Jump to content
The Education Forum

Fred Litwin

Members
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fred Litwin

  1. 5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

    From Death of the NAA Verdict:

    The first serious broadside against Guinn and the NAA was issued by Wallace Milam at the COPA Conference in Washington in 1994. Milam questioned the very basis of Guinn's conclusions. Guinn had said that the metallic make-up of WCC MC could vary widely from bullet to bullet, the term for this being "heterogeneous" or irreproducible. But Guinn also added that the metallic make-up of a single MC bullet was not; the term for this was "homogeneous". But Milam showed that Guinn's data did show large variations within a single bullet, especially in the measure of the trace element antimony, which Guinn placed much weight on. He also noted that his testimony on this issue seemed to contradict a paper he wrote that very same year in Transactions of the American Nuclear Society. There he wrote that: "In the U. C. Irvine INAA background studies of the Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, it was found that this bullet lead is remarkably heterogeneous somewhat within a given bullet." (Emphasis added) Yet, for the HSCA, Guinn seemed to place the efficacy of the findings on the intra-bullet lead being homogenous or uniform and consistent throughout. And really, if this were not the case, then Guinn's whole testimony would dissolve.

    Milam's logic was penetratingly simple on this point. In the 1964 tests the FBI had taken microscopic samples from the same bullet and come up with different concentrations of antimony ranging from 636 parts per million (PPM) all the way up to 1125 PPM. With this wide range of data within one bullet, then it would be possible to match varying PPM values to differing fragments if one were to allow a large enough variance. And it appears that this variance is what led the Bureau to declare the earlier NAA results "inconclusive".

    Milam's discussion was well informed, pointed, and well documented. (It is available online at the site Electronic Assassinations Newsletter, under the title "Blakey's linchpin".) Later on Art Snyder, a physicist, questioned the statistical analysis used by Guinn. Interestingly, although Guinn prepared such an analysis, when challenged to assign a probability number for the certainty of his work, he declined. (For instance, the two acoustical analysts for the HSCA gave their work a 95% probably certainty statistic.) Snyder later commented that Guinn probably did not assign such a figure because the number would have been too high, signaling a high probability of error due to the high variables involved in his findings.

     

    Note above:  Milam's critique began in 1994.  And like Galanor, it went after Guinn's chart and his claim of antimony consistency. So if Litwin was a real researcher, which he is not, he would have found this presentation.

    I did find it, and I also found Joel Grant's rebuttal.

  2. 3 hours ago, François Carlier said:

    I guess you'll never tell us where those photos of the inside of David Ferrie's mouth can be seen ?

    And, of course, during the autopsy, the brain was cut open where they did see the berry aneurysm. There was also evidence of an earlier bleed. All of this confirmed that David Ferrie died of natural causes.  

  3. 26 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

    Of course there is a good sales tactic that would convince me, and, I'm sure, many others on this forum. If your book contains any new, original ideas or evidence I'd seriously consider buying it, no matter which theory they support.

    I've spent my whole life in sales, and I doubt i can sell my book to you. And you know what, I'm quite ok with that. Some people should NOT read my book.

  4. 3 hours ago, François Carlier said:

    Mister DiEugenio,
    This thread is about Fred Litwin's new book.
    Some members have mentioned David Ferrie's autopsy and you wrote that some pictures contradicted the forensic doctor's findings. I then asked you either to show us the pictures or to let us know where we can see them (via a web link or something).
    That's all.
    Instead of answering my simple question ("Where can we see the pictures ?") you keep asking me something else pertaining to JFK's autopsy (though I have never adressed that topic).
    Why ?
    Please let us all know where we can see the pictures that you mentioned.
    (After that, I can easily answer your questions about JFK's autopsy in another thread. It's easy).

    Good point, Francois. Some of the people here just don't want to admit that Ferrie died of natural causes and that he had a full, complete forensic autopsy. And, yes, the brain was examined.

