Serious issues with DiEugenio's new book, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Yes, I was referring to the Litwin article.  I've read a lot of junk over the years and have come to the point I don't see how any open-minded person who has done much reading on the subject can still conclude Oswald acted alone.  So, sometimes I get to a point reading some articles, or posts, I think why waste my time.

BTW for Pat, I am familiar with both Dan Hardway and the former mayor of Beverly Hills.  The former's questioning of the latter's version not withstanding, I admire the work of both.

I apologize. I thought you were going after Hardaway.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

On 7/10/2022 at 3:13 PM, Tom Gram said:

Steve, I'm pretty sure I found the memo from Oser. It is not a series of memos, nor does it describe anything that went on in the camp.

New article by Litwin complete with the "series of memos" that he mentioned:

Anatomy of a James DiEugenio Citation, Part Two (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

[S.T. Patrick]

And this is the conundrum of History Inc. as a field. You have two distinct viewpoints (let's use CT and LN in this case). Both sides have no lack of "experts" that will back them up. There are the "experts" that the mainstream academic historical field have dubbed experts. This, of course, just means that the very closed academic hierarchy has let them into their close-knit club and they now demand you genuflect to them if you're going to do any "accepted" work. Then, there are the viewpoint-specific "experts," which is what we usually have here from both the CT side and the LN side. These are the self (or viewpoint)-appointed experts that keep getting brought up in arguments. But, in reality, none of them are getting a sniff from the real academics and Barnes & Noble corporate buyers. Thurston Clarke, Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, David McCullough, and Doug Brinkley aren't going to the wall to defend Fred Litwin or Jim DiEugenio or anyone else. So, then, within both sides of these communities, we keep doing these "Oh yeah! Well have you read [guy that agrees with me]?" statements like they mean anything. But what does it mean? The expert you like is more credible than the expert I like because he agrees with you? But mine agrees with me! It's a historical carousel, and when the ride ends, where are you? Even worse, within the communities, there is the establishment of a pecking order, also self-appointed. Do you think that you can talk to Michael Beschloss about the Kennedy assassination and use the names Peter Dale Scott or Vince Salandria and they'll mean anything more to him than Judyth Vary Baker or James Files? Do you think Fred Litwin or Alecia Long would matter as names to them, either? They're all "JFK obsessives" to the true mainstream History Inc. So, inside the CT community, there is an issue with the aging hierarchy destroying anyone who doesn't agree with them as "discredited," the most tired word in the field. Of course, anyone who agrees with them has done "credible work." This doesn't happen as much in the LN field, but it does happen.

So, when I read this...

Person A: This is a credible source who has done careful, valuable work on this topic.

Person B: No, you haven't read Author X's dismantling of them.

Person A: Well, Author X is just a (insert name-call here) who was discredited by Author Y.

Person B: Well, Author Y has no credibility because (blah blah blah blah).

What are we really doing?

At some point, it isn't really about hard evidence anymore, because that's been exhausted, for the most part. When it turns to "My expert is better than your expert," I think we are done. Both sides throwing out names of authors when they disagree on vague or contradictory witness testimony does what exactly? Are we supposed to weigh the acceptability of the authors like on a two-wing scale? Has any LN-er ever said "Well, I didn't believe it before now, but since you brought up Dick Russell to support your stance, I totally believe it now"? Has any CT-er said "I didn't believe it before, but since you threw Fred Litwin in as a defender of what you said, I'm totally on board now"? What's going on here?

The perspective is that to mainstream academia, they're all obsessives. Now, how much respect do I have for mainstream academia? Not much. I don't let them choose my academics for me. But I also don't let the JFK community (CT or LN) choose them, either, as that's also rife with self-preservation and self-promotion (of ideology). I like seeing transcripts and docs and testimony. But just saying, "Yeah, well, [this guy agrees with it, so there!]"... what does that even mean?

Forget the fact that we keep, as a field, bashing the work of the MSM as CIA-fueled and historically problematic and then saying "Look, ma! They mentioned us! They mentioned us!" with child-like excitement whenever they do rarely give you a blurb on page D-16. Nonsensical, as well. Sometimes, I'll read and read and think, "What is going on here?"       

