Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Jim Garrison vs Fred Litwin

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

That's much better.

By selling 49 copies of a book?

Well, he was interviewed on CBC television, by a poorly-informed interviewer.

Share this post


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

Well, he was interviewed on CBC television, by a poorly-informed interviewer.

I believe in punching up, not punching down.

The CBC is the heavy in this drama and deserves the vast bulk of criticism.

 

Share this post


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

There is more coming.

To paraphrase Beto O'Rourke -- let's not define our issues as opposition to individuals or cliques, let's define our issues by positive promotion of the historical record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBC is only one instance.

This guy is really in deep with the whole alt/right movement.

He  got Ronald Radosh to of a blurb for his JFK book.  If you don't know, he was the former leftist professor turned right-winger who spent his life on the Rosenberg case.  And there is still more to come..

The GOP Noise machine loves to promote these types of people.  They can say, "Look, he saw the light, so can you."

What happened in the last election was a product of exposure of who Trump is.  That is why his approval ratings are in the thirties right now.

Fred Litwin is running a fraud, he is protected by his friends and colleagues.  There should be a way for unsuspecting people not to fall for his platform.

My article in on the first page of both Bing and Yahoo.  It will soon be at Google.

That  is my first salvo.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

CBC is only one instance.

This guy is really in deep with the whole alt/right movement.

He  got Ronald Radosh to of a blurb for his JFK book.  If you don't know, he was the former leftist professor turned right-winger who spent his life on the Rosenberg case.  And there is still more to come..

The GOP Noise machine loves to promote these types of people.  They can say, "Look, he saw the light, so can you."

Jerome Corsi is a major voice in the right wing noise machine and he wrote a pro JFK conspiracy book.  So did Roger Stone.  And Mark Fuhrman.

Ignorance of the JFK case doesn't have an ideological stripe.

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What happened in the last election was a product of exposure of who Trump is.  That is why his approval ratings are in the thirties right now.

Fred Litwin is running a fraud, he is protected by his friends and colleagues.  There should be a way for unsuspecting people not to fall for his platform.

How would anyone outside Canada even know about this guy if he wasn't taken seriously on the various forums?

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

My article in on the first page of both Bing and Yahoo.  It will soon be at Google.

That  is my first salvo.

Punch up, Jim.  Going after a nobody is punching down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff,

You noticed I haven't contributed to this thread for those precise reasons. Litvin must be encouraged that his thread about his book is now in it's sixth page!

For those who condemn his book the net  effect of Jim's continual lambasting, is only promotional to the book. But even if Jim was aware of that , I think he'd do it anyway. He has no choice , his behavior is so compulsive and can be readily seen  as so. Besides he couldn't pass up the opportunity to promote himself.

Jim said

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.

Cliff said:

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.

Uh....  Yes, That tag team of Di Eugenio and Bill Davy certainly put that JFKA Mafia delusion to rest in Ollie Stones mind, and all the rest of our minds for that matter.

Didn't it? These delusions of grandeur are part and parcel of Jim's isolation, that his minions have come to love and the rest of us merely tolerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Kirk I have CV on ignore so I only have to look at his stuff when someone else repeats it. Two others I had on ignore were Trejo and the Arizona lawyer who are both now gone.

If you guys would ever say something that actually substantively replies to what I write, that is one thing, but to not even know what I am talking about---but to act as if you do--- tells me what you are about.

I never said Bill and I killed the Mob did it theory.  What I said was that we went after the whole "Garrison was tied up with the Mob" and therefore his inquiry was compromised Idea.  That whole concept was quite prevalent within the community at the premiere of Stone's film. It had been propagated by the likes of John Davis and Walter Sheridan in their books.  In fact Stone confronted Garrison with it when he met him.  And Stone's chief researcher actually thought these accusations were real.  In the first couple of public talks I did on Garrison, I would get questions about this.  So I decided to get to work on it.  And with help from the great archives researcher Peter Vea, who you two never heard of ,me and Bill Davy got the correct information on it.

I addressed it at a COPA conference in Washington around 1995.  What made that occasion appropriate was that Peter Scott was there and so was David Scheim, who had, respectively accused JG indirectly and directly of being so aligned.  The late Bill Turner was also there. I took the charges up one by one and disposed of them.  At the end of the talk, Scheim was backtracking, and Scott actually congratulated me.  Turner, who worked for JG, shook my hand and  said, "Garrison would be proud of you Jim!"  Bill put it in his book and today it does not come up anymore.

Is that in clear enough English for the Tag Team?  Or should I draw it out in pictures frames?  BTW, I don't recall either of you being there, or being invited to speak.  Were you?

As I used to say to Tommy Graves:  if you don't have anything to say, then just don't say anything. 