  5. 32 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

    Not that old chestnut again, Jim. Just because NAA is something you don't understand, that doesn't make it junk science. 

    NAA isn't junk science. It's a valid, reliable, sensitive and non-destructive analytical technique.

    This simple, truthful statement won't, of course, prevent you from spouting rubbish the next time you brush up against reality, I'm sure, but I felt compelled to repeat it.

    Still ignorant after all these years. Sigh.

    Don't believe everything Jim DiEugenio says. My article was written long before there was any doubt on NAA.  And my book is quite clear on the uses of NAA.

  6. 2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

    Well, if you avoid answering any of the questions I posted here you could at least tell us if you've done any original research for your book or if it's just a summary of information that can be found for free on the internet.

    I've read the websites of David Reitzes and John McAdams and I've noticed that they do not provide satisfactory answers to the most puzzling questions. Instead they spend a lot of time on debunking the more ludicrous conspiracy theories. They usually avoid questions raised by serious researchers. And funnily some of the material they post contradicts their own conclusions. For instance, McAdams has posted the HSCA testimony of Dr Cyril Wecht on his website, which clearly shows that the medical panel's ultimate conclusion concerning the single bullet theory was utterly wrong, because it didn't take into account Kennedy's posture at the moment he was hit. The Zapruder film proves that Kennedy was in an upright position when the bullet hit him, so the shot could not have come from the 6th floor of the School Book Depository. Another example would be the Jefferson Morley article on Jane Roman. It provides evidence that CIA's counterintelligence had a "keen interest" in Oswald. Yet curiously after he's met with a KGB assassin he's taken off the FBI's watch list. McAdams simply ignores this fact and hopes his readers don't notice.

    So if you want to promote your book here you should at least tell us if it adds anything substantial to the understanding of the case and give es some examples. Just saying "it's all in my book so please buy it" is not a good sales tactic. There are hundreds of books on the JFK assassination, so why should we buy yours?

    You shouldn't buy my book. It's clearly not for you. I think i would be happier if YOU did not buy it. I don't think there is a "good sales tactic" that would convince you to buy it. So, I need not waste my breath.

  7. 12 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

    It matters a lot if you ask the wrong questions.  Why waste time or money on your book if by all accounts it's another whitewash of the warren omission?

    You admit your asking the wrong questions but hope someone will still buy your book.  

    Nowhere do I admit I was asking the wrong questions. I do not believe there was a conspiracy, but I still read a lot of conspiracy books on the assassination. And, so yes, people who believe in conspiracy should also read non-conspiracy books. But that is my opinion, and if you disagree, I just don't care.

  8. 45 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

    That would depend on the quality of your answers of course. After all I've joined this forum to learn why President Kennedy had to die not to promote any particular pet theory. If Oswald really was the lone killer, then so be it. But of course there's a mountain of evidence to the contrary, some of which I've addressed in my previous post.

    Well, not my cup of tea. Most of your questions, I am sure you can answer. If you want to buy my book, fine. And, if not, fine too. A lot of the answers are in my book. 

  9. 1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

    Maybe the author could tell us if he managed to find the answers to the following questions:

    - Why was the back wound so much lower than the throat wound?

    - How did the HSCA's acoustics experts find sonic booms in random noise?

    - Why did the Dallas Police fail to protect Oswald although they had received threats against his life?

    - How did Ruby enter the basement of the Police Department without being seen by the policemen standing guard?

    - Why did Ruby kill Oswald?

    - Why did Oswald kill Kennedy?

    - Who was the Oswald impostor who called the Soviet embassy in Mexico City and why did he call?

    - Who was behind the plots in Chicago and Tampa?

    - Who killed Johnny Roselli and why?

    - What did Roselli's friend David Morales mean when he said "We took care of that son of a bitch, didn't we?"

     

    If it doesn't answer these questions the book is probably not worth reading.

     

     

    Are you saying that if I answer those questions, you'll buy my book?

