Getting Down to the Nuts and Bolts ... and the question of Cubans in "direct capacities"

[Leslie Sharp]

41 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Those who continue to question the authenticity of the datebook, I hope your skepticism can be expressed elsewhere.  --LS

How can people put aside skepticism aside about a datebook that may not be authentic?

Shouldn't Job One be determining the authenticity of the datebook, and only then on to Job Two, making carefully supported claims based upon the datebook and corroborating evidence---especially evidence that was not in the public sphere at the time the datebook may have been authored?

John Newman did a careful study of Antonio Veciana's claims, and found the claims evolved as new information became public. And this is of Veciana, a  guy obviously and truly involved with violent anti-Castro people and organizations (Alpha 66, for one), well documented. 

Veciana made the claim that he had met "Bishop," aka David Atlee Phillips, in Dallas shortly before the JFKA, in the company of LHO. 

Has a serious effort been made to see if the datebook has flaws revealed by later-released materials, and thus is fraudulent? 

 

Has a serious effort been made to see if the datebook has flaws revealed by later-released materials, and thus is fraudulent? 

I'm waiting for someone, anyone to produce evidence that what Lafitte reveals is fraudulent. Perhaps you might concentrate on the effort instead of opining subjectively?

I've previously provided excerpts from Dick Russell's limited analysis of the datebook entries.  If you haven't seen that post, I would be happy to reproduce it here.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Has a serious effort been made to see if the datebook has flaws revealed by later-released materials, and thus is fraudulent? 

I'm waiting for someone, anyone to produce evidence that what Lafitte reveals is fraudulent. Perhaps you might concentrate on the effort instead of opining subjectively?

I've previously provided excerpts from Dick Russell's limited analysis of the datebook entries.  If you haven't seen that post, I would be happy to reproduce it here.

LS--

But what about the actual datebook itself? 

What is the proven date of the physical datebook?

Keep in mind, period notebook and pens can be purchased. 

If the the datebook is from a later date (say 2012), then retroactively creating a believable fraud is just a matter of combing through and organizing available public records, and making somewhat believable and cryptic comments in the datebook. 

The onus in not on the JFKA community to prove the datebook a fraud, but on you to prove its authenticity beyond reasonable doubt. 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS--

But what about the actual datebook itself? 

What is the proven date of the physical datebook?

Keep in mind, period notebook and pens can be purchased. 

If the the datebook is from a later date (say 2012), then retroactively creating a believable fraud is just a matter of combing through and organizing available public records, and making somewhat believable and cryptic comments in the datebook. 

The onus in not on the JFKA community to prove the datebook a fraud, but on you to prove its authenticity beyond reasonable doubt. 

 

 

Have you seen the physical datebook?

Jeff Morley has.

Following are the salient points made by Dick Russell related to specific entries in the datebook:

Let me here offer my insights into some of the names and dates in the datebook, and their potential significance in revealing the identities of the perpetrators behind what’s been called “the crime of the century.” I should add that the datebook also contains references to individuals whose names have not appeared before in assassination-related documents. From the datebook, it can only be concluded that Lafitte was directly involved with a number of people covertly connected to the assassination. 

SOUETRE. This clearly is Jean Rene Souetre, whose name appears in a number of entries between April 25 and December 4. It appears that Souetre was part of a “kill squad” who showed up for meetings in New Orleans, Madrid, and Mexico City prior to the assassination. Souetre’s name first appeared in the “assassination literature” following a 1977 release of CIA documents, which stated that “he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination . . . to either Mexico or Canada.” According to what the FBI told a Souetre acquaintance whom I interviewed, he’d been “flown out that afternoon by a private pilot . . . in a government plane.” Souetre was a known hitman for the OAS, a terrorist group in France that had targeted President de Gaulle. 

WILLOUGHBY: Until my first book came out in 1992, assembling circumstantial evidence linking retired General Charles Willoughby as a possible “mastermind” of the assassination, no one had raised such a possibility before. The datebook cites the far-right General Willoughby numerous times, specifying: “Nov 22 – Willoughby backup – team [with a strikethrough of the word team] squad – tech building – phone booth/bridge.” Prior to that, an April 12 entry states: “Willoughby soldier kill squads.” 

SILVERTHORNE: That same datebook entry says: “Silverthorne – Ft. Worth – Airport – Mexico.” The name of Silverthorne did not appear publicly until the late 1970s, when CIA officer William Harvey’s handwritten notes about the agency’s QJ/WIN assassination program were released. Silverthorne was a pilot who traveled “for a certain federal agency” to “countless countries” for “reasons best left unsaid,” according to author Albarelli’s 1996 interview with him.