Edited July 12, 2022 by S.T. Patrick

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, S.T. Patrick said:

And this is the conundrum of History Inc. as a field. You have two distinct viewpoints (let's use CT and LN in this case). Both sides have no lack of "experts" that will back them up. There are the "experts" that the mainstream academic historical field have dubbed experts. This, of course, just means that the very closed academic hierarchy has let them into their close-knit club and they now demand you genuflect to them if you're going to do any "accepted" work. Then, there are the viewpoint-specific "experts," which is what we usually have here from both the CT side and the LN side. These are the self (or viewpoint)-appointed experts that keep getting brought up in arguments. But, in reality, none of them are getting a sniff from the real academics and Barnes & Noble corporate buyers. Thurston Clarke, Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, David McCullough, and Doug Brinkley aren't going to the wall to defend Fred Litwin or Jim DiEugenio or anyone else. So, then, within both sides of these communities, we keep doing these "Oh yeah! Well have you read [guy that agrees with me]?" statements like they mean anything. But what does it mean? The expert you like is more credible than the expert I like because he agrees with you? But mine agrees with me! It's a historical carousel, and when the ride ends, where are you? Even worse, within the communities, there is the establishment of a pecking order, also self-appointed. Do you think that you can talk to Michael Beschloss about the Kennedy assassination and use the names Peter Dale Scott or Vince Salandria and they'll mean anything more to him than Judyth Vary Baker or James Files? Do you think Fred Litwin or Alecia Long would matter as names to them, either? They're all "JFK obsessives" to the true mainstream History Inc. So, inside the CT community, there is an issue with the aging hierarchy destroying anyone who doesn't agree with them as "discredited," the most tired word in the field. Of course, anyone who agrees with them has done "credible work." this doesn't happen as much in the LN field, but it does happen.

So, when I read this...

Person A: This is a credible source who has done careful, valuable work on this topic.

Person B: No, you haven't read Author X's dismantling of them.

Person A: Well, Author X is just a (insert name-call here) who was discredited by Author Y.

Person B: Well, Author Y has no credibility because (blah blah blah blah).

What are we really doing?

At some point, it isn't really about hard evidence anymore, because that's been exhausted, for the most part. When it turns to "My expert is better than your expert," I think we are done. Both sides throwing out names of authors when they disagree on vague or contradictory witness testimony does what exactly? Are we supposed to weigh the acceptability of the authors like on a two-wing scale? Has any LN-er ever said "Well, I didn't believe it before now, but since you brought up Dick Russell to support your stance, I totally believe it now"? Has any CT-er said "I didn't believe it before, but since you threw Fred Litwin in as a defender of what you said, I'm totally on board now"? What's going on here?

The perspective is that to mainstream academia, they're all obsessives. Now, how much respect do I have for mainstream academia? Not much. I don't let them choose my academics for me. But I also don't let the JFK community (CT or LN) choose them, either, as that's also rife with self-preservation and self-promotion (of ideology). I like seeing transcripts and docs and testimony. But just saying, "Yeah, well, [this guy agrees with it, so there!]"... what does that even mean?    

Bravo! When I first got sucked into this quagmire I noticed the same thing... That there was a constant re-shuffling of the "facts" by both sides, and that they weren't even using the same set of facts. This led me to eventually leave John McAdams' newsgroup. It just went round and round.

In a real discussion, IMO, there would be the occasional concession by both sides. I mean, it's such a complicated bit of history there's no way that a bunch of politicrats (the WC and its staff), working part-time, could have figured it all out. They didn't. So why do some, even today, act as though the WR is the word of God? And, similarly, how could a bunch of armchair detectives, many of whom know nothing of the case beyond what they've read on conspiracy websites, or in conspiracy literature, figure it all out?

