Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Of course. Why not?

Connally was certainly still able to pivot around in his seat as late as the Z270s and Z280s (see Z275 below), and you surely aren't going to suggest to me (as some CTers have done) that Governor Connally hasn't yet been hit in his back with a bullet even as late as Z275....are you? (And also please take note of the fact that Mr. Connally is still holding his Stetson hat in Zapruder Frame #275 as well, debunking yet another long-standing myth endorsed by conspiracy theorists.)

Z275....

z275.jpg

 

Connolly to the WC.

"

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

 

In Altgens6 , JFK appears to have been hit, and Connolly has turned, as he said  to his right,  in his testimony. I know you don't believe him, but the photo confirms his statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Getting back to the topic of this thread, my review of the book is now up:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2018/10/book-review-i-was-teenage-jfk.html

Clay Shaw who perjured himself, I don't care what the NYT says or anyone else. He was a highly paid asset for the agency before the assassination.

Anyone who authenticates and believes the autopsy pix are authentic ought to put his crack pipe away. There are way too many statements that specific elements in those pix did not exist while the autopsy at Bethesda took place. What is even more shocking is the mask at the back of the head, which is so evident that the HSCA did not dare to show this pic and had Ida Dox airbrush this BS. Come of it! Seriously! If you cannot understand and see the sharp jagged shark teeth style  lines of that mask at the back of the head then I suggest those that do not get this to walk away from this as you are in complete and utter Doylesque denial. 

I have been in photography and darkrooms a little too long to be fooled by this Mickey Mouse BS. And no it is not a shadow either in case any fool is thinking that....

BE5_HI.jpg

 

Yes I will not read this dross, when simple basic errors are projected as truth.

I am also well aware that CTers have messed loads of things up with their pet theories and still do which is just as bad as the LNers who have been frozen dry since November 1963.

The documents that have come out since a year and a bit ago, the jury is still out on that, there is way too much to go through and for Litwin to project a conclusion already is a massive blunder. I doubt he has actually ploughed through 1,000 pages of them.....

Utter opinionated trash, now walk away.

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

I doubt he has actually ploughed through 1,000 pages of them.....

"Aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know".....

We have been waging war thru deception for 5000 years - but that all ended well before Nov 1963...  :drive

LITAMIL-9 was a well kept secret for a very long time... one of his main roles was identifying people from photos for the CIA....

The Monthly Summary reports for LIENVOY for Sept and Oct 1963 are also in that new batch and fail to mention Oswald in Mexico anytime in Sept 1963....

Both show that contemporaneously, the documents and informants DO NOT corroborate that Oswald was at the Cuban Embassy..

Something these boys should learn before denying conspiracy planning and execution:

Sun Tzu: Art of War....   "All Warfare is based on Deception"

Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first (CIA, ONI, MID) put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

Whether the object be to crush an army, to storm a city, or to assassinate an individual, it is always necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants, the aides-de-camp, and door-keepers and sentries of the general in command. Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these.

1873994574_LITAMIL-9andAZCUEveryclose.jpg.99878201823de20e07aecad8bef7328d.jpg

5aba5ec7b3540_LITAMIL-9CIAassetwithinCubanEmbassyinMexicoCitysaysheneversawOswald.jpg.3ede49c0fc42566f4f755f641bd88adf.jpg868723708_LITAMIL-9WITHALVAREZ-PEREZANDJIMENEZ.thumb.jpg.0c60e348dd5fea1677676619ac393d68.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Getting back to the topic of this thread, my review of the book is now up:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2018/10/book-review-i-was-teenage-jfk.html

This review is frighteningly Orwellian.  Well written, superficially persuasive, and utterly dishonest.

The examples are legion, including the physically absurd argument that the Zapruder film footage is consistent with a fatal head shot fired from behind the limo.  Not.

My question.  What motivates people like Litwin and Parnell to engage in propagating this kind of disinformazia?

Not lack of intelligence, because both are, obviously, good writers.

Money?  Some sort of misguided moral or political agenda?

Edited by W. Niederhut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

 which is so evident that the HSCA did not dare to show this pic and had Ida Dox airbrush this BS. Come of it! Seriously! If you cannot understand and see the sharp jagged shark teeth style  lines of that mask at the back of the head then I suggest those that do not get this to walk away from this as you are in complete and utter Doylesque denial. 

I have been in photography and darkrooms a little too long to be fooled by this Mickey Mouse BS. And no it is not a shadow either in case any fool is thinking that....

 

Is it true that the uncropped original color back wound photos show the cranium empty with a gloved hand reaching down into the head? In that case, the BOH photos only show intact scalp, not skull. And it would probably imply the scalp was peeled back before the taking of the photographs.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


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

Is it true that the uncropped original color back wound photos show the cranium empty with a gloved hand reaching down into the head? In that case, the BOH photos only show intact scalp, not skull. And it would probably imply the scalp was peeled back before the taking of the photographs.

