Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Jim Garrison vs Fred Litwin

Recommended Posts

Ron:

Whenever DVP brings up his WC ideas of the Tippit murder, just link to this article

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium

This includes the newest research on that case and shows the cover up that the WC performed on the death of Tippit.

The whole timeline of TIppit's activities from about a little before noon to the time he is killed was completely concealed by the Warren cover up artists. That is why I had to use McBride's book to put together what he was really doing in the last hour of his life. You will never find that out from the WR. 

Jim Garrison did a fairly nice job on that case but I don't think he ever got to the importance of Croy and Westbrook and their BS stories.  Or how Hill did the cover up through the press on that.

BTW that article on Tippit  really hit a nerve.  Talk about a lot of views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 1:01 AM, David Von Pein said:

Wrong. The medical evidence doesn't suggest any such thing, and the HSCA and Clark panels knew this. There was only ONE entry hole in JFK's head. All the autopsy doctors substantiate this, as does the autopsy report itself. If the HSCA and Clark panels saw any proof of the "EOP" entry in any of the photos or X-rays, of course they would have said so. There was no logical reason under the sun for those men to start lying about where that entry wound was.

Conspiracists have invented various reasons for the HSCA and Clark people to want to raise the wound up into the cowlick, but that's the fertile imaginings of the CTers at work and nothing more than that. The fact is: those men studied the photos and X-rays and saw the wound high on the head....so that's what they reported. Simple as that. (The unproven theories of CTers notwithstanding.)

Don't be silly, David.

IF the red splotch by the cowlick on the BOH photo was an obvious entrance wound, it would have been identified as such by the autopsy doctors in their reviews of the photos, and by the doctors viewing the photos over the last 25 years. But no, instead, virtually everyone to view the photos of late, including your fellow LNs Zimmerman, Sturdivan, Lattimer, and Cummings, has sided with the original observations of the autopsy doctors, i.e., that the entrance wound was near the EOP.

So why the change by the Clark Panel and HSCA FPP? When you study their statements, it's clear they couldn't find a path through the brain connecting the EOP and the top of the head, and reasoned therefore that the entrance must have actually been at the top of the head, where they found a red splotch on the photos.

The problem, of course, was that this splotch was neither "slightly above" the EOP, nor 1 inch to the right of the EOP,  as measured at autopsy.

Oh well, we can always claim they were incompetent...better that than, gulp, admit what the Justice Dept. has hired us to refute--that the evidence suggests more than one headshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, since Litwin dropped his morsel of his  book here he has been a busy beaver.  He had a brief article in Toronto Star,  and did a TV show in Ontario.

He also had said that he turned went from one side to the other in the space of four years.  That is from the Z film ABC showing to the HSCA report.  Pretty short time he was a JFK Conspiracy Freak.

Fred did another article for  an online journal which  I will discuss in a separate article.  We may have to set up something called the Litwin Watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

  We may have to set up something called the Litwin Watch.

Why give this clown any more exposure?

Promoting this fake debate is counter-productive in my book.

"Garrison vs. Litwin" frames the discussion with an elevation of the nutter.  Litwin isn't worthy of having his name mentioned in the same breath as Garrison.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

Why give this clown any more exposure?

Promoting this fake debate is counter-productive in my book.

"Garrison vs. Litwin" frames the discussion with an elevation of the nutter.  Litwin isn't worthy of having his name mentioned in the same breath as Garrison.

 

I totally agree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paz:

The days of our side taking this crapola are over.

If you don't knock it down then the implicit message is that it has some kind of value.

This is the mistake Jim Garrison made with that whole mafia connection.  It took hold.  Even Oliver Stone bought into it. Until Bill Davy and myself decided to demolish it in print and public.

That was also  the mistake we made with Posner.  Weisberg's book was too little too late.  Dave Starks' idea of arranging 100 mistakes of fact and interpretation was a good one but that came late also.  This is why I did what I did  with Bugliosi's 2, 646 page cinder block,  since I knew that no one was going to do the lengthy and thorough demolition of that book that was needed.  People very much appreciated that effort.  And it greatly disturbed the other side, just ask David Von Pein.

When you expose someone in all of their incompetence and stupidity, that is not giving them exposure.  The only way one can conclude that is if one does not read the article.

No one, repeat: no one, likes getting a bad review.  Whether its a book, a play, a movie or a recording. I know this since I used to write movie reviews. Analyzing in depth why LItwin is either stupid or a prevaricator, and showing with declassified documents that  Garrison was correct  elevates the DA and shows why Litwin is worthless.  If you don't want to read the article then fine, that is your option.  But that is the effect if you do read it.  But also, by using these declassified documents, I show the reader that the mythology the other side is trying to create: that the ARRB produced nothing of value is BS.  Because I am one of the few people who has read them.  That is why Stone wanted me to do the AV supplement to the DVD of his film when it came out. Many people liked since it exposed the attacks on him as being gaseous.  Just ask Reitzes.

But also, what this does is it motivates and empowers our readers to take action. How many of them have read these documents?  I know this  is the case since they send me copies of their communications to either the publishing entity or the author.  They very much like not being made to feel powerless.  And there really is not anyone, except maybe 2 other people, who can do this with the New Orleans aspect except me, since I know it well.

There is more coming.  The days of suffering in silence are over. Me 2

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

I totally agree 

Thank you, Paz.

Some folks haven't learned the lesson of Donald J. Trump: there's no such thing as bad publicity. 

It doesn't matter to a huckster what people are saying about them as long as they're the subject of discussion.

The nutter in question is thrilled that DiEugenio wants to keep promoting him under the guise of a critique.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Thank you, Paz.

