AECASSOWARY-29, 8th World Youth Festival, Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, ZRPENNY, Project AERODYNAMIC, & Lee Harvey Oswald...

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Robert Montenegro said:

 

I will say this much, and then shut up about the Lafitte datebook: I could not do the file hunting research that I am doing now if I did not have exclusive access to that datebook—that is to say, I have utilized the Lafitte material, as controversial as it may be, as a template to find the bulk of the government files I have uncovered—including the bulk of the documents mentioned in this thread I started.

 

Let me be clear: I cannot legally or ethically comment on the authenticity of the Lafitte materials.

 

However, without the datebook as a divining-rod of sorts, I could not find the government files I have uncovered.

 

That is not to say the documents I've uncovered prove the entries in the datebook—quite to the contrariwise—the Lafitte material allows me to fill in the blanks in documents.

 

In short, the Lafitte material is invaluable in my opinion—even if authenticators have failed in their jobs to give a definitive yay or nay on the Lafitte material currently available.

 

I say again I have utilized the Lafitte material as a template—to manifest deadly effect—as you can see from this thread I started.

 

And if I may run a quick, non-confrontational logic exercise: what fool makes a forgery about an act of high criminal political terrorism, with accurate, target specific material in it?  

 

Just something to ponder on...

 

 

That is fine. 

I wish I knew the true history of the Lafitte notebook. 

It may be a good researcher went through available JFKA docs, and compiled the notebook, paying special attention to Nazi-related material. 

Of equal concern, if the notebook is not now in secure, independent hands, it could be "updated" by incorporating evidence you have uncovered. 

I am hardly derailing this thread by asking that the uncertain provenance of the Lafitte notebook, when mentioned, be noted. 

That is good practice. 

[Leslie Sharp]

12 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

 

I see and stand corrected.

 

Hence why I can't comment on it, I don't know all of the facts.

 

I don't think this thread would be the best place to speak about Arnold Melvin Silver, CIA commander of the QJWIN program and William King Harvey's counterpart in the "Executive Action" capabilities.

 

 

I was thinking that since he goes all the way back to the first days of recruitment of Otto Skorzeny, he might get an honorable mention here.  But, I understand your reasoning.  I'm wondering now if Silver crossed paths with Col. Robert G. Storey at Nuremberg, or Leon Jaworski?

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I was thinking that since he goes all the way back to the first days of recruitment of Otto Skorzeny, he might get an honorable mention here.  But, I understand your reasoning.  I'm wondering now if Silver crossed paths with Col. Robert G. Storey at Nuremberg, or Leon Jaworski?

I never met Hank, but loved his books enough to send him an admiring FB message, to which he nicely responded. He entrusted me a few messages later with some focal points of his research into the diaries, namely Otto Skorzeny, who he thought was possibly QJWIN, and Jack Crichton, and swore me to confidence. I was very familiar with Colonel Crichton, but only vaguely with Skorzeny. So I started searching for anything on Skorzeny and soon stumbled upon Arnold Silver’s recollections of his official US Army Counter intelligence Corp interrogation of Otto, in which he recommended Otto’s release, saying he found him to be a patriotic German but not a Nazi. Silver even stated he thought Otto should be allowed to relocate to his stated preference, Madrid. Which is what he did. I mentioned all this to Hank, thinking I was possibly sharing something momentous. He essentially dismissed it as a bit of braggadocio on Silver’s part. Question for those more knowledgeable - is Silver mentioned in the Lafitte Datebook? 
The more I looked at Silver’s bio the more curious I became. His clear association with Harvey, and with the QJWIN operation, make him a prime suspect in my mind for bringing Skorzeny and probably others to Harvey’s attention. So, not meaning to derail this thread, I hope Robert that you open one on Arnold Silver soon.
 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I never met Hank, but loved his books enough to send him an admiring FB message, to which he nicely responded. He entrusted me a few messages later with some focal points of his research into the diaries, namely Otto Skorzeny, who he thought was possibly QJWIN, and Jack Crichton, and swore me to confidence. I was very familiar with Colonel Crichton, but only vaguely with Skorzeny. So I started searching for anything on Skorzeny and soon stumbled upon Arnold Silver’s recollections of his official US Army Counter intelligence Corp interrogation of Otto, in which he recommended Otto’s release, saying he found him to be a patriotic German but not a Nazi. Silver even stated he thought Otto should be allowed to relocate to his stated preference, Madrid. Which is what he did. I mentioned all this to Hank, thinking I was possibly sharing something momentous. He essentially dismissed it as a bit of braggadocio on Silver’s part. Question for those more knowledgeable - is Silver mentioned in the Lafitte Datebook? 
The more I looked at Silver’s bio the more curious I became. His clear association with Harvey, and with the QJWIN operation, make him a prime suspect in my mind for bringing Skorzeny and probably others to Harvey’s attention. 
 

