Fred Litwin's new book

[David Von Pein]

 

[Ron Bulman]

Who's Fred Littwin?

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Who's Fred Littwin?

Beats me. But I know who Fred Litwin is.

 

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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)

Heck, Litwin actually understates the problem with using Knudsen and O'Donnell. I'm fairly certain I was the first one to realize that the Joe O'Donnell at the center of a major controversy in the photographic world was the Joe O'Donnell interviewed by the ARRB, and propped up by Horne and Mantik, even to this day. Upon O'Donnell's death, articles were printed about his life as a government photographer, including that he'd taken photos of John-John at JFK's funeral. The actual photographer of that famous photo complained, and an investigation was begun. It turned out that O'Donnell had become obsessed with the Kennedy family, and had taken to telling all sorts of stories about his closeness with the family, and Knudsen. He''d sold prints of photos he had not in fact taken. If I recall there'd even been an exhibit at a gallery of his photos, which included numerous photos of the Kennedy family taken by others. I think it was The NY Times that broke this story even wider and interviewed White House photographer Cecil Stoughton, who'd worked with Knudsen, and said he'd never heard of O'Donnell. In the end, O'Donnell's wife admitted he'd been suffering from dementia for years, including the time period he was interviewed by the ARRB.

Now, when I first shared this with the "community", some pushed back, and said I'd been duped by a fake story created to discredit O'Donnell. But this was flat-out stupid. I mean, it was right there in Horne's interview of O'Donnell, for anyone looking. This guy claimed he'd shown the Z-film to Jackie, and had edited out a massive amount of footage at her direction. None of those continuing to support O'Donnell's bs believe such a thing happened.  He was demented, literally, and the refusal of all too many to acknowledge this is freakin' embarrassing, IMO. 

 

 

 

 

 

\

 

[James DiEugenio]

Pat,

Please, I know you like to get up on your podium for a holier than thou sermon on the mount, hand in hand with a Krazy Kid Oswald proponent,  but I also did not buy O'Donnell and in my long review of Horne's book I expressed very specific reasons. And I was the only one to review the whole book. Did you?  Please show us where.

Knudsen is different as he has corroboration for his story.

BTW, does anybody here know that this book IS NOT A BOOK.

What Fred did was do a cut and paste job from his blog and glued it altogether and passed it off as a book. There are two chapters in the middle he borrowed from Roe, you know Roe Consulting, which is another joke. Since there is not any. 

He then attached some beginning and end matter and that was it! Presto.  It would be like DVP downloading the junk on his blog, and putting a binding on it. Who is the flim flam man here?

Matt D called me up to inform me of this. I said are you sure?  He said yes I am sure. I said, how can you be so positive?  Matt replied: Because I already discredited just about everything on his blog, so yeah I know what Freddie did.. 

Funny how people here are blind to all this, egged on by the likes of Lance and Tracy and DVP.  Who just don't care about cheap shell games  like that.

Fred must be laughing in his chair.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat,

Please, I know you like to get up on your podium for a holier than thou sermon on the mount, but....[blah, blah...]

Looks like it's national Let's Bash Pat Speer Day here in the United States. Most curious indeed.

 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, does anybody here know that this book [Oliver Stone's Film-Flam] IS NOT A BOOK.

What Fred the farceur did was do a cut and paste job from his blog and glued it altogether and passed it off as a book.

Good job, DiEugenio! Just ignore all the evidence-based CONTENT in Fred Litwin's book and start griping because a lot of it STARTED OUT on his very comprehensive blog. (And what's wrong with that anyway?)

You're disgraceful.

DiEugenio & Stone distorted so many facts in their "documentary", my guess is that Litwin's book could have probably been three times as long as it is now.

For instance, the ridiculous and insane claim made by DiEugenio and other conspiracy theorists that the Second-Floor Lunchroom Encounter never even happened is surely talked about in the 4-hour edition of the Stone/DiEugenio evidence-mangling marathon, isn't it? And Fred didn't even touch upon that hunk of pure silliness in his book.

And then there's the "Oswald Never Went To Mexico City" tripe. Fred didn't tackle that batch of CTer misinfo either, but certainly could have if he had wanted to.

And don't forget the "Ruth Paine Is LHO's Handler" allegation/lie. (That's surely brought up in Stone's four hours of distortion and tommyrot, right?)

Maybe Fred will publish a "Film-Flam Volume Two" in the future. There's certainly enough provably-wrong garbage in "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" to fill at least one more Litwin volume. Probably two or three more.

 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

There are two chapters in the middle he borrowed from Roe, you know Roe Consulting which is another joke. Since there is not any.

He then attached some beginning and end matter and that was it!

