hotel Luma and its cast of unsavory characters, seemingly right out of a Humphrey Bogart film; Charles William Thomas, CIA and State Department employee; and, last but far from least, CIA Mexico City asset, Viola June Cobb, with whom I became a very good friend. In fact, June is the godmother of my grandson, Dylan Jackson Albarelli Centellas. June helped Dylan learn his ABC’s and to count past one hundred. [Here in the interest of full disclosure, I should also state that my mother’s family was quite close to Robert C. Hill, former ambassador to Mexico, Spain, El Salvador, and several other South American countries. Robert’s brother, Richard “Uncle Dick'' Hill was a renowned veterinarian in New Hampshire. A wonderful man.] 

At the time that Ralph contacted me, I had read Dick Russell’s book, The Man Who Knew Too Much, at least four times, marking it up so much that I had to buy two additional copies. From Russell’s amazing research and work, combined with what I had discovered at this juncture, I knew we were tantalizingly close to uncovering the real story behind the assassination, but I wasn’t the least confident, nor did I feel like we were wading into hubris. Nonetheless, during my first few conversations with Ralph, I didn’t mention anything about what I had learned from Lafitte’s datebooks and from my hundreds of hours talking to and interviewing June Cobb. 

When Ralph Ganis and I eventually met in North Carolina, where I would soon move for two years to work on this book, he allowed me access to his Otto Skorzeny archives. There were thousands of pages. I spent over a week at his home carefully reviewing and reading through several hundred documents. We stayed up late into the night discussing the secrets these papers held. We wallpapered several rooms of Ralph’s house with link-analysis charts that, within days, resembled the assiduous maps created by artist Mark Lombardi. Stepping back and viewing these graphic displays of previously unknown global networks, we could clearly see that the narrative they spelled out was a virtual game changer that could provide a real accounting of who had killed President John F. Kennedy and explain the rationale, as well as exposing a huge and sophisticated cabal that controlled many of the world’s events.     

In a renewed discussion with Ralph about Thomas Eli Davis, Jr. and arms trafficker Victor Oswald, two intriguing characters in the JFK assassination, I revealed the existence of Lafitte’s datebooks to Ralph. I told him what the 1963 datebook had to say about Davis, and many other subjects directly related to the JFK assassination. I explained to him how difficult it had been to gain access to the datebook and the applicable terms and conditions, and we decided that we would negotiate for further use of the datebook. I believe it was at this moment that we fully realized the actual dimensions and importance of the story that lay before us. It was exhilarating and frightening at once. I began writing a few days later. 

Eventually, out of the blue, Ralph decided it was better that only he alone write a book about Otto Skorzeny. It was a set-back timewise, but the book you have before you exclusively gives all the answers one may have about who killed JFK. I should say here that our [Albarelli, Sharp, Kent] approach to the Kennedy assassination may differ greatly from that of other serious researchers and writers. Our motive for writing this book did not turn on hubris, achieving grand recognition, or hero worship of President Kennedy. As with my book on Frank Olson, our motive was simply to present facts related to solving what was a long-seated mystery. We are quite aware of the contentiousness at play in tackling subjects widely regarded as “conspiracy theories.”

I am also quite cognizant of the rules of what has become a sort of JFK assassination parlor game. We are not members of the perceived elite group of writers who have staked out the assassination as their exclusive terra ferma. We have no axe to grind politically. We worship at no politician’s altar. We respect JFK as a man and admired his foresight and caring for the less unfortunate, and, like many before us, recognize that he played an extremely dangerous game in regard to his sexual antics and womanizing. We condemn JFK for nothing. . . .
— H. P. Albarelli Jr.   

@Greg Doudna 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.

Can you cite where I've said I have been repeatedly blocked and refused access to the datebook?

I've said "repeatedly" that without sufficient exemplars, the examination remains incomplete.

Have you come across Valery Aginsky, or perhaps Oliver Thorne?

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"Non-discloure (sic) agreements are standard in the real world and an automatic requisite of the legal department of the private for-profit organization that was heavily invested in the documentary series based on this datebook.  I think it's best you stay in your lane."--LS

This is bordering on self-parody. 

 In other words, if independent examination of the datebook uncovers rank fraud...that is not going to be disclosed, due to commercial considerations.

And independent observers---like me---calling for immediate transparency regarding the datebook...are outside our lane?

How is anybody calling for immediate transparency regarding fantastic JFKA claims made upon an unseen, hidden-from-public, possibly improperly sequestered datebook...outside their lane? 

These are bare minimum standards that are being asked for. 

 

What are you talking about?  In other words, if independent examination of the datebook uncovers rank fraud...that is not going to be disclosed, due to commercial considerations.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"Non-discloure (sic) agreements are standard in the real world and an automatic requisite of the legal department of the private for-profit organization that was heavily invested in the documentary series based on this datebook.  I think it's best you stay in your lane."--LS

This is bordering on self-parody. 

