W. Niederhut

Denny, You did an admirable job of reading and discussing Litwin's book on this thread. Kudos.

Greg, James DiEugenio published a series of detailed critiques of Litwin's work, which were recently referenced by Ron Bulman on an archival Litwin thread. IMO, Denny Zartman also did a diligent, conscientious job of exposing some of the flaws in Fred Litwin's LN paradigm on the September 2018 Litwin introduction thread here on the forum. Zartman went to the trouble of purchasing, reading, and critiquing Litwin's book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak. And, yes, I agree that, if people are diligent, the truth will eventually triumph, but it's a tedious, redundant process for conscientious forum members to have to repeatedly correct the disinformation. There's a lot of wheel-spinning on the forum, and re-inventing the wheel, in that regard, which is why I occasionally re-post archival threads in which these debates have already occurred.

Report: Trump calls Harris a "bitch" (axios.com)

Ben, There is overwhelming scientific, forensic, and historical evidence debunking the false Allen Dulles/WCR "Lone Nut" narrative. If you haven't figured that out yet, I advise you to do more reading and less writing. You also need to study the basics about Newtonian physics and human anatomy. Did you study any science in college? JFK was not killed by a fatal bullet fired from the TSBD. His head was knocked violently backward by a bullet that entered his right upper forehead and blew his brain matter and an occipital skull fragment backward behind the limo. So, in addition to all of the other contrary facts, the Lone Nut theory is debunked by Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum. Nor was Oswald a loner. He had multiple contacts with various CIA and FBI assets. There are matters of fact and matters of opinion-- evidence-based truth, and false opinions based on erroneous "alternate facts," (to use Kellyanne Conway's term.) In my discussions with you, since you joined this forum, you have often struggled to understand the difference between facts and opinions. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Can you, at least, acknowledge that disinformation is propagated in our mainstream and social media?

Ben, No one is "speaking truth to power" by posting disinformation-- known falsehoods. That's a reductio ad absurdum-- i.e., "speaking truth" by speaking falsehoods? But I think we all agree that censorship is generally problematic, except in cases of hate speech and/or ad hominem defamation based on falsehoods (i.e., libel.) So, except in cases of hate speech, or libel, we are forced to rely on the knowledge, honesty, and patience of forum members to correct forum disinformation-- including Lone Nutter-ism.

Incidentally, for those who weren't members of the forum in 2018, here's a thread that I started in response to Fred Litwin's 2018 forum introduction. I mentioned my longstanding ignorance and naivete about the JFKA research, which was similar to that of Russ Baker. Since 2018, I have learned that ignorance of the JFKA research has been fairly common even in scholarly, academic circles, until recently. Two prominent examples are Jeffrey Sachs and Ron Unz.

Since Gerry Down has recently posted a Fred Litwin podcast, I'm re-posting Mr. Litwin's introduction to the Education Forum in September of 2018.

Yeah, Matt, and the problem with the current corrupt, Koch/GOP SCOTUS is that they will use the James McGill Buchanan/Federalist Society playbook to uphold RNC voter suppression. Their "originalist" Koch paradigm is that state's rights trump Federal protection of individual rights.

Many valid points here. Regarding disputes about legitimate historical controversies, IMO, there is a qualitative difference between legitimate disagreements about the evidence and the deliberate posting of known falsehoods. I would define "disinformation" as the propagation of clearly established falsehoods, for the purpose of deceiving the public. We all know it happens. My hunch is that most forum members would also reject the sophomoric premise of solipsism-- the notion that there are no discernible, objective truths, no established scientific or historical facts.

From Kevin Drum's blog this week... What worked to stop the spread of COVID-19? A recent paper by Christopher Ruhm of the University of Virginia quantifies the value of various efforts to combat COVID-19 in the US. The headline result is a composite score for different states based on what kinds of restrictions they imposed, but I found the detailed national breakdown more interesting. Here are his estimates of how various interventions affected death rates: By comparing excess death rates in different states with different restrictions in place, Ruhm estimates how effective each one was. The results are pretty simple: Vaccines work great. Mask mandates work OK. Prohibitions on mask and vaccine mandates are terrible. Nothing else has much impact. The effects are all fairly small and in many cases aren't even statistically significant. Restaurant closures are minimally effective, but probably not worth it (though it's almost certainly a good idea for wait staff to wear masks). This is one study, and its results are hardly the last word. Still, it's striking that an awful lot of research has now been done and it mostly finds that hardly anything makes much of a difference. Masks help a little bit, but aside from that it's vaccines or nothing. Note, however, that there are several interventions that weren't measured in this study: social distancing, better ventilation, UV light, and remote work. All of these are things that likely have some impact. What worked to stop the spread of COVID-19? – Kevin Drum (jabberwocking.com)

Jean, I'm simply asking the question. How do we solve a problem like disinformation? Modern propaganda is highly sophisticated. Two popular techniques are; 1) repeating the lie, and 2) the so-called "firehose of falsehoods" -- flooding the zone with sh**. These techniques work better if two or more people repeat the falsehoods in unison. If censorship is unacceptable, the only alternative is to endlessly fact-check and repeat the truth. As an example, James DiEugenio has patiently repeated the facts about JFK's Vietnam policy, in response to people falsely claiming that JFK didn't intend in 1963 to get the U.S. out of Vietnam.