  10. 31 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

    You know, I like both Sandy and Bart, but this thread is not about this topic.  At least I doubt if Litwin has it in his book.

    Can we get back to what the topic was, that is Mr Litwin reforming himself and finding salvation with the Warren Commission.

    I somehow missed the story of Oswald's missing tooth.

  11. 1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

    This sounds a lot like bi-polar disorder....

    The depths of those depressions is unfathomable by those who have not been exposed....   

    Nothing you've offered suggests these were not suicide notes... everything you've said can be used for either side of the argument...

    and therein lies the rub...

    Except that the autopsy was perfectly clear. Ferrie died from a berry aneurysm. He died from natural causes - and the coroner had

    seen the notes as well. He wasn't swayed by them.

  12. 33 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

    "To leave this life is, for me, a sweet prospect. I find nothing in it that is desirable, and on the other hand everything that is loathsome"

    Fred...  "TO LEAVE THIS LIFE IS, FOR ME, A SWEET PROSPECT"

    Not exactly a "desire to live forever" note.... 

    "Dear Al:

    When you read this I will be quite dead and no answer will be possible....

    .... All I got in return in the end was a kick in the teeth. Thus I die alone and unloved."

     

    What parts of these notes leads you to believe they are NOT suicide notes... 

    :huh:

     

    If a person is ill and DOESN'T take their medicine on purpose... and die...  

    Suicide or not?  (and no, an autopsy would not be able to tell)

    ----

    I believe the autopsy discussed is FERRIE's....

    As I posted earlier, this is what Stephen Roy (Blackburst) wrote about those notes:

    Quote

     

    The assassment of the notes as "suicide notes" is subjective. They can also be construed as Farewell notes of a dying man.

    Ferrie suffered from severe headaches all his life, and his autopsist believed he suffered a non-fatal burst aneurysm at some point. Beginning in 1966, Ferrie began telling friends he thought he was dying [which proved to be an accurate assessment]. He told this to Jimmy Johnson, for example. In July, 1966, he signed a new will. By early 1967, he was fearing that he had encephalitis or cancer of the neck, whose symptoms are not unlike those of a growing aneurysm. He was unable to keep food down, and told many (such as Garrison investigators Sciambra and Ivon) that he was very sick.

    There is little to support a suspicion of suicide, but much to suggest that Ferrie was slowly dying from what ultimately killed him.

    Ferrie drifted from moments of hopelessness to moments of strength. In his final days, he was planning to sue Garrison's office and Jack Martin. Ferrie told friends that he had been hounded by Martin's allegations for three years, and that he was too sick and tired to fight.

     

    He did not commit suicide. We KNOW that. And so, those notes are not suicide notes.  

  13. Here is what Blackburst (the best expert on David Ferrie) wrote on the supposed suicide notes:

    Quote

     

    The assassment of the notes as "suicide notes" is subjective. They can also be construed as Farewell notes of a dying man.

    Ferrie suffered from severe headaches all his life, and his autopsist believed he suffered a non-fatal burst aneurysm at some point. Beginning in 1966, Ferrie began telling friends he thought he was dying [which proved to be an accurate assessment]. He told this to Jimmy Johnson, for example. In July, 1966, he signed a new will. By early 1967, he was fearing that he had encephalitis or cancer of the neck, whose symptoms are not unlike those of a growing aneurysm. He was unable to keep food down, and told many (such as Garrison investigators Sciambra and Ivon) that he was very sick.

    There is little to support a suspicion of suicide, but much to suggest that Ferrie was slowly dying from what ultimately killed him.

    Ferrie drifted from moments of hopelessness to moments of strength. In his final days, he was planning to sue Garrison's office and Jack Martin. Ferrie told friends that he had been hounded by Martin's allegations for three years, and that he was too sick and tired to fight.

     

    Ferrie did not commit suicide and the notes were not suicide notes.