 

 

Share this post


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

You know Kirk I have CV on ignore so I only have to look at his stuff when someone else repeats it. Two others I had on ignore were Trejo and the Arizona lawyer who are both now gone.

DiEugenio also has David Lifton on ignore -- so I'm in good company there.

I appreciate the fact that DiEugenio has me on ignore when I destroy his misinformed posts concerning the Bay of Pigs, or the overthrow of Diem, or the root physical facts of the JFK murder case (t3 back wound/throat entrance wound) DiEugenio has spent a career obfuscating.

I don't have to put up with him accusing me of "having an agenda" when he can't defend his posts.

Quote

If you guys would ever say something that actually substantively replies to what I write, that is one thing,

See above.  DiEugenio can't defend his fanboy takes on Kennedy's blunders at the BOP and Diem coup.

Quote

 

but to not even know what I am talking about---but to act as if you do--- tells me what you are about.

That he can't express himself clearly is our fault?

Quote

I never said Bill and I killed the Mob did it theory.  What I said was that we went after the whole "Garrison was tied up with the Mob" and therefore his inquiry was compromised Idea. 

But that's not what DiEugenio wrote.

"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."

"With that whole mafia connection" is brutally imprecise.

Could somebody tell me at what point in the movie "JFK" Garrison was accused of being mobbed up?

Quote

 

That whole concept was quite prevalent within the community at the premiere of Stone's film. It had been propagated by the likes of John Davis and Walter Sheridan in their books.  In fact Stone confronted Garrison with it when he met him.  And Stone's chief researcher actually thought these accusations were real.  In the first couple of public talks I did on Garrison, I would get questions about this.  So I decided to get to work on it.  And with help from the great archives researcher Peter Vea, who you two never heard of ,me and Bill Davy got the correct information on it.

I addressed it at a COPA conference in Washington around 1995.  What made that occasion appropriate was that Peter Scott was there and so was David Scheim, who had, respectively accused JG indirectly and directly of being so aligned.  The late Bill Turner was also there. I took the charges up one by one and disposed of them.  At the end of the talk, Scheim was backtracking, and Scott actually congratulated me.  Turner, who worked for JG, shook my hand and  said, "Garrison would be proud of you Jim!"  Bill put it in his book and today it does not come up anymore.

Is that in clear enough English for the Tag Team?

Could have said it first time.

Quote

Or should I draw it out in pictures frames?  BTW, I don't recall either of you being there, or being invited to speak.  Were you?

As I used to say to Tommy Graves:  if you don't have anything to say, then just don't say anything.

What DiEugenio doesn't appreciate is that his arrogant attitude is off-putting.  This was clearly a case of misunderstanding that could have been cleared up with a simple collegial post.

Instead we get a rant and much chest pounding rhetoric.

When he attacks a nobody like Litwin it generates interest among those who are not as smitten with James DiEugenio as his fan club is.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim said,

As I used to say to Tommy Graves:  if you don't have anything to say, then just don't say anything. 

Jim, You're problem is you have so much to say,that people after while people just turn you off, besides your tone generally s---ks, that coupled with the fact that you don't listen well. And always evade the central questions.

The sum effect of starting a second post, and giving it the silly name Garrison VS. Litvin, thereby elevating Litvin. You couldn't even admit that was a boneheaded mistake. Why did you need to open a new thread at all? You're just seeking attention on an old topic.

You may see yourself of having a noble desire to preach to the choir here, who need no preaching. But part of what is being said is that any attempt to go out of this forum ("This is just my first salvo")and propagate that view would just backfire. Either way, in this forum or otherwise, It''s either silly or futile.. But the fact  is you're unable to have a conversation about the net effect of your actions, only illustrates my point.

My advice, Eliminate one obsession, Get over your obsession with Litvin,

Edited by Kirk Gallaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, I don't listen well?  Who screwed up the whole thing about Garrison and the Mafia?  

I don't preach to anyone. My post was not about Litwin's book;  Litwin's was about his book.

My post was about his chapter on Jim Garrison.  Since that is something I know a lot about and I know just how badly he  distorted the subject and was appealing to ignorance, not declassified information. While saying there was not any info in the declassified docs.  Utterly false and I proved it false in my article. Did you read that info?  Did you understand how it undermined his chapter? 

Some people are not aware of this declassified information which contradicts his chapter.  They don't have the time to go through the documents.  And they don't have the access to them.  I am in a situation where I do have the time and the access.  That is what the ARRB was all about.  New information.