'Boy is that an open door': Experts warn of Supreme Court 'power grab' in Trump ruling https://www.rawstory.com/news/supreme-court-2668935323/ August 9, 2024

The United States, and the Education Forum, have an admirable tradition of freedom of speech and, as forum administrator, Mark Knight, pointed out during the recent Pat Speer controversy, it has never been the policy of the Education Forum administration to enforce "orthodoxy" (i.e., right beliefs) about history, including the history of the JFK assassination. That said, many of us have noticed that a cadre of WCR apologists ("Lone Nutters") on the forum have persisted in posting disinformation promoting the false WCR "Lone Nut" narrative about the JFK assassination. The most recent example is a forum thread promoting a WCR/Lone Nut podcast by Fred Litwin-- the salesman popularly known as the man who was a "teenage conspiracy freak," (presumably before he matured and embraced the delusional Warren Commission Report propaganda that has been aggressively promoted in the U.S. mainstream media during the past sixty years.) So, here's the dilemma in the U.S. today, and on the Education Forum. Freedom of speech is exploited by propagandists to promote disinformation, and censorship is anathematized. This was, literally, a life-and-death controversy in the U.S. during the COVID pandemic. Is it better to let propagandists have an Orwellian field day, or to try to set limits on disinformation? James DiEugenio and Denny Zartman commented, accurately, on the Fred Litwin podcast thread that it is a shame to see this kind of propaganda on the Education Forum. I agree. This isn't McAdams.edu. But, then again, censorship is a potentially dangerous phenomenon. Elon Musk bought Twitter to abolish censorship. (BTW, how is that $44 billion dollar acquisition working out for American democracy?) Any thoughts about this issue on the Education Forum?

I just got back to civilization (and the internet) last night, after a week in the high country, and I immediately noticed that Fox News is already Swift Boat Vetting Tim Waltz for Trump, free of charge. Time to deport Rupert Murdoch and Elon Musk?

FEC Blasted Over Decision Not to Regulate Deepfakes Ahead of Election | Common Dreams

Trump Shared Private Flight With Heritage Head, Photo Shows | HuffPost Latest News

Happy Jerry Garcia Day, folks! Should it be a national holiday? 😎 I'm heading up to Gunnison County for a week-- no television, internet, or phone service. It's 100 F here in Denver and we've got forest fire smoke from four different fires along the Front Range. Stay cool.

All true, Jim. Few similarities between the geopolitical visions of JFK and Nixon, other than Nixon's interest in detente. My point (above) is that, at the very least, Nixon had a "brain trust" -- however genocidal. Trump had only his yes-man, Mike Pompeo, at State, after Exxon exec, Rex Tillerson, resigned in disgust. We may never know the whole story, but I strongly suspect that some of Trump's foreign policy decisions were dictated by Putin. I agree with John LeCarre's opinion that "Putin has Trump by the short hairs."

Matt, Isn't Nate Silver now working for J.D. Vance's MAGA sugar daddy, Peter Thiel?

Kevin, Didn't you say you had read Hit List?

Karl, I'm delighted to see that you have upgraded your "news" and opinion sources from Laura Loomer, Ben Shapiro, and Vigilant Fox to Chat GPT. Artificial intelligence is better than no intelligence. As for the disgraced Fox News talking head, Blah Blah O'Reilly, perhaps you are unaware that he has promoted the false CIA narrative that George De Mohrenschildt shot himself, moments after an intruder entered his home.

Yeah, Joe, and people in Bill O'Reilly's DeMohrenschildt-Shot-Himself camp should read up on the coroner's inquest. The jury noted at the inquest that an intruder had activated a burglar alarm in the house shortly before the gun was fired.

David, Is there a short version of how McGeorge Bundy ended up with the November 21st draft of NSAM 273?

Ron, Four years earlier, in March of 2003, I watched Bill O'Reilly interview Gary Hart on Fox News. Hart was ridiculed by O'Reilly for saying that deposing Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime could destabilize the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and lead to an expensive, protracted U.S. military occupation of Iraq. (It was the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz Plan that was supposed to be cheap and easy.) At the time, the Bush/Cheney mainstream media jingoism about invading Iraq was on steroids in the U.S. The Shock & Awe fireworks show in Baghdad had the country mesmerized. Karl Rove had been appointed, in 2002, to chair a Whie House committee charged with selling the American public on the necessity of invading Iraq, and Rupert Murdoch later openly bragged about his role in promoting the Iraq War. (The public only learned about Karl Rove's Iraq War sales committee during the grand jury investigation of Cheney and Scooter Libby's Valerie Plame affair.)

Schumer Tries to Strip Trump Immunity Ruling August 1, 2024 at 9:28 am EDT By Taegan Goddard “Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is trying to effectively reverse the controversial Supreme Court decision that handed presidents legal immunity,” Axios reports. “Legislation that will be unveiled by Schumer on Thursday elevates the Democratic Party’s argument that the fate of democracy is at stake in the November elections.” “Schumer will introduce legislation that would reaffirm that presidents and vice presidents do not have legal immunity from actions that violate federal criminal law.”