The BOH photo wasn't.prepared according to proper autopsy protocol.

There is no chain of possession for any of the extant autopsy photos.

There's an impossible 2-inch discrepancy between the T1 wound in the photo and the bullet holes in JFK's clothes.

The T1 wound has a lower margin abrasion collar, consistent with a shot from below.

The HSCA singled out the BOH photo as "more confusing than informative" and the autopsy photos were "deficient as scientific evidence."

The Fox 5/BOH photo is a fugazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

My question.  What motivates people like Litwin and Parnell to engage in propagating this kind of disinformazia?

Not lack of intelligence, because both are, obviously, good writers.

Money?  Some sort of misguided moral or political agenda?

There you have it. We did not have to wait long before the old chestnut is trotted out-if you don't agree with us, you must be a paid agent from the CIA or wherever. I have been involved in JFK research since 1984 and I have never made a cent. Fred will presumably make some money from his book-as he should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not what he said Parnell, and you know it.

He was asking a question first about money.

Then he offered that it may be misguided moral or political agenda. 

In other words, America could not have done something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is not what he said Parnell, and you know it.

He was asking a question first about money.

Then he offered that it may be misguided moral or political agenda. 

In other words, America could not have done something like this.

I believe my comment was fair. He asked what motivates us and went on to suggest money was a factor. It is reasonable to assume that the money would come from the CIA, or wherever because I don't know where else it would come from. Fred Litwin (who is having trouble posting right now) tells me sales of his book have been very modest. DVP stated, if I remember correctly, that he has sold around 50 copies of this own book which means he didn't cover his expenses in all likelihood. In any case if Mr. Niederhut says he did not mean to say we are paid agents, I will apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reading of  Mr Niederhut's post,  doesn't appear to me he is accusing anybody of taking money. It seems to me it  was just one of two alternative  suggestions.

"My question.  What motivates people like Litwin and Parnell to engage in propagating this kind of disinformazia?

Not lack of intelligence, because both are, obviously, good writers.

Money?  Some sort of misguided moral or political agenda?"

 

 

Share this post


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

My reading of  Mr Niederhut's post,  doesn't appear to me he is accusing anybody of taking money. It seems to me it  was just one of two alternative  suggestions.

"My question.  What motivates people like Litwin and Parnell to engage in propagating this kind of disinformazia?

Not lack of intelligence, because both are, obviously, good writers.

Money?  Some sort of misguided moral or political agenda?"

 

 

Very good question. Most of the so-called "conspiracy theorists" are obviously motivated by their desire to learn the true circumstances of President Kennedy's death.

But what motivates lone gunman advocates? They think they already know what happened: Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy for no reason at all with a crappy old WWII rifle.

However I don't think it's money that motivates them - not from selling books and certainly not from the CIA. I think deep inside they know that the Warren Commission's story can't be true. But to them all the alternatives seem even more incredible. So that creates some form of cognitive dissonance. The only way to overcome this is by either ignoring or downplaying all the evidence that contradicts the "offical story".

Edited by Mathias Baumann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I don't rule out the possibility that Clay Shaw was a CIA "asset" since he was former military. That does not prove he was involved in an assassination plot.

What a horrendous cop-out your reply is. He lied in court..... and he was O.S.S. to be precise.

You are in denial.......badly so.

 

 

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Very good question. Most of the so-called "conspiracy theorists" are obviously motivated by their desire to learn the true circumstances of President Kennedy's death.

But what motivates lone gunman advocates? They think they already know what happened: Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy for no reason at all with a crappy old WWII rifle.

However I don't think it's money that motivates them - not from selling books and certainly not from the CIA. I think deep inside they know that the Warren Commission's story can't be true. But to them all the alternatives seem even more incredible. So that creates some form of cognitive dissonance. The only way to overcome this is by either ignoring or downplaying all the evidence that contradicts the "offical story".

You're so wrong !
First of all, who said that Lee Oswald killed JFK "for no reason at all" ? In Vincent Bugliosi's book you can read a whole chapter on motive, for example. I mean, as I write in my own book, nobody can ever say that they "know" Lee Oswald's motive. He took his secret to his grave. OK. But that does not mean in any way that he assassinated Kennedy for no reason at all.
Second of all, the Mannlicher-Carcano was a rifle, for Christ sake. It kills people. If it was used during the war by professional soldiers, you can bet it was acurate enough. And remember : it was even used during the Lybian civil war in 2011 ! Experiments have proved time and again that it was a weapon totally capable of killing JFK, sadly enough…
Your sarcasm won't do in this instance.
You want to know what motivates people like me, or Gerald Posner, or DVP ? How about defending the truth ? How about defending facts and common sense, and fighting disinformation ?
You are the one who is ignoring the overwhelming evidence !

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

×
×
  • Create New...