I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Ron Bulman]

11 hours ago, Fred Litwin said:

That might be true...but you won't know unless you read my book.

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.  

[Mathias Baumann]

On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 4:38 AM, Fred Litwin said:

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. 

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?

[Fred Litwin]

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.

[Fred Litwin]

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.

[François Carlier]

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 3:12 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Francois:

In the above, do you mind answering the questions?  Either you or Mr.Litwin, perhaps he deals with this matter in his book.

Considering that Stringer denied taking the brain photos since it was not his film or technique, and the particle trail Humes described is not on the x rays today then:

1.) Who took the autopsy photos and why did it have to be someone else?

2.) Where did the particle trail go and why?

 

 

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).

[Paul Baker]

On 9/12/2018 at 8:30 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Can you believe this guy?  One example, the NAA test has now been proven to be junk science.

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.

[Fred Litwin]

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.

[Fred Litwin]

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.

[Mathias Baumann]

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 4:50 PM, Fred Litwin said:

 I don't think there is a "good sales tactic" that would convince you to buy it.

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.

[Fred Litwin]

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.

[Mathias Baumann]

Just now, Fred Litwin said:

I doubt i can sell my book to you.

What makes you think that?

[James DiEugenio]

OMG, Baker pops up again with that semantical trick he always used.

This guy tries to confuse the public with a shell game.  The NAA technique vs the CBLA.

You use NAA for Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis.

The latter is JUNK SCIENCE.  Period.  This is why the FBI will never use it again in court.  Somehow Baker knows better than the FBI and he calls it an old chestnut.  What a joker.

Here is my review of the evidence in that regard:

 https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

It was done in concert with Pat Grant.  Who, along with Ric Randich, tore open the whole farce.

Here is an overview of the whole battle to get CBLA thrown out of court.

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=faculty_publications

Edited September 26, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, I went ahead and scanned the rest of Litwin's joke of an article.  The first time around i started laughing when I saw he backed the CBLA that the HSCA did.  Anyone who would accept Guinn's analysis even in the nineties had to be desperate.  Since his figures on their own terms were deeply flawed.  In his fine little book Cover-Up, Stewart Galanor showed this very clearly. In three pages, he showed that the bullet mixture for Carcano projectiles are not unique throughout, as Guinn said they were. Galanor did this with Guinn's own evidence chart.  (See p. 43)  That book was written in 1997 and published in 1998. At the same time, Wallace Milam was doing the same thing with Guinn's work at JFK seminars in Washington.  Somehow Litwin was so wed to his Oswald did it dictum that he could not see straight, or he never looked at Guinn's chart.  Probably both.  So please do not use, "Well i wrote that essay before CBLA had discredited Guinn" as an out Mr. Litwin. As we shall see, for your search of evidence,, the ends justifies the means.

Great example: This guy actually uses the HSCA's Canning as a witness for the  trajectory test showing that the Single Bullet Fantasy is correct.  LOL  

Yet by 1995, the material on the HSCA phony Canning experiments was being declassified. Canning's letter to Blakey shows that 1) He was terribly unhappy with the info he was getting via the compartmentalization Blakey used. 2.) He thought they had proved a conspiracy in the JFK case. (The Assassinations, edited by Jim DIEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 81) Litwin also fails to note that in Canning's work, he used the old WC version of where the back bullet struck, which was in the neck! (ibid p 79)  We know that is not the case and we knew it back then.  But just as bad, in Canning's work there is no downward angle in the trajectory through the neck.  Further, Canning stopped his analysis of the Single Bullet Fantasy at Connally's back. So how does this bolster what Litwin says it does? 

I could go on and on with this since Canning's testimony is so full of holes that Pat Speer wrote about ten pages demolishing him. But this is the kind of work Litwin does. He does not understand that just because some quack says this or that, and it indicts Oswald, that does not make it true.  But he does that with Canning and Guinn.  BTW, I did not even get to the worst part of Canning, that is his sphere of incidence, that is from where the rifle could have fired from, that is flat out hilarious. (Ibid, pp 80-81)

In certifying the BYP, Litwin does not note the wrong ring finger in the photos or pose the question as to why would LHO switch the ring for these pics.  And he accepts the wrong chin, which even the members of the HSCA had real problems with. He just says, well, they could not detect any line there.  He does not then add that if one follows that kind of logic then LHO had a chin operation.

He accepts the autopsy photos and x rays without mentioning the different testimony on the back of the head, which the HSCA deliberately covered up.  By not mentioning it, he does not have to explain it.

The most hilarious part of this essay is the so called jet effect he uses from the discredited Luis Alvarez.   This has been discredited so many times its ridiculous: by Wallace Milam, by Doug DeSalles for starters.  TInk Thompson did so in his new book by using the actual data from Alvarez' own experiment.  Gary Aguilar has used that to rip the experiment to smithereens.  Alvarez lied.  Period. End of story.

If Litwin's book is like his essay, and I suspect it is, its a waste of paper.  This guy did about as much honest research as John McAdams does. And that is why his essay is housed there. Which means he surfs the web for anything that will support his thesis, no matter what it says, or who wrote it, or how many times its been discredited.

What a disgrace.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

On 9/12/2018 at 1:30 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Can you believe this guy?  One example, the NAA test has now been proven to be junk science.

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.

 

Jim is right, Paul Baker is wrong.

Neutron activation analysis (NAA) is indeed junk science when it is used for bullet lead analysis, as it was for the first time in the Kennedy case.

Compositional bullet lead analysis (CBLA) using NAA has been discredited and is no longer used by the FBI. Quoting from this Wikipedia article:

The technique used by Guinn [i.e. NAA] to analyse the bullet lead from the JFK assassination was a form of what has become known as Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA). Until 2004 the FBI used this technique [NAA] to determine whether a crime scene bullet lead sample came from a particular box of ammunition or a particular batch of bullets. Guinn claimed that with the JFK bullet fragments, the technique could be used to identify the exact bullet the fragments came from.

However, the validity of CBLA was discredited in a 2002 paper ("A Metallurgical Review of the Interpretation of Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis", (2002) 127 Forensic Science International, 174-191)^[89] co-authored by Randich and by former FBI Chief Metallurgist, William Tobin.

The 2002 Tobin/Randich paper prompted the National Academy of Sciences (Board on Chemical Science and Technology) to review the science of bullet lead analysis. In a report in 2004^[90] the NAS found the scientific basis for matching bullet sources from the analysis of bullet lead composition as practiced by the FBI [i.e. NAA] was flawed. As a result of that report, the courts appear to have stopped accepting this evidence^[91] and the FBI has stopped using bullet lead analysis for forensic purposes.^[92]

Here is what the Wikipedia article on CBLA (using NAA) has to say:

Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), ....is a now discredited and abandoned^[1]forensic technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup.^[2]

The technique was first used after U.S. President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.^[2]

 

[Paul Baker]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You use NAA for Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis.

The latter is JUNK SCIENCE.  Period.  This is why the FBI will never use it again in court.  Somehow Baker knows better than the FBI and he calls it an old chestnut.  What a joker.

You can keep saying that, Jim. Sadly there is no correlation between the validity of any statement and the number of times you repeat or CAPITALISE it. I'm sure there's a latin term for this pseudologic. Reductio ad nausem? Hell though, if it's working for you, I can understand its appeal. However, In the scientific community (as opposed to this 'research' community) it doesn't work. Its effectiveness is zero. Plain and simple. I hope you understand, but I understand that you may not. I also understand that I have far better things to do than try to convince you of anything.

There's nothing junk about the science simply because you (and your average jury member) can't interpret the NAA results which help to support the single bullet theory.