Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I believe it is CRITICAL, before bogging down in minutiae and theories, to gain as much of an understanding as possible of WHO LEE HARVEY OSWALD REALLY WAS.  I would've saved myself a lot of time and money if I had taken that approach.

That is the key for sure. When I first started studying the case, conspiracy books I read made the claim that LHO was just sort of a regular guy whose childhood was no worse than anyone in that era. Eventually, I found out the truth and went from agnostic to LN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

To your list, I would add:

OSWALD'S GAME - Jean Davison

MARINA AND LEE - Priscilla Johnson McMillan

OSWALD'S TALE - Norman Mailer

OSWALD: RUSSIAN EPISODE - Ernst Titovets

LEGEND - Edward Jay Epstein

Yes, yes, I know, the first three at least are staples of the Lone Nut community.  (Epstein's work, of course, is approximately 180 degrees removed from the currently prevailing Deep Politics theories, which is why he is dismissed as either a CIA dupe or disinformation agent.)  I believe it is CRITICAL, before bogging down in minutiae and theories, to gain as much of an understanding as possible of WHO LEE HARVEY OSWALD REALLY WAS.  I would've saved myself a lot of time and money if I had taken that approach.

All right. I agree, that's definitely interesting reading.
Actually, I mentioned only those few books because I was specifically addressing Ray Mitcham's remark about the shot in the back / neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

To your list, I would add:

OSWALD'S GAME - Jean Davison

MARINA AND LEE - Priscilla Johnson McMillan

OSWALD'S TALE - Norman Mailer

OSWALD: RUSSIAN EPISODE - Ernst Titovets 

LEGEND - Edward Jay Epstein

Yes, yes, I know, the first three at least are staples of the Lone Nut community.  (Epstein's work, of course, is approximately 180 degrees removed from the currently prevailing Deep Politics theories, which is why he is dismissed as either a CIA dupe or disinformation agent.)  I believe it is CRITICAL, before bogging down in minutiae and theories, to gain as much of an understanding as possible of WHO LEE HARVEY OSWALD REALLY WAS.  I would've saved myself a lot of time and money if I had taken that approach.

I have to admit : I have never read Ernst Titovets's book. I don't even really know its content. 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

I have to admit : I have never read Ernst Titovets's book. I don't even really know its content. 😕

You leave the impression that you have read the others. Did you mean to leave that impression? Did read them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

I have to admit : I have never read Ernst Titovets's book. I don't even really know its content. 😕

Here he is in 2014:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr66UmrYnuM

He isn't a Lone Nutter by any means - I don't know of anyone who knew LHO in Minsk who believes he was a presidential-assassin-waiting-to-happen - but his book is full of good insights.  It's only $6.99 in the Kindle version.

He certainly has impeccable credentials: http://etitovets.com/Titovets_dream.html.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, François Carlier said:

All right. I agree, that's definitely interesting reading.
Actually, I mentioned only those few books because I was specifically addressing Ray Mitcham's remark about the shot in the back / neck.

Carlier can't give a summation of the arguments put forth in those books because those books put forward no arguments in regard to the back wound.

Carlier can't even figure out if it was a shot to the back or the neck!

It's a con game game poorly played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Carlier can't give a summation of the arguments put forth in those books because those books put forward no arguments in regard to the back wound.

Carlier can't even figure out if it was a shot to the back or the neck!

It's a con game game poorly played.

Lol Cliff stop it you have been on fire lately. 

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

You leave the impression that you have read the others. Did you mean to leave that impression? Did read them?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Still no arguments to rebut  the evidence of a back wound rather than a neck wound, then, Francois?

Still haven't made the effort to read the books (or even one of the books) that explain everything scientifically and with logic and common sense, and answer all your easy questions, then Ray ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Still haven't made the effort to read the books (or even one of the books) that explain everything scientifically and with logic and common sense, and answer all your easy questions, then Ray ?

Come on Francois. You can do better than that.You quote at least three authors, Posner, ( a proven plagiarist who lied through his teeth in his book Case Closed) Bugliosi, (an author who wrote his book as a prosecution brief rather than a true investigation.) and DVP (and I don't have to say what I think of his writings)

 

Give me your refutations if you have any, of the evidence of the back shot was in the President's shoulder rather than his neck.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 3:55 AM, David Von Pein said:

Offhand, I cannot think of a single piece of evidence in the JFK/Tippit case that CTers accept as a genuine, valid piece of evidence. And the reason for such wholesale CTer skepticism is, of course, because all of that evidence points directly at Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no other reason, and everybody here knows it.

That's because you put all "Cters" in the same basket. Think of Robert Blakey. He even believes in the single bullet theory and yet he's convinced that the Mafia was behind the assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Still no arguments to rebut  the evidence of a back wound rather than a neck wound, then, Francois?

There are none, Ray.

These guys have canned talking points they can recite in their sleep, but like their T3 Denier brethren in the "CT Critical Community" they sputter and dodge when confronted with the actual physical evidence.

Once in a great while you can catch one of them off-guard, like when Von Pein admitted JFK's jacket was elevated "a little bit" on Elm St.

But such moments of clarity are rare, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There are none, Ray.

These guys have canned talking points they can recite in their sleep, but like their T3 Denier brethren in the "CT Critical Community" they sputter and dodge when confronted with the actual physical evidence.

Once in a great while you can catch one of them off-guard, like when Von Pein admitted JFK's jacket was elevated "a little bit" on Elm St.

But such moments of clarity are rare, indeed.

Is there experimental evidence attempting to replicate such a bunch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Is there experimental evidence attempting to replicate such a bunch?

No, it's physically impossible given JFK's casual movement in the limo.

What happens when you casually wave your right arm?

The fabric of your shirt indents on your right shoulder-top.

It's the most readily verifiable phenomenon on the planet.

It's amazing how people can deny what happens literally under their nose...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×