Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim DiEugenio vs Fred Litwin


Recommended Posts

I dealt with the Gerdes deception already. 

I am not going to read that if you are not going to read my articles on this.

The last two are just silly.

The judge saw the reference, its pretty obvious what happened to it.

The idea that Garrison's witnesses were not surveiled and tracked and intimidated and even assaulted is loony.   This is a proven fact.  Freddie does not want to admit if for obvious reasons. You might want to ask yourself who threw that grenade at Nagell.

This is Parnell.  He could not find one thing wrong with any of Litwin's books.  Now he quotes the guy who said Stringer did not really question the brain photos when I proved he did right on this forum.  

Parnell, you should hang your head.  Fred is using you and you are a willing puppet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let me repost this because I want everyone  to see who Parnell is serving as a messenger boy for.  A guy who clearly and blatantly misrepresents the factual record. Knowing it does not mean a dang to Tracy. 

On his blog, Fred said that Stringer's only dispute in his ARRB session was over the basilar views of Kennedy's brain. That is utterly and completely false.  The following is what made Stringer's testimony  so important.

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

Posted (edited)

BTW, in addition to all the above, there is Litwin's utter distortion about Kennedy's foreign policy.

If you listen to that taping I did with JG Michaels, that is the first thing I brought up about Fred.

Litwin is still trying to deny that Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam, and also that Kennedy was not a Cold Warrior.

LOL, ROTF.

The ARRB put this to rest back in 1997 with the declassification of the Sec Def meeting in Hawaii in May of 1963.  

Kennedy was getting out and McNamara was collecting the withdrawal schedules.  Because of the ARRB you can link this together now piece by piece. And I have done so in several presentations.  

The idea that Kennedy was a Cold Warrior has been demolished by Richard Mahoney, Robert Rakove and Philip Muehlenbeck and Greg Poulgrain.   Their studies were done without references to the JFK assassination. (Mahoney did write on the subject,  but it was after his Congo study.) 

This is how complete Litwin's cover up is.  Like McAdams, who i think he is trying to replace, its a total wipe out.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Litwin is still trying to deny that Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam

And Jim is still trying to deny that no one knows what JFK would have done. All we can do is speculate. But McAdams wrote a good piece that sums up one side of the argument. Myself, I am always skeptical when someone says they can see into the future. As far as I know, Jim has not made a fortune in the stock market or gambling casinos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And Jim is still trying to deny that no one knows what JFK would have done. All we can do is speculate. But McAdams wrote a good piece that sums up one side of the argument. Myself, I am always skeptical when someone says they can see into the future. As far as I know, Jim has not made a fortune in the stock market or gambling casinos.

It’s pretty nuts if you’re denying JFK wanted to get out of Vietnam. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And Jim is still trying to deny that no one knows what JFK would have done. All we can do is speculate. But McAdams wrote a good piece that sums up one side of the argument. Myself, I am always skeptical when someone says they can see into the future. As far as I know, Jim has not made a fortune in the stock market or gambling casinos.

There is no need to speculate. There is hard evidence that Kennedy would have withdraw from Vietnam. McAdams' piece relied on a conservative source, which is unreliable.

Edited by Calvin Ye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In November of 1963, Kennedy ordered up an evacuation plan for all American civilian personnel in Saigon.

That was shortly after NSAM 263 which allowed for the first thousand advisors to come home in December.

In the revised edition of Newman's book, it is revealed that there were two attempts to remove the withdrawal portion from the Taylor/McNamara Report.  One by Sullivan and one by Taylor.  Kennedy insisted it be placed back in.

Its easy to piece it together today:

NSAM 111--No American combat troops in Vietnam .  Galbraith actually wrote the memo that JFK and RFK used to counter this move at the November 1961 meeting.

JFK sends Galbraith to Saigon to file a report to counter future American involvement.

April of 1962, with Galbraith in town, Kennedy send him to see McNamara and give him his report

May of 1962, at a Sec Def meeting with everyone from Vietnam there, McNamara has a small, after meeting gathering and tells the commander, Harkins, that America is getting out and prepare all divisions to do so by submitting withdrawal schedules. This culminates in the Sec Def Meeting in Hawaii in 1963 where those schedules are submitted.  And McNamara says they are too slow.

McNamara Taylor trip, in which, as Howard Jones points out, their report was written in Washington before the trip began.

As noted above, Kennedy turns back two attempts to erase the withdrawal section. He then tells McNamara to announce it to the press.

It then becomes NSAM 263.

February of 1964, LBJ tells McNamara how much he hated listening to JFK and him talk about withdrawing, but he sat there and stewed while they did

March of 1964, LBJ tells McNamara to make up some excuse to take back NSAM 263

March of 1964, LBJ signs NSAM 288 which begins the planning for a massive direct assault on North Vietnam, something which Kennedy never even talked about in three years.  LBJ was now doing it in three months.

 

Does Fred mention any of this Tracy?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You idea of what a "conservative" source consists of may be as ambiguous as your concept of the "New York Establishment."

It is not ambiguous. The problem is that you don't fact check sources

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I'm not denying anything. I'm saying that I nor anyone else knows what someone would have done. 

Well, there is a word for the way you are being and that is “obtuse”. Your pro lone-nut argument would have a little more credibility if you did!’t choose to take absurd stances like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

In Bundy's instance, this is in his posthumous biography by Gordon Goldstein.  That book, Lessons in Disaster, was going to be written by both of them, but Bundy died in progress.  Goldstein then completed the project himself.  But was allowed to refer to the interviews he did with Bundy while he was alive.

