Mary Haverstick's Important New Book on the JFK Assassination

[Leslie Sharp]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jerrie Cobb was a spy who used the name June Cobb?

And she was at Redbird, and she was also the Babushka Lady?

This high profile female astronaut was being used as part of the JFK assassination plot?

 

 

Would that it were so simple.  

I respect Lisa Pease so I'm perplexed; what am I missing in this work that has other seasoned researchers, including Pease, persuaded? 

Had Haverstick stopped at her "doppelgänger" theory, limiting her analysis to instances that Jerrie The Pilot may have on occasion impersonated sometime informant and paid asset June Cobb, perhaps the remainder of her impressive document research would justify serious consideration of this work.  However, venturing into wild suppositions, including that Kennedy was assassinated by a woman holding a pistol cloaked inside a camera, should be the "tell."

Yet, here we are.

Edited January 2 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Interestingly, the editors of the Jerrie Cobb article in Wikipedia is taking the June Cobb allegation seriously. To my great surprise, nobody on the Talk Page is complaining about its presence in the article.

I was able to read that part of Haverstick's book in Google Books, and it is very compelling.

 

Fortunately, the page is balanced by Albarelli's research; I venture that (were he alive) he would vigorously challenge those editors.

I know several who will likely weigh in on the Talk Page. 

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I'm "afraid" that this forum is not only failing to apply scrutiny evenly, it is being manipulated by unseen forces.

 

If the book is nonsense, as you say it is, then interest in it should slowly fade away.

Though everybody thinks differently and so, even if it is nonsense, some will accept it. But not many.

 

41 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I refer you to my own experience here, and specifically to a 'review' of Coup posted here by Greg Doudna just nine days after CID hit the stands (did he actually read this tome in nine days?). Doudna chose to focus solely on a datebook, not its content, but the instrument he had never laid eyes on while failing to acknowledge the statements on provenance made by the (deceased) author who had put his professional reputation on the line.

 

I've never understand Greg Doudna. He has a following, and I've never understood that.

Almost everything Greg believes is the polar opposite of what I believe. Given that, and the fact that his posts tend to be soooooooooo long, I rarely read what he has to say.

I just reread the first few posts of this thread and I see that he has something against you, or against Coup... whatever. And he seems receptive to AWIK. Go figure.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about him. He's one of those researchers who is wrong about so many things that he'll never figure the assassination out. IMO.

 

41 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Re. the Haveerstick book that you contend must be credible because forum members seem to think so:

 

I didn't say it must be credible. I said there may be something to it.

I mean, it's even reviewed on Jeff Morely's site... and he's usually so cautious.

And now from your recent post I discover that Lisa Pease is fascinated with it. Wow!

So yeah... I think there may be something to it. I just don't know what it is right now.

 

41 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Can you address my bullet points one by one?  

 

You really should ask someone who has read the book.

BTW, have you read it?

Did you ever speak with Haverstick over the phone?

 

[Leslie Sharp]

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If the book is nonsense, as you say it is, then interest in it should slowly fade away.

Though everybody thinks differently and so, even if it is nonsense, some will accept it. But not many.

 

 

I've never understand Greg Doudna. He has a following, and I've never understood that.

Almost everything Greg believes is the polar opposite of what I believe. Given that, and the fact that his posts tend to be soooooooooo long, I rarely read what he has to say.

I just reread the first few posts of this thread and I see that he has something against you, or against Coup... whatever. And he seems receptive to AWIK. Go figure.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about him. He's one of those researchers who is wrong about so many things that he'll never figure the assassination out. IMO.

 

 

I didn't say it must be credible. I said there may be something to it.

I mean, it's even reviewed on Jeff Morely's site... and he's usually so cautious.

And now from your recent post I discover that Lisa Pease is fascinated with it. Wow!

So yeah... I think there may be something to it. I just don't know what it is right now.

 

 

You really should ask someone who has read the book.

BTW, have you read it?

Did you ever speak with Haverstick over the phone?

 

Thanks, Sandy.

As indicated in a number of my comments on this thread, yes, I spoke with Mary Haverstick recently by phone. If this topic really interests you or anyone, I urge you/them to read carefully.  'The devil' is in the details' was never was more applicable than now.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

As indicated in a number of my comments on this thread, yes, I spoke with Mary Haverstick recently by phone. If this topic really interests you or anyone, I urge you/them to read carefully.  'The devil' is in the details' was never was more applicable than now.

 

Okay thanks, I didn't realize that your remarks about what Mary said was from a recent phone call. Because you also commented on Hank speaking with Mary, which of course was some time ago.

