Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim DiEugenio vs Fred Litwin


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

He must have you on "ignore" again Steve.

Look like Fred has put Jim on ignore. He should be here defending what he wrote but he is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Fred will not debate me on the radio, here or on Facebook.

On Facebook, I am attracting some attention.  They are now accusing Fred of bing part of Mockingbird.

As per Parnell, I mean, how can any self respecting, half way intelligent, truly candid author have written that long blurb/review for LItwin's "book" on Garrison?  Parnell could find not one single thing wrong with that witless farrago of character assassination,  studious embroidery--to write about the Shaw trial and never mention FInck?--combined with schoolboy howlers, like Garrison was looking for Bertrand  in 1963.  That was such an embarrassment that Parnell even tried to cover for Fred on this last one. I could see the emails between the two pounding away:

TP: "Fred how could you have done something that dumb?" 

FL: "Well, Hoch saw it and he didn't say anything, so I thought I could get away with it."

TP: "What do I have to do now to get that egg off our faces? I mean, Iike  Hoch, I let that pass. Now, it makes me look like your toady. I mean, I am, but still."  

So yes, a guy who serves as an ad man for Fred, I ignore.

Fred's latest on the  Cherami episode have descended into Ringling Brothers/Barnum and Bailey clownishness. The guy is so contorted he looks like he is having an eyeball popping hernia.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Parnell could find not one single thing wrong

As I have already mentioned, my purpose was not to write a critical review. I was helping a friend promote a book. If Jim or others want to criticize they may do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

Why should Jim or anyone on this forum have to stake their reputation on anything discussed here? Are you going to stake your reputation on what you have said? If so, what will you do when you are proven wrong? I know what you will do, the same thing you always do when proven wrong, you keep posting because you and the other WC supporters will never accept that there was a conspiracy.

John, if you don't stand behind what you post, or believe it yourself....then do you expect others to believe you? 

I'll stake my meager reputation that the Rose Cheramie connection to the JFK assassination is nothing but phony. That goes for the silly Margaret Hoover "Silver Slipper" false connection to the "Silver Slipper" in Eunice. 

If I'm proven wrong, I will admit it. Until then.....there is no hard evidence to connect these silly stories. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Fred's latest on the  Cherami episode have descended into Ringling Brothers/Barnum and Bailey clownishness. The guy is so contorted he looks like he is having an eyeball popping hernia.

There you go bragging again. 

He's posting evidence, documents....a lot of them from Garrison's own papers. You're seeing another side of the story.

Apparently you are not happy about that. 

Don't you agree both sides of an issue should be discussed? 

This isn't a one-trick pony conspiracy forum, is it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As I have already mentioned, my purpose was not to write a critical review. I was helping a friend promote a book. If Jim or others want to criticize they may do so.

I wouldn’t want to promote something a friend wrote that had a blatant disregard for the truth, but each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kishan Dandiker said:

I wouldn’t want to promote something a friend wrote that had a blatant disregard for the truth, but each their own.

I don't believe it is such. Regarding the point Jim D. makes, Garrison's office was looking for Bertrand. It is reasonable to assume that Garrison was aware of it. But Fred has admitted that is it possible he may not have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

John, if you don't stand behind what you post, or believe it yourself....then do you expect others to believe you? 

Steve:

Staking a reputation does not add credibility to an argument. Only conclusions based on proven facts can do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 8:26 AM, John Kowalski said:

Steve:

Staking a reputation does not add credibility to an argument. Only conclusions based on proven facts can do so.

John, I agree with that. However standing behind your claims and evidence, shows your commitment to the facts as presented. There's way too many story tellers in the JFK assassination literature, who will not acknowledge facts contrary to what they wrote.

It's been a long tendency here to divide JFK researchers, authors, students, etc. into tribal LN and CT camps. 

What matters is the truth, as documented by proven facts. That's what the focus of this forum should be, and in some cases, I've seen that. Everyone makes a mistake, for sure. It takes a bigger person to admit he/her were wrong. I've been proven wrong a few times, by people on both sides of the argument. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

On 5/13/2021 at 1:07 PM, James DiEugenio said:

All three of Kennedy's military advisors--McNamara, Bundy, and Taylor--are on record as saying Kennedy was not going into Vietnam.  Period, over and out.

 

That was Jim D.'s response to Tracy's assertion that we can't know what JFK's intentions were regarding Vietnam.

I just thought I'd add to that (and the other points Jim made) the content of two documents that pretty much prove  that JFK's plan was to remove most troops from Vietnam by 1965.

Most forum members posting to this thread already know this, but here it is for readers who don't:
 

From NSAM 263, dated October 11,1963:

At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the [McNamara/Taylor Report], but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.


 

From section I B (1-3) of the McNamara/Taylor Report:

We recommend that:

1.  General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965. This review would consider the need for such changes as:

      o
      o
      o
      o

2.  A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

3.  In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.


 

I don't know how anybody, after reading that, could possibly believe that Kennedy's plans weren't to withdraw troops from Vietnam, and to do so in the 1965/66 time frame.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/2/2021 at 3:49 PM, Steve Roe said:

Until then.....there is no hard evidence to connect these silly stories. 

If these stories are silly then why are you here debating them? You have made a number dismissive remarks about the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. If the belief that a conspiracy occurred on November 22, 1963 in Dallas is so difficult for you to accept that you need to make snide remarks about them, then why do you devote so much time trying to challenge them?

Edited by John Kowalski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get back to the real world, Len Osanic and myself will be interviewing MIchael Marcades about  the updated and revised version of his book, Rose Cherami: Gathering Fallen Petals.

This will be broadcast on BOR this week.

Mike spent years researching her life.  He also did work on the odd circumstances surrounding her death.  The bibliography he has for his book is unsurpassed in the literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Sandy is correct with the above.

I will be reviewing the revised version of Newman's JFK and Vietnam soon.

In addition to the words of Bundy, McNamara, and Taylor, the documentary record on this is very strong 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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...