Pierre Lafitte datebook, 1963

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Sorry, Paypal is no longer possible in SE Asia for non-nationals.

Also I am reluctant to spend money on--financially support--a possibly fraudulent operation. 

If you wish to send me a PDF, you can.

I prefer you cease criticizing a book you've never read.  Your opinion related to the datebook is, just that, an opinion; but you've no concept of the (potential) significance until you read Coup.

[David Josephs]

26 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

David, The first people in the TSBD are Elsworth and the rest of his ATF group... then it's Gerald Hill of the DPD, Mooney, Boone and Weitzman are all sheriffs.   If someone from the DPD planted it, when and who? 

This is the same Elsworth running a sting, or some operation to bust up a weapons transfer that morning?  I don't have the details in front of me, so disregard the specifics for now; but if you can, confirm this is the ATF guy? 

Our interest is that the warehouse office of Ferenc Nagy was within walking distance of the  Elsworth's car chase?  Was Nagy storing an arms shipment? Did the men who showed up on Odio's doorstep in Magellan Circle, Casa Linda, knock on the wrong door? Were they looking for Nagy?  Or was Odio living near Nagy for a reason?

 

Yes, Elsworth was onto John Masen - who he said resembled Oswald.  Masen bought and sold 6.5 cal ammo fitting the Carcano

[Benjamin Cole]

7 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I prefer you cease criticizing a book you've never read.  Your opinion related to the datebook is, just that, an opinion; but you've no concept of the (potential) significance until you read Coup.

LS-

I am not criticizing a book I have never read. 

I am doing what any member of the JFKA research community should be doing: demanding verification or debunking of the datebook, by an independent panel of experts, in a secure, neutral location. 

My position is entirely defensible, even a necessity. 

Any other course of action is not defensible. 

[Ron Bulman]

I don't think DPD planted them, they allowed it to happen.

[David Josephs]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS-

I am not criticizing a book I have never read. 

I am doing what any member of the JFKA research community should be doing: demanding verification or debunking of the datebook, by an independent panel of experts, in a secure, neutral location. 

My position is entirely defensible, even a necessity. 

Any other course of action is not defensible. 

Ben, we have an independent panel of experts right here.  If we can't offer a coherent reason for it to be a fraud in the first place, there's a problem, no?

So let's ask you...  did they try and authenticate this note written by Hoover basically proving he was aware the CIA transcripts of calls were only so much CIA "double dealing".  and hmmm, FRENCH espionage activities in the USA?

Why aren't you screaming about any of the thousands of notes, and documents which supposedly prove one thing or another.

What about the docs below - real or frauds?  when I introduced them into the narrative after digging and finding them in the new release, I didn't hear any huge backlash or call for authentication as I was proving yet another false narrative.

You really need to know better than this Ben.  Asking what you are 60 times in the same thread is a bit cumbersome, no?

All you want is something maybe not possible or even done with 99% of the evidence.  I mean what comes to your mind as JFK evidence of a revelation which needed authentication?  Sibert/O'Neil report?

How about the freaking Zapruder film?  do you realize that hasn't even been authenticated?

So no Ben, you can't just feign innocence and claim all you want is a 100% guarantee.  Read the book, pick a team and get into the game...   or just wait patiently while some of us interested in actually testing the merits of the notes, do our work.  We promise to let you know how it turns out

 

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by David Josephs

[Leslie Sharp]

9 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I don't think DPD planted them, they allowed it to happen.

agree.

[Benjamin Cole]

13 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Ben, we have an independent panel of experts right here.  If we can't offer a coherent reason for it to be a fraud in the first place, there's a problem, no?

So let's ask you...  did they try and authenticate this note written by Hoover basically proving he was aware the CIA transcripts of calls were only so much CIA "double dealing".  and hmmm, FRENCH espionage activities in the USA?

Why aren't you screaming about any of the thousands of notes, and documents which supposedly prove one thing or another.

What about these?  when I introduced them into the narrative after digging and finding them in the new release, I didn't here any huge backlash or call for authentication as I was proving yet another false narrative.

You really need to know better than this Ben.  Asking what you are 60 times in the same thread is a bit cumbersome, no?

All you want is something maybe not possible or even done with 99% of the evidence.  I mean what comes to your mind as JFK evidence of a revelation which needed authentication?  Sibert/O'Neil report?

How about the freaking Zapruder film?  do you realize that hasn't even been authenticated?

So no Ben, you can't just feign innocence and claim all you want is a 100% guarantee.  Read the book, pick a team and get into the game...   or just wait patiently while some of us interest in actually testing the merits of the notes, do our work.  We promise to let you know how it turns out

 

 

DJ-

We are just on different pages on this one. 