 In other words, if independent examination of the datebook uncovers rank fraud...that is not going to be disclosed, due to commercial considerations.

And independent observers---like me---calling for immediate transparency regarding the datebook...are outside our lane?

How is anybody calling for immediate transparency regarding fantastic JFKA claims made upon an unseen, hidden-from-public, possibly improperly sequestered datebook...outside their lane? 

These are bare minimum standards that are being asked for. 

 

What are you talking about?  In other words, if independent examination of the datebook uncovers rank fraud...that is not going to be disclosed, due to commercial considerations.


 

On 7/23/2023 at 9:28 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Leslie,

    If it's any consolation, I once suggested to Ben, on the old 56 Years thread, that, if he ever started a right wing talk radio show in Thailand, he should use Kinky Friedman's song, Get Your Biscuits in the Oven and Your Buns in the Bed as his introductory theme song... 🤥

 

@W. NiederhutAh Kinky!!  I remember when this came out.  Little did I know that in 2023 . . . !

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well, this is just weird.  I ordered A Terrible Mistake this morning about 8:30.   I ordered it as much for the chapters on Pierre Laffite and George Hunter White as I did the subject, Frank Olson.  I'd read the 30 pages on him in Poisoner in Chief and seen Wormwood but thought I might learn more from it and given the other subjects and it being Nine Hundred pages.  I could swear I've read a little more on both Olson and White but can't remember where at the moment.  As I've just read Coup, any more info on Laffite will be interesting.

I've had A Secret Order for several years.  In particular the chapter on Adele Edisen is wild, it seems credible but at the same time incredible.  The Chapter on David Sanchez Morales was enlightening.

I know Hank has children and grandchildren who should receive royalties.  Surviving on social security and less than a thousand bucks a month from TRS I (thought I was going to buy) a used copy.  They listed one for $10.84, I clicked.  $5.99 shipping.  The one below it on a list said 11.00 plus 3.99, it also said new copy in the comments.  It showed the seller was Suppressed Books, click for more info.  Will be shipped from Trine Day.  What, that's the publisher!  IDK, maybe the family will still bet a buck or two after all, as opposed to what they may get from a "New" $30.00 plus shipping.  My copy of Coup is of course new.

Still weird that it's being talked about today here after I bought it this morning.  What was Hank's saying, high synchronicity and ???

Further, I received an e-mail at 2:10 this afternoon that it had already shipped, which surprised me as this can often take 2-3 days.

 

Synchronicity!

Trine Day published both ATM and ASO.

Didn't we talk about Tom O'Neil's Chaos? 

25 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Do I understand this right?  As far as it goes it seems pretty clear and straightforward.  

Agree @Ron Bulman. Can't get much more straightforward.  

@Greg Doudna 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. 

I'm suggesting, in the most general terms, that you measure your public allegations carefully.

I'm curious why you never made an attempt to contact me personally to express your concerns?  I'm also wondering why you never contacted Albarelli, considering your intense interest in the assassination, Ruth Paine and John Curington in particular?  I believe both Hank, and Alan and I had been fairly active online related to the forthcoming book.

@Greg DoudnaAlso, 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. 

You obviously live in the rarefied air of academia. Your projects must have been funded by (taxpayer) institutions or public museums over the years?  One just lifts their finger and the funds flow?

Non-discloure agreements are standard in the real world and an automatic requisite of the legal department of the private for-profit organization that was heavily invested in the documentary series based on this datebook.  I think it's best you stay in your lane.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

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?

@Greg Doudna 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.  

Are you intimating, not so subtly, that is the case with the examination of the Lafitte  datebook?  On what basis would you make that allegation?  

@Greg DoudnaI 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".

It's ironic you mention Arizona, presumably the lab at University of AZ? I had intended to ask you if by chance you've crossed paths with JFK assassination researcher Jeffrey Sundberg, former engineering faculty at U of A?

49 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

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?

Basically, I was reading about Rudy Giuliani's admission of making false claims against Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss today.  I don't know why his white flag came to mind, it just did.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Thank you for belatedly posting “citations”.

The problem with them is that they don’t provide anything remotely like solid evidence that RFK Jr is a racist, notwithstanding the mish mash of purported guilt by association and tenuous interpretation which is supposed to be suggestive in that regard. It’s just tendentious flim flam cobbled together for the political purpose of nobbling RFK Jr’s presidential campaign.

Obviously faux left authoritarians are going to parrot the claim that this vacuous confection is some kind of smoking gun. That’s because pies are needed to be thrown in the idiotic game of political slapstick.

Accusing someone of racism is a serious matter. The burden of proof always lies with the accuser (Semper necessitas probandi incumbi ei qui agit).

You have provided no proof whatsoever.

