Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim DiEugenio vs Fred Litwin


Recommended Posts

DiEugenio: Truth Warrior or Spin Meister?

I've read through DiEugenio's claim of Col. Bill McKinney and L. Fletcher Prouty. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ARRB record clearly states that McKinney only talked to Prouty in the 70's as a reporter for an Erie, PA newspaper on Amtrak matters. 

Then DiEugenio makes the most ridiculous claim, put forth by his pal Osanic, that Prouty "went along with the ARRB" to give them what they wanted to hear. 

Does anyone in their right mind believe that nonsensical explanation? 

Prouty has told some JFK whoppers in his lifetime. Even Harold Weisberg had a hard time believing them. 

Fred Litwin addresses some of DiEugenio's claims here. Read it for yourself to decide who is representing the true facts. 

Fred Litwin's Follies! (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's a stretch, but perhaps Tracy does bear a slight resemblance to Charlton Heston. 🤥

Charlton Heston El Cid Posters and Photos 283117 | Movie Store

W. Tracy Parnell

LOL, ROTF.

 

Thanks William.  Now if you could photoshop the helmet maybe you can pull it off. Don't forget the scar on the cheek.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In looking over Fred's blog, that anyone could read that thing and, beyond that, take it seriously--I mean wow. Wow.

What he does to Stringer's testimony on the brain photos before the ARRB is more than bad.  Its nauseating. Its as bad as his chapter on Thornley in his Garrison book. Its the kind of thing that actually caused the whole movement away from, and disbelief in, the official story in the first place.

There are two prime sources for this data.  The ARRB transcript itself and Doug Horne's review of Stringer's appearance.  Horne was actually in the room, and he quotes the transcript at length in his book.  In Volume 3, of Inside the ARRB, he spends about 15 pages on the Stringer interview. And almost half of them consist of the transcript. (pp. 803-21)

In those pages one will see how Jeremy Gunn skillfully constructed his examination beforehand in order  to get Stringer on the record first. (Pages 804-05) Gunn then showed him the brain photos.

On page 807 of Horne's book, using the transcript, Stringer says that the numbers on the pictures indicates they were taken by a press pack technique.   When Gunn asked him if that is an indication they were not taken by him, Stringer replied in the affirmative. He then added that the film used was Ansco.  When Jeremy had already gotten him to admit that he used Ektachrome.

Horne told Oliver and myself that Stringer got up and walked over to the picture stand because he was so surprised by this reversal. When Gunn asked him if he used Ansco film on the JFK autopsy he said "Not as far as I know." (p. 809). So Gunn asked him about whether he was sure he took these pictures and he said no he was not, because of the technique used and the wrong film. (ibid)

Now compare the above crucial information with what Litwin does with it on his worthless blog. Only Parnell and Roe would tolerate this kind of rubbish. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In looking over Fred's blog, that anyone could read that thing and, beyond that, take it seriously--I mean wow. Wow.

What he does to Stringer's testimony on the brain photos before the ARRB is more than bad.  Its nauseating. Its as bad as his chapter on Thornley in his Garrison book. Its the kind of thing that actually caused the whole movement away from, and disbelief in, the official story in the first place.

There are two prime sources for this data.  The ARRB transcript itself and Doug Horne's review of Stringer's appearance.  Horne was actually in the room, and he quotes the transcript at length in his book.  In Volume 3, of Inside the ARRB, he spends about 15 pages on the Stringer interview. And almost half of them consist of the transcript. (pp. 803-21)

In those pages one will see how Jeremy Gunn skillfully constructed his examination beforehand in order  to get Stringer on the record first. (Pages 804-05) Gunn then showed him the brain photos.

On page 807 of Horne's book, using the transcript, Stringer says that the numbers on the pictures indicates they were taken by a press pack technique.   When Gunn asked him if that is an indication they were not taken by him, Stringer replied in the affirmative. He then added that the film used was Ansco.  When Jeremy had already gotten him to admit that he used Ektachrome.

Horne told Oliver and myself that Stringer got up and walked over to the picture stand because he was so surprised by this reversal. When Gunn asked him if he used Ansco film on the JFK autopsy he said "Not as far as I know." (p. 809). So Gunn asked him about whether he was sure he took these pictures and he said no he was not, because of the technique used and the wrong film. (ibid)

Now compare the above crucial information with what Litwin does with it on his worthless blog. Only Parnell and Roe would tolerate this kind of rubbish. 

 

Fred's blog contain disinformation, omissions, misinformation and red herrings about the case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2021 at 4:35 PM, Joseph McBride said:

Tracy just spreads disinformation. Who pays him?