Hank didn't have the benefit of Monty's research into Silver at that juncture. I think he would be impressed with the propinquity if nothing else.

 

Remember that Coup is meant to focus ultimately on the specific plot for Dallas (with a solid understanding of the history leading up to); and no, there is no evidence of Silver's hand on the scales, at all. I'm just wondering if Col. Storey remained in touch with some of those he met during Nuremberg.

And thanks for honoring Hank's non-disclosure.  I think we all owe him that debt of gratitude. I've ventured into certain areas on his behalf that I know he intended for the softcover, so I'm at peace with that decision and I trust he is as well.

[Robert Montenegro]

On 7/26/2023 at 12:25 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

That is fine. 

I wish I knew the true history of the Lafitte notebook. 

It may be a good researcher went through available JFKA docs, and compiled the notebook, paying special attention to Nazi-related material. 

Of equal concern, if the notebook is not now in secure, independent hands, it could be "updated" by incorporating evidence you have uncovered. 

I am hardly derailing this thread by asking that the uncertain provenance of the Lafitte notebook, when mentioned, be noted. 

That is good practice. 

 

Those are truly valid concerns—however, I utilize to best evidence based off of comparative analysis, and one must understand the full history of Cold War-era counterinsurgency theorem in order to draw logical conclusions.

 

I am of the opinion, based off of all available evidence, that the content in the Lafitte materials are factual.

 

As for somebody utilizing documents in order to concoct a forgery—that would be impossible, simply because information in the Lafitte materials has not been available to the general public in the form of documents until 2023.

 

That means, at least to me, that if the Lafitte materials are forgeries, they would have to have been made by elements of the intelligence community.

 

Once again, why would the intelligence community rat on itself, to the effect of using target specific information?

 

 

[Robert Montenegro]

On 7/26/2023 at 1:55 PM, Paul Brancato said:

I never met Hank, but loved his books enough to send him an admiring FB message, to which he nicely responded. He entrusted me a few messages later with some focal points of his research into the diaries, namely Otto Skorzeny, who he thought was possibly QJWIN, and Jack Crichton, and swore me to confidence. I was very familiar with Colonel Crichton, but only vaguely with Skorzeny. So I started searching for anything on Skorzeny and soon stumbled upon Arnold Silver’s recollections of his official US Army Counter intelligence Corp interrogation of Otto, in which he recommended Otto’s release, saying he found him to be a patriotic German but not a Nazi. Silver even stated he thought Otto should be allowed to relocate to his stated preference, Madrid. Which is what he did. I mentioned all this to Hank, thinking I was possibly sharing something momentous. He essentially dismissed it as a bit of braggadocio on Silver’s part. Question for those more knowledgeable - is Silver mentioned in the Lafitte Datebook? 
The more I looked at Silver’s bio the more curious I became. His clear association with Harvey, and with the QJWIN operation, make him a prime suspect in my mind for bringing Skorzeny and probably others to Harvey’s attention. So, not meaning to derail this thread, I hope Robert that you open one on Arnold Silver soon.
 

 

Arnold Silver was, in my opinion, not necessary in the murder of President Kennedy.

 

However, I will admit, that the man was central to the creation of the CIA's assassination capabilities.

 

It must be appreciated though, that certain elements of the murder plot in Dallas, were not of Western Intelligence.

 

Instead, elements of an international fascist network appear to be the real movers-and-shakers behind the President's murder.