When I went back looking for what Mary said, I noticed that Greg Doudna had changed his mind about AWIK. Apparently he now thinks it's hokum.

 

[Ron Bulman]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jerrie Cobb was a spy who used the name June Cobb?

And she was at Redbird, and she was also the Babushka Lady?

This high profile female astronaut was being used as part of the JFK assassination plot?

 

 

Thanks for the belly laugh, Jim.  Maybe the Babushka Lady was also the pilot at Redbird airport, and they all flew away?

 

[Greg Doudna]

On 1/1/2024 at 6:47 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about him. He's one of those researchers who is wrong about so many things that he'll never figure the assassination out. IMO.

Sandy that is not a very intelligent comment, with respect to the criticisms I and others have raised toward the practice of quotations and citations from the Lafitte Datebook as if it is authentic when there is no authentication of the document, at the basis of Coup in Dallas. It is a document with absolutely sensational claims and Leslie, who is responsible, has not seen fit even now, in the year 2024 after publication of a lengthy book about it and tons of discussion, to even publish an accurate transcript (what is published is scattered in bits and pieces and filled with errors), or legible photos. If you want decent photos of the pages of the datebook that can be read (the ones she has published in Coup in Dallas are horrible and often literally unreadable) she has those for private distribution but requires people to sign a NDA (non-disclosure agreement)! Such that people cannot even discuss or comment in print upon the source text in those better photos, or publish corrections of errors in the published transcriptions from those better photos.

She has refused to disclose a timeline of the history of this artifact and its whereabouts and possession so far as is known with names, locations, and dates of conveyance. She will not consider donating the document to a university or the Mary Ferrell Foundation so that reputable researchers can access and study the primary text and publish their findings without being prevented and controlled by those damnable NDA's. She exercises tight, monolithic control over the artifact, attacks and ad hominems all who call for authentication, responds by saying "take it or leave it". She will not disclose who conducted prior forensic authentication studies on the artifact or allow anyone to even ask for permission that those scientists be permitted to disclose the findings of prior authentication studies, breathing threats of lawsuits if any scientist would dare disclose or leak that forbidden data. She will not disclose who owns the artifact. She has physical possession of it but will not disclose its ownership status or its history of ownership with dates and details. There is no financial transparency. And she is nasty and vituperative toward any who ask such questions.  

Instead of you disparaging what you think are my misguided views on the JFK assassination, which has nothing to do with the issue of forgery or authenticity of a claimed primary text which she and others are flooding this forum and the research community with, the basis for Coup in Dallas ... you as moderator should be proactive in calling for authentication of a claimed sensational-find text before it is carte-blanche "admitted as evidence" for discussion. 

What Leslie is doing is the exact opposite of openness and access to information. And unless established otherwise, it should be presumed forged, simply as clean method. The too good to be true principle in investments.  

That is the issue with Coup in Dallas discussions on this forum you should be focusing upon, if you care about research standards. 

And here is something scandalous. Below is the obituary Leslie disclosed earlier on this thread of the obituary of Pierre Lafitte's widow, Renee, although Leslie misidentified her name as "Renee Chagnot" (from https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3879.0.html, which has some other good research from Tom Scully). Note that Renee died in the year 2000. In Coup in Dallas Hank Albarelli says he obtained access to the Lafitte Datebook from Renee and had discussions with Renee about it, meaning before 2000. According to Coup in Dallas Renee, then in her 90s, cheerfully told Albarelli about having known Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina personally, what they were like, about her dear husband Pierre having run the assassination of JFK but how he was a good man nevertheless, etc. Yet in none of Albarelli's books published after that time, prior to the posthumous Coup in Dallas published in 2021, does Albarelli mention the sensational information of the Lafitte datebook. What was up with that? Did Albaralli know about the Lafitte datebook and its sensational contents all that time and tell no one until somewhere mid-2010's decade for the first time? Anyway, the obituary (bolds are not mine and was unable to remove).

