Mary Haverstick's Important New Book on the JFK Assassination

[Greg Doudna]

The significance of finding the Life magazine photographers that Jerrie Cobb said she as pilot charter flew into Redbird airport on Nov 22, according to what Jerrie Cobb told Mary Haverstick, is Haverstick came to believe that meant Jerrie Cobb was involved in the JFK assassination and had flown in to go to Dealey Plaza to be the Babushka Lady, assassinate JFK personally, then make her way back to Redbird and fly away again. 

As part of this (wholly unfounded and implausible) conclusion, H questioned that any Life magazine photographers were Jerrie’s passengers, and suggested that Life magazine, with its maybe CIA associations, would falsely back up Jerrie’s story which H suggested was a cover story for Jerrie flying in to personally shoot JFK dead. 

And as presented in A Woman I Knew, H identifies that admission or “confession” of Jerrie, that she was a charter pilot who flew some magazine people to Dallas that day, as central to what motivated H’s line of investigation for the rest of the book. 

When as is seen from the Gary Murr chapter on the Holland McCombs Life magazine story, there was such a charter flight of Life magazine photographers sounding very close to what Jerrie Cobb told H.

H shows no awareness of this Life magazine McCombs material telling of the charter flight to Dallas, which is not surprising because if it had not been for the accident of Gary Murr posting the link to his excellent unpublished chapter of research on the McCombs/Life story a day or two ago, nobody else would know of it either. Gary Murr got that from archived papers of Holland McCombs. 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

But that's not June Cobb. 

[Greg Doudna]

51 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@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?

Is anyone who receives these better photos from you able freely to discuss, quote from (within legal fair use), and publish comment upon, those photographs? 

You have previously stated on this forum that signing a NDA was required to obtain that, and I believe you indicated all who had received it had signed such. Are you prepared to say here that what you are offering is open access for research and discussion and publication thereof, without NDA or an other strings or controls from you attached preventing legal fair use?

If not, why should anyone serious bother to get the better quality photo from you if you have control over the expression of their thoughts or findings from study of it? What legitimate researcher in their right mind would want that kind of muzzle control from you over them? 

Are you prepared to say here that any existing NDAs signed by any who have received those better photos which you offer in repair of the shoddy published ones, are hereby lifted?

Don’t try to make the issue my expertise at transcription. The issue is you prevent anyone with expertise from freely examining and publishing research findings from better photographs.

And with your moments-ago demand that I retract my statement that your shoddy published photographs do not in all cases agree with published published transcriptions of such in Coup in Dallas—I have cited one or two rather examples in the past on this forum and won’t repeat that here—you telegraph a pretty clear signal how you regard scholarly scrutiny or proposed corrections or improvements of your published transcriptions. And as litigous as your language and legal threats often are, this has a chilling effect on research and discussion.

Why are you limiting access to the better quality photos only to those who purchased the book? What about people who see the book in a library? (Most scholars with expertise work out of libraries.) 

Edited January 3 by Greg Doudna

[Leslie Sharp]

On 1/1/2024 at 9:23 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Is anyone who receives these better photos from you able freely to discuss, quote from (within legal fair use), and publish comment upon, those photographs? 

You have previously stated on this forum that signing a NDA was required to obtain that, and I believe you indicated all who had received it had signed such. Are you prepared to say here that what you are offering is open access for research and discussion and publication thereof, without NDA or an other strings or controls from you attached preventing legal fair use?

If not, why should anyone serious bother to get the better quality photo from you if you have control over the expression of their thoughts or findings from study of it? What legitimate researcher in their right mind would want that kind of muzzle control from you over them? 

Are you prepared to say here that any existing NDAs signed by any who have received those better photos which you offer in repair of the shoddy published ones, are hereby lifted?

Don’t try to make the issue my expertise at transcription. The issue is you prevent anyone with expertise from freely examining and publishing research findings from better photographs.

And with your moments-ago demand that I retract my statement that your shoddy published photographs do not in all cases agree with published published transcriptions of such in Coup in Dallas—I have cited one or two rather examples in the past on this forum and won’t repeat that here—you telegraph a pretty clear signal how you regard scholarly scrutiny or proposed corrections or improvements of your published transcriptions. And as litigous as your language and legal threats often are, this has a chilling effect on research and discussion.

