Fred Litwin's new book

[W. Tracy Parnell]

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

See Mr. Knudsen.

See Fred's book Chapter 18 for a discussion of Knudsen.

[Gerry Down]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Ya got me. Did I perhaps misuse the term? In any event, the point is that Stone and Jim and their ilk are driven by a political ideology in which Dark Forces inside the government are responsible for All That Has Occurred over the past 60 years. The JFKA is simply a means to expose these Dark Forces, which is their real mission.

According to Wikipedia, the fount of all wisdom, "Conservatives are more likely to use the term deep state than liberals. Liberals, on the other hand, often use the term 'military–industrial complex,' which they describe as a cabal of generals and defense contractors that enrich themselves through pushing the country into endless wars."

The same Wikipedia entry defines Deep State as "a clandestine network of actors alongside members of the federal government in high-level financial and high-level industrial roles. The theory posits that the conglomerate of individuals and entities work together in a secret allegiance to exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government."

Kind of sounds like a distinction without a difference, but I'm not really into this stuff. As I said previously, I voted for Obama twice and Trump twice!

I see. The term "deep state" is used by right wing CTers and "dark forces" is used by left wing CTers.

[Guest]

On 1/29/2023 at 9:09 AM, Matthew Koch said:

Has anyone brought up the declassification of Area 51 and the fact that the CIA was doing U-2 work there? 

https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/area-51-its-purpose-declassified-no-ufos-lots-u-2-6c10931555

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

My final UFO point, which really is JFKA-related: My familiarity with the "Roswell UFO crash" of 1947 is at least as deep as my familiarity with the JFKA. The parallels between these two events are astonishing.

Everything that Roswell has spawned has its direct counterpart in the JFKA. Everything.

The official story. Credible, high-level witnesses who counter the official story. Congressional inquiries. Lost and unreleased documents. A supposed cabal of government insiders who guard The Truth. Seemingly credible witnesses with no obvious motive to lie who come out of the woodwork with clocklike regularity and are exposed as complete frauds, yet some continue to believe them. Bombshell evidence that proves to be entirely bogus, yet some continue to believe it. Serious researchers trying to do serious research. A lunatic-fringe conspiracy community for whom no claim is too outlandish. Books and books and books by reputable authors and hucksters alike. Opinion polls showing at least a third of Americans believe a UFO crashed. A veritable Roswell cottage industry.

For those for whom the JFKA is their only exposure to this sort of thing, familiarity with Roswell and all that swirls around it might be quite eye-opening and bring a new perspective to the JFKA.

I drove through Roswell once on the way to a convention in Dallas. I would agree that the sensationalism and opportunism of those hawking their wares in stores in Roswell, and at Dealey Plaza, is similar. 

I was fairly certain most of those selling this stuff (outside Bob Groden in Dallas) actually knew little about what they were selling. It was a way to make some quick cash off some dumb tourists. American capitalism at work. 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

See Fred's book Chapter 18 for a discussion of Knudsen.

I will probably never read Fred's book, Tracy. But I'm curious to know if he acknowledges that many of the arguments against what was in the film started with other CTs, and that the so-called CT community is not of one mind when it comes to many of the issues raised in the film. I, for one, destroyed the Knudsen nonsense a long time ago. 

To be clear, I have been in the trenches for two decades now. And I've lost respect for anyone who thinks one side is wrong about everything and the other side of the conspiracy/no conspiracy divide is right about everything. It's the same in in politics. While the truth is not always in the middle, it is rarely far to one side. 

In my case, I've come to conclude that at least 50% of what most CTs believe is garbage. But that still leaves a lot of reasons to doubt the official story. I rarely see such flexibility from the other side. There's a need for certainty among many LNs that is not as widespread among the CTs I've known. Instead of thinking Oswald may have done it, they say they know he did it--and that the truth of this is obvious. They then cite a bunch of nebulous stuff. I recall now that I discussed this on my website. I made the analogy that the evidence for Oswald's guilt is a 1 1/2 out of 2 and the evidence he acted alone is a 1 1/2 out of 2. LNs see this and round up, so that 2 + 2 = 4. While CTs see these same facts and say 1 1/2 + 1 1/2 = 3, and 3 is not 4, so something is wrong. 

