W. Tracy Parnell
-
Posts
2,220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by W. Tracy Parnell
-
-
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
What has Hoch ever written in the last 30 years of any value to the critical community?
To answer Jim’s question, let’s take a trip back to the 1993 Chicago Symposium which fits the 30-year criteria. Hoch commented on his experience at that gathering in his newsletter, Echoes of Conspiracy Vol. 15 #1. Hoch first commented on the diversity of the WC critics. He also praised a “new group” Jim D’s own CTKA and mentioned their newsletter Probe which he said contained a “surprising amount of news.” Hoch also mentioned AARC, John Judge, and the Lopez Report.
Hoch discussed Peter Dale Scott’s work on Mexico City. He also mentions Scott’s review of Case Closed and offered his own extensive and detailed criticisms of the book. “The book’s biggest distortion,” he wrote, “is implicitly placing the blame for the controversy on the critics rather than the evidence.” Hoch also called Posner’s treatment of Hartogs, “indefensible.” Additionally, Hoch Reviewed Scott’s Deep Politics and said he, “may be the only the only researcher who can pursue this type of analysis and come even close to persuasiveness.”
Hoch made his own presentation at the symposium. In his remarks, Hoch noted that he was “not very active” as a researcher at that time but his mission was to “help other researchers.” In that spirt, Hoch offered some excellent advice to his fellow scholars.
Hoch’s first category of advice was regarding documents. “Keep an eye out for the innocent explanation; then test it,” Hoch advised. As an example, Hoch pointed to the case of Igor Vaganov who he noted was “involved in shady activities in Dallas that probably had nothing to do with the assassination.” Hoch concluded, “most of the apparent evidence will turn out not to be true, even if it is not obviously false.”
Under the heading of physical evidence, Hoch advised, “The single bullet theory is not a joke. Despite its well-known flaws, the Warren Commission/House Committee reconstruction may be in better shape than any other single detailed reconstruction. At least, it has to be taken seriously.”
Hoch also cautioned the attendees on potential pitfalls. “Watch out for allegations which look too good to throw out, for example because they seem to make the connection between Kennedy's enemies and the assassination — that is, to provide the closure everyone hopes to find. For example, some people latched on to the FBI document mentioning George Bush of the CIA without considering if the George Bush would be referred to in that fashion, and whether the contact described was that important or sinister anyhow.”
Sort of like Jim D. attaching major significance to a unverified statement by an individual that claims to have seen a document connecting Oswald and Ruby. Perhaps Jim missed that particular presentation by Hoch.
These are just a few of the highlights of Hoch’s presentation. If you would like to read more, the original newsletter may be found here:
It is clear that Hoch’s “value to the critical community” was his advice to be skeptical not only of the WC but of unsupported or poorly supported claims of conspiracy. I think that often unheeded advice was priceless.
-
5 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:
Yes, there is more Tracy.
I'll try to address some of the topic related comments here later.
Super busy on other projects today.
Great Steve. Fred's blog has probably dozens of instances of questionable reporting by DiEugenio as you know.
-
30 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:
there is no inaccuracy in the portion of "Destiny Betrayed" quoted above.
That is true to a point. But DiEugenio uses this unproven allegation to bolster his discussion of another unproven allegation-that of Rose Cheramie. That is the point Steve is making-that DiEugenio’s arguments in many cases rely on these types of unsubstantiated witness claims.
-
7 hours ago, Calvin Ye said:
McAdams' piece relied on a conservative source, which is unreliable.
You idea of what a "conservative" source consists of may be as ambiguous as your concept of the "New York Establishment."
-
2 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:
He doesn't even have one. Have you read the links James posted?
He didn't post any links just listed sources. Two of the three listed are already mentioned by Steve. He is not denying there is an allegation just wondering where the proof is. Evidently, Jim's "proof" is his talks with Gary Schoener. I don't call that proof but you may disagree.
-
7 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:
It’s pretty nuts if you’re denying JFK wanted to get out of Vietnam.
I'm not denying anything. I'm saying that I nor anyone else knows what someone would have done.
-
6 hours ago, Steve Roe said:
Mr. DiEugenio over the years has made some highly questionable claims, here on this Forum and in his books.
If you have more, keep them coming Steve.
-
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Litwin is still trying to deny that Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam
And Jim is still trying to deny that no one knows what JFK would have done. All we can do is speculate. But McAdams wrote a good piece that sums up one side of the argument. Myself, I am always skeptical when someone says they can see into the future. As far as I know, Jim has not made a fortune in the stock market or gambling casinos.
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
You also said I had a trail of blunders?
To start off, here is one that has already been mentioned:
Did Vernon Gerdes See Oswald with Ferrie and Banister? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
An examination of the type of witnesses Jim D. find credible:
Did LHO use Jack Ruby as a reference?
Did Lee Harvey Oswald Use Jack Ruby As a Job Reference? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
Were Garrison's witnesses harrassed?
Were Garrison's Witnesses Surveilled, Harassed, Attacked and Intimidated? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
That's just a small sampling.
-
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
The problem is, there is no evidence that he was ever a real lefty in the first place.
Just like there is no evidence he was a conspiracy theorist?
Defending "Conspiracy Freak" ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:There is evidence he made big money working on Bay Street, Wall Street,
My understanding is that while working on Bay Street he made only a modest amount of money. He only worked on Wall Street for a few months before being laid off in the 1987 crash.
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:And although he does not say where he worked in England, it was probably the Westminister financial district.
My understanding is he never worked in the financial district in England. Also, he lost money in the music business.
