Pierre Lafitte datebook, 1963

[David Josephs]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Just to be clear on your position David, are you saying that you are confident beyond reasonable doubt that the Lafitte datebook is authentic (written by Lafitte in 1963), and, that there is no need for forensic examination of the physical object, the Lafitte datebook, by experienced forensic questioned-document analysts, in this case, and, that the JFK assassination research community should accept both of those propositions as settled, and move forward? 

Do I have that straight? Three statements there--do I have that right on all three from you?

aka "we don't need no stinkin' science"?

Wow, appears you've really lost your perspective on this thread Greg.  Who exactly are you trying to impress?

Please point to anywhere I said or implied any of this by asking you about your obvious inconsistencies related to JFK evidence authentication.

Do you always answer questions with more questions?  State your position on these topics... then you can ask your strangely made up questions based on your fertile imagination which you seem to use to fill in the blanks for your incredibly poor comprehension of what people write.

1. The Zfilm's lack of authenticity doesn't seem to get the same level of passion.  You satisfied with the film's authenticity at this point, or not?  Why?
2. Where was your indignation over authenticity when 10,000 new documents hit the public stage?
3. Where is your indignation over authenticity related to all the other physical items of evidence?
4. Given we've already authenticated the physical aspects of the book, (yes, we all know you completely missed that presentation and continue to do so) What aspect of the context would prove to you it was inauthentic? 
5. Given the same assumption, what would prove it authentic? - to you of course
6. Have you been able to refute anything in those notes yet on a factual basis?  Have you even tried?

Your whining, post after post, is incredibly tiresome and awfully revealing of your inability to understand what you're told and move on.  The patience Leslie has offered you with reply after reply is WAY more than anyone else would do for you here.

If it turns out to not be authentic, so be it.  You repeating your position ad nauseam changes nothing here, you get that right?  Better hi-res scans will not change anything either, you get that right? Is it you simply can't let it go?  You've appointed yourself "Authenticity Cop"? But only for this item of evidence... 
 

The job of the JFK community in this instance is CONTEXTUAL VERIFICATION.  How about, Stop inventing people's positions and then try to hold their feet to the fire for some kind of answer to the made up position YOU invented.  Akin to "do you still beat your wife".  Having to take the time to unravel your terrible assumptions only wastes resources better served elsewhere.

Do you make it a practice to whine like this in the rest of your life. or do you save it only for us here?

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

having encountered insurmountable obstacles to secure the preliminary reports from Aginsky and Thorne

@Greg Doudna   4 times in the same post Greg.   And explained to you in previous posts repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly...  Gets annoying, doesn't it?

It's a good thing I'm aware of the means available for forum-sliding and disruption huh?  Are you doing this by accident or is this something you've practiced?  thing is you're an intelligent guy... you seem to know exactly what you're doing

Recognize any of these?

 

 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

So who you gonna contact first Greg? Aginsky or Thorne?

  

 

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

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

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

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

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

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

LS Go for it.

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

LS That is now an inaccurate statement.  Please retract.

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

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

[David Josephs]

Just now, Greg Doudna said:

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

I know exactly what you're doing Greg.  It's shameful, self-centered and childish.

And you still have not answered a single one of my questions...  In psychology that's deflection

In reality it just means you're full of ##-it

 

[Greg Doudna]

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

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

I stand by what I wrote though. 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

24 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

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

Truer words have rarely been spoken on this forum. Thanks for at least trying to fight the good fight, Greg.

[Leslie Sharp]

27 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

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

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

I stand by what I wrote though. 

 

Geez Greg! the written report on the forensic testing that has been done from Leslie which she has now said she has in hand, have at it.

I have said repeatedly that I have not been permitted access to the preliminary reports because they are under an NDA.

I said that I have the datebook in my possession.

 

You can't even get the basic facts straight, and you've spent two days spewing confusion.

 I don't think you're understanding what is going on. Do tell, Greg, what is going on.

[David Josephs]

32 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

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

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

I stand by what I wrote though. 

 

  Take your football and go home little boy

[Ed Berger]

@Leslie Sharp

I'm fairly certain we didn't refer to the flight; I think the story involves David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello. It blends into the Winnipeg bar story, and gets even murkier when Souetre is alleged to have gotten drunk and spilled the beans.  Too hard to nail down, BUT, if you've come across Winnipeg native Burt Sucharov (sp?? writing from memory here) in Coup yet, and his alleged tie to John Wilson-Hudson . . . 