So who is correct, here? Those who routinely round up--and think the problems with the official investigations and story can be summarily dismissed? Or those who focus on the shortcomings of that investigation, and refuse to complete the equation in the manner the school board requires and move on with their lives? 

I am curious as well, if Lance is reading, if he finds a similarity to religion. There are those who look at the evidence for God's existence who are fully versed in reasons to doubt his/her existence, who nevertheless round up and choose to believe. And there are others who look at these same facts and can't believe. 

It's a peculiar thing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

I see. The term "deep state" is used by right wing CTers and "dark forces" is used by left wing CTers.

We had a whole thread on this awhile back. "Deep State" was a left-wing term to describe the MIC, the hidden hands behind our foreign policy, and the powers-that-be (FBI, CIA, etc) that terrorized the left in the 60's. 

Roger Stone and others then co-opted this term to make out that the real "Deep State" was the Washington old guard, the bureaucrats and journalists who have fought and will continue to fight against Stone and the far right's desired turn towards fascism. Stone was horrified that his hero Nixon was removed by people who were not as charismatic as Nixon (LOL) and was hoping Trump would complete what Nixon tried to do--make the entire government subservient to the whims of one man. 

[Matthew Koch]

21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

We had a whole thread on this awhile back. "Deep State" was a left-wing term to describe the MIC, the hidden hands behind our foreign policy, and the powers-that-be (FBI, CIA, etc) that terrorized the left in the 60's. 

Roger Stone and others then co-opted this term to make out that the real "Deep State" was the Washington old guard, the bureaucrats and journalists who have fought and will continue to fight against Stone and the far right's desired turn towards fascism. Stone was horrified that his hero Nixon was removed by people who were not as charismatic as Nixon (LOL) and was hoping Trump would complete what Nixon tried to do--make the entire government subservient to the whims of one man. 

(Deleted )

Edited January 30, 2023 by Matthew Koch
for being too Ad Hom

[Pat Speer]

35 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Trump used the term about the partisan witch hunt against him that was created by the Hillary Clinton campaign and people in intelligence. That's why it's popular on the right.  But I don't expect someone who has expressed racist opinions toward Russian Americans to see their own bias, to get that. Like you said Hollywood manufacturing consent is a good thing. I on the other hand see that as a dark side to capitalism and is borderline fascism. Funny seeing that you bad mouthed Capitalism and projected that Conservative are fascists two Socialist Left Cliches, I bet you supported Bernie based on your latent hypocrisy. So I don't expect someone like you Pat who comments on things without looking into them " will probably never read Fred's book" I understand why you are misinformed and biased.. 

How old are you? It seems that ideology and the internet are your new toys through which you can insult and demean others. You have repeatedly attacked me for bizarre and incorrect reasons.

1.  I have engaged in thousands and thousands of online discussions of the JFK evidence, and suspect there is little new in Fred's book that would be of interest. I also suspect I would agree with many of his arguments, and that many of his arguments are arguments I have made on this forum and on my website. I have read many of his blog posts, and agree with roughly half of what he says. if you think I'm some sort of CT fanboy you are mistaken, as I am somewhat of a pariah in certain CT circles do to my acceptance of many of the facts espoused by LNs. In fact, I have probably considered the LN side of this issue more than any CT on this forum, and count Robert Wagner, a published LN, as one of my closest friends in research-land.

2. Russia is not a race. It is not racist to point out facts about certain cultures and waves of immigrants. I knew a Russian immigrant young woman who was nothing but nice and sweet, and she explained to me a decade or so ago why she and other Russians liked Putin. It was the same reason so many Americans loved Reagan. He made them feel good about themselves and their place in history. That was it. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russians developed an inferiority complex, and Putin made them feel like they were in fact superior, and that it was the enemies of the state who had made them feel bad. Does this sound familiar? This was Hitler's recipe in post WWI Germany. Trump tried the same tactic here. Make America Great Again was in fact a euphemism for Make America White Again. That he encountered resistance after "winning" an election by negative 3 million votes was not surprising, nor was it a bad thing. 

3. Trump was not a conservative. He was dictator-wannabe disguised as a conservative. Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, George Will, and John McCain were conservatives. 