I tried a different approach. I spent a tremendous amount of time reading LN arguments, the official reports and testimony of the WC and HSCA, and LN books by Posner, Lattimer, Bugliosi, Sturdivan, etc. While at the same reading tens of thousands of pages in forensics journals, radiology journals, psychology journals and textbooks on these fields. 

And this led me some original thoughts and discoveries. 

I never expected people to embrace my conclusions. It was my hope instead that others would up their game and do some serious research as well.

But instead we have people either ignoring the pieces of WC scrap that leads anywhere but where the WC said it did, OR re-assembling the scrap in increasingly bizarre ways where it may very well become fashionable some day to hold that poor old Oswald didn't even go to work that day.

[James DiEugenio]

Its called polarization.  Its a common technique used by propaganda specialists.  Its used to inflame the issue by making over the top insinuations, in order to distract from the actual data and research techniques and reduce the debate to name calling and a personal level.

You can study it in many propaganda manuals the CIA puts out.

This last one by Parnell really takes the cake though.  It shows just what a willing messenger boy this guy is and how he just does not give one iota for  fact checking.  It also illustrates why I do not read Litwin and Roe.

If you can believe it, the idea now is to say "Well, Oswald could not have been at a training camp, because Oser and Boxley could not fine one."  Which is really so asinine that its not worth addressing, which is why I do not read these guys.

The idea that there were no training camps for MONGOOSE in the New Orleans area is one of the truly nutty statements Litwin has made; and Parnell, like a pay for play Uber driver, just goes ahead and parks this junk here.

Ferrie himself talked about these camps and his role in them. (Davy, Let Just be Done, p. 28)

After JFK tried shutting these down, other sources of money came in. Banister was a source for some of these funds. (ibid, p. 29). Everyone and their mother (except Parnell and Litwin) knows about the one across Lake Pontchatrain, on land owned by Bill McLaney.  It was raided on July 31st. Ferrie was a frequent presence at this camp. (ibid, pp. 29-30.) Even Summers said that Ferrie might have brought Oswald to this camp. But there were reports of another camp later on that summer/fall in Tangipahoa Parish, north of New Orleans, at a swampy area of Bedico Creek.  (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 116) And there were reports that Ferrie and Oswald were seen there.

In descending to this, you are not dealing with rational people.  You are trying to cope with zealous fanatics. Which is why I do not deal with them. 

This is it for me. To deal with this is like encouraging an illness.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

Some people here have analysed an incredible amount of data to come to certain conclusions, I can only respect that.  

And I really enjoy reading their essays, Pat Speer is one of those, he can explain something very technical and still keep the reader focussed (and of course it also helps when "there is something fishy about those shells"... ).  😄

About the name calling etc, in my first post I said I felt really sorry for that, there is no need... but take any forum and you will see it... it's one of the negative issues with internet discussions, there is no physical barrier... That's why they have moderators, but they draw the line where... it depends...  

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

I don't see any issue here in ST or Pat's posts that involve "name calling".

But was Jim's reply really any kind of response to ST and Pat's? , or was he tone deaf?

I hope that's not name calling. It's just an honest reaction.

Just for the record. I think ST and Pat's responses were refreshing, and I don't want them swept away with subterfuge.

[Pamela Brown]

1 hour ago, S.T. Patrick said:

And this is the conundrum of History Inc. as a field. You have two distinct viewpoints (let's use CT and LN in this case). Both sides have no lack of "experts" that will back them up. There are the "experts" that the mainstream academic historical field have dubbed experts. This, of course, just means that the very closed academic hierarchy has let them into their close-knit club and they now demand you genuflect to them if you're going to do any "accepted" work. Then, there are the viewpoint-specific "experts," which is what we usually have here from both the CT side and the LN side. These are the self (or viewpoint)-appointed experts that keep getting brought up in arguments. But, in reality, none of them are getting a sniff from the real academics and Barnes & Noble corporate buyers. Thurston Clarke, Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, David McCullough, and Doug Brinkley aren't going to the wall to defend Fred Litwin or Jim DiEugenio or anyone else. So, then, within both sides of these communities, we keep doing these "Oh yeah! Well have you read [guy that agrees with me]?" statements like they mean anything. But what does it mean? The expert you like is more credible than the expert I like because he agrees with you? But mine agrees with me! It's a historical carousel, and when the ride ends, where are you? Even worse, within the communities, there is the establishment of a pecking order, also self-appointed. Do you think that you can talk to Michael Beschloss about the Kennedy assassination and use the names Peter Dale Scott or Vince Salandria and they'll mean anything more to him than Judyth Vary Baker or James Files? Do you think Fred Litwin or Alecia Long would matter as names to them, either? They're all "JFK obsessives" to the true mainstream History Inc. So, inside the CT community, there is an issue with the aging hierarchy destroying anyone who doesn't agree with them as "discredited," the most tired word in the field. Of course, anyone who agrees with them has done "credible work." This doesn't happen as much in the LN field, but it does happen.

So, when I read this...

Person A: This is a credible source who has done careful, valuable work on this topic.

Person B: No, you haven't read Author X's dismantling of them.

Person A: Well, Author X is just a (insert name-call here) who was discredited by Author Y.

Person B: Well, Author Y has no credibility because (blah blah blah blah).

What are we really doing?

At some point, it isn't really about hard evidence anymore, because that's been exhausted, for the most part. When it turns to "My expert is better than your expert," I think we are done. Both sides throwing out names of authors when they disagree on vague or contradictory witness testimony does what exactly? Are we supposed to weigh the acceptability of the authors like on a two-wing scale? Has any LN-er ever said "Well, I didn't believe it before now, but since you brought up Dick Russell to support your stance, I totally believe it now"? Has any CT-er said "I didn't believe it before, but since you threw Fred Litwin in as a defender of what you said, I'm totally on board now"? What's going on here?

The perspective is that to mainstream academia, they're all obsessives. Now, how much respect do I have for mainstream academia? Not much. I don't let them choose my academics for me. But I also don't let the JFK community (CT or LN) choose them, either, as that's also rife with self-preservation and self-promotion (of ideology). I like seeing transcripts and docs and testimony. But just saying, "Yeah, well, [this guy agrees with it, so there!]"... what does that even mean?

Forget the fact that we keep, as a field, bashing the work of the MSM as CIA-fueled and historically problematic and then saying "Look, ma! They mentioned us! They mentioned us!" with child-like excitement whenever they do rarely give you a blurb on page D-16. Nonsensical, as well. Sometimes, I'll read and read and think, "What is going on here?"       

 

With all due respect, it is best not to 'believe' or 'disbelieve' the different sources, but rather weigh and evaluate what they have to say and then decide for yourself what to think. 

It is discouraging almost 60 years on to see what look like the equivalent of mini-WC's in any CT community.  They amount to little less than an appeal to authority, which is what the WC was supposed to do.  We were supposed to be so impressed with the 'credibility' of the WC members that we 'believed' them without thinking things through for ourselves.  No one researcher has all the answers...

Well, except maybe me...(but only because I just happened to be at the right place at the right time for some significant events...):-)

Edited July 12, 2022 by Pamela Brown

[James DiEugenio]

Jean Paul:

The point I was trying to make is that these propaganda techniques are DESIGNED to inflame.  They are meant to lead to invective.

The idea is to make a statement that is so extreme but weakly founded, and to do it in a manner that insinuates that somehow it is actually factual and databased, which it is not at all. By its very nature, it is simply propaganda. 

I don't believe that Roe did not know about the 2 sorting practices in Chicago, just like I don't believe that Litwin did not know about the difference in Oswald's Marine corps payment schedules. Or the whole issue of the training camps in and around New Orleans.

That is what these guys do.  They have it down to an art form.

Edited July 12, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Tom Gram]

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

New article by Litwin complete with the "series of memos" that he mentioned:

Anatomy of a James DiEugenio Citation, Part Two (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

I commend Litwin for posting all those documents, and retract what I said about there being no series of memos from Oser. 