Ah, I might be mis-remembering then... I'll have to go back on my notes and check out what I had on Cuba and Freeport nickel affairs that linked up to Canada. And to be quite honest Burt Sucharov was totally unknown to me until reading CiD. There's an interesting story I did come across concerning Sucharov, that he moved 1500 surplus rail cars from Canada's War Assets Administration to Argentina in 1945. This was via a company he was involved with called Sumac, where he was joined by one Andrew MacNaughton. MacNaughton seems to have become a somewhat notorious arms dealer in the Caribbean and Latin America; there's an article about him lodged in Mitch WerBell's security file.

I've tracked the Vanderbilt angle because an heiress married Northern Ireland investor John Adair and together they established the JA Ranch with Charles Goodnight in the Palo Duro Canyon located in the Texas Panhandle.  Amarillo, as you know, was HQ for Crichton's Dorchester, with Byrd on the board... An heir to the JA married into the Symington family — Stuart Symington first Sec. Air Force and partner with Clark Clifford during the BCCI debacle.

Fascinating! Do you know to what degree the Adairs might have crossed paths with Crichton down in Amarillo? I'm thinking about Crichton's latter day Arabian Shield company, which if memory serves correctly was actually formed through Dorchester. One of the investors at one point into Arabian Shield was Kamal Adham, the Saudi intelligence chief who was in turn a major stockholder in BCCI.

I don't think we nailed down McNutt with WCC.  That would be most interesting.

I've come across McNutt as a figure within the WCC itself, but I'm still working on confirming that—there's a ton of WCC materials in the Edward Stettinius papers archive that I'm hoping to get at soon, which should yield some great stuff in all directions. But at the very least we can say that McNutt was definitely involved in a WCC 'adjunct' company. In this case, the Philippine American Finance and Development Company. This was a venture dedicated to gold and other precious metals mining in the Philippines, with Stettinius a key player, along with McNutt's often business partner Joseph Hirshhorn (who was involved in funny stock deals of his own). 

I need to refresh my memory of Fassoulis.

Tomorrow afternoon or so I'll post some of my Fassoulis notes in the WCC/JFK thread you made the other day. 

 I think I shared that Hilton is named in Lafitte's ledger, along with Rosser Reeves who was a brother-in-law of Ogilvie, an original signature of World Commerce if we're not mistaken? 

The fact that Hilton is in the ledger is HUGE imo (and would also narrow the gap with other important figures, like Frank Brandstetter). And wow, I had no idea that Reeves was the brother-in-law of David Ogilvy. But yeah Ogilvy was at WCC in its foundation, back when it was known as the British American Canadian Corporation. In fact, the Ogilvy papers at the Library of Congress has BACC/WCC materials... another item on the long list of things to try and grab.

Have you looked into the stolen bonds scheme?  Cuban / American mercenaries seem fond of them as income streams? I could never figure out why.  And worked with the hypothesis that Otto and Ilse opted for nickel bonds rather than suitcases of money.

Definitely come across all sorts of funny business with the paper generated by the metals trade. Certificates and the like of precious metals—gold and silver, chiefly—are a favorite instrument of money laundering for drug traffickers and all manner of underworld denizens. There's various reasons for this, but part of it has to do with logistics. A slip of paper is easier transported than a suitcase of money, and the metal that the paper represents can be easily translated into any currency on the planet and back again. And all the while, the physical stockpile of metal can be exchanged any number of times without ever having to be moved the vault where it's sitting, because it is really the proof of ownership that is circulating instead.

One of the guys who helped innovate these mechanisms was Nicholas Deak, OSS veteran and lifelong CIA asset.

Are you seeing heroin, cocaine, the Corsicans, in this scenario? It has been posited that the Rat Lines served more than one purpose.

Absolutely!! On the one hand, the flourishing postwar drug trade catalyzed a lot of the metal scheming (which eventually drove thing to the point where drug traffickers were buying up metal mines—or perhaps this was there in the beginning...). On the other hand, the huge profit revenues of the trade were frequently laundered into investments in 'legitimate' businesses. It will take some thrashing out, but I believe this is what was happening in the case of David Baird's securities dealing foundations. Pealing that back shows a bewildering circulation of stock purchases, swaps, and sales by a high number of players in even more companies. It certainly looks like some form of money laundering on a massive scale taking place. And when you have Conrad Hilton participating in that, William Zeckendorf of Great Southwest participating, Floyd Odlum of Atlas Corporation participating...

