John Kowalski

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

To understand why the question I posed requires an answer, you need to put yourself in the shoes of whichever group of masterminds is supposed to have set up the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger defector scheme. If they genuinely wanted to do what the 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims they wanted to do, namely send to the USSR a defector with a plausible American background who could understand what was being said around him in Russian, they had two options, one obvious and one very far from obvious. If such a scheme really had been planned, the masterminds would not have chosen the double-doppelganger option, because it was so far-fetched and elaborate that it would never even have occurred to them.

Perhaps you could tell us why the masterminds might have chosen the far-fetched and over-elaborate option?

I never said that you never looked at evidence before. I was commenting only your hypotheses which does not rely on facts but on what your imagination can conjure up. This is a failure of your thinking about what happened to Kennedy. You made up a scenario and because your scenario does not match what you believe the conspirators would do, you say that the conspiracy must not be true. If in the past you have used facts then continue to do so but stop making up scenarios that only make sense to you. If you practise this you will eventually be able to formulate an argument that actually makes sense and an argument that will be worthy of a reasoned response.

Use of an Oswald double is not elaborate as you may think. Once again you are creating imaginary scenarios in your mind. The Oswald double operation began in the 1950s prior to Kennedy's election as president. It was not created as part of the assassination plot. Oswald was sent to the Soviet Union and then he returned. Those who planned the assassination used an existing CIA asset who had the perfect red credentials to be the patsy. It's as simple as that.

On 9/18/2020 at 5:12 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The masterminds had a much simpler, cheaper, and more efficient way to achieve their goal: find an American with a knack for languages, get him up to speed in Russian, then send him off to Moscow. Here's the question the 'Harvey and Lee' faithful have been unable to answer:

Why did the masterminds not do this?

The problem with your question is that it diverts attention away from the facts of the case. Instead of looking at the  evidence presented in Harvey and Lee you pose a hypothetical question that has no actual basis in reality and only makes  sense to you. You must learn to stick to the facts. If everyone debating an issue were to use a hypotheses then no argument can be resolved because someone faced with facts that can't be disputed can simply make up an imaginary scenario like you did rather than admit that they are wrong. And you say nonsense?

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

There is a parallel problem here.  Namely the David Horowitz model.

Fred wants us to think that he made an ideological  journey from left to right a la Horowitz, who was once his idol. 

The problem is that, just like with his so called Warren Commission critic days, there is no evidence for this socio-political turnaround. I read all three of his books, which was an ordeal. There is nothing in there to show this as being an accurate description of Fred.  There is no problem in doing this with Horowitz.  There are plenty of writings, even books, one can find to show Horowitz was once a socialist.  After all he worked for and edited Ramparts.

But if you google Litwin, or read his books, there is nothing like that. Consider the following: Fred first worked on Bay Street in Toronto, the equivalent of Wall Street in NYC.  He then moved and did work on Wall Street for six years. He then went to London, but he does not tell us what he did there.  He then ended up working for Intel corporation in the Far East marketing the Pentium processor.

None of the above is the equivalent of working for Ramparts. And again, Fred provides no evidence to the contrary. If he ever wrote an article for The Nation, or The Progressive, or even In These Times, he does not refer to it and I cannot find it. Is there a picture of him demonstrating, for example, against any  policies under Reagan or Bush I?  If there are, where are they?  Are there any leftist groups in NYC he frequented?  Who are they? Do they remember him?

Again, as with the above, this is all a black hole.  I am not saying it could not or did not happen.  What I am saying is, since this is so key to his books, then he should be able to demonstrate it. So far, he has not.

I realized something; Fred Litwin and Lee Harvey Oswald have something in common. They are both right wingers pretending to be left wing.

24 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

He "should" if he wants to. The difficulty may be finding a neutral moderator and format.

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.

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I wish Fred had been there.

Tracy:

He has written two books about JFK so he should be sure about his convictions, so don't you think that Fred should debate Jim?

The address book is in this file.

https://archive.org/details/clay-shaw-notebooks

Very interesting talk Jim.

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Obviously, because I believe there was no conspiracy. Of course, you are free to ignore me and believe what you want.

This is not what I meant when I asked you this question. Of course you believe that there was no conspiracy and I believe that there was a conspiracy. But why do are you so   concerned about what we believe? Why are you so determined to convince us that our beliefs are wrong? There are many controversial issues that are been discussed in forums all over the internet, what is it about conspiracy theorists beliefs that makes you want to post on a forum where no one really cares about what you believe?