 O bituary - T e le grap h, T he (Nashua, NH) - June 22, 20 0 0
June 22, 2000 | Teleg raph, The (Nashua, NH)
Reneé (Chag not) Martin, 95, of Goffstown, died Wednesday, June 21, 2000, at the Villa Crest
Retirement Community in Manchester.
Mrs. Martin was born Nov., 24, 1904 in Seloncour, France, to the late Emile and Eugenie (Guetal)
Chagnot. She later moved to New York state.
She was the widow of Jean Pierre Martin.
Mrs. Martin worked as a model in New York City. She also owned a restaurant, "Couret's" with her
first husband.
She graduated from Hunter College with an associate's degree.
Survivors include two sons, Michel E. Couret of Goffstown and Pierre X. Lafitte of Littleton; 11
grandchildren; nine great-grandchildren; and several nieces, nephews and cousins.
T he French & Rising Funeral Home in Goffstown is in charge of arrangements.
CIT AT ION (AGLC S T YLE) 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Possible confirmation of Jerrie Cobb's charter flight of a Life magazine crew to Dallas at Redbird Airport on Nov 22, 1963

I believe Gary Murr's chapter on Connally may provide an independent account of that plane flight.

It is in chapter 35 of volume 3 of Gary Murr's unpublished study of John Connally a link to which Murr posted elsewhere on this forum yesterday:  https://www.transferbigfiles.com/6cf3ca5d-8028-4660-889e-21aef4e3382b/pWQUgeSCOckz0pusCGTnrA2. (For Gary Murr's comments about this chapter see here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30025-pat-speer-on-the-ochelli-effect/page/2/#comment-524733.)

If this is the same flight, this will confirm that what Jerrie Cobb told author Haverstick about being the pilot of a charter flight of Life people to Redbird Airport on Nov 22, 1963 was true, but it will also show that the flight was not from Miami as Haverstick reports but from Austin, Texas. However the person who chartered the flight in Austin was a Life person from Miami, which may be the source of that confusion in the reporting of what Jerrie Cobb told Haverstick. We may be able to see an earlier, independent and more accurate version of the story of that flight than the version told in Jerrie's old age to Haverstick and published in A Woman I Know. We may learn the names of the passengers on that flight and that the charter was one-way only (Austin to Dallas), with the pilot (Jerrie Cobb if it was her, according to Jerrie Cobb as reported by Haverstick) evidently either leaving Redbird "empty" of passengers after delivering them to the airport, or perhaps leaving with other passengers, but no longer Life people. Quoting from the Gary Murr manuscript, p. 1737:

"Writing in 1983, [Time/Life correspondent] Holland McCombs claimed that at the precise moment of the Kennedy assassination he and photographer, Flip Schulke 'were on the University of Texas campus in Austin working on a LIFE project titled, "Sex On The Campus," or something like that. We were interviewing a group of students and sources in the Student Union Center when someone came to our table and and told me I was wanted on the phone.' However, writing almost twenty years prior to this recantation [sic? recitation?], an obviously 'fresher' McCombs described his positional attitude and reactions upon hearing of the assassination [the next paragraph is quoted from a letter of Feb 11, 1964 of Holland McCombs]: 

" 'Our Oswald logistics problems began about ten or fifteen minutes after the President was shot on November 22. Photographer Flip Schulke and I were interviewing a University of Texas coed about sex on the campus in the Student Union Cafeteria in Austin, Texas, when a girl at the next table yelled, "The President and Governor Connally have been shot in Dallas!" We jumped up from the table and rushed to the telephones. Mike Durham of the Miami Office had driven up from Houston to join us on the campus story. He chartered a plane and the three of us flew into Dallas. We taxied into the downtown,. saw people gathered in front of the Texas School Book Depository building and at the spot where the President was first hit. Mike and Flip went to the Texas School Book Depository Building for pictures of the spot from where the murderer fired the shot. I went on to the Adolphus Hotel and set up a sort of command post and headquarters in one wing of the hotel. Our troops began filtering in from Miami, New York, Chicago, and California.'

"Upon comparing other materials in the Holland McCombs Papers, this earlier retelling of his November 22, 1963 campus encounter would appear to be the more accurate of the two. The proper chronological sequence of events is that McCombs, Schulke, and Durham did hear of the assassination event 'second hand,' word of mouth from an unidentified student. Thereafter upon finding a campus telephone, McCombs apparently first called his wife who verified the startling account McCombs and the others had just heard from the coed. He then called 'Dick Billings, Bureau Chief in Miami' who suggested that all of them get to Dallas 'as quickly as possible...' and for McCombs 'to set up a command post at some motel or hotel best located for the obvious things to come.' McCombs complied..." 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy that is not a very intelligent comment, with respect to the criticisms I and others have raised toward the practice of quotations and citations from the Lafitte Datebook as if it is authentic when there is no authentication of the document, at the basis of Coup in Dallas. It is a document with absolutely sensational claims and Leslie, who is responsible, has not seen fit even now, in the year 2024 after publication of a lengthy book about it and tons of discussion, to even publish an accurate transcript (what is published is scattered in bits and pieces and filled with errors), or legible photos. If you want decent photos of the pages of the datebook that can be read (the ones she has published in Coup in Dallas are horrible and often literally unreadable) she has those for private distribution but requires people to sign a NDA (non-disclosure agreement)! Such that people cannot even discuss or comment in print upon the source text in those better photos, or publish corrections of errors in the published transcriptions from those better photos.