The banker who ran all of that was Serge Semenenko, formerly of First National Bank of Boston, a man who knew both George de Mohrenschildt and Frank Brandstetter. He managed it all in accounts at Marine Midland, located at 120 Broadway, the Equitable Trust building in New York City. This is the same building where Empire Trust had it's HQ. 

Here's an interesting message from Floyd Odlum concerning the delivery of Atlas Corporation stock to David Baird, to be used as collateral for a promissory note. It's a really neat document: the man who Odlum addresses it to is none other than our familiar friend Stafford Sands.

Nailing this down seems very pertinent to me, since it never stopped and has only ballooned. There's the unforgettable charge made in 2009 by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that during the 2008 financial crisis, major global banks were soaking up drug money as a source of liquid investment capital when all other capital streams were frozen. 

Some argue the Order of St. John is not the Knights of Malta; my history says they are one and the same.

You know, it's interesting: I have a friend who is a real OSJ watcher who started off being skeptical of the claim that the OSJ was affiliated with the 'real' Knights of Malta, due to the apparent non-existence of the Russian lineage that they cite. But after amassing a large number of internal OSJ documents over the years, he has come to believe that IS connected to the real K of M, albeit in a different manner than what they state. 

On the topic of weird metal stuff, he's shown me a document from one OSJ man's archival papers, discussing the induction of one of Willoughby's boys from the Philippines into the order. The person in question is described as the world's expert on Yamashita's Gold, or something along those lines. 

Gonna read what you posted from the paperback edition now! 
 

[Ron Bulman]

47 minutes ago, Ed Berger said:

I've tracked the Vanderbilt angle because an heiress married Northern Ireland investor John Adair and together they established the JA Ranch with Charles Goodnight in the Palo Duro Canyon located in the Texas Panhandle.  Amarillo, as you know, was HQ for Crichton's Dorchester, with Byrd on the board... An heir to the JA married into the Symington family — Stuart Symington first Sec. Air Force and partner with Clark Clifford during the BCCI debacle.

Fascinating! Do you know to what degree the Adairs might have crossed paths with Crichton down in Amarillo? I'm thinking about Crichton's latter day Arabian Shield company, which if memory serves correctly was actually formed through Dorchester. One of the investors at one point into Arabian Shield was Kamal Adham, the Saudi intelligence chief who was in turn a major stockholder in BCCI.

Not to digress from the datebook but this threw me for a loop.  Seeing Charles Goodnight in a post about the JFKA made me stop and think, huh?  I fully understand it in the context of the two above comments after reading them.  But first seeing Goodnight's name did stun me, which led to chuckles as I read on about the connections, as Ed said, fascinating. 

I have J Evetts Haley's book on Goodnight.  I've been to his replicated dug out in Palo Duro Canyon as well as his home, the historical center. 

Charles and Mary Ann Goodnight Ranch State Historic Site | THC.Texas.gov - Texas Historical Commission

Goodnight was my G-G-G Grandfathers close neighbor (two listings away) on the 1860 Palo Pinto County census.  That year he was one of 96 volunteer rangers, for which Goodnight was a scout, which participated in the capture of Cyntia Ann Parker.  The basis of John Wayne's The Searchers.

I just discovered personally this historical jewel myself a couple of weeks ago, courtesy of a Dublin, Tx library DVD.  From 107 years ago.  Film in it's infancy, for Dr. Joseph Mc Bride.

 Old Texas (1916) (texasarchive.org)

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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

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

I stand by what I wrote though. 

 

GD is exasperated, but it remains true:

No one in the JFKA research community knows if the datebook is a fraud or not. 

Documents that cannot be verified are inherently dubious. 

A warning: 

Antonio Veciana was a verified  CIA and military-intel asset. Not a dubious character at all, in terms of his involvement in the milieu. 

Late in life, Veciana then wrote a book, and appeared in public, stating he had met LHO and David Atlee Phillips in Dallas together, shortly before the JFKA.  I watched the public meeting with shivers down my spine.  It somewhat validated a pet theory of mine (false flag op gone awry). 