On 4/22/2021 at 2:21 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I hope to change people's minds about a conspiracy but admittedly that doesn't happen that often, although my work on John Armstrong was the final straw that brought noted researcher Dave Reitzes over to the LN side.

Why do you want to change our minds?

Yes.

There is a new movie called "The Courier." it is about the Cuban missile crisis and is based on Greville Wynn's work for MI6 role during this crisis and his connection with Oleg Penkovsky.

On 1/25/2021 at 2:57 PM, Paul Brancato said:

While this may be quite literally true, I have to say I think the focus on Oswald, mainly seeking to prove his innocence, has subsumed the research into the possible perpetrators. It looks like Newman is finally focusing on the US Military. 

Well said.

Would like to see the proof that he actually wrote it but even if he did, Torbitt's story is truly outrageous and is with out  any corroborating evidence.  You should read it, it really is disinformation.

15 hours ago, Calvin Ye said:

Calvin: it didn't open.

3 minutes ago, Calvin Ye said:

The Torbitt document contained bits of misinformation, red herrings and disinformation. Example of this is that it claim that Hoover aided Clay Shaw during Shaw's trial. This is typical misinformation because it was CIA who actually aided Clay Shaw. There are plenty of more examples.

Read the Torbitt Document, it is all misinformation. If you read the article about Permindex in Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review you will see that they are almost the same. Both can be downloaded online. Not sure about William Copeland being the author as no one has provided definitive proof of who wrote it.

Jim:

Has John been doing any research and will there be an update to his website?

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, John, i see in another thread, you were looking for Roy's book on Ferrie.

 

Did some research on Roy aka Blackburst who has passed away.  Litwin's book said that he got the manuscript from a   guy named Stephen Tyler. Jim if you, or anyone reading this post knows Tyler, can you let me know because I want to contact him.

There are many problems with Litwin's book including writing about Garrison's state of mind, something he is not qualified to do. He also attacks Oliver Stone regarding his support for Putin. Stone's relationship to him has no relevance to Garrison's case against Shaw.

Another problem is in the book's dedication that blames Garrison for Bloomfield's loss of reputation. It was not Garrison who was responsible for it, the blame can be found primarily with Lyndon LaRouche who published Dope Inc. and an article about Permindex in the Executive Intelligence Review. The Torbitt Document whose author is unknown, also connected Bloomfield to the assassination and Paesa Sera article shares some responsibility as well. Bloomfield himself did not blame Garrison for his problems, he blamed LaRouche. Litwin included all of the above with the exception of the Torbitt Document but still blames Garrison.

He also tries to dismiss Nagy's request to CIA to assign a US businessman to Permindex/CMC. His proof is that they offered Shaw the job in 1958 and he cites a CIA memo dated 1959 which refers to Nagy's request. He should have provided the document sent by Nagy to CIA making his request not a CIA memo referring to the request. The date on Nagy's letter, not the CIA memo should be compared to Shaw's job offer.

Jim:

Is a copy of the finger print card and arrest report available, is at Mary Ferrell or do you know anyone who has it?

Litwin also wrote about Shaw's Bertrand alias. Does anyone know if Shaw actually stated that he had an alias when he was arrested and if yes, is a copy of this document available?

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But what does one expect about a book that was endorsed by Aynesworth, Gus Russo, and Paul Hoch?

 

He refers to Aynesworth as being such a great journalist and also mentions that he was a confidante of Garrison before going  over to Shaw's defence team. What Litiwn should know is that you can't be a journalist and write a story about the Shaw trial if you are embeded with the people you are writing a story about. This is common sense, Aynesworth lacked objectivity. But Litwin didn't take that into consideration.

Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy of Stephen's unpublished book about David Ferrie:  Perfect Villain: David Ferrie and the JFK Mystery.

Calvin:

What is the source for this document?

Found this document as well, it is from the Harold Weisberg archive regarding the same document. In 1993 David Perry was searching for the same document.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/P%20Disk/Perry%20Dave/Item%2017.pdf

The document also references an article that refers to the document  and to document 105-9987. This can be found on Mary Ferrell. You do not need a membership as you can do 3 searches for free.

I also recall an article about Paine and her membership in the Friends organization but I do not recall the title.

Ruth Paine Papers on Marina are located below.  The document and related information may be there.

http://archives.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/resources/5109pain

I contacted Jim about the document and his reply is below.

"The document is for real. But it turns out that either the FBi agent was wrong or the source was wrong. THey checked it out for the PBS special in 1993, and the guy denied he said it."