Why are you limiting access to the better quality photos only to those who purchased the book? What about people who see the book in a library? (Most scholars with expertise work out of 

 When you retract your accusation,  I'll continue this discussion.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

On 1/1/2024 at 12:32 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

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

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

Joe,

Huh?

That is Jerrie Cobb, not June Cobb.

And that is a space capsule at a NASA facility, not an airplane at Redbird Airport.

<scratching head>

 

[Greg Doudna]

26 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

When you retract your accusation,  I'll continue this discussion.

I have no intention of retracting the plain fact that the published transcription does not always agree with the published photographs, but even if I did I don't think you would be willing to "continue this discussion" in the sense of being responsive to relevant questions. I think the non-responsiveness to relevant questions speaks for itself. I intend to move on to other things and hope this thread remains on topic with Jerrie Cobb and the Haverstick book. 

Edited January 3 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

When as is seen from the Gary Murr chapter on the Holland McCombs Life magazine story, there was such a charter flight of Life magazine photographers sounding very close to what Jerrie Cobb told H.

 

Greg,

If you are right about Jerrie Cobb flying in those Life photographers, here is what I'd find interesting:

That would confirm that Haverstick really did have that conversation with Jerrie Cobb. And that would mean that Jerrie Cobb probably did say that she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her. Which, if you ask me, is pretty remarkable in itself. For one, why would June Cobb impersonate Jerrie Cobb? Second, who would have known about that? And actually told Jerrie about it?

It makes it sound like Jerri Cobb did in fact have some intelligence ties.

Forget about the Babushka Lady stuff.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I have no intention of retracting the plain fact that the published transcription does not always agree with the published photographs, but even if I did I don't think you would be willing to "continue this discussion" in the sense of being responsive to relevant questions. I think the non-responsiveness to relevant questions speaks for itself. I intend to move on to other things and hope this thread remains on topic with Jerrie Cobb and the Haverstick book. 

You alleged I have "monetized" information that shouldn't be.  Does that mean Talbot, di Eugenio, Hancock, Doudna et al, shouldn't sell books, or Stone sell tickets? Do you actually believe they have provided the public with everything they have collected on the assassination? How long was JFK Revisited in the works? Couldn't they  have easily jumped on the various forums and brought the public up to date? What about all of the promos and teasers and trailers? Were those intended as advance notice that when the full documentary was ready it would be made available at no cost?  Philosophicallly, you seem to think that journalists should spend thousands (and tens of thousands) traveling, researching, interviewing so that your personal curiosity can be satiated with no attendant cost? 

 

We're having this discussion on this thread because I challenged you to explain why you take absurd claims presented in AWIK as possibly credible, and yet dismissed Coup out of hand when we have a physical document to substantiate our findings, not vague innuendos about Redbird from conversations that took place decades after Dallas and conclusions drawn from fundamentally flawed assumptions. 

The NDA is to prevent unauthorized dissemination of copyrighted material, standard publishing protocol. The NDA is in effect.

If you're going to continue to allege the transcription is not aligned with the original entries, I insist you provide examples, or retract. (I'm aware of one instance of copy edit error.)

 

Edited January 3 by Leslie Sharp

[Greg Doudna]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Greg,

If you are right about Jerrie Cobb flying in those Life photographers, here is what I'd find interesting:

That would confirm that Haverstick really did have that conversation with Jerrie Cobb. And that would mean that Jerrie Cobb probably did say that she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her. Which, if you ask me, is pretty remarkable in itself. For one, why would June Cobb impersonate Jerrie Cobb? Second, who would have known about that? And actually told Jerrie about it?

It makes it sound like Jerri Cobb did in fact have some intelligence ties.

Forget about the Babushka Lady stuff.

(I added the bolding to yours above.) No, Jerrie Cobb having that conversation telling Haverstick that she had been a charter pilot for Life magazine photographers that day does not "mean that Jerrie Cobb probably did say that she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her". Logical non sequitur.