  14. From the autopsy:

    Quote

    CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM: The scalp is reflected and the calvarium is removed in the usual manner. There are no contusions in the scalp. There is no fracture of the calvarium. The dura is stretched tightly over the left cerebral hemisphere and a large subdural hematoma is visible beneath the dura at this area. The right cerebral hemisphere is markedly compressed and flattened. The total volume of the subdural hematoma on the left side is measured at 95ml. The brain is removed and weighs 1480 grams. Dissection of the Circle of Willis demonstrates a small berry aneurysm at the anterior communicating artery between the two anterior cerebral vessels. This ansurysm measures 1/8 in. in maximum diameter. There is a frim blood clot adherent to it, and a much larger fresh blood clot lying between the frontal lobes communicating with the area of the aneurysm. Multiple sections through the brain show no evidence of contusion foci in the contex. The white matter is normal. The basal ganglia shows no changes. The lateral ventricles are slightly compressed. There is a marked edema and flattening of the right cerebral convolutions. There is uncinate herniation on the left side. There are numerous hemorrhages in the rostral pons and thalamic region. Therse hemorrhages lie mostly in the tegmental area of the pons but some are in the basilar substance in the midline. The medulla and cerebellum show no changes. The dura is stripped from the base of the skull and no fractures are found.

    David Ferrie did not commit suicide. He died by natural causes. The notes that were found were NOT suicide notes.

  15. 33 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

    The sad thing is that I tried to give you multiple opportunities to discover the error on your own. Instead of opening your own copy of your own book and searching for the name, you just insisted that you were right, when in reality you were wrong.

    So I'll pose the question to you once again, because I'm genuinely curious:

    If you are unfamiliar with the contents of your own JFK assassination book, why should anyone care what you have to say about the JFK assassination?

    What, cause I got a name wrong?  Of my god, I am human. But, what I wrote was accurate and honest.

    Not good enough for you. 

     

  16. 12 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

    Why do I have to repeat this?

    The point is not what Ruby wanted to tell them. The point is that you said the claim that Ruby asked to be taken to Washington did not have a "scintilla" of truth to it..

    Please let me repeat that. In your book you said that the claim that Ruby wanted to go to Washington to testify didn't have a "scintilla of truth" to it.

    That is just plain wrong.

    The reality is that Ruby did repeatedly ask to be taken to Washington, and everyone knows it.

    Why are you arguing otherwise, seriously?

    And, on page 110 of my book, I write, "Ruby did plead to be taken back to Washington D.C..."

    Schoenman was wrong about what Ruby was saying....

    My book is completely accurate.

    fred

  17. 26 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

    I believe that there are least two false statements in your book.

    In Location 533 of your book you write, regarding Lee Harvey Oswald and the TSBD:

    Which is categorically false.

    You may want to accurately phrase it as "Oswald was the only missing warehouseman whose absence Roy Truly noted and the the only missing warehouseman whose address Roy Truly retrieved and immediately gave to investigators." But to say that Lee Harvey Oswald "was the only warehouseman missing" is just plain not true any way that you slice it, because Charles Givens was also not present in the TSBD at that time.

    The second false claim in your book is at Location 1168:

    There are the claims that, according to you, are without a "scintilla of truth" to them, quoted from your book, Locations 1135 and 1151:

    I'd say that E Howard Hunt connects the CIA, the Bay of Pigs, Watergate and the Kennedy Assassination.

    The fourth claim of Schoenman "Jack Ruby, the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, pleaded with the Warren Commission to take him to Washington, D.C., because he couldn't tell the truth in Dallas" is entirely true and can't be argued as false. When you say that there isn't a "scintilla of truth" to it, that is an entirely false claim on your part.

    E. Howard Hunt has not connection to the JFK assassination.

    We've already discussed the issue of the missing warehouseman earlier.