Some folks haven't learned the lesson of Donald J. Trump: there's no such thing as bad publicity. 

It doesn't matter to a huckster what people are saying about them as long as they're the subject of discussion.

The nutter in question is thrilled that DiEugenio wants to keep promoting him under the guise of a critique.

I do thank you. Well, Jim is simply an excellent researcher who really loves Jim Garrison and JFK. All he does is just because of this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Paz Marverde said:

I do thank you. Well, Jim is simply an excellent researcher who really loves Jim Garrison and JFK. All he does is just because of this

When excellent researchers are wrong about an issue they muddy the waters more than lesser researchers.

Obfuscation is the collateral damage of good research.

DiEugenio could promote the work of Jim Garrison better than drawing unwarranted attention to the work of a lame hater like Litwin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paz:

The days of our side taking this crapola are over.

The guy sold how many books?

Something like 49 to his friends and relatives?

Quote

If you don't knock it down then the implicit message is that it has some kind of value.

No, by framing the discussion as "X vs Y" you're promoting the implicit message it's an unresolved battle between rough equals.

Think Ali vs Frazier.

Bush vs. Gore.

David vs. Goliath.

Garrison vs. Litwin?

Spare me!

From "The Waters of Knowledge versus The Waters of Uncertainty:  Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy."

E. Martin Schotz

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_issue/schotz.html

<quote on, emphasis added>

THE MALIGNANT NATURE OF PSEUDO DEBATE

Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo debate is a benign activity, that it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise; it is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise -- that there is uncertainly to be resolved -- seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

<quote off>

The premise of "Garrison vs. Litwin" is a lie.

Quote

This is the mistake Jim Garrison made with that whole mafia connection.  It took hold.  Even Oliver Stone bought into it. Until Bill Davy and myself decided to demolish it in print and public.

DiEugenio's sense of self-grandeur is truly impressive.

How many people read Davy or DiEugenio?

The "mafia-did-it" theory is still out there along with a horde of other pet theories.

Quote

That was also  the mistake we made with Posner.  Weisberg's book was too little too late.  Dave Starks' idea of arranging 100 mistakes of fact and interpretation was a good one but that came late also.  This is why I did what I did  with Bugliosi's 2, 646 page cinder block,  since I knew that no one was going to do the lengthy and thorough demolition of that book that was needed.  People very much appreciated that effort.  And it greatly disturbed the other side, just ask David Von Pein.romo

DiEugenio spends so much time promoting Von Pein with fake debate he should get a cut of the 62 books DVP has sold.

Quote

When you expose someone in all of their incompetence and stupidity, that is not giving them exposure.  

Two words for that: "President Trump."

Quote

The only way one can conclude that is if one does not read the article.

No one, repeat: no one, likes getting a bad review.  

The only thing worse than a bad review is no review at all.

Quote

 

Whether its a book, a play, a movie or a recording. I know this since I used to write movie reviews. Analyzing in depth why LItwin is either stupid or a prevaricator, and showing with declassified documents that  Garrison was correct  elevates the DA and shows why Litwin is worthless.

The premise that Litwin's worthlessness is a matter of debate is a big lie.

Posner and Bugliosi had access to a mass audience -- but Fred Litwin??

One can promote Garrison and the declassified documents without elevating nutter phonies.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

When excellent researchers are wrong about an issue they muddy the waters more than lesser researchers.

Obfuscation is the collateral damage of good research.

DiEugenio could promote the work of Jim Garrison better than drawing unwarranted attention to the work of a lame hater like Litwin.

Well, in this case, I disagree with you. Sorry. Jim is absolutely limpid in his work and in his life 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Paz Marverde said:

Well, in this case, I disagree with you. Sorry. Jim is absolutely limpid in his work and in his life 

"Jim Garrison and the declassified documents destroy Fred Litwin's nutter propaganda" is the proper way to frame the discussion, not "Garrison vs Litwin."  DiEugenio makes the same mistake going around and around ad infinitum ad nauseum with David Von Pein.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Litwin seems to be engaged in is "Swift Boat Vetting" the scholarly JFK Assassination research literature.

And, like the Swift Boat Vet propagandists, he is using a simple negative sound byte-- "I Was a Teenage Conspiracy Freak," etc." -- implying that the accurate, scholarly "Conspiracy Theories" about JFK's murder are ridiculous.

How can anyone respond effectively to a "Swift Boat Vet" marketing campaign? 

How about a simple, honest sound-byte like, "FRED LITWIN IS THE LATEST WARREN COMMISSION REPORT-PROMOTING FRAUDSTER?"

Of course, for a counter- Swift Boat Vet campaign, the involvement of the mainstream media is crucial.

Yet, the MSM is, precisely, where Litwin is conducting his Swift Boat Vetting of the research on JFK's murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

What Litwin seems to be engaged in is "Swift Boat Vetting" the scholarly JFK Assassination research literature.

And, like the Swift Boat Vet propagandists, he is using a simple negative sound byte-- "I Was a Teenage Conspiracy Freak," etc." -- implying that the accurate, scholarly "Conspiracy Theories" about JFK's murder are ridiculous.

How can anyone respond effectively to a "Swift Boat Vet" marketing campaign? 

How about a simple, honest sound-byte like, "FRED LITWIN IS THE LATEST WARREN COMMISSION REPORT-PROMOTING FRAUDSTER?"

That's much better.

7 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Of course, for a counter- Swift Boat Vet campaign, the involvement of the mainstream media is crucial.

Yet, the MSM is, precisely, where Litwin is conducting his Swift Boat Vetting of the research on JFK's murder.

By selling 49 copies of a book?

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

×