Jim DiEugenio vs Fred Litwin

[John Kowalski]

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.

Edited May 7, 2021 by John Kowalski

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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.

[James DiEugenio]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Anyone can read the blog piece and see that Fred was originally a WC critic who rejected some of the more extreme theories. As Fred points out, it is hard to understand exactly what Jim is trying to say here, Is he saying Fred was a "fake" critic that was planted by the CIA? Who knows? But clearly Fred was a responsible critic who eventually became a "lone nutter." Which is exactly what his writings show. 

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.  

Which is what Fred did.  After the talk, he attacked Rusty.

And this was the evidence trail he placed in his book after.  Tracy wants us to forget about it, but its there in black and white:

"For instance, Litwin attended a talk given by Commission critic Rusty Rhodes in Montreal in 1975. He then wrote a piece for the student newspaper at Concordia University criticizing Rhodes as a sensationalist. (Litwin, p. 107) In 1976, he actually argued in a piece he did for People and the Pursuit of Truth that the bullet channel from Kennedy’s back out of his neck was genuine. (Litwin, p. 143) Another example in the nineties, he met with the Dallas ’63 group in UK. He again argued against conspiracy. (Litwin, p. 148) In August of 1994, he gave a talk for this group. He again argued for the Oswald did it side. (Litwin, p. 154) He then turned that talk into a paper called, “A Conspiracy too Big? Intellectual Dishonesty in the JFK Assassination.” This paper was not about anything the Warren Commission did that was dishonest—which I have outlined in detail above. It was about the critics of the Commission, who he says “have constructed a conspiracy so massive that it ultimately falls of its own weight.” Here, Litwin sounds indistinguishable to me from say, Dan Rather on a bad day. On this evidence, if there is anything freakish about Litwin, it is his refusal to accept any evidence that the Commission was wrong—at any time in his life."

Tracy wants us to ignore all of the above.  But Fred wrote it. So three years after the publication of his book we are still waiting for a research article in which Litwin mounted any kind of expose of the Commission. There were many being written at the time by an array of authors, because of the confluence of the Pike Committee, Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission. There were anthologies he could have contributed to e.g. Government by Gunplay.  There were publications he could have written for, e.g. the AIB newsletter called Clandestine America..

Yet, as I noted above, the only example he could give us is an article he wrote supporting the Single Bullet Fantasy.  Hmm.

Edited May 7, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

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.

Edited May 7, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour 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.

         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?

        

Edited May 7, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[John Kowalski]

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.

[James DiEugenio]

LOL. ROTF.  Good one John.

[James DiEugenio]

William:

There are some people who have gone from being WC critics to Single Bullet fantasists.  For example, Meyers, Russo and Mack.

In those cases the motivating force appears to have been monetary.  The first two found employment at places like PBS, ABC and NBC.  Mack made six figures at the Sixth Floor and co producing cable TV documentaries.

But, as explained above, Litwin already made big money.  He now seems to want to use that money to spread his ideological beliefs. 

[W. Niederhut]

31 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

William:

There are some people who have gone from being WC critics to Single Bullet fantasists.  For example, Meyers, Russo and Mack.

In those cases the motivating force appears to have been monetary.  The first two found employment at places like PBS, ABC and NBC.  Mack made six figures at the Sixth Floor and co producing cable TV documentaries.

But, as explained above, Litwin already made big money.  He now seems to want to use that money to spread his ideological beliefs. 

       If true, Litwin has embraced a strange ideology, indeed.   He is, apparently, promoting the "values" of disinformation, public deception, political assassinations, and genocidal wars by the U.S. military-industrial complex.

 

[Denny Zartman]

2 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.

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.

[W. Niederhut]

58 minutes 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.

       The title of Litwin's book, itself, is a crafty piece of salesmanship-- implying that only a naively misinformed teenager would doubt the validity of the Warren Commission's "Lone Nut" narrative.

       As I told Fred Litwin here when he first notified the forum about his book, his intellectual journey on the JFK assassination case was the diametric opposite of mine. 

       I was a teenage Warren Commission Report dupe.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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? 

[James DiEugenio]

Parnell is still carrying water for Fred.

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. 

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.

3.) TP: 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.

  First, where is the evidence that Litwin was ever a conspiracy believer?  Its not in his book.  And I quoted from it.  In three years he has yet to come up with any article, or essay that he ever wrote where he exposed any of the myriad fallacies in the Warren Report.  That is what a critic of the report did.  He has never proven he did so. So if Tracy calls that a fact, its like Parnell saying the Single Bullet Theory is a fact, or that only the Parkland doctors saw the hole in the rear of Kennedy's skull.

Second, if anyone can show me where I ever accused Fred of being a CIA agent, I would like to see it.  I don't recall ever doing that.  I await for the evidence I did so.