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:Get a load of this one:
From listening to the speech, it is evident that he supports a two-state solution. He says that he supports all Palestinians who want to live in peaceful co-existence with Israel. That seems to be a very reasonable position.
-
7 hours ago, Calvin Ye said:
It is obvious that you don't read books
No need for insults. All I want to know is who the "New York Establishment" is in your world.
-
6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Like most neocons, he has to extend his denial of conspiracy to Kennedy's foreign policy. According to Fred, JFK was not actually getting out of Vietnam, and he was really a Cold Warrior.
Here is a simple fact. Since no one can see into the future, we'll never know what JFK would have done in regard to Vietnam. There is a great deal of evidence that he was indeed a standard cold warrior:
-
1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:
Hey Tracy, did you receive that big check from "The New York Establishment" yet? How about the CIA? Are they still contributing to your 401K account. I'm sure they are monitoring your progress on trying to spread disinformation, like McBride said.
Everyone here knows "THEY" are monitoring the JFK forums and they are hiding the real truth on who killed Kennedy. Right?
These nutty comments always backfire on the people that post this garbage.
But hey too late now. It's written and documented, no turning back now.
I'm still waiting Steve. BTW, I would love to know who he thinks the "New York Establishment" is. Does that consist of Cuomo and de Blasio or someone else?
-
-
13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
It’s a story that should be in my Teenage Conspiracy Freak book, but isn’t. It goes like this. As I was slowly changing my opinion, I decided it was time to read Posner's book.
I think it was a combination of things that happened at roughly the same time.
-
10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
What is important and what Fred does not show is any convincing evidence that he himself was a critic.
He posted the evidence, you just don't accept it for whatever reason.
-
22 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
"Unfortunate," but Fred still, apparently, convinced himself that the fatal head shot was fired from the TSBD, eh?
He must have skipped physics while majoring in marketing and creative writing in college.
This has nothing to do with what I am talking about. As I have already pointed out, there are plenty of theorists who believe that Oswald killed JFK but conspired with others in doing so. That was his belief at the time.
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
1.) The idea that only the Parkland doctors saw the hole in the rear of Kennedy's skull is hogwash. To name just one other person, there is Clint Hill and he talked about it in various newspaper reports and in the WC. There is also the FBI agents, SIbert and O'Neill.
Right. I should have said the only evidence is eyewitness accounts. I have just corrected myself. Which is something you will not see Jim D. do on this forum.
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:2.) What was the explanation given in the WR about the rocketing backward motion of JFK in the Z film? I don't recall any. Mainly because it was not mentioned.
Correct, and Fred, who supposedly is shilling for the WC, notes this omission in his book (p. 105) and calls it "unfortunate."
-
4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
From what I recall, he did not describe that journey in any way at all in that book. I was interested to hear what parts of the evidence initially made him believe there was a conspiracy, and then specifically the process of how his thinking evolved to his current position. But there's none of that in his book.
Wrong. On page 149 he writes about two articles by Paul Hoch. Those pieces led to a review of the HSCA hearings and exhibits. That is the point at which he changed his mind. This is all in the book along with a brief chronological history of the CT movement and his reaction to it.
-
23 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:
Tracy just spreads disinformation. Who pays him?
Here is a better question. Where is Mr. McBride's (or anyone else's) proof that I am paid for what I do by anyone?
-
19 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
I was a teenage Warren Commission Report dupe.
So, there is a good book title. Why don't you go ahead and write one? Or is it easier to just sit on forums and pontificate as 95 percent of "serious researchers" (those who claim to want to "solve" the case) do?
-
3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
No one could make an informed, intellectually honest journey from allegedly being a "teenage JFK conspiracy freak" to being a defender of the Warren Commission's debunked "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK assassination.
What Fred Litwin is engaging in is propaganda. The only people who would "buy" his re-cycled Warren Commission propaganda are those who still don't know the facts about the JFK assassination op.
Isn't Litwin, essentially, a salesman?
So, what is his motive then? What conspiracy theory are you guys pushing now? It was correctly mentioned that Fred didn't "do it" for money. As for "no one" could become a lone nutter, several were already mentioned-Myers, Russo and Mack although the latter did not consider himself a lone nutter. Myers and Russo have obviously spent years on the case and their credentials are impeccable. Therefore the attempt is made to diminish them and their conversion by saying they "sold out."
Nonsense, I say and whatever monies they made were earned because they had a product (their knowledge) that had value. But the attempt to diminish them has to be made because the concept that anyone could look at the evidence and change their mind after serious study is too dangerous to the CT mindset.
-
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
This is not accurate. When you say there is no evidence of a shot from the front you are 1.) Denying all the eyewitness testimony about the hole in the back of Kennedy's head and the evidence on the Z film, and 2.) You are insulating the reader in advance.
it's not accurate in your opinion. The only evidence of a hole in the back of the head is the statements of the Dallas doctors. And there are other explanations for the movement of JFK on the z-film.
Fred went from a reasonable conspiracy believer to a lone nutter. That is a fact. Your skepticism is noted as is your apparent belief (without proof) that he was some sort of CIA plant or whatever conspiracy you are trying to imply.
-
12 minutes ago, John Kowalski said:
Fred has spoken about JFK on TV Ontario and Parallax and there may be other places where he has spoken that he trusted would be neutral. So why not contact them? They can also look for a moderator that they both would agree would be neutral.
Good suggestions John, we'll see what happens.
Jim DiEugenio vs Fred Litwin
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I don't see the point. You can just choose to not respond-same thing.