Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book by Fred Litwin on Garrison


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought this was the case.  He admits he wrote this book to get back at me for the reaming I gave him on  the section on Garrison for his first book.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jim-garrison-vs-fred-litwin-the-beat-goes-on-part-2

And he admits he did not read the declassified record the first time around.

So he does he go to? Harry Connick--the guy who incinerated many of Garrison's files--and the work  of Irvin Dymond.  And Gus Russo--GUS RUSSO-- gives him a blurb.

LOL. ROTF.  Tracy, this mildewed propaganda is right  up your alley.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

And he admits he did not read the declassified record the first time around.

So he does he go to? Harry Connick--the guy who incinerated many of Garrison's files--and the work  of Irvin Dymond. 

He has now read the files and was not impressed. As far as where he went for research, he visited 19 different archives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracy, you did not read it carefully, which is no surprise since you are as agenda driven as he is.

He read Irvin--the xxxx-- Dymond's files.

LOL.  Those were turned over to the ARRB  a long time ago. They were part of the Wegmann files.  The Wegmanns ran the defense, not Dymond.  He was just a hired gun.

 

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

Tracy, you did not read it carefully, which is no surprise since you are as agenda driven as he is.

He read Irvin--the xxxx-- Dymond's files.

LOL.  Those were turned over to the ARRB  a long time ago. They were part of the Wegmann files.  The Wegmanns ran the defense, not Dymond.  He was just a hired gun.

 

My point is simply that he states that he has now read the "declassified record" which you referred to in your first post. And he has visited 19 archives so I would call that a well-researched book. As I indicated, I'll have more to say when I have actually finished the book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Freddie the Freak.  The teen age conspiracy theorist (as defined by the CIA in 1967) who grew up to fall in line behind the ultimate conspiracy theory, Oswald, three shots, end of story.  A regressive evolution it seems.

Given the freak aspect this might have gone over better closer to Halloween.  Speaking of freaky.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=super+freak&view=detail&mid=37BA63AABCF3A52D423937BA63AABCF3A52D4239&FORM=VIRE0&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dsuper%2bfreak%26form%3dPRUSEN%26mkt%3den-us%26httpsmsn%3d1%26msnews%3d1%26rec_search%3d1%26refig%3d9fc670f35f794eebaa6216c366cf95fe%26sp%3d-1%26pq%3dsuper%2bfreak%26sc%3d9-11%26qs%3dn%26sk%3d%26cvid%3d9fc670f35f794eebaa6216c366cf95fe

 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something about the psychology of LNers that has always puzzled me. But to the point... I understand the psychology of challenging the establishment. I don't get what drives people for decades to defend establishment narratives to the point where you hold a sword outside the gates of the MSM castle, defending it more actively than they do. Inside the castle are people sipping Brandy Alexanders as you put everything on the line outside the castle just to protect them. Why?

For example, and without getting into a discussion about the merits, there is no reason to be carrying water for mainstream rock journalists who believe the Beatles are the best band of all-time. The challenge is to write the dissenting work. You're not a brave warrior for writing the book AGAINST those writing the dissenting book. You've already "won." The mainstream has your back. What are you challenging? What's the purpose?

As Jim eluded to, at some point it's just all personal. Something gets into their mind and they can't cease the personal vendetta. At this point, it isn't about being pro - or anti-Garrison... at least I don't think so. At this point, it's about getting the accolades for those in the community that you want the back pats from and it's about continually digging at those who you see as ideological enemies. The subject matter is secondary. 

Somewhere along the way, CT researchers had to stop using Posner and Bugliosi in every conversation. They had to get back to the arguments at hand. People outside these communities - people you are giving the spiel to for the first time in a ten-minute chat - don't care about the names of the writers. They want the quick "I believe" or "I don't believe" thing that inspires them to go further on it than they have before.

The LNers get their best laughs when the CT folks do their own work for them and start firing upon one another at the family reunions. But that's another topic for another day. Point: The worst thing for Litwin (in the mind of a LNer) would be if no one even acknowledged he existed. 

Edited by S.T. Patrick
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/

I'll have a review at my blog in a few days.

Tracy, I have the book and it is really good. He does a great job laying out the facts on the Garrison sham investigation. Refreshing to see a factual based account instead of the Hollywood crowd version. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Factual eh, that is Roe for you. 

In his first article, he started it off with BS.  He said Garrison raided gay bars in the Quarter.  Completely wrong.  He was after the B girls racket. So how could they be gay bars?  It did not matter to him because he was trying to smear Garrison as somehow preying upon a minority group, and since that was his agenda, the facts did not matter.  A clear mark of a hatchet job.

In this book, he starts out as saying that Oliver Stone had based his 3 part documentary on my book Destiny Betrayed.  False on two counts.  Oliver did not base his series on my book, and its not three parts.  Oliver liked my title and so that is what he bought. Not the book.  We interviewed about 29 subjects.  Most of which I never talked to for my book. In the entire four hours, about 15 minutes is devoted to Garrison.  So the whole point of Fred's book was a misfire. And all he had to do was e mail me and i would have told him that was the case. Fred never gets tired of being lazy and putting his foot in his mouth right at the start..  He is not a writer or a researcher, he is a carnival barker.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Tracy, I have the book and it is really good. He does a great job laying out the facts on the Garrison sham investigation. Refreshing to see a factual based account instead of the Hollywood crowd version. 

It is very good Steve. I am slowly working my way through and taking notes as I go so I can do a decent review. Excellent new material as well.

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

Fred never gets tired of being lazy and putting his foot in his mouth right at the start..  He is not a writer or a researcher, he is a carnival barker.

I don't know of too many lazy people that go to 19 archives. I believe this book is self-published (he can correct me if I am wrong) so that means that he did all of this on his own dime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracy, he said he got the first group of files online.

He also said he got the files of Gus Russo, and Elmer Gertz--those are not Garrison files.

FYI, Len Osanic has a large amount of Garrison files, over one gig of them.  I will use them when I review your blog 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...