Although as a separate point, according to H Jerrie did claim that she had information that June Cobb had at some point impersonated her, Jerrie. But that does not "make it sound like Jerrie Cobb did in fact have intelligence ties". Also, I don't think any verification has been published, whether in or outside of H's book, that June Cobb ever impersonated Jerrie.

I believe your point is if that happened Jerrie would have had inside intelligence information to have been told or known that. But she could have been told inaccurately as hearsay, could be mistaken, who knows. There is no evidence June Cobb impersonated Jerrie and it is not obvious why June Cobb would want to or why CIA would want her to do so. 

It is cited in H's book that David Atlee Phillips told Gaeton Fonzi of HSCA that June Cobb had a twin sister, Jerrie. That was not accurate, but could reflect some confusion over the two identities, as it is clear otherwise was the case for agencies. If that got back to Jerrie it could be mistakenly understood as intentional impersonation possibly. 

Jerrie may or may not have had intelligence debriefings or whatever of her own (who's to know for sure) but I do not think either of the points above establishes or indicates that.

As I recall as H tells it, H was asking Jerrie about some things related to oddities of the JFK assassination and mentioned the Redbird airport aircraft that had attracted attention on Nov 22 because it remained on the runway for a period of time after the assassination running up its engines but not taking off, as if waiting for a passenger. As H tells it, when H mentioned that Jerrie reacted and said that pilot was her, and told H about the Life photographers' charter flight. As Jerrie told H, the issue with the aircraft taking off from the runway was related to airspace being restricted, not waiting for a passenger. But H did not believe Jerrie's "innocent" explanation of charter flying photographers for Life, and it was off to the races for the rest of the book. 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

... and yet dismissed Coup out hand when we have a physical document to substantiate our findings ...

A physical document that nobody can examine for themselves ...

[Leslie Sharp]

15 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

A physical document that nobody can examine for themselves ...

What do you not understand about the legal term, "private property"? Are you familiar with the phrase "terms and conditions apply"? Are you aware that journalists have a right to protect their sources and relevant material? 

I suspect you would not attempt this charade were Albarelli here. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

What do you not understand about the legal term, "private property"? Are you familiar with the phrase "terms and conditions apply"? Are you aware that journalists have a right to protect their sources and relevant material? 

I suspect you would not attempt this charade were Albarelli here. 

I'm not "attempting" any kind of "charade." Just merely pointing out, for the umpteenth time, that there is no means by which researchers can examine the "physical document." Thus, your claims about it are completely unverified and are rightfully treated as such.

[Sandy Larsen]

22 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, Jerrie Cobb having that conversation telling Haverstick that she had been a charter pilot for Life magazine photographers that day does not "mean that Jerrie Cobb probably did say that she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her". Logical non sequitur.

 

You believe that Haverstick told the truth about Jerrie saying she'd flown a plane into Redbird.

Well, if you have the right to be believe that, then I have the right to believe that Haverstick told the truth when she said she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her.

How do you like them apples Greg? LOL

 

[Sandy Larsen]

37 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, Jerrie Cobb having that conversation telling Haverstick that she had been a charter pilot for Life magazine photographers that day does not "mean that Jerrie Cobb probably did say that she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her". Logical non sequitur.

 

I'll tell you what is a logical non sequitur, Greg. That you are aware of a flight going to Dallas on 11/22/63 and that somehow shows that Haverstick was telling the truth about Jerrie Cobb saying she had flown into Redbird that day. Especially given that the flights were respectively from two different states!

 

[Greg Doudna]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You believe that Haverstick told the truth about Jerrie saying she'd flown a plane into Redbird.

Well, if you have the right to be believe that, then I have the right to believe that Haverstick told the truth when she said she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her.

How do you like them apples Greg? LOL

I don’t think you understood my point Sandy. I believe H that Jerrie said both of those things, because I don’t think either was willfully fabricating. But the one thing had nothing to do with the other, distinct issues. And, I am skeptical that June Cobb impersonated Jerrie though I do not doubt that Jerrie told H that and believed it. Neither of these things that Jerrie told H were wilfully fabricated by Jerrie although the second may or may not have been a misunderstanding, and neither logically establish that Jerrie had intelligence connections. That’s all I meant.