Fred Litwin's new book

[Cory Santos]

21 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

You extolled him repeatedly. Keep trying to paint me as some UFO crank and you'll keep hearing about your good buddy John Lear.

Well Lance, I merely come here extolling nothing. I bring joy and peace and enlightenment for the likes of you and company.  You have delighted in spreading your advice here-like you apparently did when you were drug attorney of the year.  So I see you don’t want to answer any questions but merely deflect.   I must say that having practiced criminal defense if you were opposite me in court that deflecting would be a problem for you.  Oh wait you didn’t practice in criminal law right?   What did you do again to be drug attorney of the year?
Ok, you seem to now not want to address your ufo beliefs.  It’s ok because you do not want to open yourself up to being called a conspiracist by anyone lol.  

[James DiEugenio]

To Gerry's other faux point.

Can you show me any major network or cable program on the JFK case that had any of the following people on it:

Jim Gochenaur

Dr, Miller

Dr. Chesser

Brian Edwards

Dr. Henry Lee

Brian Edwards

Doug Horne

And that is just for starters.  Not to mention the historical side: Newman and Muelhenbeck and Rakove and Simpson and Lisa Pease.

Now, you are saying that we should have cut these people out to let someone like Steve GiIllon or Gus Russo or Dale Myers on?  Are you for real?

Those guys had decades on end to bring the new evidence of the ARRB to the public.

Can you show me where they did so?  

I will wait for your reply.

 

[Guest]

On 1/28/2023 at 4:05 PM, Cory Santos said:

What did you do again to be drug attorney of the year?

On 1/28/2023 at 4:05 PM, Cory Santos said:

Ok, you seem to now not want to address your ufo beliefs.  It’s ok because you do not want to open yourself up to being called a conspiracist by anyone lol.  

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[James DiEugenio]

Now what did we do that clearly the MSM did not want to do?

The following:

Proved with clear evidence that there was a baseball sized hole in the rear of Kennedy's skull and the HSCA simple misrepresented that grossly. 

Proved with clear evidence that the brain pics at NARA cannot be of Kennedy's brain.  And we did this with three planes of evidence.

We then went on to show with clear evidence that there was someone else taking pics that night, namely Knudsen.  And someone else saw different pics, namely Spencer.

Why did this happen? We showed with clear evidence that there was a frontal shot. And we did it with the other side's standard, namely Sturdivan and DiMaio.

We proved through different types of evidence that there is no chain on CE 399. Through Aguilar, Wright, and the 7:30 Frazier note.

We showed with powerful evidence Oswald was not on the sixth floor when he had to be and that the Warren Commission knew this and covered it up.

Please show me another show that did all of this, plus examining  the shifts in foreign policy with the experts we had? You cannot.  And I can tell you right now it will never happen again. Because no one is going to spend that kind of money to get that many people in one film.

We blew up the Warren Commission, and we showed the probable reason as to why Kennedy was killed.

End of story.

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

FWIW, Shermer is the longtime editor of Skeptic magazine and pretty much a one-dimensional professional debunker of everything that doesn't fit his rigid notions of reality. I don't think the JFKA is his forte and was surprised to see he'd dived into it at all.

I've encountered him primarily in the areas of religion and the paranormal, where his views are the polar opposite of mine. Our brief exchange concerned a classic After-Death Communication (as they are called) that he and his wife experienced. He wrote about it sympathetically in Scientific American, Anomalous Events That Can Shake One’s Skepticism to the Core - Scientific American. I experienced a number of very similar incidents after the death of my first wife.

The debunker community descended upon Shermer like the Furies. How DARE he suggest such woo-woo nonsense might have any validity? Whereupon, he did a complete about-face: No, no, of course it's all preposterous nonsense. He wasn't suggesting anything different.

As with the conspiracy community - and the Lone Nut community, I suppose, with the possible exception of yours truly - everyone has their little piece of turf to protect and defend for any variety of reasons from simply ego to financial gain. Shermer has made a pretty good career out of being a dismissive debunker of anything and everything that doesn't fit the atheist, materialist perspective. He has written about the conspiracy mindset - The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths - so I suppose this explains his interest in the JFKA, although I wasn't aware he had any interest.

I quoted him only because of his observation of Stone responding to everything with the "But what about THIS?" ploy.

How many books can the JFKA spawn anyway??? I've honestly lost interest in all of them. I'll pick up Fred's book on Kindle because it is 725 pages and I'm always looking for something that will occupy more than a day. I read almost nothing but heavy-duty Christian theology these days.

As stated, I met Shermer after a talk he gave at a local community center. In his talks and his books he acknowledges his past--that he used to jump from trend to trend--I believe he was even drawn to pyramid power at one point. My hope was that we could exchange ideas re the Kennedy assassination without either of us representing a "side". He quickly fell back upon arguments from authority--"Well, Bugliosi says this, etc" When I then tried to engage him in an actual discussion of the evidence, he essentially said detailed studies were worthless and reflect bias and that one must accept the big picture stuff provided by the experts and authorities, and go from there. 

My conclusion was that he isn't the real deal, and that "skepticism" for him was just a newfangled version of astrology. I am an agnostic in that I feel quite sure one can not truly know whether or not there is a God. But a friend of mine--who was traumatized by his religious upbringing--asked me to come along to Atheists United meetings, and I went for six months or so. It was a strange experience. Most of them were not just desperate for company with their fellow atheists, but anxious to share their ideas with believers, and make them see the error of their ways. They were essentially atheistic ministers, who had replaced what I saw as true atheism--we can not know and should not pretend to know--with a zeal to "convert" as many believers to their atheistic orthodoxy. They even had books listing hundreds of reasons to doubt the existence of God, and discussed the writers of these books as if they were leaders of their cult or something. It kinda creeped me out. 