 

Now, were those fascist, revanchist elements that murdered the President, utilized by, say, CIA?

 

Yes, but does that make them loyal to Western Intelligence?

 

No.

  

Edited July 31, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

 

Those are truly valid concerns—however, I utilize to best evidence based off of comparative analysis, and one must understand the full history of Cold War-era counterinsurgency theorem in order to draw logical conclusions.

 

I am of the opinion, based off of all available evidence, that the content in the Lafitte materials are factual.

 

As for somebody utilizing documents in order to concoct a forgery—that would be impossible, simply because information in the Lafitte materials has not been available to the general public in the form of documents until 2023.

 

That means, at least to me, that if the Lafitte materials are forgeries, they would have to have been made by elements of the intelligence community.

 

Once again, why would the intelligence community rat on itself, to the effect of using target specific information?

 

 

RM--

Thanks for your sensible comments. 

"As for somebody utilizing documents in order to concoct a forgery—that would be impossible, simply because information in the Lafitte materials has not been available to the general public in the form of documents until 2023."--RM

Can you provide two examples of this, examples that we laypeople can verify? 

I am happy to accept, or reject, any JFKA documents, or purported documents, but based upon independent evaluation by a panel of smart people. Not just the datebook, but any purported document of consequence.  

The mumbo-jumbo and secrecy around the datebook is not encouraging. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

RM--

Thanks for your sensible comments. 

"As for somebody utilizing documents in order to concoct a forgery—that would be impossible, simply because information in the Lafitte materials has not been available to the general public in the form of documents until 2023."--RM

Can you provide two examples of this, examples that we laypeople can verify? 

I am happy to accept, or reject, any JFKA documents, or purported documents, but based upon independent evaluation by a panel of smart people. Not just the datebook, but any purported document of consequence.  

The mumbo-jumbo and secrecy around the datebook is not encouraging. 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

On 7/26/2023 at 1:25 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

That is fine. 

I wish I knew the true history of the Lafitte notebook. 

It may be a good researcher went through available JFKA docs, and compiled the notebook, paying special attention to Nazi-related material. 

Of equal concern, if the notebook is not now in secure, independent hands, it could be "updated" by incorporating evidence you have uncovered. 

I am hardly derailing this thread by asking that the uncertain provenance of the Lafitte notebook, when mentioned, be noted. 

That is good practice. 

Ben, have you read Coup in Dallas?

I posted an excerpt from Albarelli's introduction to Coup on the Pierre Lafitte 1963 thread which provides you the "true history" of the Lafitte datebook. Please read it, instead of attempting to distract from @Robert Montenegro's deep dive into this long buried operation, AECASSOWARY.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

There is no mumbo jumbo secrecy around the datebook, so don't be discouraged, @Benjamin Cole 

That said, could you repeat specifically what "secrecy" you're worried about?  Monté can't possibly address that concern for you.

I assume Monté will respond to your inquiries related to what drives him to rely (or not) on entries in the Lafitte records, but I request that if you have questions specific to how the entries read and how they make sense when considered in full context - not isolated aspects of any given series of entries - you please confer with me, Hank's coauthor of Coup in Dallas.  You could even private message me, Ben.
 

[Ron Bulman]

11 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

It must be appreciated though, that certain elements of the murder plot in Dallas, were not of Western Intelligence.

 

Instead, elements of an international fascist network appear to be the real movers-and-shakers behind the President's murder.

 

Now, were those fascist, revanchist elements that murdered the President, utilized by, say, CIA?

 

Yes, but that does not make them loyal to Western Intelligence?

 

No.

Well said Robert, imho.

[Benjamin Cole]

13 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

There is no mumbo jumbo secrecy around the datebook, so don't be discouraged, @Benjamin Cole 

That said, could you repeat specifically what "secrecy" you're worried about?  Monté can't possibly address that concern for you.

I assume Monté will respond to your inquiries related to what drives him to rely (or not) on entries in the Lafitte records, but I request that if you have questions specific to how the entries read and how they make sense when considered in full context - not isolated aspects of any given series of entries - you please confer with me, Hank's coauthor of Coup in Dallas.  You could even private message me, Ben.
 