She has refused to disclose a timeline of the history of this artifact and its whereabouts and possession so far as is known with names, locations, and dates of conveyance. She will not consider donating the document to a university or the Mary Ferrell Foundation so that reputable researchers can access and study the primary text and publish their findings without being prevented and controlled by those damnable NDA's. She exercises tight, monolithic control over the artifact, attacks and ad hominems all who call for authentication, responds by saying "take it or leave it". She will not disclose who conducted prior forensic authentication studies on the artifact or allow anyone to even ask for permission that those scientists be permitted to disclose the findings of prior authentication studies, breathing threats of lawsuits if any scientist would dare disclose or leak that forbidden data. She will not disclose who owns the artifact. She has physical possession of it but will not disclose its ownership status or its history of ownership with dates and details. There is no financial transparency. And she is nasty and vituperative toward any who ask such questions.  

Instead of you disparaging what you think are my misguided views on the JFK assassination, which has nothing to do with the issue of forgery or authenticity of a claimed primary text which she and others are flooding this forum and the research community with, the basis for Coup in Dallas ... you as moderator should be proactive in calling for authentication of a claimed sensational-find text before it is carte-blanche "admitted as evidence" for discussion. 

What Leslie is doing is the exact opposite of openness and access to information. And unless established otherwise, it should be presumed forged, simply as clean method. The too good to be true principle in investments.  

That is the issue with Coup in Dallas discussions on this forum you should be focusing upon, if you care about research standards. 

And here is something scandalous. Below is the obituary Leslie disclosed earlier on this thread of the obituary of Pierre Lafitte's widow, Renee, although Leslie misidentified her name as "Renee Chagnot" (from https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3879.0.html, which has some other good research from Tom Scully). Note that Renee died in the year 2000. In Coup in Dallas Hank Albarelli says he obtained access to the Lafitte Datebook from Renee and had discussions with Renee about it, meaning before 2000. According to Coup in Dallas Renee, then in her 90s, cheerfully told Albarelli about having known Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina personally, what they were like, about her dear husband Pierre having run the assassination of JFK but how he was a good man nevertheless, etc. Yet in none of Albarelli's books published after that time, prior to the posthumous Coup in Dallas published in 2021, does Albarelli mention the sensational information of the Lafitte datebook. What was up with that? Did Albaralli know about the Lafitte datebook and its sensational contents all that time and tell no one until somewhere mid-2010's decade for the first time? Anyway, the obituary (bolds are not mine and was unable to remove).

 O bituary - T e le grap h, T he (Nashua, NH) - June 22, 20 0 0
June 22, 2000 | Teleg raph, The (Nashua, NH)
Reneé (Chag not) Martin, 95, of Goffstown, died Wednesday, June 21, 2000, at the Villa Crest
Retirement Community in Manchester.
Mrs. Martin was born Nov., 24, 1904 in Seloncour, France, to the late Emile and Eugenie (Guetal)
Chagnot. She later moved to New York state.
She was the widow of Jean Pierre Martin.
Mrs. Martin worked as a model in New York City. She also owned a restaurant, "Couret's" with her
first husband.
She graduated from Hunter College with an associate's degree.
Survivors include two sons, Michel E. Couret of Goffstown and Pierre X. Lafitte of Littleton; 11
grandchildren; nine great-grandchildren; and several nieces, nephews and cousins.
T he French & Rising Funeral Home in Goffstown is in charge of arrangements.
CIT AT ION (AGLC S T YLE) 

 

Digital and Physical Safety: Protecting Confidential Sources

COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS
November 22, 2021 10:56 AM EST

Protecting confidential sources is a cornerstone of ethical reporting. When journalists have agreed to protect someone’s identity, they should make every effort to do so, especially in circumstances where a source could be arrested or harmed.