    We all know why Ruby wanted to go to Washington, and it wasn't to spill the beans on any conspiracy. It was to tell Lyndon Johnson about an upcoming holocaust against the Jews.

    fred

  18. 1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

    You don't have any mention at all of David Chandler in your book, at least not in the kindle edition that I own, downloaded from Amazon about three days ago.

    A search for Chandler brings up zero results.

    It seems that you're thinking of reporter David Snyder. Am I correct?

    Your entire cite for this is a memo found in FBI files from David Snyder dated February 24, 1967. Is that right?

    Yup, I made a mistake and it was David Snyder.

  19. 1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

    You show that by your statements on this forum. I quoted it. You said 

    "Just check out what Ferrie told David Chandler"

    When questioned on it by Sandy Larsen, you said the information could be found

    "In my book, of course."

    Which is another false statement.

    Again, please tell me why anyone should take anything you have to say about the JFK assassination seriously when you don't even know the contents of your own book?

    I'm genuinely curious about this.

    No false statement anywhere.

    The information and the quotes are in my book. 

    And, why on earth do you say I don't know the contents of my own book?

    fred

  20. 1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

    This is circular logic.

    I did read your book, and, in my opinion, by not mentioning the suicide notes, you're gently shading the direction of your narrative by omission.

    Gee, that sort of sounds good. I gently shaded my narrative.

    if you have read my whole book,what are your thoughts?  Or is that it, no mention of suicide notes and it's all downhill?

    fred

  21. 23 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

    Do you believe a suicide note is a contract? You believe that when a person writes a suicide note and then fails to complete the act, even if they do indeed wind up dead after writing it, this somehow invalidates the suicide note itself?

    I believe that a person can write a suicide note and survive their suicide attempt, or die of natural causes in the interim, and that suicide note is still a suicide note. The note stating intention to commit suicide is no less a suicide note than it would be if the suicide was successful.

     Apparently you do think a suicide note is a contract. Well, I hate to inform you that even McAdams agrees that David Ferrie's second note sounds like a suicide note.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death10.htm

    Arguing that that's not a suicide note, or could not reasonably be interpreted as one, is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that makes me question the rest of your assertions or conclusions.

    If you had mentioned Ferrie's suicide notes in your book, if only to debunk them, that would be one thing. But leaving them out entirely, and then using circular logic to justify leaving it out, again makes me wonder about the value of your book as a serious contribution to JFK literature.

    Fred, you're here on the forum seriously arguing that it's not possible for a human being to write a suicide note unless the note specifically says suicide and the person completes the act. Seriously?

    Because you believe Ferrie did not die any other way but natural causes does not make those notes any less real or relevant to the history of the JFK assassination, in my view.

    There is no circular logic here. Ferrie had an autopsy and he died by natural causes. It was a berry aneurism and the Coroner found proof of an earlier bleed as well. Just read David Chandler's reports of Ferrie's condition in his last week and you know that he was a sick man. As for his so-called note, check the conclusions of John McAdams article - it may have sounded like a suicide note (and it did NOT mention suicide as I said earlier) but it was NOT a suicide note. I hate to break it to you, but David Ferrie died a natural death and we can be happy we have sound scientific proof of that. Sorry, but that's the truth.

  22. 35 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

    I have not examined the letters in question, but it is my understanding that those who did examine them judged them to be suicide notes.

    Unless you are arguing that these notes did not exist, or that they could be reasonably judged as not being suicide notes, or not being written by David Ferrie, omitting them from your narrative concerning David Ferrie's death isn't giving your readers the full story.

    It tells me, as a reader, that you're omitting facts that don't suit your narrative. That's a red flag for me. I'm just being honest.

    But you are wrong. They cannot be suicide notes, because Ferrie did not commit suicide. And, the notes themselves

    don't mention suicide. You need to read my book, and then determine if I am giving readers the full story. My narrative follows the evidence, and the evidence is clear - David Ferrie did not commit suicide.

    fred

×
×
  • Create New...