ANGLETON: Listed in the datebook by his last name as well as initials (JA and JJA), the then-head of Counterintelligence for the CIA appears to have been involved in “high-level gathering in DC'' during which “Lancelot planning” was discussed. The Lancelot reference is to a plot to kill JFK. The datebook’s final mention of James Angleton,(December 5, 1963) states: “JA – CLOSE OUT LANCELOT.” Angleton’s name was not generally known until the mid-1970s, when he was forced out of the CIA following revelations that he’d organized an illegal domestic spying program. 

GEORGE W.: The several references in the datebook, including one (August 29) regarding “shipment of LSD for New Orleans & Dallas – Texas laws?” are clearly referencing George White. He was a key operative in the CIA’s top-secret MKULTRA program to control human behavior using drugs, hypnosis, and other means. He worked undercover for the same narcotics agency as Lafitte. White’s name never came to light until 1977 during a congressional investigation. 

TOM D.: Also referred to in several entries, this was Thomas Eli Davis, Jr., first mentioned in 1978 in the assassination literature as having trained anti-Castro Cubans and had been acquainted with Jack Ruby. The September 27 entry about Mexico City says: “Oswald – Comercio Hotel – meet with Tom D. at Luma.” It was stated by the Warren Commission that Oswald had been to the Comercio; the Hotel Luma was first mentioned in my 1992 book as a meeting point. The September 29 datebook implies (“Tom at embassy – done”) that Davis, who resembled Oswald, had impersonated him in visiting either the Cuban or Russian embassies in Mexico City. 

CRICHTON: The name of Jack Crichton, who was connected to Military Intelligence and arranged the first translators for Marina Oswald after the assassination, appears several times in datebook entries in advance of the assassination. 

A. L. EHRMAN: This July 30 entry clearly refers to Anita L. Ehrman, a foreign correspondent whose body was found that day in her Washington apartment. The only other reference to this appears in my 1992 book, citing a notebook seized from Richard Case Nagell by the FBI on September 20, 1963 but not released until 1975. That entry says: “ANITA L. EHRMAN. 7-30-63 WASHINGTON, D.C.” Nagell was involved with Oswald in an assassination plot. 

(Dick was careful to close with, 'assuming the datebook is authentic, the aforementioned stands.')

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Have you seen the physical datebook?

Jeff Morley has.

Following are the salient points made by Dick Russell related to specific entries in the datebook:
 

Let me here offer my insights into some of the names and dates in the datebook, and their potential significance in revealing the identities of the perpetrators behind what’s been called “the crime of the century.” I should add that the datebook also contains references to individuals whose names have not appeared before in assassination-related documents. From the datebook, it can only be concluded that Lafitte was directly involved with a number of people covertly connected to the assassination. 

SOUETRE. This clearly is Jean Rene Souetre, whose name appears in a number of entries between April 25 and December 4. It appears that Souetre was part of a “kill squad” who showed up for meetings in New Orleans, Madrid, and Mexico City prior to the assassination. Souetre’s name first appeared in the “assassination literature” following a 1977 release of CIA documents, which stated that “he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination . . . to either Mexico or Canada.” According to what the FBI told a Souetre acquaintance whom I interviewed, he’d been “flown out that afternoon by a private pilot . . . in a government plane.” Souetre was a known hitman for the OAS, a terrorist group in France that had targeted President de Gaulle. 

WILLOUGHBY: Until my first book came out in 1992, assembling circumstantial evidence linking retired General Charles Willoughby as a possible “mastermind” of the assassination, no one had raised such a possibility before. The datebook cites the far-right General Willoughby numerous times, specifying: “Nov 22 – Willoughby backup – team [with a strikethrough of the word team] squad – tech building – phone booth/bridge.” Prior to that, an April 12 entry states: “Willoughby soldier kill squads.” 

SILVERTHORNE: That same datebook entry says: “Silverthorne – Ft. Worth – Airport – Mexico.” The name of Silverthorne did not appear publicly until the late 1970s, when CIA officer William Harvey’s handwritten notes about the agency’s QJ/WIN assassination program were released. Silverthorne was a pilot who traveled “for a certain federal agency” to “countless countries” for “reasons best left unsaid,” according to author Albarelli’s 1996 interview with him.