Maintaining confidentiality has become more challenging due to increasing levels of digital surveillance and monitoring by authorities and the public. Journalists should therefore consider the following safety advice to help protect the identity of confidential sources.

https://cpj.org/2021/11/digital-physical-safety-protecting-confidential-sources/



UNESCO
Source Protection and the Protection of Journalistic Materials
 

(c)    The right not to disclose the identity of sources and the protection of journalistic material requires that the privacy and security of the communications of anyone engaged in journalistic activity, including access to their communications data and metadata, must be protected.  Circumventions, such as secret surveillance or analysis of communications data not authorised by judicial authorities according to clear and narrow legal rules, must not be used to undermine source confidentiality; 

https://www.mediadefence.org/ereader/publications/advanced-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online/module-4-privacy-and-security-online/source-protection-and-the-protection-of-journalistic-materials/

DIGITAL MEDIA LAW
If your source sues you for breaking your word and a court finds you had a legal obligation to keep your word, you may be ordered to pay your source compensatory damages. Generally, this means you must pay money to make up for anything your source has lost because you broke your word. Sometimes, this will not be much, but other times it could be a lot of money. In Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991), the reporters had to pay $200,000 to their source.

https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/promising-confidentiality-your-sources#:~:text=By promising confidentiality to your,you if you do so.

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy that is not a very intelligent comment, with respect to the criticisms I and others have raised toward the practice of quotations and citations from the Lafitte Datebook as if it is authentic when there is no authentication of the document, at the basis of Coup in Dallas. It is a document with absolutely sensational claims and Leslie, who is responsible, has not seen fit even now, in the year 2024 after publication of a lengthy book about it and tons of discussion, to even publish an accurate transcript (what is published is scattered in bits and pieces and filled with errors), or legible photos. If you want decent photos of the pages of the datebook that can be read (the ones she has published in Coup in Dallas are horrible and often literally unreadable) she has those for private distribution but requires people to sign a NDA (non-disclosure agreement)! Such that people cannot even discuss or comment in print upon the source text in those better photos, or publish corrections of errors in the published transcriptions from those better photos.

She has refused to disclose a timeline of the history of this artifact and its whereabouts and possession so far as is known with names, locations, and dates of conveyance. She will not consider donating the document to a university or the Mary Ferrell Foundation so that reputable researchers can access and study the primary text and publish their findings without being prevented and controlled by those damnable NDA's. She exercises tight, monolithic control over the artifact, attacks and ad hominems all who call for authentication, responds by saying "take it or leave it". She will not disclose who conducted prior forensic authentication studies on the artifact or allow anyone to even ask for permission that those scientists be permitted to disclose the findings of prior authentication studies, breathing threats of lawsuits if any scientist would dare disclose or leak that forbidden data. She will not disclose who owns the artifact. She has physical possession of it but will not disclose its ownership status or its history of ownership with dates and details. There is no financial transparency. And she is nasty and vituperative toward any who ask such questions.  

Instead of you disparaging what you think are my misguided views on the JFK assassination, which has nothing to do with the issue of forgery or authenticity of a claimed primary text which she and others are flooding this forum and the research community with, the basis for Coup in Dallas ... you as moderator should be proactive in calling for authentication of a claimed sensational-find text before it is carte-blanche "admitted as evidence" for discussion. 

What Leslie is doing is the exact opposite of openness and access to information. And unless established otherwise, it should be presumed forged, simply as clean method. The too good to be true principle in investments.  

That is the issue with Coup in Dallas discussions on this forum you should be focusing upon, if you care about research standards. 

And here is something scandalous. Below is the obituary Leslie disclosed earlier on this thread of the obituary of Pierre Lafitte's widow, Renee, although Leslie misidentified her name as "Renee Chagnot" (from https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3879.0.html, which has some other good research from Tom Scully). Note that Renee died in the year 2000. In Coup in Dallas Hank Albarelli says he obtained access to the Lafitte Datebook from Renee and had discussions with Renee about it, meaning before 2000. According to Coup in Dallas Renee, then in her 90s, cheerfully told Albarelli about having known Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina personally, what they were like, about her dear husband Pierre having run the assassination of JFK but how he was a good man nevertheless, etc. Yet in none of Albarelli's books published after that time, prior to the posthumous Coup in Dallas published in 2021, does Albarelli mention the sensational information of the Lafitte datebook. What was up with that? Did Albaralli know about the Lafitte datebook and its sensational contents all that time and tell no one until somewhere mid-2010's decade for the first time? Anyway, the obituary (bolds are not mine and was unable to remove).

