Pierre Lafitte datebook, 1963

[James DiEugenio]

I have deliberately stayed out of this whole argument for several reasons.

But what David just did with Greg was uncalled for. And the thing is, I agree on more issues with David than Greg.

The point though is this:  using Z film authenticity as a standard for book fraud is not a legitimate or even logical method of comparison.

First, the Zapruder film is a piece of evidence in a criminal case. Some might call it the most important piece of evidence one would present in court.

Would any prosecutor present a book as evidence in court?  If so, I would like to meet him.

Its apples and oranges.  I don't see the parallel.  And I also don't see the ire behind the maintaining of this false parallel.

Secondly, today the whole Z film history is pretty much out there, through people like Horne and Hornberger, and we also have the Zavada test. 

That is not the case with this book.  LS has not posted for everyone to see and study  any kind of testing regimen. In fact, as some have complained, even the reproductions in the book are not as clear as they should be.  And also Greg pointed out a serious discrepancy in the book, which David, on his soapbox, just seems to want to cast off. But its a major point.

Need I add, there have been books that ended up being exposed as fraudulent e.g. Appointment in Dallas, Regicide, Farewell America. And those are not the only ones.  For obvious reasons the JFK community has been a ripe target e.g. Ricki White.

Finally, the standard for this site had been to open up a thread on a new book and to have questions from interested parties. I do not recall an instance where two contributors to a book--LS and Robert M-- have opened multiple threads to publicize aspects of the book, sometimes 3-4 at a time.  Is this an attempt to indoctrinate the forum with this book?  Sort of like multiple IV needles in a hospital. 

If so, I appreciate the class shown by Alan Kent. 

PS This will be my first and last comment on the matter.  As its become a cesspool.

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Tom Gram]

5 hours 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. 

It hasn’t, and this thread makes it crystal clear that it probably never will.

Like Greg D. said, the responses to his comments in this thread are exactly what would be expected from a willful forgery operation. Greg Parker pointed out that Greg D. was effectively bullied into quitting.

 https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2714p25-reality-checks#42423

The “situation”, as DJ calls it, is that the purveyors of the datebook are determined to immediately squash any discussion of authenticity and shift focus back to the datebook entries, which as Greg D. pointed out is a common modus operandi in forgery cases. 

This isn’t rocket science people. Until the datebook is authenticated beyond reasonable doubt by an uninterested expert third party, the datebook entries are beyond worthless as evidence. 

We don’t even have publicly accessible photographs of the entire datebook ffs. 

I will answer DJ’s ridiculous question about an authentic “seal of approval”. This is toddler level, bare-minimum due diligence, and any JFK researcher in their right mind should demand at least the following before accepting the datebook as anything more than another lame conspiracy scam in the tradition of JVB, James Files, and the McCone-Rowley memo. 

1. An independent scientific examination of the paper, ink, and handwriting of the datebook with the conclusion that all the entries were written by Pierre Laffite in 1963, with an accompanying report on the analysis that anyone can read. 

2. An open-access collection of HD images of the entire datebook. 

Instead of providing the above, or encouraging conversation and collaboration towards making it happen, the datebookers  have deflected with tactics ranging from semi-coherent word-salad to outright bullying, personal attacks, and accusing skeptics of being a cointelpro agent. Why should anyone have to put up with that sort of thing? The way Greg was treated in this thread is appalling.

Should we really just bend over and allow the Education Forum to be turned into an ongoing sales pitch for an almost certain forgery? The JFK research community has enough credibility problems already. Like Jeremy B. (I think?) said, do we really need a Hitler Diaries type forgery gaining traction leading up to the 60th anniversary? The question of authenticity is the only question that matters with this thing - and until the datebook is determined to be authentic beyond a reasonable doubt, I see no reason to not to treat the entire operation like a full-blown fraud at this point.

Kudos to Greg D. for exposing the problems with the datebook from almost day one, and continuing to expose the ridiculous and revealing behavior of its proponents. 

If the datebookers want to regain any semblance of credibility, they should 1) apologize to Greg; 2) take Greg’s advice and segregate information derived from credible sources from information derived from the datebook in all future posts, comments, essays, etc.;  3) demonstrate willingness, intent, and legitimate progress towards making the entire datebook publicly available in HD photographs, etc. and having the datebook examined by independent experts; and perhaps most importantly 4) demonstrate willingness to disavow the datebook if it is proven to be a fake. 

I am absolutely baffled by the sheer lack of skepticism by DJ and some of the other datebook defenders. This alleged datebook purports to be the most blatant evidence of conspiracy to ever pop up in the last 60 years, and yet here we have people uncritically gobbling up comically incriminating entries like “rifle into building” as if they actually mean something before establishing even a basic level of confidence that Lafitte actually wrote the damn thing, let alone wrote it in ‘63.