ANGLETON: Listed in the datebook by his last name as well as initials (JA and JJA), the then-head of Counterintelligence for the CIA appears to have been involved in “high-level gathering in DC'' during which “Lancelot planning” was discussed. The Lancelot reference is to a plot to kill JFK. The datebook’s final mention of James Angleton,(December 5, 1963) states: “JA – CLOSE OUT LANCELOT.” Angleton’s name was not generally known until the mid-1970s, when he was forced out of the CIA following revelations that he’d organized an illegal domestic spying program. 

GEORGE W.: The several references in the datebook, including one (August 29) regarding “shipment of LSD for New Orleans & Dallas – Texas laws?” are clearly referencing George White. He was a key operative in the CIA’s top-secret MKULTRA program to control human behavior using drugs, hypnosis, and other means. He worked undercover for the same narcotics agency as Lafitte. White’s name never came to light until 1977 during a congressional investigation. 

TOM D.: Also referred to in several entries, this was Thomas Eli Davis, Jr., first mentioned in 1978 in the assassination literature as having trained anti-Castro Cubans and had been acquainted with Jack Ruby. The September 27 entry about Mexico City says: “Oswald – Comercio Hotel – meet with Tom D. at Luma.” It was stated by the Warren Commission that Oswald had been to the Comercio; the Hotel Luma was first mentioned in my 1992 book as a meeting point. The September 29 datebook implies (“Tom at embassy – done”) that Davis, who resembled Oswald, had impersonated him in visiting either the Cuban or Russian embassies in Mexico City. 

CRICHTON: The name of Jack Crichton, who was connected to Military Intelligence and arranged the first translators for Marina Oswald after the assassination, appears several times in datebook entries in advance of the assassination. 

A. L. EHRMAN: This July 30 entry clearly refers to Anita L. Ehrman, a foreign correspondent whose body was found that day in her Washington apartment. The only other reference to this appears in my 1992 book, citing a notebook seized from Richard Case Nagell by the FBI on September 20, 1963 but not released until 1975. That entry says: “ANITA L. EHRMAN. 7-30-63 WASHINGTON, D.C.” Nagell was involved with Oswald in an assassination plot. 

(Dick was careful to close with, 'assuming the datebook is authentic, the aforementioned stands.')

I like Dick Russell, and have exchanged e-mails with him, and closely read Russell's two part series on CIA fronts in modern media today (all "liberal" fronts, btw, such as Rolling Stone and Daily Beast).  

That said, Russell says "assuming the datebook is authentic." 

That is...unsettling to say the least.

I wonder what methods could be employed to determine authenticity.  

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Leslie Sharp]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I like Dick Russell, and have exchanged e-mails with him, and closely read Russell's two part series on CIA fronts in modern media today (all "liberal" fronts, btw, such as Rolling Stone and Daily Beast).  

That said, Russell says "assuming the datebook is authentic." 

That is...unsettling to say the least.

I wonder what methods could be employed to determine authenticity.  

 

 Dick was professionally prudent to add the caveat, and we respect him for doing so.

 

It was Dick's The Man Who Knew Too Much that launched my personal quest in 1993/4; Albarelli and I together had seven copies, five of which were cannibalized over the years!

You have nothing to say about the meat of Dick's limited analysis, or speculate why he might contribute to Coup?  Maybe you're not familiar enough with the subject to recognize the significance of those eight names, in which case, uh ...remind me, why are we having this conversation? 🙂

You don't need to wonder. I've previously posted ad nasuam on the topic of document examination and authentication. 

Edited July 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Jonathan Cohen]

21 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You don't need to wonder. I've previously posted ad nasuam on the topic of document examination and authentication. 

Then why do you keep pushing back every time someone on this forum accurately repeats the fact that the veracity of the datebook is in question?

[Leslie Sharp]

7 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Then why do you keep pushing back every time someone on this forum accurately repeats the fact that the veracity of the datebook is in question?

The purpose of this thread is to focus solely on the evidence (albeit circumstantial for now) we've garnered thus far.

You can find several EF threads that include discussion of the datebook and document examination. You might name search @Greg Doudna. He analyzed the datebook without ever having laid eyes it.

Please take your questions and comments there?

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

The purpose of this thread is to focus solely on the evidence (albeit circumstantial for now) we've garnered thus far.

You can find several EF threads that include discussion of the datebook and document examination. You might name search @Greg Doudna. He analyzed the datebook without ever having laid eyes it.

Please take your questions and comments there?