 O bituary - T e le grap h, T he (Nashua, NH) - June 22, 20 0 0
June 22, 2000 | Teleg raph, The (Nashua, NH)
Reneé (Chag not) Martin, 95, of Goffstown, died Wednesday, June 21, 2000, at the Villa Crest
Retirement Community in Manchester.
Mrs. Martin was born Nov., 24, 1904 in Seloncour, France, to the late Emile and Eugenie (Guetal)
Chagnot. She later moved to New York state.
She was the widow of Jean Pierre Martin.
Mrs. Martin worked as a model in New York City. She also owned a restaurant, "Couret's" with her
first husband.
She graduated from Hunter College with an associate's degree.
Survivors include two sons, Michel E. Couret of Goffstown and Pierre X. Lafitte of Littleton; 11
grandchildren; nine great-grandchildren; and several nieces, nephews and cousins.
T he French & Rising Funeral Home in Goffstown is in charge of arrangements.
CIT AT ION (AGLC S T YLE) 

 

she has those for private distribution but requires people to sign a NDA (non-disclosure agreement)! Such that people cannot even discuss or comment in print upon the source text in those better photos, or publish corrections of errors in the published transcriptions from those better photos.

@Greg Doudna  Unless I'm misreading this, you've been advised of source text in 'better photos.' Have you seen 'better photos' to opine on whether the transcriptions are accurate?    Would you care to elaborate here, or pursue this privately?   

[Jonathan Cohen]

On 1/1/2024 at 9:47 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never understand Greg Doudna. He has a following, and I've never understood that.

Almost everything Greg believes is the polar opposite of what I believe. Given that, and the fact that his posts tend to be soooooooooo long, I rarely read what he has to say.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about him. He's one of those researchers who is wrong about so many things that he'll never figure the assassination out. IMO.

Uh-huh... so, because Greg doesn't believe in nonsense such as "Harvey and Lee" and massive fakery of the assassination photo record, and because he writes long posts, you have simply thrown up your hands and declared "that he'll never figure the assassination out" ? Gee, what a thoughtful, logical and reasoned response...

[Joe Bauer]

On 1/1/2024 at 11:32 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I have a question for readers of Haverstick's book.

How did she come up with the idea that June Cobb was the pilot of the (rumored?) airplane waiting at Redbird Airport on 11/22/63?

 

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna  Unless I'm misreading this, you've been advised of source text in 'better photos.' Have you seen 'better photos' to opine on whether the transcriptions are accurate?    Would you care to elaborate here, or pursue this privately?   

No I have not seen any better photos or been advised of contents of such, other than the poor photos in Coup in Dallas. I found errors in transcription from comparison with the legible portions of the poor published photos. If your interest was history and not tollgate monetization of content I would think reasonable observers might wonder why you don’t have high quality photographs donated for open access to the Mary Ferrell foundation on their website. You could still hold on to the physical artifact and make a gazillion off it if major authorities did perchance vet it and accept it as authentic, if that is a factor in your thinking. 

[Leslie Sharp]

15 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No I have not seen any better photos or been advised of contents of such, other than the poor photos in Coup in Dallas. I found errors in transcription from comparison with the legible portions of the poor published photos. If your interest was history and not tollgate monetization of content I would think reasonable observers might wonder why you don’t have high quality photographs donated for open access to the Mary Ferrell foundation on their website. You could still hold on to the physical artifact and make a gazillion off it if major authorities did perchance vet it and accept it as authentic, if that is a factor in your thinking. 

You've made an unfounded public accusation.  Please retract.

[Leslie Sharp]

@Greg Doudna Upon receipt of my advance copies of Coup and realization that the printer failed to get approval of our editor before hitting "print",  I immediately set in motion that a PDF version of the entries found in the back of the book would be provided to all who purchased a copy. I've posted that offer on numerous social media sites as well as JFK forums including this one. (paraphrasing) Those who have purchased a copy of Coup in Dallas are entitled to a PDF version of the screenshots presented in the print edition as well as Kindle version.  If you would like to receive the PDF, under either of those conditions, private email me at lesliemsharp17@gmail.com. 

Please explain why you think you're more qualified to transcribe the Lafitte entries? Have you spent hundreds (and hundreds) of hours over the past five years perusing the original instrument?  If you think that your interpretation of certain entries might alter the overall conclusions drawn, let me know.  I would particularly like to hear your assessment of the number of references to Otto and Ilse Skorzeny in the datebook. Or, your explanation of why "du Berrier" would appear on Lafitte's radar?  You do know who Hal du Berrier is, right?

I can assure you that Hank Albarelli would never turn over the datebook to the Mary Ferrell Foundation, nor will I.

Edited January 3 by Leslie Sharp