Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

 

Fred, I am really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but how do you expect anyone to take you seriously on the topic of the JFK assassination when you don't even know the contents of your own book?

Who says I don't know the contents of my own book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

Who says I don't know the contents of my own book?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

They cannot be suicide notes, because Ferrie did not commit suicide.

This is circular logic.

30 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

You need to read my book, and then determine if I am giving readers the full story.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

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

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.

46 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

And, the notes themselves don't mention suicide.

 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

Quote

The next "suicide note," however, does sound like a suicide note:

Dear Al:

When you read this I will be quite dead and no answer will be possible. I wonder how you are going to justify things.

Tell me you treated me as you did because I was the one who always got you in trouble. The police arrest. The strip car charge. The deal at Kohn School. Flying Barragona in the Beech.

Well, I guess that helps ease your conscience, even if it is not the truth. All I can say is that I offered you love, and the best I could. All I got in return in the end was a kick in the teeth. Thus I die alone and unloved.

You would not even straighten out Carol about me, though this started when you were going steady.

I wonder what your last days and hours are going to be like. As you sowed, so shall you reap.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fred Litwin said:

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

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fred Litwin said:

No false statement anywhere.

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:

Quote

After the assassination, he was the only warehouseman missing.

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:

Quote

Of course, at the time of the showing of Good Night America, I didn't know that there wasn't a scintilla of truth to anything Gregory, Groden, or Schoenman had said.

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

Quote

Rivera's next guest was writer and historian Ralph Schoenman who was introduced as someone who had investigated the assassination for over a decade.

Schoenman made several claims:

  • That Watergate, the Bay of Pigs, and the Kennedy Assassination were all connected through the involvement of CIA/Counterintelligence.
  • Lee Harvey Oswald was both an FBI and a CIA agent, according to Secret Service document 767.
  • There were CIA documents in the National Archives that were being withheld from investigators.
  • 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
  • Jack Ruby's psychiatrist reported that Ruby had told him that he was part of a plot to kill Kennedy
  • Jack Ruby's death from lung cancer in 1967 was suspicious

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

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.

Edited by Denny Zartman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fred Litwin said:

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

I'll try and give your book a mini review soon. I have two pages of notes on it, and I'll be glad to share my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The  autopsy report on Ferrie is about one page long.  

As Dr. Martin Palmer said the autopsy was "slipshod".  Since it was only a partial one and they did not even open the brain case, casting the berry aneurism verdict into doubt.  Also samples of the blood were not kept.  The photos reveal the inside of Ferrie's mouth as really burnt and Minyard says you can actually see contusions there.  MInyard speculated these could have been caused by "something traumatically inserted into Ferrie's mouth."  (Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, pp 106-09)

Now go back and look at the report and see if that information, preserved in pics, is in the report.  I can save you the time.  It is not.  That piece of information is actually covered up in the report.  In other words, you would not have gotten it from the report, you  have to look at the pictures.  Who was going to go down there and do that?

Denny, does Mr Litwin mention this information in his book?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

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

What? He went through two trials, and lost the last one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt#Libel_suit:_Liberty_Lobby_and_The_Spotlight

And there's this little matter, as well.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-last-confession-of-e-howard-hunt-76611/

 

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

×