Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

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

You addressed it briefly. I don't believe we've discussed it.

You didn't try to argue that Oswald was the only missing warehouseman, you said he was the only one reported by Truly and the only one that mattered. You're right that he was the only one reported by Truly, but whether or not he was the only one that mattered is only your opinion.

The fact is that Oswald was not the only missing warehouseman that day, and your claim that he was the only missing warehouseman is demonstrably and unequivocally false.

This, for me, casts doubt upon your accuracy as an author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

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.

From my webpage on Ferrie....

"I ask: If David Ferrie was a guilty plotter, do his known actions during
the period of November 22-25, 1963, make any logical sense at all?
I say they do not.

[...]

On February 18, 1967, four days before he died, Ferrie was interviewed
in his apartment by Andrew Sciambra and Lou Ivon of the New Orleans
District Attorney's office. At one point during the interview, Sciambra
asked Ferrie, "Dave, who shot the President?" Ferrie's answer was:
"Well, that's an interesting question and I've got my own thoughts
about it."

Quoting directly from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History":

"Ferrie then proceeded to sit up and draw a sketch of Dealey
Plaza and the Texas School Book Depository Building and [per the
memorandum of the interview supplied to Jim Garrison by Sciambra and
Ivon] "went into a long spiel about the trajectory of bullets in relation
to the height and distance." He then gave a "lecture on anatomy and
pathology [and] named every bone in the human body and every hard
and soft muscle area" and concluded that one bullet could not have
caused all the damage the Warren Commission claimed it did."
--
"Reclaiming History"; Page 1400

Now, I think a logical question to ask after reading the above
paragraph is: Why would Ferrie, if he was guilty of being part of a
conspiracy, have wanted to say ANYTHING at all of a derogatory nature
about the Warren Commission's investigation (which was, after all, an
investigation that ended with the determination that Oswald had acted
alone in killing JFK)?

When Ferrie told Sciambra and Ivon that, in essence, he didn't think
the Single-Bullet Theory was true, that was pretty much the same thing
as Ferrie saying a conspiracy did, in fact, exist in the murder of
John Kennedy.

And why would ONE OF THE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAD KENNEDY KILLED
want to say anything at all (to Jim Garrison's investigators, no less!) of
a negative or critical nature concerning the Warren Commission's "lone
assassin" conclusion?

In my opinion, that would have been a crazy and illogical thing for
Ferrie to do IF Ferrie had really played a role in some kind of a plot
to murder President Kennedy.

But, since it's fairly obvious that there isn't a scrap of evidence to
link David Ferrie to any JFK conspiracy plot, then Ferrie's anti-SBT
comments that he made to Sciambra and Ivon in February 1967 do not
really fall into the "crazy" or "illogical" categories at all. But they
certainly would belong in those two categories if Ferrie had been
guilty of conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy." -- DVP; September 17, 2009

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/david-ferrie.html

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

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

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But, since it's fairly obvious that there isn't a scrap of evidence to
link David Ferrie to any JFK conspiracy plot,

It sure is funny how his name seems to come up for discussion so often then, huh?

Just bad luck on his part, I suppose! :)

Share this post


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

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.

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?

Share this post


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

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

"to tell LBJ about an upcoming holocaust..."  Patriotic Ruby breaks down mentally and kills Oswald to spare Jackie and the kids from coming to Dallas for a trial then he breaks down further in jail/court wanting to go to Washington to tell LBJ of his own paranoia over Jewish persecution?  Horse manure.  He wanted to go to Washington to make a deal to tell what he knew to the fed's because nothing was forthcoming from all his old friends in Dallas.  That's why Ruby mentioned the guy that Warren told him had died in a car wreck in New York City.  They both knew what was up.  Warren pleaded ignorance from that point on and went home.  Look it up.  Read it for your self.  Fill in the name of the guy who died in the cab in NYC.  I don't feel like looking it up for you right now. 

Share this post


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

It sure is funny how his name [David W. Ferrie] seems to come up for discussion so often then, huh?

And exactly how much evidence against Ferrie is being brought up in those discussions?

I'll answer that one myself --- None.*

* That is, after you've thrown out the lies of Perry Russo, as you must do if you want to arrive at something factual.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Von Pein is almost as funny as Litwin.

Instead of looking at 1967, when everyone and their mother doubted the Single Bullet Fantasy and Garrison was closing in on him, why not tell us about 1963 Davey?

If Ferrie had no connection at all, then why did he begin searching and calling his former CAP pals to see if anyone had any evidence linking him to Oswald?  

Why did he lie his head off in his FBI report?

Why did he drive to Houston through a rainstorm to a skating rink and then sit by a phone for a couple of hours?

Why was he worried about Oswald having his library card?

And what about the Bomb package?  You probably don't even know what that one is do you?

All of this is in Destiny Betrayed second edition.  You and Litwin should read it, then you would not have foot in the mouth syndrome.

In any other case, Bugliosi would have said this all indicated "consciousness of guilt".  But since this is JFK, no way this time.  He was being paid to prop up the Warren Report.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

"to tell LBJ about an upcoming holocaust..."  Patriotic Ruby breaks down mentally and kills Oswald to spare Jackie and the kids from coming to Dallas for a trial then he breaks down further in jail/court wanting to go to Washington to tell LBJ of his own paranoia over Jewish persecution?  Horse manure.  He wanted to go to Washington to make a deal to tell what he knew to the fed's because nothing was forthcoming from all his old friends in Dallas.  That's why Ruby mentioned the guy that Warren told him had died in a car wreck in New York City.  They both knew what was up.  Warren pleaded ignorance from that point on and went home.  Look it up.  Read it for your self.  Fill in the name of the guy who died in the cab in NYC.  I don't feel like looking it up for you right now. 

Stolen title.  For dramatic purpose.  Added CT and JFK.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=i+was+a+teenage+werewolf&view=detail&mid=2D71D474C2F733E4E2402D71D474C2F733E4E240&FORM=VIRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Denny, for reading the book and posting your comments here. I've decided to save the $10 and not buy the book. If Mr. Litwin wants to argue his case to me, he'll have to do it right here on the forum for free.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that someone stated earlier that Ferrie's skull wasn't opened up at the autopsy.  And so the berry aneurysm could not have been seen.

However, I just read the autopsy report and it does claim that the head was opened up:
 

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.... (Source)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that correction Sandy.  That was actually a source that Joan Mellen used.

Can you show in the autopsy report where it talks about the bruising on the inside of the mouth?

Edited by James DiEugenio

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

×