First, the author, James Beverly Ward, as confirmed by is daughter, Adeline Ward McVeigh, did NOT include exact information from the fraudulent Laflin Lafitte memoirs. That is an assumption on your part.
Secondly, how can you validate the accuracy of the memoirs which are considered a forgery.
I may have no "first hand knowledge", but neither do you.
Remember, a house of cards built with aces back to back is still subject to collapse.
The summation you present is, once again, "based on speculatory assumptions" without any first hand knowledge, so allow me to clear some things up for you, again. First, the memoirs.
You keep referencing the subject of forgery which has never been clearly determined, your summation being based on circumstances that are not conclusive and still debated today. What you fail to understand in your assumption is that the information within that text, regardless of author, has never been established to be inaccurate despite efforts to do so. Just as with the Beale Pamphlet "the actual author" has been your only focus and the sole focus of these "non-conclusive" references. There have been all kinds of forgeries, this even including documents such as the DOI, forgeries, yes, but also accurate down to the each and every word. This is why I have requested that you actually speak to live bodies and actually research these findings and that you ask the right questions. Until you do you are trying to hold debate/protest on subjects that are only at the sole mercy of your personal assumptions and blind speculations.
Two, you keep referencing the interview of Adeline Ward McVeigh and the statement that she only believed her father to be the author, again, a non-conclusive response/reply to the question asked. Clearly she wasn't sure but only assuming, just as you are now. If Adeline Ward McVeigh said that she personally believed her father to be Jesus would you likewise be so easily convinced? Adeline Ward McVeigh could provide no evidence to support her claim, a claim that she wasn't all that certain of herself, so why are you allowing that uncertain claim to hold so much absolute water? I know why, as do you. A very odd circumstance for someone who demands such absolute clarity, don't you think?
Your dilemma is this, how, in 1885, did your author know about those same distributions in the LM when that information wasn't public until the 1940's? Very clearly, he did know about them, right down to the dates of deposit.