Matt D called me up about this, I said are you sure?  He said yes I am sure.  Because I already discredited just about everything on his blog, so yeah I know what Freddie did.. 

Funny how people here are blind to all this, egged on by people like Lance and Tracy and DVP.  Who just don't care about things like that.

Nobody has "discredited" anything written by either Fred Litwin or Steve Roe concerning the non-stop BS that gushes forth in your "documentary". And that's because Litwin and Roe have relied on actual FACTS and EVIDENCE to debunk the junk in your "documentary". Just check Litwin's 600+ sources that totally destroy Stone's film. As opposed to the weak-sister weapons offered up by Stone and DiEugenio --- e.g., such things as speculation, innuendo, guesswork, wishful thinking, and witnesses' 40-year-old memories.
 

Edited January 30, 2023 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Who's Fred Littwin?

Fred Litwin  is a millionaire Neocon from up in Canada.

He worked on Bay Street, Toronto's version of Wall Street, then on Wall Street itself, then in London on computers and then in the Far East introducing the Intel pentium.

he then retired and decided to be the Canadian version of David Horowitz.  So he donned the cape of Horowitz, that is, he was an alleged leftist the whole time he was making his fortune on Wall Street, but he suddenly found the error in his ways and now writes a book about the Iraq War in which, hold on to your hats, he cannot find the space to say the USA killed 650,000 innocent Iraquis on the basis of a lie. 

I am not kidding one bit about that.  Because unlike Pat Speer, I read that book.

Now, here is something of a flim flam if you ever saw one.  Fred has never been able to produce one piece of evidence to show that he really was a lefty in all his days on Bay Street, Wall Street, London and the Far East.  I know since I read all of his books, except this last which is not a book.

In other words, there is no trace of him writing a letter to a paper, magazine, taking part in a demonstration, appearing on tV or radio to protest say, the Contra War, the October Surprise, CIA Crack Cocaine trading, the first invasion of Iraq, Reagan turning down the Iceland deal, I could go on and on.  But try and find something like that. I can give you examples like that for me--protesting at the LA TImes against their slamming of Gary Webb on the crack cocaine issue. And we know where Oliver is on those issues and he can prove that.

Yet, make no mistake this is the fulcrum of Fred.  I can call him that since I demolished all of this books at Kenendysandking.com, reading them was quite a painful experience, they were so bad. And Matt D and Mantik also reviewed his first Kennedy book, where he trots out this thing about him reversing field again. A repeat from his first pile of junk, Conservative Confidential.

If you cannot prove who you are, then why should anyone believe anything you write?  The implication being you are putting up a front for another front.

If Fred can produce anything like him in demonstrations in NYC or London please do and I will withdraw the charge.

[David Von Pein]

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you cannot prove who you are, then why should anyone believe anything you write?

By checking out the 600 sources he's got to back up what he's saying. That's how. (Not that I believe a single solitary thing that DiEugenio ever says about any LNer, mind you, including his above smear of Fred Litwin. But, you get the point--about the 600 sources.)

(Awaiting DiEugenio's next anti-LN tirade.)

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Ron,

To give you a sample of our demolition, here is just one instance of it by Matt.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/fred-litwin-on-the-facts-of-the-jfk-case?fbclid=IwAR2XIZw9HZOAo-tbxpa8FNmFUza_nd6YbB68kYon2jejLqzzb9HcNr5HGt8

[Pat Speer]

28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat,

Please, I know you like to get up on your podium for a holier than thou sermon on the mount, hand in hand with a Krazy Kid Oswald proponent,  but I also did not buy O'Donnell and in my long review of Horne's book I expressed very specific reasons. And I was the only one to review the whole book. Did you?  Please show us where.

Knudsen is different as he has corroboration for his story.

BTW, does anybody here know that this book IS NOT A BOOK.

What Fred the farceur did was do a cut and paste job from his blog and glued it altogether and passed it off as a book. There are two chapters in the middle he borrowed from Roe, you know Roe Consulting, which is another joke. Since there is not any. 

He then attached some beginning and end matter and that was it! Presto.  It would be like DVP downloading the junk on his blog, and putting a binding on it. Who is the flim flam man here?

Matt D called me up to inform me of this. I said are you sure?  He said yes I am sure. I said, how can you be so positive?  Matt replied: Because I already discredited just about everything on his blog, so yeah I know what Freddie did.. 

Funny how people here are blind to all this, egged on by the likes of Lance and Tracy and DVP.  Who just don't care about cheap shell games  like that.

Fred must be laughing in his chair.