I believe in transparency, and that I am part of the JFKA research community, and that I owe the community whatever I learn. 

I will address questions to you only where everybody can see those comments.  I hope your reply, civilly, in the same way. 

I will address RM, also only in public so to speak, to try ascertain what is going on regarding the datebook.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well said Robert, imho.

It could be.

Or maybe two Cuban exiles drove to Dallas from Miami, with a half-dollar bill, and showed LHO the "proof" they were CIA-approved, and that convinced LHO that he should cooperate with their scheme, a false flag op.

I have always preferred JFKA explanations that involve extremely few witting participants. 

The four guys who showed up with rifles in Chicago were likely Cuban exiles, and there evidently was a plot in Miami to commit a JFKA. 

The evidence seems to point at Miami. 

To be sure, one could posit Cuban exiles were being surreptitiously guided by a Nazified element within the CIA. 

All the more to be angered the Dictator-Puppet-in-Chief has done a snuff job on the JFK Records. 

And that the datebook's location is not secured in a location made public, and held safe by an independent auditor, until exacting and professional perusal can be done on the datebook, again transparently and under public scrutiny. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

It could be.

Or maybe two Cuban exiles drove to Dallas from Miami, with a half-dollar bill, and showed LHO the "proof" they were CIA-approved, and that convinced LHO that he should cooperate with their scheme, a false flag op.

I have always preferred JFKA explanations that involve extremely few witting participants. 

The four guys who showed up with rifles in Chicago were likely Cuban exiles, and there evidently was a plot in Miami to commit a JFKA. 

The evidence seems to point at Miami. 

To be sure, one could posit Cuban exiles were being surreptitiously guided by a Nazified element within the CIA. 

All the more to be angered the Dictator-Puppet-in-Chief has done a snuff job on the JFK Records. 

And that the datebook's location is not secured in a location made public, and held safe by an independent auditor, until exacting and professional perusal can be done on the datebook, again transparently and under public scrutiny. 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I believe in transparency, and that I am part of the JFKA research community, and that I owe the community whatever I learn. 

I will address questions to you only where everybody can see those comments.  I hope your reply, civilly, in the same way. 

I will address RM, also only in public so to speak, to try ascertain what is going on regarding the datebook.

 

 

Benjamin, I hope this will help clarify:  I have provided access to screenshots of the full datebook to a select number of researchers / authors, including Monté. All have agreed to / or signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Once the facsimile of the datebook is in the public domain, hopefully by the 60th anniversary, that aspect of the NDA is rendered mute; the parties understand that information related to Hank's sources, and his professional and personal history with this project, remains under the original confidentiality agreement.

I'm sure you understand that there are dozens of investigative journalists with "works in progress" who feel no obligation whatsoever to provide "you," the Royal you of this community with their research until they are ready to do so. 

Mine are unique circumstances: my first responsibility, legally and professionally, is to honor Hank's commitments and to advance his last investigation; I'm also a dedicated researcher of some thirty years with a long-standing philosophy that information related to the assassination in Dallas belongs in the public domain, full stop.  For that reason, having wrestled with the question for four years,  I decided to pursue publication of a facsimile of the datebook.  However, there remain a number of issues to be ironed out. 

In the meantime, with all due respect, any efforts to goad me, or (presumably) Monté, into breaching Non-Disclosure Agreements is futile.

fyi, simply because information in the Lafitte materials has not been available to the general public in the form of documents until 2023."--RM

I believe Monté is referring to the broader issue of government documents released in 2023. However, specific to the datebook entries and as I shared recently on a previous thread ('Getting down to the nuts and bolts . . .' ),  Dick Russell provided a limited analysis of the 1963 Lafitte datebook.  (His full analysis can be found in the Front Matter of Coup in Dallas.) Dick focused on the following names that appear in Lafitte's datebook, six of which did not surface in public records, e.g., news reports, interview notes, FOIA responses, government citations, etc., until the mid-late 1970s, with the remaining surfacing in the 1990s.

Dick writes,

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.')

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Leslie Sharp