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

The photo showing Elmer Todd's initials. That would have been handy.

But, to be fair to Stone & DiEugenio, that piece of info didn't come out until June 2022, which was well after the Stone film was released.

It would be nice, however, if the information about Todd's initials would at least be mentioned in passing during one of the many recent interviews done by Jim D. and Oliver Stone. But, to date, I've yet to hear either one of them acknowledge the fact that Todd's initials are on the bullet.

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

30 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Well, since you ask, my submission for Navajo County, Arizona, to be designated a High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area was described by the United States Department of Justice as the best they had ever seen and a model for the rest of the nation. The County Attorney and Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council apparently believed this was worthy of me being named Prosecutor of the Year, even if I did feel silly accepting the award in front of 500 actual prosecutors.

Thanks for asking!

Well, I don't see my "ufo beliefs" as particularly relevant, but you seem to be fascinated by them. I see the UFO phenomenon as an extremely puzzling, multi-faceted one, many aspects of which are difficult to explain in mundane terms. I lean toward some explanations more than others, but none of my thinking involves governmental conspiracies, secret cabals ... or millions of aliens living on the moon.

So you wrote an explanation, you said things, I read them, yet that which you wrote means nothing.  You believe in things-which you dare not explain which supports my position.   You then say you do not believe in a, b, or c.  So why not put your big boy pants on and admit to the world today on this platform what you believe about ufos. You have opinions on everyone else yet do not want to put yourself under the microscope.  🤮

[Cory Santos]

4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But, to be fair to Stone & DiEugenio, that piece of info didn't come out until June 2022, which was well after the Stone film was released.

Bravo David, bravo.   

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, Cory Santos said:

So you wrote an explanation, you said things, I read them, yet that which you wrote means nothing.  You believe in things-which you dare not explain which supports my position.   You then say you do not believe in a, b, or c.  So why not put your big boy pants on and admit to the world today on this platform what you believe about ufos. You have opinions on everyone else yet do not want to put yourself under the microscope.  🤮

I, too, would be curious as to your opinion on UFOs, Lance. My mom lived in Arizona. I spent many a night under the stars in the desert. And a lot of people living there will tell you they've seen things. 

Have you seen things? 

[David Von Pein]

50 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now what did we do that clearly the MSM did not want to do?

The following:

Proved with clear evidence that there was a baseball sized hole in the rear of Kennedy's skull... 

It's incredible how you can actually believe that you "proved" there was ANY large-sized hole in the back of Kennedy's head. You "proved" no such thing and everybody here knows it. You're simply bloviating, big-time.

Edited January 29, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

It's incredible how you can actually believe that you "proved" there was ANY large-sized hole in the back of Kennedy's head. You "proved" no such thing and everybody here knows it. You're simply bloviating, big-time.

If only I could see that picture from the side and front to know whose head it was.   It would be really nice.  Too bad the photographers were taking the least effective photos that day.   

[Guest]

On 1/28/2023 at 4:53 PM, Cory Santos said:

So you wrote an explanation, you said things, I read them, yet that which you wrote means nothing.  You believe in things-which you dare not explain which supports my position.   You then say you do not believe in a, b, or c.  So why not put your big boy pants on and admit to the world today on this platform what you believe about ufos. You have opinions on everyone else yet do not want to put yourself under the microscope.  🤮

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Cory Santos]

5. Interaction with a higher intelligence or a higher level of reality - perhaps a manipulative "control system" as postulated by Jacques Vallee - is a plausible explanation.
 

Are you referring to God?   Angels?

 

[James DiEugenio]

I actually looked at DVP's post here.

What a mistake.

 42 people were wrong? Including Kemp Clark, Humes and Boswell, Clint Hill, and Malcolm Perry.

Please, i stand by what I said.

See Mr. Knudsen.

 

[Gerry Down]

50 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

To Gerry's other faux point.

Can you show me any major network or cable program on the JFK case that had any of the following people on it:

Jim Gochenaur

Dr, Miller

Dr. Chesser

Brian Edwards

Dr. Henry Lee

Brian Edwards

Doug Horne

And that is just for starters.  Not to mention the historical side: Newman and Muelhenbeck and Rakove and Simpson and Lisa Pease.

Now, you are saying that we should have cut these people out to let someone like Steve GiIllon or Gus Russo or Dale Myers on?  Are you for real?

Those guys had decades on end to bring the new evidence of the ARRB to the public.

Can you show me where they did so?  

I will wait for your reply.

 

I'm not saying the documentary didn't have value. I just have a feeling it could have been very close to being accepted by Netflix if one or two prominent LNers had been consulted to iron out some issues before the documentary went to production. And with Netflix it would have got 10 times the amount of viewers it has got.

Have you or Stone considered modifying the documentary into say a three hour version, with a new title, and presenting it to Netflix for the 60th anniversary? I don't know if Netflix specifically told ye what was wrong with the documentary, but you have a roadmap with Fred Litwins new book to see some key issues to fix for any new modified version. I'm not saying Litwins work is perfect, for example he thinks Dean Andrews is lying about the Oswald visit which I don't agree with, but his work is very useful as a guide. 

Netflix would only be too eager to have a flagship JFK doc for the 60th. And all that would be required would be editing out a few parts here and there of the existing version of the documentary. I don't think that kind of editing would be overly expensive or even time consuming beyond say 6 or 8 months.