A couple of points, Jim. I wasn't aiming at you with the comments about O'Donnell. My concern is that Horne and Mantik continue to tout him as an important witness when they know full well about his credibility problems. But they support him to support Knudsen, who absolutely positively was not at the autopsy. It's a house of cards. I once received a stream of hate emails from some poor soul who felt certain Knudsen must have been at the autopsy, because his family remembered him saying as much. When I pointed out to him that Knudsen was interviewed by the HSCA, and that he told them he'd developed photos the morning after the assassination, this poor fellow kept insisting that Knudsen meant by this that he took the photos and developed them after midnight--thus, the morning after the assassination. It's nonsense. And totally unnecessary. The official story has Knudsen developing the photos. When shown the photos later, he expressed his disagreement with some of them. Why isn't that enough? Why does it have to be that everyone who failed to see him taking pictures at the autopsy is an idiot, or xxxx? You cite Stringer and his latter-day comments about the brain photos. Why did you let Horne espouse his ridiculous belief in your movie--that some of the autopsy photos in the record were taken by Knudsen? Can you not see how silly that is? 

I mean, think about it. This is the message sent by Horne within the context of your movie: John Stringer is a fibber who has taken credit for photos taken by another man--who was not a forensic photographer and who no one but no one remembers seeing at the autopsy. But never mind, an aged Stringer thought the brain photos he'd taken were on a different kind of paper than the ones in the record. So yeah, he's a courageous truth-teller. 

It's desperate and unnecessary. The whole Knudsen at the autopsy angle is a waste of time. As you know, I studied certain elements of this case to a greater degree than just about anyone. And one of the things I read a lot about was autopsy photography. And this idea pushed by Horne--that forensic photos of the President's body were taken by a White House photographer normally tasked with taking pictures of the President shaking hands and playing with his children--is beyond loopy. (Sorry, Doug. But it just is.) It would be like handing a bluegrass fiddle player a chart and expecting him to play with a string quartet at the Lincoln Center. It makes no sense and just isn't done.

As far as Fred's book... I believe one of your close associates has just put out a book comprising articles from years past, including some from your website. Is that a book?

Of course it is. 

As with Fred's book, it's quality or lack thereof rests on its arguments, and not on whether or not those arguments were previously shared online. 

[James DiEugenio]

Here is another one, this time by me:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-crimes-of-quillette

Fred is easy to demolish. Because, like Bugliosi, its hard to catch him doing any original research.

He just recycles mildewed rubbish.  He was a big fan of the HSCA for example.  And, along with Paul Hoch, he said they revivified the Magic Bullet.  In other words Guinn and Canning.

Now  even  Pat would not accept that one. Because Pat destroyed them both.  In fact, I think his is the best skewering of Canning there is.

Fred also tried to stand by the HSCA and their medical evidence. When, in fact, the HSCA not only did a lousy job on that, they actually L--D about the evidence.  It was so bad that Stokes went to see the Board and told them to do an inquiry into the medical evidence, since no one was satisfied with it from the HSCA.  See if you can find that in Fred's first book.  

Anyway, this is Fred.  He keeps on trying to bolster two inquiries that have been completely discredited. The latter by the ARRB.  And this is what I mean about putting up a front for another front. You can cite the WC and the HSCA from now until doomsday, But that is just piling up already exposed rubbish.

[David Von Pein]

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Here is another one, this time by me:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-crimes-of-quillette

Fred is easy to demolish. Because, like Bugliosi, its hard to catch him doing any original research.

He just recycles mildewed rubbish.  He was a big fan of the HSCA for example.  And, along with Paul Hoch, he said they revivified the Magic Bullet.  In other words Guinn and Canning.

Now  even  Pat would not accept that one. Because Pat destroyed them both.  In fact, I think his is the best skewering of Canning there is.

Fred also tried to stand by the HSCA and their medical evidence. When, in fact, the HSCA not only did a lousy job on that, they actually L--D about the evidence.  It was so bad that Stokes went to see the Board and told them to do an inquiry into the medical evidence, since no one was satisfied with it from the HSCA.  See if you can find that in Fred's first book.  

Anyway, this is Fred the Facrceur.  He keeps on trying to bolster two inquiries that have been completely discredited. The latter by the ARRB.  And this is what I mean about putting up a front for another front. You can cite the WC and the HSCA from now until doomsday, But that is just piling up already exposed rubbish.

Keep going, Jim. With each passing tirade, your reputation continues to sink. However, why in the world you had any "reputation" (of a positive nature, that is) as a "JFK Assassination Expert" in the first place is beyond me---especially after we review this list of 22 nonsensical things that Mr. DiEugenio believes ( a list I originally compiled in January 2013 )....

1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK.

2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit.

3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker.

4.) Oswald did not visit the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.

5.) Oswald probably wasn't even IN Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.