LS-

Obviously, none of us in the EF-JFKA have, or can, lay eyes (and other instruments) upon the datebook. 

That is why I asked what impartial methods can be devised, and impartial observers asked, to authenticate the datebook. 

For you Job One is to create a pathway to authentication. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS-

Obviously, none of us in the EF-JFKA have, or can, lay eyes (and other instruments) upon the datebook. 

That is why I asked what impartial methods can be devised, and impartial observers asked, to authenticate the datebook. 

For you Job One is to create a pathway to authentication. 

 

Oh the hubris.  

Please don't lecture me on what my "job" is.  You know nothing of what has transpired. 

One more time, please take your concerns to a related thread. This thread is focused on the nuts and bolts of what happened in Dallas, using as the foundation the 1963 datebook maintained by Pierre Lafitte. 

I won't respond further.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Oh the hubris.  

Please don't lecture me on what my "job" is.  You know nothing of what has transpired. 

One more time, please take your concerns to a related thread. This thread is focused on the nuts and bolts of what happened in Dallas, using as the foundation the 1963 datebook maintained by Pierre Lafitte. 

I won't respond further.

 

 

Ignore it Leslie.  At the moment he's occupied with donkeys and elephants (an aggie?) maybe something about the skrum coming.  At the risk of being accused of being a white knight by mk I'll note bj and jc were tag teaming.  Nothing personal here, but I thought in terms of the JFKA, an old Dallas boy appropriate.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ignore it Leslie.  At the moment he's occupied with donkeys and elephants (an aggie?) maybe something about the skrum coming.  At the risk of being accused of being a white knight by mk I'll note bj and jc were tag teaming.  Nothing personal here, but I thought in terms of the JFKA, an old Dallas boy appropriate.

 

I was almost an Aggie. Went to UT Longhorn instead. 

I do think the PL notebook should be authenticated. Even Aggies would agree with that. 

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I do think the PL notebook should be authenticated

Let's ask this Ben... what attributes of the datebook would convince you it was inauthentic given that the physical attributes have been proven to be of the time period?  Not trying to prove a negative... just that authentication of the time period, utensils, etc, does not authenticate the "when" of the writing if done not long after 1963...  yet as I begin my journey, there is little reason to suspect it being an act of counter-intelligence...  One doesn't redirect an investigation by providing more clues, names and dates than has ever come before due to the chances of finding conflicts...  so to my point here...

Off the top of my head:

Statements on dates which create a conflict with known fact - for example, the datebook places Oswald in Mexico meeting a man on the 27th... but that's all.  I have proven Oswald was not at the 2 compounds or the hotel but did not exclude the possibility he is flown in and out of Mexico after meeting with ODIO in Dallas.  There is an explanation which accounts for both sets of understood facts - and for why we know nothing about Oswald between Sept 28 and Oct 3.  Worse yet, the first FBI report which identifies where Oswald went is from KAACK dated Oct 31st. - as if they were completely unaware of the Paines and Irving from the 4th thru the entire month...  As if they were not aware of where he gets a job and what he was doing in Dallas when the FBI - due to the CIA BS - puts him in Mexico all week

Including newly introduced names just to add credibility - but see #1 - Werbel, McWillie, Walker, Oswald, JJA, Souetre, Willoughby, Davis, Ella R, Tracy Barnes, Joannides, Skorzeny, Martello, Quigley, OSARN, Silverthorne, Jack Ruby, Oswald "caretaker", George DeM, Ilya Skorzeny, Bowen/Osborne, Hudson, Jack C, Filiol (assassin), Tippit, ...

Yet many if not most of these are names which are at best, at the fringes of the narrative most of us have been working with for years...  yet are all names we know and which make sense in the narrative of the assassination and the shadows of the conspiracy.

Another authentication thought remains in the fact LaFitte and White both kept datebooks and notes on other projects.. What concerns me is whether that is in fact true and how do these other pages compare to the year 1963 notes.  If LaFitte has a number of these books from over the years, I'd be more inclined to accept the authenticity more readily.  From the reading Hank appears to be making that point - only a portion of his "notes" were allowed to be seen from a much larger collection.

@Leslie Sharp  it is hard enough to get members here to internalize the facts about the rifle for example.  The items of evidence are all props and easily proven to be inauthentic yet arguments persist about the details.   I doubt many of us have handled any of the evidence we so freely write about... some have.  I cannot see how this item of evidence can be 100% authenticated.