Litwin’s source on what actually went on in the camp was Angel Vega, who said he attended it. I can understand why Litwin used him, as he was supposedly an eyewitness. However, my criticism of the citation itself - and overall - is still valid, since other information in just the Oser memo series contradicts what Litwin wrote, AND, the Vega interview was conducted by Alcock, not Oser, and is not even a part of the memo series. 

1.) There are credible, independently corroborative sources, suggesting that Vega was not being truthful about there being no shooting at the camp. (CORRECTION regarding the neighbor - it was Vega, and he was talking about the other camp). One was Quiroga, when he didn't know he was being recorded. The second was Frank de la Barre. Vega's story about Davis only doing target shooting on one occasion at the camp with his wife sounds a lot like a cover story, IMO. However, the most interesting part is Vega saying he heard "rifle shots and explosions from the direction of the other camp" - which Litwin doesn't mention. I'll return to this in a minute. 

2.) Litwin's only source for the statement "food was scarce" was a CIA memo where Quiroga allegedly was told that the members weren't getting enough food. This is corroborated by no-one, is also not mentioned in Litwin's citation - the Oser memo series, and is directly contradicted by Fernando Fernandez who was at the camp, who said there was "plenty of food" and would have more motive to talk down on the MDC than basically anyone: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145501#relPageId=307 (It's not letting me post attachments). In fact, when Alcock interviewed Vega, Vega corroborated Fernandez - and said that the owners of the camp came occasionally to check to see if the members needed any food, and that Davis brought food when he stopped by - nothing about the food being scarce. 

3.) Litwin's ending statement that the exiles went home "disappointed" (which no-one actually said except Davis, who obviously lied about the "lumber" story) is a clear implication that the men left due to the conditions in the camp. This is just flat out wrong, and I commend Litwin for clarifying this in his recent piece. 

Basically, Litwin's treatment in his book appears to be a deliberate attempt to downplay the MDC camp. Most importantly though, Litwin fails to mention the credible, independently corroborative evidence he had (a lot of stuff is in Litwin's article) that there was another training camp connected to the arms cache run by "fanatical right wingers", and located by an airstrip. Who do we know who was a fanatical right winger that also flew planes? There is also credible evidence (even in Litwin's article) that the financial backers of the MDC camp were the same types of people - John Bircher types. In the FBI investigation of the arms cache, they also determined that figures connected to the cache were involved with the DRE. The Church Committee actually wrote that the arms cache and MDC camp were run by the same people. 

Litwin includes the Dec. 63, unsigned FBI report on Bringuier that says that Oswald made no indication he knew about an actual camp. CORRECTION: Litwin does not mention Bringuier's testimony where he says he thought that Oswald knew about the camp. Nobody disputes that Oswald's pretext for contacting Bringuier was training Cuban guerrillas, which is suspicious enough on its own; but considering Bringuier's testimony, and the statement by Davis that Oswald wanted to join his group - is it far from unreasonable to consider the possibility that Oswald did know about the camp itself.  

To be clear, I cannot say for sure whether Litwin's treatment of the camp in his book reflects just an extremely biased analysis, or an intentional omission of relevant credible evidence to assist in making his argument. The training camps are a complex, interesting topic and the connections to the CIA, Oswald, and the JFK case are truly ambiguous when the evidence is looked at objectively. Litwin did not do this, and I stand by what I wrote that his citation is actually worse that Jim's. In addition to relying on sources of dubious credibility, Litwin's citation actually contradicts itself, and the information attributed to that citation was actually obtained somewhere else. That's pretty questionable research, IMO. 

EDIT: Again, if I’m missing something, which is very possible - as Tracy just pointed out regarding Bringuier - let me know. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I don't see any issue here in ST or Pat's posts that involve "name calling".

But was Jim's reply really any kind of response to ST and Pat's? , or was he tone deaf?

I hope that's not name calling. It's just an honest reaction.

Just for the record. I think ST and Pat's responses were refreshing, and I don't want them swept away with subterfuge.