There are people better versed than me on the practices of authenticating documents. The bare minimum is the placement of document into secure location, and review by an independent panel of experts---experts who also conduct their review in a transparent, accountable manner. 

I would prefer the datebook be authenticated before presenting it to the world as proof of a Nazi-inspired JFKA. This seems basic to me. 

Much of the info in the datebook may be accurate. That could be the result of reverse-engineering from public records. Find something in the public record, place a hint to it in the datebook, using period paper and pens. 

It has been known for decades that Isaac Levine wanted to make a film blaming commies for the JFKA. Stick a mention of Levine into the datebook.

Ditto two rifles into the building--the Caster story. 

As for motives to create a bogus datebook, that is beyond my ken. The motives are unimportant. Only ascertaining the authenticity of the datebook is important. 

Why was the phony McCone-Rowley memo fabricated? 

In other circumstances, phony docs were created for monetary reasons. The Hitler Dairies. 

In this case, possibly the motive is to create phony doc that is received with acclaim in he JFKA community, and then is spectacularly debunked. 

Or possibly to lead researchers away from the true assassins--Miami exiles--and onto Nazis. 

Verifying or debunking the datebook is a crucial first step. 

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DJ--you have done excellent documents work.

But if you felt a document was a phony, what was your response?

Thanks Ben.

Contextual verification.   I'm aware that documents are created for dis-information all the time.  Just like blimps are made to appear like aircraft that aren't there on radar screens.

In regular docs of the case, in many cases you find references to the doc in other documents as well as pre/post action reports related to what was said in the doc.

In this case, all we really have is information in the form of the notes on certain days.

Contextual verification.   If you don't know the stories, the docs and the obscure - as well as read the book - how can you hope to know what it being "authenticated" means?  Easy, research.

Have you been thru all 30,000 docs released since 2017?  Many, many have no date, no related info... nothing.
You have the internet, access to MFF and all the new records...  you combing thru to share found nuggets of potential wisdom or you just waiting for others to do the work and tell you what's what.

How would you know THEY are authentic?  would you even care?

[Leslie Sharp]

24 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS-

I am not criticizing a book I have never read. 

I am doing what any member of the JFKA research community should be doing: demanding verification or debunking of the datebook, by an independent panel of experts, in a secure, neutral location. 

My position is entirely defensible, even a necessity. 

Any other course of action is not defensible. 

I believe that is unfolding here, Ben.  

I recognize experts on the assassination when I encounter them. Greg Doudna is not one.

However, and thankfully, there are several who are now engaging in the deliberations.

Those EF forum assassination experts that appear to be opting out of the discussion are doing so of their own accord.  

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

[David Josephs]

Just now, Benjamin Cole said:

DJ-

We are just on different pages on this one. 

Yeah, another trite comeback you're so fond of offering.

Ben.. it appears to me you're not even in the same book, let alone on the same page.

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Verifying or debunking the datebook is a crucial first step. 

That's what we're doing here Ben. 

 

7 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Why was the phony McCone-Rowley memo fabricated? 

Tell us Ben.  And how was it uncovered?

 

[Leslie Sharp]

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DJ-

We are just on different pages on this one. 

There are people better versed than me on the practices of authenticating documents. The bare minimum is the placement of document into secure location, and review by an independent panel of experts---experts who also conduct their review in a transparent, accountable manner. 

I would prefer the datebook be authenticated before presenting it to the world as proof of a Nazi-inspired JFKA. This seems basic to me. 

Much of the info in the datebook may be accurate. That could be the result of reverse-engineering from public records. Find something in the public record, place a hint to it in the datebook, using period paper and pens. 

It has been known for decades that Isaac Levine wanted to make a film blaming commies for the JFKA. Stick a mention of Levine into the datebook.

Ditto two rifles into the building--the Caster story. 

As for motives to create a bogus datebook, that is beyond my ken. The motives are unimportant. Only ascertaining the authenticity of the datebook is important. 

Why was the phony McCone-Rowley memo fabricated? 

In other circumstances, phony docs were created for monetary reasons. The Hitler Dairies. 

In this case, possibly the motive is to create phony doc that is received with acclaim in he JFKA community, and then is spectacularly debunked. 

Or possibly to lead researchers away from the true assassins--Miami exiles--and onto Nazis. 

Verifying or debunking the datebook is a crucial first step. 

 

@Benjamin Cole, I'm reassured that you are capable of having a reasonable discussion; I wish you had exercised similar decorum when we first engaged.