John Newman then carefully examined the story, and wrote about various uncertain aspects of the purported meeting. 

Another solid researcher has ventured Veciana was likely not a bad guy, but only trying to drum up some money for his family before he died. 

Perhaps the author(s) of the datebook had similar motives. 

Someone knowledgable, good doc researcher.  

It would be nice to have the datebook independently authenticated. 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[David Josephs]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

GD is exasperated, but it remains true:

No one in the JFKA research community knows if the datebook is a fraud or not.

No one here can understand why GD avoids answering any question about authenticity covering the entire JFKA body of evidence and decided to die on this hill.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Perhaps the author(s) of the datebook had similar motives. 

Someone knowledgable, good doc researcher.

Nice back-handed insult Ben.   So you're saying a large group of people familiar with the documents could probably work together to uncover if there are any CONTEXTUAL  problems with the notes, since we already have verification the physical properties are authentic.

I wonder where we can find a group of people like that? Right @Greg Doudna ?

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

It would be nice to have the datebook independently authenticated

It would have been nice if our own government did a real investigation...  But wait!  The entire thing was a cover-up to implicate a "Patsy".   We've all talked about an invisible entity which operates to maintain balance in the world for the "owners" - here we have a potential glimpse into such an entity and instead of doing a little research, doing a little work, we get a handful of whiners who don't seem to actually understand authenticity in the first place.

When - in your mind then - did "authentic" ever equate to "true" ?  Do you not see the problem with Authenticity specific to this case.   Veciana was part of the entire process... Veciana was trying to shift the blame from Military Intel to the CIA - on purpose (which was the case in many, many areas of the case... @Steve Thomas work on the Lt. Colonels is masterful - and the docs in CONTEXT help to verify.  How does that relate to LaFitte beyond your personal speculations?  

So we are back to whether Lafitte and the players in the notes and the events in the notes can be CONTEXTUALLY VERIFIED, regardless of the authenticity.

The autopsy photos we see may be authentic... but they're a lie.

Where anyone gets the idea I have not repeatedly said we, as a group, need to verify the context... for as I've seen first hand in the evidence, authenticity is virtually impossible for third party work until you find areas which conflict with the know history, or elements within their stories are provably false.

Q for you Ben... you think Judy Baker is "authentic"?

 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by David Josephs

[Benjamin Cole]

32 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

No one here can understand why GD avoids answering any question about authenticity covering the entire JFKA body of evidence and decided to die on this hill.

Nice back-handed insult Ben.   So you're saying a large group of people familiar with the documents could probably work together to uncover if there are any CONTEXTUAL  problems with the notes, since we already have verification the physical properties are authentic.

I wonder where we can find a group of people like that? Right @Greg Doudna ?

It would have been nice if our own government did a real investigation...  But wait!  The entire thing was a cover-up to implicate a "Patsy".   We've all talked about an invisible entity which operates to maintain balance in the world for the "owners" - here we have a potential glimpse into such an entity and instead of doing a little research, doing a little work, we get a handful of whiners who don't seem to actually understand authenticity in the first place.

When - in your mind then - did "authentic" ever equate to "true" ?  Do you not see the problem with Authenticity specific to this case.   Veciana was part of the entire process... Veciana was trying to shift the blame from Military Intel to the CIA - on purpose (which was the case in many, many areas of the case... @Steve Thomas work on the Lt. Colonels is masterful - and the docs in CONTEXT help to verify.  How does that relate to LaFitte beyond your personal speculations?  

So we are back to whether Lafitte and the players in the notes and the events in the notes can be CONTEXTUALLY VERIFIED, regardless of the authenticity.

The autopsy photos we see may be authentic... but they're a lie.

Where anyone gets the idea I have not repeatedly said we, as a group, need to verify the context... for as I've seen first hand in the evidence, authenticity is virtually impossible for third party work until you find areas which conflict with the know history, or elements within their stories are provably false.

Q for you Ben... you think Judy Baker is "authentic"?

 

 

DJ-

I do not understand the acerbic tone in comments. 

I would be very interested in the datebook, as an important clue in resolving the JFKA. 

Of course, there has been JFKA docs and artifacts monkeyed with, and by government actors likely. I try to not to rely on such docs and artifacts, if I I suspect they have been monkeyed with. 