4. I like Bernie but was not a supporter. I thought he was unrealistic on many issues. I have never registered as a Democrat but consider socialism in small doses a good thing, when compared to the pure capitalism of the Robber Baron era. This makes me a moderate, IMO. 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Matthew Koch]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It seems that ideology and the internet are your new toys through which you can insult and demean others. You have repeatedly attacked me for bizarre and incorrect reasons.

 

I have criticized you for commenting on things without watching them or looking into them. It's like a valid criticism which is interesting that you see it as being attacked for bizarre and incorrect reasons.. 

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

I have criticized you for commenting on things without watching them or looking into them. It's like a valid criticism which is interesting that you see it as being attacked for bizarre and incorrect reasons.. 

Except in this case it's incorrect. I have read many of Litwin's articles and know where he's coming from. And, like I said, I agree with him more than probably any CT on this forum. I have roughly 200 books on this case. My buying books at full price days are over. As my website includes probably 10x the original material of Fred's book, and has been provided for free, I sometimes receive free copies from writers who've used it as a resource. If Fred wants to send me a copy, I'll check it out. And if I see it in a used book store, I'll probably pick it up. 

[Matthew Koch]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

1.  I have engaged in thousands and thousands of online discussions of the JFK evidence, and suspect there is little new in Fred's book that would be of interest. I also suspect I would agree with many of his arguments, and that many of his arguments are arguments I have made on this forum and on my website. I have read many of his blog posts, and agree with roughly half of what he says. if you think I'm some sort of CT fanboy you are mistaken, as I am somewhat of a pariah in certain CT circles do to my acceptance of many of the facts espoused by LNs. In fact, I have probably considered the LN side of this issue more than any CT on this forum, and count Robert Wagner, a published LN, as one of my closest friends in research-land.

2. Russia is not a race. It is not racist to point out facts about certain cultures and waves of immigrants. I knew a Russian immigrant young woman who was nothing but nice and sweet, and she explained to me a decade or so ago why she and other Russians liked Putin. It was the same reason so many Americans loved Reagan. He made them feel good about themselves and their place in history. That was it. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russians developed an inferiority complex, and Putin made them feel like they were in fact superior, and that it was the enemies of the state who had made them feel bad. Does this sound familiar? This was Hitler's recipe in post WWI Germany. Trump tried the same tactic here. Make America Great Again was in fact a euphemism for Make America White Again. That he encountered resistance after "winning" an election by negative 3 million votes was not surprising, nor was it a bad thing. 

3. Trump was not a conservative. He was dictator-wannabe disguised as a conservative. Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, George Will, and John McCain were conservatives. 

4. I like Bernie but was not a supporter. I thought he was unrealistic on many issues. I have never registered as a Democrat but consider socialism in small doses a good thing, when compared to the pure capitalism of the Robber Baron era. This makes me a moderate, IMO. 

 

(Deleted)

Edited January 30, 2023 by Matthew Koch
Same as previous

[David Von Pein]

.......

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

You demean others in your posts? That's why we are here, I don't think it's not okay to passively call people fascists. You admitted you were part of the Film Actors Guild and that people of that group have biased opinions. That it was real, remember? 

1. I see you as a Narcissistic person who put out basically a boring Richard Trask version of the assassination who hangs around like a old goat to promote your website and beat up on newbies to the case, and make yourself feel superior. That why you include the insults to capitalist ct kooks in Dealey Plaza. 

2. Slavs are a race, read Mein Kompf to see how your chartarizations are similar what did you call them untrustworthy criminals that are in the Mafia? 

3 Dictator Wanne be.. thanks for showing your bias 

4 figures you would be registered as an independat so you can play your "I'm smarter than both side" game more.. It doesn't make you a moderate but thanks for the glimpse on how biased people see themselves as moderate. 

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling me, dude. I was not a member of the film actors guild. I wrote a screenplay and became a member of the WGA, Writers Guild of America, so I could register my screenplay. I met some screenwriters along the way, and have a good friend who's produced a movie and plays along with numerous music videos. And it's just a fact that people drawn to story-telling tend to be liberal just as it's just a fact that people drawn to law enforcement and the military tend to be conservative. 

As to your specific points...