Yet as raised above Ben, if this is some elaborate hoax designed to steer us away from the JFK conspiracy realities, it begs for item by item verification - if anything it makes us look harder at areas the CIA/FBI/et al have kept under lock and key over 60 years.  Joannides is a prime example.  Most of us never heard of LaFitte or Liliol.

So how about we take some time and address this with logic and the collective knowledge of the members, rather than dismiss it due to our own historical prejudices against the disproving of one's work and/or ideas about the case?

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Let's ask this Ben... what attributes of the datebook would convince you it was inauthentic given that the physical attributes have been proven to be of the time period?  Not trying to prove a negative... just that authentication of the time period, utensils, etc, does not authenticate the "when" of the writing if done not long after 1963...  yet as I begin my journey, there is little reason to suspect it being an act of counter-intelligence...  One doesn't redirect an investigation by providing more clues, names and dates than has ever come before due to the chances of finding conflicts...  so to my point here...

Off the top of my head:

Statements on dates which create a conflict with known fact - for example, the datebook places Oswald in Mexico meeting a man on the 27th... but that's all.  I have proven Oswald was not at the 2 compounds or the hotel but did not exclude the possibility he is flown in and out of Mexico after meeting with ODIO in Dallas.  There is an explanation which accounts for both sets of understood facts - and for why we know nothing about Oswald between Sept 28 and Oct 3.  Worse yet, the first FBI report which identifies where Oswald went is from KAACK dated Oct 31st. - as if they were completely unaware of the Paines and Irving from the 4th thru the entire month...  As if they were not aware of where he gets a job and what he was doing in Dallas when the FBI - due to the CIA BS - puts him in Mexico all week

Including newly introduced names just to add credibility - but see #1 - Werbel, McWillie, Walker, Oswald, JJA, Souetre, Willoughby, Davis, Ella R, Tracy Barnes, Joannides, Skorzeny, Martello, Quigley, OSARN, Silverthorne, Jack Ruby, Oswald "caretaker", George DeM, Ilya Skorzeny, Bowen/Osborne, Hudson, Jack C, Filiol (assassin), Tippit, ...

Yet many if not most of these are names which are at best, at the fringes of the narrative most of us have been working with for years...  yet are all names we know and which make sense in the narrative of the assassination and the shadows of the conspiracy.

Another authentication thought remains in the fact LaFitte and White both kept datebooks and notes on other projects.. What concerns me is whether that is in fact true and how do these other pages compare to the year 1963 notes.  If LaFitte has a number of these books from over the years, I'd be more inclined to accept the authenticity more readily.  From the reading Hank appears to be making that point - only a portion of his "notes" were allowed to be seen from a much larger collection.

@Leslie Sharp  it is hard enough to get members here to internalize the facts about the rifle for example.  The items of evidence are all props and easily proven to be inauthentic yet arguments persist about the details.   I doubt many of us have handled any of the evidence we so freely write about... some have.  I cannot see how this item of evidence can be 100% authenticated.

Yet as raised above Ben, if this is some elaborate hoax designed to steer us away from the JFK conspiracy realities, it begs for item by item verification - if anything it makes us look harder at areas the CIA/FBI/et al have kept under lock and key over 60 years.  Joannides is a prime example.  Most of us never heard of LaFitte or Liliol.

So how about we take some time and address this with logic and the collective knowledge of the members, rather than dismiss it due to our own historical prejudices against the disproving of one's work and/or ideas about the case?

 

 

 

DJ-

I am not an expert on authenticating documents. I know something about art fraud, and people can be extremely clever at frauds (and better artists than the originals, haha). 

1. Of course, the document itself must be made readily available for review by independent, objective authenticators. Without that, we are trafficking in deep into bogus-land. 

2. After that, ascertaining the first date in which it is confirmed the document was seen by someone who is, beyond question, not a part of a possible fraud. For example, "in 2012, we know the document surfaced and has not been altered since." 

If the document has not been properly sequestered, it could be updated to reflect new information.  Very tricky. A few blank spaces on pages, left to allow addition of new material? 

3. Then look for JFKA information added to the public record after 2012. If none of these additional bits of evidence show up in the datebook document, then that weighs in favor of fraud. 

Side note: One of the key tenets of spy-craft is not to keep written records. You can be sure there are no written plans of the JFKA at the CIA. Never were. 

The idea of a spy-merc keeping careful written records, that if found could prove his guilt or  endanger comrades, is...well, not what anyone would expect. 