The original question was whether Rep. Plaskett have reason to ask RFK Jr. why he vaccinated his own children but discouraged the African American community from doing same, based on the color of their skin - because there is no credible evidence that the vaccine targeted, or didn't target races.

Interpret this through your own lens; my lens includes RFK Jr.'s other missteps which indicate a pattern to me and millions of other Americans.

Anne Frank

Roger Waters

Chinese and Jews were protected races in the diabolical Covid conspiracy.

 

Just now, Greg Doudna said:

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. 

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?

 

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS--

Well, then, answer the question.

Who is preventing the placement of the purported notebook into a secure and sealed location, where it can be vetted by a panel of independent experts?

For all we know, the notebook is being "updated" as we speak, with this latest round of disclosures. 

Or someone is piggy-backing off of R. Montenegro's work, and placing fresh clues into the notebook. 

I gather you are unsure yourself whether such activity could be going on. 

you know nothing about this subject, Benjamin.

Greg, on the other hand, does. Review our debate from 2022.

I want Greg to be very specific: what is he alleging here? Who specifically is he accusing? 

On 7/25/2023 at 12:00 AM, Greg Doudna said:

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.

@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.

11 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Your belated request for this citation is a deflection from my prior request for a citation from you, which you have persistently failed to provide. This is further evidence that you’re not debating in good faith and that what you’re engaged in is a demented political hit job on RFK Jr.

Hence, your request is disingenuous. Only nine days ago I posted the following proof of the covid scam:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29366-this-is-the-presidential-candidate-you-intend-to-support/?do=findComment&comment=507796

Previously, I had posted about the corruption of the drug companies and regulatory agencies as documented in Ben Goldacre’s 2012 book, Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. The link to my post is here:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29366-this-is-the-presidential-candidate-you-intend-to-support/?do=findComment&comment=507796

As for the criminality of drug companies, numerous such companies have had to pay billions of dollars in fines, as described in the Wikipedia article, “List of largest pharmaceutical settlements”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

Of course, none of these inconvenient facts matter to you and your fellow faux left authoritarians, and you’ll continue posting your one-eyed rabid gibberish, no matter what citations, evidence or arguments are presented to refute it.

Russ Baker is lauded for his meticulous research and objective approach to investigative journalism.  It is rare, in my experience, that he takes an outspoken and dare I say brave stance on an issue:

' Let’s take a closer look at Tenpenny, who Kennedy says is “leading this movement against vaccines,” (emphasis added) and a brief look at the others . . .

. . . Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an early promoter of the theory that COVID-19 is a bioweapon designed to spare Chinese and Jewish people — almost exactly what Kennedy later claimed publicly, although she may have only confirmed ideas he already had.

Tenpenny is quite the character. She has shared numerous antisemitic claims on social media, including Holocaust denial and praise for the notorious forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,

In early 2022, she claimed Jews were using the Ukraine conflict to distract the world from a meeting in Europe about pandemic preparedness.

Kennedy will have a hard time disassociating himself from Tenpenny and her beliefs, given that she is right next to him in the image below for Kennedy’s June 27 “Health Policy Roundtable.”  . . .

. . . Dr. Joseph Mercola. Another osteopath, and No. 1 on the list of the “Disinformation Dozen” on vaccines. “Over the last decade, Dr. Mercola has built a vast operation to push natural health cures, disseminate anti-vaccination content, and profit from all of it, say researchers who have studied his network. In 2017, he filed an affidavit claiming his net worth was ‘in excess of $100 million,’” according to The New York Times.

. . . Del Bigtree. CEO of Informed Consent Action Network, an anti-vaccination group that has made millions off of spreading misinformation. Producer of the film Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, based on the discredited work of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who, through “deliberate fraud” tried to prove vaccines cause autism.. . . 

A Talk With an Ethicist

Kennedy’s comments made me wonder what actual experts thought. I reached out to Jacob M. Appel, the author of an insightful essay, “Is All Fair in Biological Warfare? The Controversy in Genetically Engineered Bioweapons,” that appeared in the British Medical Journal.

Appel is a doctor, affiliated with Columbia University and Mount Sinai Hospital, a lawyer — and a bioethicist.

“To my knowledge there’s no evidence that COVID is a bioweapon targeting ethnic or racial groups,” he told me. “None at all. …The numbers don’t support that.” 

In fact, he said, “it taps into canards about Judaism.” 

Russ closes with:
. . . It might be difficult, at first glance, to see the connection between Kennedy’s firehose of bad “science” and the ongoing corrosion and degradation of American politics. But the last thing this country can afford now is the further weaponization of unscientific falsehoods to exacerbate racial and ethnic divisions — for any purpose, let alone to carve a political niche in a democracy that is nearly on life support.  (emphasis added.)

Does anyone on this forum think John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy would participate in such a reckless tack? 

https://russbaker.substack.com/p/rfk-jrs-panel-of-health-hoaxers-hucksters?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=999447&post_id=135479420&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email