1. I am probably no more narcissistic than average. The fact is that I've been on this forum almost since the beginning and have seen a lot of people come and go, and have spoken at a number of conferences, and have just flat out done a lot more work on this case than most everyone here. But I am a relative newbie on certain aspects of the case. So I read and learn on those threads and share what I've learned on others. Unlike some, there is no financial incentive for me to participate. This forum was not created so people could share their opinions on stuff they think they heard somewhere. It was supposed to be a place where actual witnesses, researchers, and informed people could hash things out, and maybe come to some conclusions. I would be doing the forum a disservice if I failed to share some of what I have learned. I greatly appreciate the contributions of those who've been around awhile and who've performed some actual research, even when I don't agree with them. Heck, I was defensive of David Lifton, even though we disagreed on much. So I am not the blowhard you think I am. I am a blowhard, of course, but not for the reasons you imply. As for Trask, he did a heckuva lot of work and every serious student of the case holds him in high regard. So thanks for the back-handed compliment.

2. By your own definition, Russian is not a race. To point out that Sicilians got a bad rep from so many being connected to the mafia is not racist, and it is similarly not racist to point out that the Russian mafia has done an equivalent amount of harm to the reputation of Russian immigrants in the U.S.A. U.S. citizens abroad had a bad reputation for many years and probably still do--the Ugly American and all that. It was not racist for people to find such Americans obnoxious and a bad reflection of the American character.

3. I wrote a book-length article on the 2016 election that kept growing and growing before concluding Trump was at heart a fascist. No one else was reporting this back then. He proved me right by refusing to concede in 2020, and trying to run again on a platform that elections where he loses are illegitimate. 

4. I have discussed this many times on this forum. I was an independent when there were but a few independents, and when there was a disadvantage to being independent, since you couldn't vote in primaries. I was raised Republican, with Abraham Lincoln as my all-time hero. I rooted for Nixon. I watched the Watergate hearings when I was 12, however, and this, along with knowing a number of Marines who'd fought in the Vietnam War, changed me. When I registered at 18, I couldn't register as a Republican, but probably would have voted for Ford in '80 if he'd received the nomination. I just couldn't vote for Reagan, however, and voted instead for John Anderson. My vote against Reagan was not so much against his conservatism--I listened to his radio show and thought he made a lot of sense on some issues--but his behavior on two specific issues were deal-killers. I was raised in a house of women, and his switcheroo to suck up to the anti-abortion crowd was a deal-killer in my family. And I thought his talk of the Soviet Union as The Evil Empire was dangerous and idiotic. Those two issues, when combined with some of the stupid stuff he did as Governor--such as releasing thousands of mentally ill onto the streets and germinating the homeless problem we still have today--led me to not trust him. I've been independent ever since. 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Pat Speer

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I will probably never read Fred's book, Tracy. But I'm curious to know if he acknowledges that many of the arguments against what was in the film started with other CTs

I'm not sure if he does or not, I don't recall specifically. Here is a blog post about Knudsen though which contains similar information to what is in the book on this matter:

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Autopsy Photographs of JFK (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

[Cory Santos]

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

This is the worst sort of anecdotal "evidence," but here you go: When I was the City Attorney of Kingman, Arizona back in 1989, one of the city councilman - a completely humble guy who had a potato chip delivery route - had a son who worked at Area 51. He told me that he once looked over his son's shoulder and, before the son up covered whatever he was writing, saw the words "UFO" and "anti-gravity."

Now that I'm on a roll here, the notorious Bob Lazar (Mr. Area 51) surfaced at the same time and was being endorsed by KLAS-TV newsman George Knapp. I wrote to Knapp, explained who I was, and offered to pay for a thorough background check of Lazar, using my legal expertise and the resources available to attorneys in doing this sort of thing. I followed up with a lengthy voicemail. I never got so much as the courtesy of a response, which told me Knapp wasn't really interested in the truth about Mr. Area 51. Knapp, like Linda Moulton Howe, has since evolved from semi-reputable journalist to full-tilt UFO Guy.

At some point in the distant past, wasn't this thread about Fred's new book?

Why do you think George, not knowing you, would call you back to perform a service he easily could do through his trusted contacts?  Did you ever call former Sen. Reid?   Did he personally call you back?  Do you deem him reputable?

FYI, not that I need to defend George, he is very reputable.   He appears on local and national news programs.   He is regularly on major network programs.  He has won a Peabody.   I can assure you that also locally, in Nevada, very reputable.   You seem to denigrate people who have achieved a high degree of success.  

Edited January 30, 2023 by Cory Santos