E Howard Hunt was mercilessly ridiculed for leaving his address-phone book at the Howard Johnson room where he camped out, re the Watergate burglary. When found, it helped crack open the story--in fact it was such a stupid blunder some think Hunt left  book on purpose, as part of a CIA plot to depose Nixon. Red wig and all. 

You are a guy who know documentary details. You can probably determine if the datebook appears to be an artifact written with public info to date of 2012 or so. 

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DJ-

I am not an expert on authenticating documents. I know something about art fraud, and people can be extremely clever at frauds (and better artists than the originals, haha). I am not either and am well aware the frauds can be extremely convincing (The postal Money Order comes to mind)...  but there is usually a reason for the fraud to be created in the first place.  And we are back to my 1st point - conflicts in the content that are not ambiguous. 

 

1. Of course, the document itself must be made readily available for review by independent, objective authenticators. Without that, we are trafficking in deep into bogus-land.   You mean like at the Archives? where you can no longer physically touch any evidence but only look at photos.  And again, the authenticity of the physical aspects of the datebook will not allow us to know when/where the item was written.

2. After that, ascertaining the first date in which it is confirmed the document was seen by someone who is, beyond question, not a part of a possible fraud. For example, "in 2012, we know the document surfaced and has not been altered since." 

If the document has not been properly sequestered, it could be updated to reflect new information.  Very tricky. A few blank spaces on pages, left to allow addition of new material? Another impossible to prove potential statement about the contents of the datebook and who may have come in contact with it.

3. Then look for JFKA information added to the public record after 2012. If none of these additional bits of evidence show up in the datebook document, then that weighs in favor of fraud. I've look at these notes and once again, there'd be no way to ascertain when/if the datebook existed in a different form than we see now.  You make the assumption we can have some sort of baseline for the book.

Side note: One of the key tenets of spy-craft is not to keep written records. You can be sure there are no written plans of the JFKA at the CIA. Never were. 

The idea of a spy-merc keeping careful written records, that if found could prove his guilt or  endanger comrades, is...well, not what anyone would expect.   I doubt we can consider the notes in the book a "carefully written record" at all when in fact they are short strings of words/names/places on key dates.  It is my understanding Lafitte kept many of these datebooks/notebooks at least according to his widow.

E Howard Hunt was mercilessly ridiculed for leaving his address-phone book at the Howard Johnson room where he camped out, re the Watergate burglary. When found, it helped crack open the story--in fact it was such a stupid blunder some think Hunt left  book on purpose, as part of a CIA plot to depose Nixon. Red wig and all. 

You are a guy who know documentary details. You can probably determine if the datebook appears to be an artifact written with public info to date of 2012 or so.   I'd like to think I could... and so far nothing other than Oswald's meeting in MX on the 27th, is a conflict to information I am aware of...  but my awareness is not as great as many others.

Ben - The very fact we have W. Harvey's handwritten notes on ZR/RIFLE should be enough to counter the idea Spies didn't write incriminating and potentially illegal activities and plans down.  And I'm pretty sure we've never encountered anyone like Lafitte or his teams before.

Usually a "fraud" like this is designed to lead people away from conspirators, not name more, unless the idea is to bury them in BS so they don't find the real culprits - yet in this case we have more names to investigate while at the same time we see, if this is correct, the entirety of the events from that day forward to the WCR is simply dripping with nothing but diversion and fraud - which we knew - but now we can know who the possible players and activities leading up to the event, being covered up, were.  The medical/physical evidence cover-up, perpetrated by the Military/SS/FBI, is the other piece of the puzzle making it forever impossible to ever know what exactly happened.

I think it remains in our best interest to assume it is authentic and proceed from there with verification of content...  if not authentic we need a reason to feel that way, and so far, I see no reason other than the conflict it creates with others whose work depends on this being determined a fraud.

I ask you - what if the events are all real but the book is determined a fraud...  how does that change this new batch of leads and conclusions?

[Leslie Sharp]

@David JosephsExcellent observations, David, and thank you for your measured, educated approach..

@Benjamin ColeI'm forced to ignore your continued focus on authentication on this thread.  It serves only as a deflection. If you can speak to the 8 names identified by Dick Russell in his limited analysis, I would be more than interested in your contribution; otherwise the question of authentication is not a subject for this thread.  

I respect that David was  able to address specific (and possibly controversial) details presented in Lafitte's datebook and at the same time establish his general (and informed) observations about the complexities of authentication of any physical document, item, etc. 

Now that David has done so, I hope we can continue deliberations over the nuts and bolts on this particular thread.  

 

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Leslie Sharp