Now if you want to listen to Rachel Maddow or Phil Shenon say to millions that there is no new info, fine.  If you want to listen to Litwin say that Garrison had nothing about New Orleans and there was nothing for Shaw to hide.  Fine, that is your choice. There are many threads here I do not comment on.  But I don't know why you have to take the time to do that here on this thread and then make it personal.  I have none of the problems I have with you and CV with anyone else here or at DPF.  Most people appreciate the new info I provide.  And I am always approachable via email or PM, which people send me and I reply with more info if  I have it.  That is not preaching, that is replying to requests for information. And I do that on Black Op Radio also and have been doing it for a number of years.  I never run out of  emails to answer on that program.   I must have answered literally hundreds of questions for Len Osanic.  And its not preaching to the choir.  That show has greatly expanded its listenership in the last few years.  I really wish he would go on the satellite.

That is what I see as my function, providing new information. And many, many others see it that way also.  Why anyone would object to such a thing escapes me.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

OMG, I don't listen well?  Who screwed up the whole thing about Garrison and the Mafia?  

DiEugenio screwed it up.  He's utterly incapable of admitting error.

Quote

I don't preach to anyone. My post was not about Litwin's book;  Litwin's was about his book.

My post was about his chapter on Jim Garrison.  Since that is something I know a lot about and I know just how badly he  distorted the subject and was appealing to ignorance, not declassified information. While saying there was not any info in the declassified docs.  Utterly false and I proved it false in my article. Did you read that info?  Did you understand how it undermined his chapter? 

What DiEugenio can't grasp is that by framing his critique as "Garrison vs. Litwin" he elevates Litwin unnecessarily.

But DiEugenio is incapable of recognizing this.

Quote

Some people are not aware of this declassified information which contradicts his chapter.  They don't have the time to go through the documents.  And they don't have the access to them.  I am in a situation where I do have the time and the access.  That is what the ARRB was all about.  New information.

Now if you want to listen to Rachel Maddow or Phil Shenon say to millions that there is no new info, fine.  If you want to listen to Litwin say that Garrison had nothing about New Orleans and there was nothing for Shaw to hide.  Fine, that is your choice. There are many threads here I do not comment on.  But I don't know why you have to take the time to do that here on this thread and then make it personal.  I have none of the problems I have with you and CV with anyone else here or at DPF.  Most people appreciate the new info I provide.  And I am always approachable via email or PM, which people send me and I reply with more info if  I have it.  That is not preaching, that is replying to requests for information. And I do that on Black Op Radio also and have been doing it for a number of years.  I never run out of  emails to answer on that program.   I must have answered literally hundreds of questions for Len Osanic.  And its not preaching to the choir.  That show has greatly expanded its listenership in the last few years.  I really wish he would go on the satellite.

That is what I see as my function, providing new information. And many, many others see it that way also.  Why anyone would object to such a thing escapes me.

Like the Lone Nuttters he promotes with endless fake debate, DiEugenio denies the fact JFK was shot in the back at the level of the Third Thoracic Vertebra, and he denies the fact JFK was shot in the throat from the front.  He is a student of the Josiah Thompson School of Obfuscation, which denies the most obvious facts of JFK's murder -- T3 back wound, throat entrance wound.

In my book this is unforgivable.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

Jerome Corsi is a major voice in the right wing noise machine and he wrote a pro JFK conspiracy book.  So did Roger Stone.  And Mark Fuhrman.

Fuhrman's book isn't pro-conspiracy. He's an LNer all the way.

Share this post


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

Fuhrman's book isn't pro-conspiracy. He's an LNer all the way.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/mark-fuhrman-unveils-analysis-on-kennedys-assassination-on-fox-nations-the-fuhrman-diaries

“Growing up, I followed the case, listened to the criticism,” Furhman explained in the documentary. “Was Lee Harvey Oswald a good enough marksman to make those shots with a cheap Italian army surplus rifle? Could he have fired three shots so quickly? Why were government investigation shrouded in so much secrecy? What were they afraid of? Were they trying to hide something? The question I kept coming back to was the single bullet theory. And the magic bullet. I read… the report. And I really didn’t buy it. And I wasn’t alone.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff,

That Fuhrman quote you cited is what Fuhrman says he believed when he was "growing up". But he certainly didn't believe in a conspiracy when his book ("A Simple Act Of Murder") was published 12 years ago in 2006. (Click on the image below for a 2006 CBS interview with Fuhrman.)

Mark+Fuhrman+(On+CBS-TV)(May+12,+2006).j

http://simple-act-of-murder.blogspot.com/

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

Cliff,

That Fuhrman quote you cited reveals what Fuhrman says he believed when he was "growing up". But he certainly didn't believe in a conspiracy when his book ("A Simple Act Of Murder") was published 12 years ago in 2006. (Click on the image below for a 2006 CBS interview with Fuhrman.)

Mark+Fuhrman+(On+CBS-TV)(May+12,+2006).j

http://simple-act-of-murder.blogspot.com/

 

Okay.

I stand corrected.

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

×