Then, there are genuine docs, but likely full of false information. intentionally misleading docs, filed by Harvey or others. Same pathwas---I try to avoid. 

---

I am unaware the Lafitte physical datebook itself has been independently authenticated, as a bona fide period piece from 1963, by an uninterested third party.  Please fill me in on this. 

 

 

 

 

 

[David Josephs]

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I do not understand the acerbic tone in comments. 

We all have limits Ben.   When an individual member has so lost sight of the topic and conversation we all are left wondering how someone with that level of intelligence is doing what they're doing - in obvious parrot-style.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

 Reread the thread.  Read what Leslie wrote, and read what GD does, post after post, and then tell me what he and you are doing does not resemble this:

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Leslie offered the names of the people who performed the analysis.  She explains the situation, repeatedly, but you and GD seem to be on some crusade to create proof of something which has already been dated correctly...  Only thing left is for knowledgable people to analyze and discuss the book written and the context of the notes.

BTW, GD can also try and acquire the report himself... the information has been offered. REPEATEDLY.  He chose to die on this hill.

Why does your buddy not like to address any single question put to him but is more than willing to ask the same question 50 times in the same thread and get indignant?  You don't call him out for anything - even though the answers stares him in the face?  He seems to like to copy>paste other's posts and then use boiler plate tactics to dig in, like a tick, in some attempt to invoke authority.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

20 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am unaware the Lafitte physical datebook itself has been independently authenticated, as a bona fide period piece from 1963, by an uninterested third party.  Please fill me in on this. 

Start at page 1 and reread the thread Ben.  It is so sad that with the wealth of knowledge the members here have that GD didn't have the sense or the consideration to back away from his losing battle and let people discuss the notes and their meaning without his constant whining about things he can't see or understand.

When a voice of reason arrives and states his case eloquently, 

 And here is where GD launches into tactics...  by telling us, incorrectly, what another poster is saying/meaning which creates a new FALSE NARRATIVE of the situation.  The simple logic of his argument is so poor as to be comical... but ahead he pushes keeping people from having a productive discussion.  And you cheer.

 

35 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Of course, there has been JFKA docs and artifacts monkeyed with, and by government actors likely. I try to not to rely on such docs and artifacts, if I I suspect they have been monkeyed with.

Be specific Ben... it's important.  Which JFKA "docs/artifacts" immediately come to mind ?  Furthermore, the fact you conclude they are "monkeyed" with means what to you? There is nothing to be learned from the who, what, where and why of the fraud?

OCHOA added incriminating notes to the FM logs in Mexico before sending them to the FBI - "to help out" he said.  Before I mentioned him OCHOA was a ghost not mentioned in any MX discussion.
OCHOA provided the fraudulent tourist visa cards.  The forged Hotel Registry.

And from this you conclude there is nothing to learn? 

Judy Baker... authentic?  How would you know one way or the other Ben?  I know cause I proved it with items no one considered before and which Fetzer took as "authentic" when it was an obvious and blatant l-i-e.  But it reveals so much about the situation.

Separate from the physical characteristics, how would YOU like to know this is authentic?  IOW what does the authentic "seal of approval" look like to you - accepting the physical elements have been proven?

The HSCA handwriting expert's reports - do you take that as authentic and valid - what about truthful?  why or why not?  

Do I ask too many question and have too many expectations that you will address these items, probably.  But as long as you maybe think about some of these example, go look at some of these example, maybe you'd have a better appreciation for what AUTHENTIC means in this case.

One of only a few cases in history where non-governmentally affiliated witness testimony is more important than the steaming pile of horse manure the government investigations calls authentic physical evidence.

And it seem everyone but GD is aware of this distinction, while you defend him....

Sorry if my approach bothers you when my patience finally wears thin due to someone's inability to accept the reality of a situation while making it his mission to illustrate how much of an expert he is and keep people from having serious discourse on an important subject.

Acerbic: "sharp and forthright".   I'll take that as a compliment

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein

Right, like spending the past 20-plus years touting the absolutely laughable and absurd idea that Lee Oswald was part of a secret government doppelganger program along with his imaginary "brother," Harvey, or that virtually every piece of evidence in the Kennedy assassination has been faked or altered .. at least until you need these documents to be authentic to support your beliefs ...