Certain of your observations are valid; I'll challenge those that aren't:

It wasn't known that Levine was "assigned" to Marina as early as November 28, or that Declan Ford — Marina's host for a brief period in his home in Richardson in early 1964 where Levine showed up to talk with her — had been the deGolyer MacNaughton man on the ground in Madrid during the Algur Meadows - Otto Skorzeny oil scheme.  Nor was it known that Clifford Foster shared a friendship with Levine's benefactor - China Lobby founder - s well as Otto Skorzeny.  Ref. to John McCloy of the Warren Commission who seconded Dulles' recommendation that Levine's book on a lone assassin profile be considered as the "bible" during WC deliberations, was the exec. officer of Chase Bank; his representative in Madrid was Victor Oswald, global arms dealer in business with Otto Skorzeny who had proposed that McCloy support his plan to maintain a 200,000 man reserve made up of "retired" Nazis.

We only note that the November 20 datebook entry related to arms in the building coincides with Warren Caster's lunchtime shopping trip. We've yet to draw a conclusion.

Have you studied the evolution of the Hitler Diaries? I have, and I see no parallels to Hank's gumshoe detective work that landed him on the doorstep of a widow who had never attempted to "sell" her husband's private records.
 

In this case, possibly the motive is to create phony doc that is received with acclaim in he JFKA community, and then is spectacularly debunked. 

Or possibly to lead researchers away from the true assassins--Miami exiles--and onto Nazis. 

Valid concerns, Ben, among several we have considered over the past four years. To your first concern, had we sought acclaim in the "community" we probably would have gone about it differently, I assure you. The reaction was split from the outset ... not moderately, but significantly with very few tepid reactions to Coup, as anticipated. You would need to be more familiar with the character of those who contributed to ensuring this project through to publication to understand why I might be defensive. To a person, they have demonstrated nothing but integrity and objectivity. Fundamentally, they believed — as our publisher states — that Hank's investigation was worthy consideration. 

lead researchers away from the true assassins--Miami exiles--and onto Nazis.
I would posit that on the contrary — Coup has redirected the cold case murder investigation  to its original footing, the scene of the crime. Were the Miami exiles patsies?

[Greg Doudna]

33 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

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

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

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

[Greg Doudna]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

"On Hank's behalf, I should make clear he also believed strongly that the information from Ganis's Skorzeny collection which he presented in "The Skorzeny Papers" would some day prove invaluable to serious historians." (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29299-skorzenys-papers-in-context-of-albarellis-coup-in-dallas/)

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Leslie Sharp writes on page 8:

Quote

DUUM is Latin for the French word "deux".  Lafitte (fluent in French, btw) is noting that two rifles are in the building. on November 20.

My Latin is a bit rusty these days, but the word for the number two is duo, not duum.

Duum is one of the genitive forms of duo, and an archaic form at that. The standard Latin genitive form of duo would be duorum, not duum.

To clarify, 'genitive' refers to the possessive form of a noun. Whereas in English you might use 'of the' to indicate possession, in Latin you'd change the ending of the noun and its associated words: duo becomes duorum or (if you were being deliberately old-fashioned) duum.

Leslie's sentence, "two rifles are in the building", doesn't require the use of the genitive. To justify the word duum, the sentence would need to be something like "of the two rifles in the building". But this doesn't make sense if we look at the extract Andrej posted, which clearly contains the word 'into', not 'in'.

I suspect that the squiggle in question isn't DUUM at all. What it actually is, I've no idea, and until the datebook is properly authenticated, it doesn't really matter.

The Latin word duo is indeed, as Leslie implies, cognate with the French deux, though I fail to see why a native French speaker, when writing in English, would use an incorrect and archaic version of a Latin word when he could have written 'two' or 'deux'.

Sorry for the linguistic pedantry, but the DUUM question illustrates a basic problem with the Nostradamus-like nature of the datebook. There's too much vagueness, too much room for interpretation. I suspect that, like Nostradamus, the author or authors deliberately left things vague, so that readers could fill in the gaps themselves to fit whatever pre-conceived ideas they already have. That's part of its attraction: it's a puzzle to be solved.

On the subject of demonstrating the authenticity of the datebook, making a facsimile of the full manuscript publicly available would be only the beginning of the process. The main thing that needs to be verified by properly accredited experts is the physical object: the ink and the paper. If, as Leslie writes, "The disposition of the physical instrument is mine to make", and she has the power to get this essential task done, she should get things moving as soon as possible.

Who knows - despite what most people seem to think, it might turn out to be genuine after all!

[Chuck Schwartz]

Here is a review of "Coup in Dallas"..https://freepress.org/article/book-review-coup-dallas by Pete Johnson.  To quote  Pete Johnson, "Some might question the authenticity and importance of Lafitte's datebook prior to reading the book, but most will be convinced after reading 460 pages of analysis, or the hundred pages of notes following the book itself, including writing by Leslie Sharpe, Alan Kent, and Charles Drago. "