When Bundy reviewed the entire declassified record, he had nothing but admiration for what Kennedy had done.  In fact, he recognized that JFK had bypassed him on the withdrawal plan because he knew he was too hawkish.

Bundy also admitted that it was LBJ who ordered the alterations in NSAM 273.  Which allowed for direct American involvement in the DeSoto patrols which were in fact, and Bundy admitted this, provocations. It was then LBJ who browbeat McNamara into reversing course on Vietnam.  And then wanted him to renounce NSAM 263.  In Virtual JFK, its very clear that Johnson, knowing he was breaking Kennedy's policy, then tried to disguise this fact by insisting he was not doing so.  It does not get any worse than that.

By March of 1964, NSAM 288 was readied.  This marked about 91 targets for a direct American air war over North Vietnam.  It had been mapped out by the JCS.  Kennedy never asked for this in three years, let alone let them in his office to present and discuss it.

Litwin never even touches on these clear lines of demarcation.  On either side of the time line, that is the JFK side, or the LBJ side. If you do not do this then you can say, well see, everything is hazy, and we do not know what Kennedy was really up to or what he was really planning etc etc. 

Except we do.  And we have it from Bundy, Taylor and McNamara. Plus the documents e.g. NSAM 263 and the Sec Def conference of 1963.  What Litwin does amounts to nothing less than censorship in order to make things that are pretty clear into the opaque. That is not journalism.  And that is not research. And that is not being candid with the reader.  It is an attempt to snooker the reader by giving him a redacted record.

But that is Fred. See my Stringer post above.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Let me bring up another issue: Paul Hoch.

I will repeat what I said in my review of Litwin's crud book about Garrison:

What has Hoch ever written in the last 30 years of any value to the critical community?

And what does Litwin produce in that regard?  

I set the marker at 30 years for a simple reason: its about the time that Oliver Stone's film opened.  Therefore that would be a good time to really say what one thought about the JFK case since it was getting exposure.  After that, with the revelations of the ARRB, one could write at length about these long overdue secrets finally being opened up.

If Paul Hoch ever wrote anything about these two subjects that favored the critical community, where is it?  Many people did just that.  I don't have to name them since Probe magazine featured them. But I never saw anything by Hoch in that regard.  

So therefore, how does Hoch represent what Fred calls, the responsible critic school?  What has Hoch written in the last three decades to show criticism of the official findings?  In fact, what Litwin uses Hoch for is just the contrary.  He uses Hoch to revive the Single Bullet Fantasy.  By having Hoch vouch for the work of the HSCA in regards to Guinn and Canning. Even though both of those reports have been utterly demolished.  Further at a seminar in Chicago, Hoch vouched for Burt Griffin over Bob Tanenbaum, and after the medical debate, he told Gary Aguilar that he thought the Lundberg/Lattimer side came out on top.

Paul Hoch has become a WC advocate.  When you are backing the late Lattimer, how else does one explain that away?  Was there ever a worse guy on the JFK medical evidence than Lattimer? A urolgoist who was allowed to be the first doctor to inspect the autopsy evidence at NARA and he does not reveal that Kennedy's brain is missing?  But he supports the official story anyway?  But this is Paul Hoch.

I have no problem saying that the function Hoch serves today is as a beard for people like Litwin.  He says Hoch is a critic but he cannot point to anything the guy has said or done in three decades in order to indicate that.  And what he does use is in favor of the official story, even though Canning and Guinn have been decimated.

The technique is pretty see through.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To show you how predisposed Hoch is to the Single Bullet Fantasy let me give you a personal example.

At one of Gary Aguilar's salons from many years ago, I did a review of the HSCA.

One of the things I did was to review the work of Canning. Hoch was there.

I noted that in Canning's work he had raised the posterior wound from the back to the neck. (Vol. 2 p. 170)  Even though the Ida Dox illustrations issued with the HSCA showed it as in the back.  The HSCA also concluded that the angle through the body was slightly upward.  Yet in Canning's drawings it was now flat.

Canning also admitted that if his points of entry and exit were off by as little as an inch, it would mean the firing point should be altered by as much as 30-40 feet, or 3-4 floors in the TSBD. (ibid, p. 196). That is not just important for the back wound but the skull wound.  Because Canning placed this in the revised location, at the cowlick area. Which means if he was wrong, he would be off by as much as 160 feet.  Meaning not just a different floor but another building across the street.

When I pointed these facts out at Gary's salon, Hoch looked at me cock eyed.  I asked if he wanted to ask a question.  He declined by saying something like it wasn't worth it.  Since this is all factual and Canning said it, I now understand why.  See, in his endorsement of Canning, he does not bring these crucial points up.  As Litwin does not. In other words, Hoch was so eager to endorse Canning that he did not even point out how the guy qualified himself.  Which is a big qualification.

As I said in my review of LItwin, what makes this so odd is that Hoch has a Ph. D in physics.  Yet, he never questioned the work of Canning or Guinn.  Other people, who did not have his credentials, did so in quite cogent ways.  For example, Wallace Milam on Guinn and Pat Speer on Canning.  Litwin, by never referring to either man, eludes the obvious question: Geez Paul, if a high school teacher and record industry marketer could expose them, why couldn't you, a trained scientist, show us the errors they did?

Again, the technique and motivation are pretty see through for both Hoch and Litwin

Edited by James DiEugenio
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...