Tracy is probably being paid by the New York Establishment to spread disinformation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2021 at 11:51 PM, Calvin Ye said:

Tracy is probably being paid by the New York Establishment to spread disinformation

Hey Tracy, did you receive that big check from "The New York Establishment" yet? How about the CIA? Are they still contributing to your 401K account. I'm sure they are monitoring your progress on trying to spread disinformation, like McBride said. 

Everyone here knows "THEY" are monitoring the JFK forums and they are hiding the real truth on who killed Kennedy. Right?

These nutty comments always backfire on the people that post this garbage.

But hey too late now. It's written and documented, no turning back now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Hey Tracy, did you receive that big check from "The New York Establishment" yet? How about the CIA? Are they still contributing to your 401K account. I'm sure they are monitoring your progress on trying to spread disinformation, like McBride said. 

Everyone here knows "THEY" are monitoring the JFK forums and they are hiding the real truth on who killed Kennedy. Right?

These nutty comments always backfire on the people that post this garbage.

But hey too late now. It's written and documented, no turning back now. 

 

I'm still waiting Steve. BTW, I would love to know who he thinks the "New York Establishment" is. Does that consist of Cuomo and de Blasio or someone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I'm still waiting Steve. BTW, I would love to know who he thinks the "New York Establishment" is. Does that consist of Cuomo and de Blasio or someone else?

It is obvious that you don't read books

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Calvin Ye said:

It is obvious that you don't read books

 

23 minutes ago, Calvin Ye said:

It is obvious that you don't read books

Perhaps Tracy is laying that George Soros and all *dem* blue-blooded shyster trap here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

With Posner, that concept of him being a hired gun by the New York/Washington axis is provable.  Because of his connection to Bob Loomis of Random House.  And that has been gone over many times, including by me.  

With Epstein, its pretty provable also.  That whole Reader's Digest, CIA, Angleton connection. Then consider what happened at Reader's DIgest when they contracted out to do Reasonable Doubt by Henry Hurt. There was a bloodbath.

My impression of Fred, from the data I have been able to collect, is that he is a rightwing political wanna be. To understand this, one has to read his first book, Conservative Confidential.

https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/fred-litwin-culture-warrior

Fred wanted to be the David Horowitz of Canada.  That is a lefty turned righty culture warrior.  The problem is, there is no evidence that he was ever a real lefty in the first place. There is evidence he made big money working on Bay Street, Wall Street, and in the Far East for Intel Corporation  And although he does not say where he worked in England, it was probably the Westminister financial district.  And the cash he gathered was what he used on his return to Canada, specifically the capital of Ottawa, to finance his music and publishing companies. HIs whole concept was to start a rightwing, conservative movement that was not just political but cultural. Get a load of this one:

Fred sounds just like Benjy N here.

He then got off on the whole rightwing anti conspiracy riff. As advocated by people like Horowitz and Pipes.  And man, does he go the whole nine yards in the Kennedy case.  Like most neocons, he has to extend his denial of conspiracy to Kennedy's foreign policy.  According to Fred, JFK was not actually getting out of Vietnam, and he was really a Cold Warrior.  Which is what he said on JG Michaels' Parallax View show at the top of this thread. Whenever someone says that, it reveals either blatant ignorance, or a political agenda a mile wide.  With Fred, I think we know its the latter.

And here is the problem with that. From the beginning of the JFK case, the main problem was that the WC and the FBI did not treat it as a homicide.  They treated it as political problem. This is why you had Allen Dulles passing out the Donovan book at the first WC meeting branding all American political assassinations the work of one man. Therefore, Dulles worked with Angleton to conceal Oswald's intelligence ties. This is why Hoover told Billy Byars that he could not tell the truth about what really happened, because it would be dangerous to the political system. Therefore he covered up the fact that there was no chain of custody for CE 399 at all, period. 

This is the tradition of Fred Litwin.  The American people have had enough of this approach. It has done untold damage to the collective polity and psyche of this country.  Its one reason I am not going to let Fred become the new McAdams. Just like I was determined not to let Bugliosi be the new Posner.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Like most neocons, he has to extend his denial of conspiracy to Kennedy's foreign policy.  According to Fred, JFK was not actually getting out of Vietnam, and he was really a Cold Warrior. 

Here is a simple fact. Since no one can see into the future, we'll never know what JFK would have done in regard to Vietnam. There is a great deal of evidence that he was indeed a standard cold warrior:

John Kennedy and the Cold War (mu.edu)

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...