Paul Brancato Posted July 12, 2022 Share Posted July 12, 2022 Jim - correct me if I misinterpret you. Is it your opinion that so called lone nutters like Roe and Parnell, and Litwin, are provocateurs who deliberately polarize discussions by attempting to create the illusion of false equivalencies? I agree with Pat and others that facts should be respected when they can be reasonably ascertained to be facts. From what I’ve read it seems to me that Litwin is being far more selective with ‘facts’ than Jim, or Larry, or Newman, etc are. A stalemate is as good as a win if your motive is to discredit those that believe JFK was done in by a conspiracy. I’ve always wondered what motivates those that put so much effort into debunking the writings and research of those who think that multiple shooters, and not LHO alone, did the deed. I know what motivates me to read and post here - a deep sense of loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 12, 2022 Share Posted July 12, 2022 (edited) Paul: Yes, that is what I think Paul and I appreciate that you understand that. That is why I do not deal with them directly. Its sheer provocation. The book is really good. And, in fact, I personally think the best part is the slightly longer part. That is the excerpts from the interviews. Wait until you read that. Full of really neat insights, knowledge and deductions: Chesser, Lee, Newman, Horne. Just to name four. Edited July 12, 2022 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted July 13, 2022 Share Posted July 13, 2022 53 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Paul: Yes, that is what I think Paul and I appreciate that you understand that. That is why I do not deal with them directly. Its sheer provocation. The book is really good. And, in fact, I personally think the best part is the slightly longer part. That is the excerpts from the interviews. Wait until you read that. Full of really neat insights, knowledge and deductions: Chesser, Lee, Newman, Horne. Just to name four. It is outstanding. The book is very well written and put together. Many books are tough to read- not this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 13, 2022 Share Posted July 13, 2022 Thanks Vince. It took a long time to edit it, especially those interviews. Originally they were about 48 hours or maybe more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted July 13, 2022 Share Posted July 13, 2022 5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Thanks Vince. It took a long time to edit it, especially those interviews. Originally they were about 48 hours or maybe more. Superb editing and annotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 13, 2022 Share Posted July 13, 2022 I am going to talk about that whole annotation process in Dallas. Interesting story on how it started. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted July 13, 2022 Share Posted July 13, 2022 2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: I am going to talk about that whole annotation process in Dallas. Interesting story on how it started. Thanks again. Excellent! Jim, check out my post when you can- it shows O.P. Wright's widow with a bullet in her hand that is (obviously) NOT CE399 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted July 13, 2022 Share Posted July 13, 2022 21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: 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 first "idea" was for me to provide a link to Fred's article that proves there was a series of memos from Oser since that was questioned. The second "idea" is to provide evidence that argues against the notion that LHO was at a training camp because I know of no proof that he was. Tanenbaum allegedly saw a film but the film does not exist. Tanenbaum also talked about a testimony of Phillips that does not exist. Bringuier thought LHO knew about the camps but never said that he was there. That is the evidence as I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted July 13, 2022 Share Posted July 13, 2022 Anatomy of a James DiEugenio Citation, Part Three (onthetrailofdelusion.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted July 13, 2022 Share Posted July 13, 2022 (edited) Litwin proved there was a series of memos from Oser on the training camps. However: 1) The information on the camp that he attributed to that citation was not obtained from that citation. 2) Some of information he attributed to that citation was actually contradicted by that citation. 3) Litwin ignored highly credible evidence that contradicts the claims he made about the camp. 4) Litwin did not mention the real reason(s) the camp disbanded, and used dubious, incorrectly cited evidence in an apparent attempt to downplay the camp. 5) Litwin ignored credible evidence that the arms cache was not just an arms cache, and was actually another training camp. I could go on, but the issues with Litwin’s work on this are described in my previous comments in this thread. Litwin’s treatment of the camp is in his book is worse than what he’s been criticizing Jim about IMO; and at least Jim provides accurate citations. Edited July 13, 2022 by Tom Gram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now