Pierre Lafitte datebook, 1963

[Benjamin Cole]

44 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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. 

[Leslie Sharp]

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? 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Greg Doudna]

49 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Leslie Sharp]

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?

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Yes, I would object to interference as I have noted to prominent authors who have wanted to pursue Hank's sources but have deferred to professional ethics, and hopefully to me as a colleague, that they will not obstruct the process in play. They are each under Non-Disclosure Agreements. 

 

Coup in Dallas is a joint-work copyright; the material Hank intended to include in additional publication is under that copyright. Interference would be subject to legal challenge.

 

Do not worry that the datebook is in a safe and secure location. Do not worry that the examination is ongoing but unfortunately incomplete. Do not worry that I am taking all necessary steps to access additional exemplars for final authentication.

Now, who were you accusing of what, in your comment?

 

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.--LS

You are not an independent and objective source on the purported datebook. You have conflicts of interest. 

Any independent observer would have legitimate concerns regarding the location and security of the purported datebook, and if it is being updated as we speak. 

Why all the mumbo-jumbo and mystery? 

Where is the datebook, and will you agree to have it transferred immediately to a safe and secure location chosen by independent JFKA experts? 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Yes, I would object to interference as I have noted to prominent authors who have wanted to pursue Hank's sources but have deferred to professional ethics, and hopefully to me as a colleague, that they will not obstruct the process in play. They are each under Non-Disclosure Agreements. 

Coup in Dallas is a joint-work copyright; the material Hank intended to include in additional publication is under that copyright. Interference would be subject to legal challenge.

Do not worry that the datebook is in a safe and secure location. Do not worry that the examination is ongoing but unfortunately incomplete. Do not worry that I am taking all necessary steps to access additional exemplars for final authentication.

Now, who were you accusing of what, in your comment?

On accusing, I already answered that: I do not know what is going on (and don't have motivation to go to a lot of work to find out if you're not willing to be transparent). So no one specifically has been accused of anything in the sense you mean. You are just trying to make me overreach in expressing some suspicion or something so you can pounce on that rather than address relevant issues. Just stop that, which you are only saying to deflect. 

Now on what you say here, are you saying you have legal authority to permit or refuse the owner to allow expert examination?

You have repeatedly said you have been blocked and refused access to the datebook, as beyond your ability or out of your control to accomplish expert examination, and that there was nothing further you could do.

But now, you are saying "do not worry ... examination is ongoing but unfortunately incomplete ... I am taking all necessary steps to access additional exemplars for final authentication".

Could you clarify the nature of the examination that is ongoing? Is it a secret who is currently doing examination now?

And you did give a straight answer to how you would regard any offer of independent expert review that does not pass through your control: no, as in N-O.

Is the legal owner of the datebook contractually or legally beholden to you not to allow expert review of the artifact without your control or consent?

I must say, I have been involved with five formal offers from scientific labs, one in Arizona and the other four in Europe, to conduct radiocarbon datings and other forms of scientific analyses on archaeological artifacts, in all cases with contested questions at issue potentially and actually affected by the lab findings. It never occurred to me that a letter of offer of scientific analysis for research purposes from a lab to a legal owner of record of an artifact, at no charge to the legal owner, would be considered "interference ... subject to legal challenge".

Also, in the four out of five cases where the offers were accepted, there were no non-disclosure agreements. Typically the lab does the analysis, and the owner or principals were involved and credited in the publication often with coauthorship (their museums and their careers get a boost), in a collaborative process in which the interest is in growing in understanding and information, whatever it may be. In none of the cases in which I was involved did the owners attempt to drive or direct the conclusions of the lab findings written up by the scientists and in due course announced to the media.  

The legal owner can always say "no" to such an offer. But someone else thinks they can sue that lab for offering, for sending that letter in the mail???

Or do I have this misunderstood and this is a case where, hypothetically, if the legal owner of the Lafitte datebook, whose identity you have yet to disclose, were willing or agreeable to do so, you would then oppose and be the block? To getting science done?

[Leslie Sharp]

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.

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

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

[Leslie Sharp]

@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?

[Leslie Sharp]

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?  

[Leslie Sharp]

@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.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

@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.

[Leslie Sharp]

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.  

[Benjamin Cole]

"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. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

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.