I don't think he was responding to us, at all. I think he is just frustrated with the parade of attacks on his movie and book, most of which come from people he does not respect. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Litwin does not mention Bringuier's sworn testimony where he says that Oswald in fact did know about the camp.

Could you provide a link to that testimony please?

[Tom Gram]

13 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Could you provide a link to that testimony please?

I did read the testimony wrong Tracy, thank you. Bringuier said that he believed Oswald knew about the camp, not that he said he did: 

Mr. LIEBELER. You indicated that Oswald had come to your store or offices on August 5, 1963? 
Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. 
Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald came to you offering to assist in the military training of Cubans? 
Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. 
Mr. LIEBELER. At that time, there was, in fact, a training camp near New Orleans---- 
Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. 
Mr. LIEBELER. For the training of people for military action against Castro? 
Mr. BRINGUIER. Right. 
Mr. LIEBELER. And that was not public knowledge at that time? 
Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. 
Mr. LIEBELER. So you are tying this up in your mind by considering the possibility that Oswald was, in fact, a Castro agent? 
Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. 
Mr. LIEBELER. And did know about the existence of this training camp, because Mr. Fernandez had already himself infiltrated that training camp? 
Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. 

I was conflating the testimony with a ‘64 speech in which Bringuier said that from his conversation, Oswald knew about the camp: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=193473#relPageId=4

So the circumstances of Oswald’s contact with Bringuier suggest that he possibly could have known about the camp, along with the statement of Davis, but it is unclear if he actually did.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Tom Gram

[James DiEugenio]

I was very clear in what I said.

And anyone who does not understand the concept of polarization and how it is used in practice, does not know much about propaganda models.

I have never had a problem with correcting the record or a thesis.  I have done that in the past.

But when people use techniques which are not valid, then that should be called out.  Kirk does not know enough about the case to be part of that debate.

The film really lit up Roe and Litwin, it essentially exposed them for what they are.  Which was fine with me. Bye Bye

 

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I was very clear in what I said.

And anyone who does not understand the concept of polarization and how it is used in practice, does not know much about propaganda models.

I have never had a problem with correcting the record or a thesis.  I have done that in the past.

But when people use techniques which are not valid, then that should be called out.  Kirk does not know enough about the case to be part of that debate.

The film really lit up Roe and Litwin, it essentially exposed them for what they are.  Which was fine with me. Bye Bye

 

 

If anyone is interested in the use of propaganda tactics to defend the WC, and Cuban operations in the summer of '63, Dan Hardaway wrote a couple of excellent essays in 2017 that go into both topics:

http://realhillbillyviews.blogspot.com/2017/10/what-were-they-hiding-and-what-should_30.html

http://realhillbillyviews.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-cia-flips-off-america.html

Also, I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that Malcolm Blunt figured out that William Kent was in New Orleans in the Summer of '63 during the time period that Hardaway states his whereabouts are unknown. 

Regarding the camps, and what really went on in New Orleans, there's also the issue of the surveillance conducted by INS on Cuban groups that was alleged by Wendell Roache to the Church Committee - the same surveillance that supposedly observed Oswald as a member of "Ferrie's group". The Committee took testimony from INS officials consisting of at least Roache, Ron Smith, and lead investigator Art Bero. All of that testimony has disappeared. How in any universe is that not suspicious? Here's Roache talking about Oswald and Ferrie, and Ferrie's "brigade" being trained by a "6-foot ex-marine" at a camp on Lake Poncetrain:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z_awavwlZuqUH5UTIA0rph3Xm_GWTGhs/view?usp=sharing

Also, when CIA Headquarters sent a Security Office investigator to New Orleans after the assassination under defense department cover, what was his first stop? You guessed it, the INS. This guy's supposed reason for his in-person undercover visit to INS was to pick up the file on Marina Oswald. Right...Unless the INS inspection division relocated between late '61 and '63, which I haven't been able to verify, the CIA DCD was in the same building as the INS. Does it really make sense to fly a guy in from Virginia to personally pick up a file when someone in your local office could have taken a stroll down the hall - or at worst, a drive down the street? 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Tom Gram