These questions about authenticity are not going away, and instead of jumping on anyone who raises the issue, questioning their motives, and bullying them into giving up, why not accept that the vast majority of reasonable observers are going to think that you are willfully peddling a fraud until you take steps to resolve the authenticity of the datebook beyond a reasonable doubt, and make the entire datebook accessible to the public? What’s so hard to understand about that? 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Tom Gram]

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Finally, the standard for this site had been to open up a thread on a new book and to have questions from interested parties. I do not recall an instance where two contributors to a book--LS and Robert M-- have opened multiple threads to publicize aspects of the book, sometimes 3-4 at a time.  Is this an attempt to indoctrinate the forum with this book?  Sort of like multiple IV needles in a hospital. 

Well said. The front page is basically an ongoing ad for CID. The mods should enforce this standard so the Ed Forum can’t be used as a marketing platform. 

[Paul Brancato]

I’m going to jump in here. I did make my own position clear by defending Greg’s questions as important and well meaning. I value Mr. Joseph’s contributions to the JFK research community greatly, but find it hard to see why he is arguing so vociferously against the posters who are harping on the issue of authentication. I’m a bit more inside than most of you in that I communicated with Hank several times on his research, not on the Lafitte diaries, before his untimely passing. I think Leslie feels a certain imperative because she was a close associate of Hank’s and worked like hell to get the book finished. I’ve asked her publicly not to take umbrage at Greg and others for their questions. She feels, rightly or wrongly, attacked. I too wish, and have stated, that I’d like to see her take a more collaborative approach. I know she has tried to get the diaries authenticated. She is apparently keeping some cards close to her vest because of legal issues. She has a lot at stake. For the sake of all, let’s try giving her a pass while we ask her to be less dogmatic. 
Robert Montenegro has stated publicly that he used the datebook entries as clues to research, and he has certainly started many deeply intriguing threads. We should not look at his work as an attempt to corroborate authenticity. He stated in that regard that he finds it hard to understand why a fake would yield such pertinent results. But he is not staking his work or credibility on authenticity of the diaries. 
One important issue I am concerned about is the accuracy of Hank Albarelli’s research into Jean Pierre Lafitte and George Hunter White. I wish all of us would separate this from the authenticity issue. I’d like Leslie to help here by addressing the issue of Hank’s source material. One cannot read the fascinating chapters on these two without wanting to know where Hank sourced the material. He often quotes, without quotation marks, things that Lafitte said. There is in my opinion a need to know this, because Lafitte is someone we need to know about. Again, without asking whether he was the organizer of the Assassination per the Datebook, who was he? Did Clay Shaw hire him as a chef? Did he and independent journalist James Phelan break into Garrison’s files and steal documents? I believe the source here is Phelan himself. 
The other only partly resolved issue is what happened between Major Ganis and Hank Albarelli? And as Leslie pointed out, why hasn’t Ganis released his Skorzeny documents for authentication and opened them up to researchers? But I will point out here that whatever the case is on this author’s split up, Robert has found much on Skorzeny, and we should want to get to the bottom of the research into genuine Nazi collusion with CIA operations. It’s very extensive, provable. What is the connection between JMWAVE officers and Reinhardt Gehlen? Here I would ask people like Greg, and Tom, who are clearly thoughtful researchers, as well as Jim D, Bill Simpich and others, to take a moment or two, forget the diaries for a while, and focus on Robert’s attempts to corroborate the explosive info that the diaries led him to uncover? In all this discussion I have heard very little from researchers on the Nazi links, despite some very convincing documentation. Is it too much to ask that you weigh in on this? 
My last question is why? If the diaries are really written by Lafitte in whole or even in part, why? I realize that without authentication it’s difficult to try to answer this. But it intrigues me. 
 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Ken Davies]

9 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Well said. The front page is basically an ongoing ad for CID. The mods should enforce this standard so the Ed Forum can’t be used as a marketing platform. 

Well said, Tom. Where are the mods on this?

[W. Niederhut]

54 minutes ago, Ken Davies said:

Well said, Tom. Where are the mods on this?

Yes, and we now have yet another forum thread-- a duplicate-- on the subject of the authenticity of the Lafitte Datebook, which has been discussed so eloquently on this thread.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Yes, and we now have yet another forum thread-- a duplicate-- on the subject of the authenticity of the Lafitte Datebook, which has been discussed so eloquently on this thread.

I guess you mean Ben's new fake datebook thread?

[W. Niederhut]

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I guess you mean Ben's new fake datebook thread?

Yes, curiously, Ben started a duplicate thread on the subject of the Datebook's authenticity, while simultaneously recommending that duplicate threads on the subject should be consolidated... 🙄

 

[Andrej Stancak]

On 7/30/2023 at 11:31 PM, Leslie Sharp said:

LS This sort of reads like an advertisement for your services?

Leslie: you have asked how I recovered the details of the message with "DPD" in in one of your posts addressed to me. I only humbly explained how I did it; it was not my intention to advertise my "services";

[Andrej Stancak]

On 7/30/2023 at 11:31 PM, Leslie Sharp said:

LS With respect, you are not the arbiter of my responsibilities.

The responsibilities are not set by me but by the research community. If I refrained to present source data to the research community (researchers, editorial boards of journals, any member of the public), the journals and my university would be all over me. You seem to come from a different world in which only Authors have the right to analyse primary data and draw their conclusions. 

