Jump to content
The Education Forum

Dr. David Mantik demolishes Fred Litwin


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Henry Hurt sources them to both the  NO States Item and Ny TImes of February 20, 1969.  I do not know if that is simply a report on them or if it actually is a picture exhibit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You might want to ask Litwin for it. He references it in his Garrison book. From the quotes he uses, Roy's work is about what I thought it would be: a whitewash .  From Freddie Boy's quoting from it, Roy apparently wrote that Ferrie probably just did not remember Oswald out of all his CAP students, and this may explain what he said to the FBI afterwards.

I have not laughed so hard since reading David Heymann.  Ferrie had just worked with Oswald that summer of 1963 and been seem with him at 544 Camp Street.  To certify that further, after the assassination, Ferrie was calling the homes of guys who had been in the CAP, frantically trying to find the picture of him and Oswald together. He was also worried about Oswald having his library card.

What makes it all the worse is this: the FBI knew Ferrie was doing this. Because the people he got in contact with then called the FBI office, since they thought the timing was odd.  Which, to put it mildly, it was.  But even in spite of this, the FBI still let Ferrie lie his head off in his affidavit. Talk about consciousness of guilt. And cooperating in a cover up.

Its bad enough that Roy wrote this nonsense. Its even worse that Freddie Boy reiterated it wIthout calling it out.  Tells you the value of his book.  Which Litwin says Paul Hoch reviewed in advance. Paul is some proofreader.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Litwin's book on Garrison is so bad that I literally have to take a break for a couple of hours, sometimes a whole day or two. Because I start getting a headache.

Who could possibly use as many dubious sources as Fred does?  Its not just Aynesworth.  You call the roll, they are all here: James Phelan, Dick Billings, David Chandler, Aaron Kohn, Harry Connick, the NBC special. I mean how can anyone use the last two--or any of these discredited people-- in this day and age? But Fred does, with no context or background--its like he is in a vacuum.  Page after page, its literally a deluge of slime. From every direction and from every angle, non stop sludge. 

He actually takes Boxley seriously as a source. Which is a real problem with Litwin.  It does not matter who the source is, it does not matter how incredible the testimony, he will print it.

The other thing is, its like the ARRB did not exist with this guy.  He is going to deny/ignore all of their revelations about Shaw. Litwin wants to take us back to 1969.  Well, with his godawful sourcing, he can make like HG Wells and The TIme Machine. But  like with that book, it's a world of Sci Fi.

He actually said on one forum that Garrison never deposited his papers anywhere.  How ignorant can this guy be?  Garrison gave a large amount of his papers to the late  Bud Fensterwald at the AARC. He then says the reason Garrison did not do so--which he did do so--is that there was not anything to reveal.  Oh really Fred?  To take just one example,  where did Bill Davy get his book from?  It is studded with footnotes from Garrisons' files.

Only the likes of Jerry Posner could avoid all of this.  And much more. Which I will detail in my review.

 

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2021 at 10:23 AM, John Kowalski said:

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.

The author of the Torbitt Document is David Copeland who uses the pseudonym Torbitt

Edited by Calvin Ye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Doug Horne gave a presentation on the JFK autopsy last Wed.. If you missed it, you can see it by copying  this urrl address...https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/the-jfk-medical-coverup-2/?utm_source=FFF+Daily&utm_campaign=e0d35e626b-FFF+Daily+04-10-2021&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1139d80dff-e0d35e626b-318111122 and then open it up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Doug Horne gave a presentation on the JFK autopsy last Wed.. If you missed it, you can see it by copying  this urrl address...https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/the-jfk-medical-coverup-2/?utm_source=FFF+Daily&utm_campaign=e0d35e626b-FFF+Daily+04-10-2021&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1139d80dff-e0d35e626b-318111122 and then open it up

Thank you for this link.  I've read some of Doug Horne, Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser.  But not put together the way Mr. Horne does here.  

First, right before he starts his presentation, he mentions a small caliber throat wound, specifically a 22.  Something I've speculated about myself the last several years.  

Then he gets into three head shots.  Kellerman mentioned a flurry of shots.  A shot in the hairline above the right eye.  A shot in the hairline above the right ear.  Both from the front.  A shot in the hairline behind the right ear, from behind.

Three head shots.  They had to be simultaneous, coordinated.  Fired on a verbal command heard by all three shooters.

It was rehearsed to make sure of no mistakes.  

Then at the end, at the autopsy Doug relates there were "Men in Suits, with predetermined conclusions".  Who were up set when when findings didn't agree with their predetermined conclusions.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, Mike Chesser is doing the best work there is on the Kennedy autopsy today.

Link to comment
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...