I regret to conclude that you are not going to allow free access to high-resolution copies of the datebook pages you seem to have at your disposal which for me is the end of the datebook case.

The rest - the access to the whole Lafitte's datebook - is the task for both the law-enforcement institutions and all interested members of the research community, and I understand you are not pursuing this path.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

On 7/30/2023 at 11:19 PM, Ron Bulman said:

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)

Ron, I better understand your appreciation for that area of Texas!  Great story, and links.  Thanks you.  

You might look into Adair and his marriage into the Vanderbilt dynasty. His Irish roots intrigued me; I suspect he knew the original Brown Bros. pre-BBH.

[Leslie Sharp]

On 7/31/2023 at 10:01 AM, James DiEugenio said:

I have deliberately stayed out of this whole argument for several reasons.

But what David just did with Greg was uncalled for. And the thing is, I agree on more issues with David than Greg.

The point though is this:  using Z film authenticity as a standard for book fraud is not a legitimate or even logical method of comparison.

First, the Zapruder film is a piece of evidence in a criminal case. Some might call it the most important piece of evidence one would present in court.

Would any prosecutor present a book as evidence in court?  If so, I would like to meet him.

Its apples and oranges.  I don't see the parallel.  And I also don't see the ire behind the maintaining of this false parallel.

Secondly, today the whole Z film history is pretty much out there, through people like Horne and Hornberger, and we also have the Zavada test. 

That is not the case with this book.  LS has not posted for everyone to see and study  any kind of testing regimen. In fact, as some have complained, even the reproductions in the book are not as clear as they should be.  And also Greg pointed out a serious discrepancy in the book, which David, on his soapbox, just seems to want to cast off. But its a major point.

Need I add, there have been books that ended up being exposed as fraudulent e.g. Appointment in Dallas, Regicide, Farewell America. And those are not the only ones.  For obvious reasons the JFK community has been a ripe target e.g. Ricki White.

Finally, the standard for this site had been to open up a thread on a new book and to have questions from interested parties. I do not recall an instance where two contributors to a book--LS and Robert M-- have opened multiple threads to publicize aspects of the book, sometimes 3-4 at a time.  Is this an attempt to indoctrinate the forum with this book?  Sort of like multiple IV needles in a hospital. 

If so, I appreciate the class shown by Alan Kent. 

PS This will be my first and last comment on the matter.  As its become a cesspool.

 

@James DiEugenio
Before you go, Jim, 


where two contributors to a book--LS and Robert M-

If you're going to opine, please do your homework: Robert Montenegro was NOT a contributor to Coup in Dallas.  
 

Is this an attempt to indoctrinate the forum with this book?  Sort of like multiple IV needles in a hospital. 

This is rich, Jim, coming from one who has rested on the laurels of the Garrison investigation and Oliver Stone's work for decades, without moving the needle of the cold case murder investigation. Perhaps that has been your particular reason for ghosting Albarelli's last investigation?  Or has it been simply the "bad blood" between you both since he defended an EF contributor's professionalism and human error?


If so, I appreciate the class shown by Alan Kent. 

I believe Alan Kent hung up his "community" spurs in the broad sense some while ago.

I know that Hank Albarelli opted out of "the community" for the very reason you cite here — he recognized the cesspool you and yours had been indulging long before Coup in Dallas was published.  "EF has become a nest of vipers" was an oft repeated phrase.

 

I hoped this platform had evolved and was ready to learn the latest facts in the cold case murder investigation.


The fact that Hank's exclusive investigation has thrown a wrench should not be lost on anyone.

With that, this will be my first and final communication with you on the matter.
 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The responsibilities are not set by me but by the research community. If I refrained to present source data to the research community (researchers, editorial boards of journals, any member of the public), the journals and my university would be all over me. You seem to come from a different world in which only Authors have the right to analyse primary data and draw their conclusions. 

I regret to conclude that you are not going to allow free access to high-resolution copies of the datebook pages you seem to have at your disposal which for me is the end of the datebook case.

The rest - the access to the whole Lafitte's datebook - is the task for both the law-enforcement institutions and all interested members of the research community, and I understand you are not pursuing this path.

 

Which research "community" are you referring to?  As mi esposo often notes; Geez, if this your "community," I'd reevaluate my judgment if I were you.

Have you spoken with a Dallas DA to reopen the case?  If so, please let me know: I will be on the first flight out and arrive on his or her doorstep with datebook in hand.

[Jonathan Cohen]

34 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

The fact that Hank's exclusive investigation has thrown a wrench should not be lost on anyone.

The only "wrench" it has thrown is further polluting a subject already rife with ridiculous theories and evidence-free speculation.

35 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

With that, this will be my first and final communication with you on the matter.

Promise?

[Leslie Sharp]

4 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The only "wrench" it has thrown is further polluting a subject already rife with ridiculous theories and evidence-free speculation.

Promise?

I WAS speaking directly to Jim D.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Leslie Sharp