6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.

7.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc.

8.) Oswald's signature on the register of the Hotel del Comercio in Mexico City is a fake signature.

9.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake.

10.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake.

11.) Marina Oswald lied about dozens of things, including when she said that Oswald had told her that he had taken a shot at General Walker.

12.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, with Ruth being instrumental in getting Oswald his job at the Book Depository so that LHO could be set up as the proverbial "patsy".

13.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963.

14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD. And in addition to the individuals mentioned above, DiEugenio thinks a lot of other people lied about many other things pertaining to the JFK murder case too, including Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Howard Brennan. Two of DiEugenio's most hilarious quotes can be found below:

"Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." -- James DiEugenio; July 2015

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 2010

15.) Captain J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the DPD basement on Nov. 24, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot.

16.) The backyard photos of Oswald are fakes (despite what the HSCA said).

17.) The autopsy report is pure bunk, which almost certainly means that DiEugenio thinks that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Finck, and Boswell) lied out their collective assholes about President Kennedy's wounds.

18.) The conspirators planning the assassination, although they wanted to frame ONLY Lee Oswald, shot JFK from a variety of locations, and they fired more than three shots in so doing, which pretty much guaranteed that their "One Patsy" plot would be exposed after the shooting. (But Jimbo and many like him believe this craziness anyway. Go figure.)

19.) A Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD after the assassination, even though the plotters knew they had to frame their one and only patsy with a Carcano rifle. (Brilliant!)

20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.

21.) There were very likely at least two "Lee Oswalds" running around in various locations before the assassination. (In general, DiEugenio pretty much believes everything in John Armstrong's book of fantasy about there being "2 Oswalds" and "2 Marguerites". This proves that NO theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate.)

22.) Jim Garrison was right about Clay Shaw after all. Shaw was guilty of being a co-conspirator in JFK's murder, despite the fact that Garrison did not provide ONE solid piece of evidence at Shaw's 1969 New Orleans trial to show that Shaw was involved in planning the assassination.

-------------

Whew! Talk about mangling the facts. How anyone can possibly even begin to take James DiEugenio seriously when it comes to the JFK assassination after reading the above list continues to be a huge mystery to me.

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

55 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Looks like it's national Let's Bash Pat Speer Day here in the United States. Most curious indeed.
 

Thanks for noticing, David. The irony is that today was the most normal day I've had since before the pandemic. I went to a Tiki restaurant, visited with some friends, and went to a movie. I felt almost normal.

And here I get roasted over and over...

P.S. I drove by the North Hollywood Library after visiting the Tiki restaurant. This was where I met your hero, Vincent B. He was pleasant enough, and thanked me for the copy of the video I'd handed him. He was there promoting his book on Dubya, and the war crimes in Iraq. I felt then and still feel that if we'd had an hour or two alone in an office, I could have convinced him of some stuff. But it was not to be. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Ron, 

Here is another one, about Garrison, this time.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jim-garrison-vs-fred-litwin-the-beat-goes-on-part-2

In this one, he tried to say that Garrison's raids on the B drinking saloons were partly to prosecute gay men.

I almost fell down on that one.  If they were for gay men why was it called B girl drinking.?

After he read this one Fred got really angry at me.  Because I said, this guy did not use one declassified document in his 16 pages on New Orleans. Which was true, as Alecia Long did not either in her first hatchet job on Garrison. Fred was stung.  What did he do?  He flew to the USA and then went to places like the Dick Billing archives and used their stuff for his book on Garrison.  Somehow Fred did not understand the difference between ARRB declassified documents and the archives of agenda driven ersatz reporters. In that book on JG he called Hugh Aynesworth a great reporter who he is glad to know. No joke.  The guy who swore his whole life is dedicated to upholding the Commission. And would not admit he was an FBI informant--and Fred does not either.

But the worst part of that book was the picture of Harry Connick with Fred's book next to his face and Fred praising him.  Why is this disgusting?  Because Fred is a gay man with a partner. He never once mentions the Father DIno CInel case. This was the first really flagrant exposure of the Catholic Church and abusing children of both sexes.  An investigator for Connick, Gary Raymond--who I knew--got the goods on DIno.  He brought them to Harry.  Harry jabbed his finger in Raymond's chest and said: as long as I am DA we will not prosecute that case.

Gary had to go to the media to blow open that scandal. There is not one word of that in Fred's book.

And that is why its is disgusting

PS I am not bashing Pat. DVP, up to his old tricks,  is just trying to drive a wedge between us. I like Pat most of  the time. There is a lot of good stuff on his site and I use it from time to time. But no one should tolerate anything by Fred unless they are cognizant of and have examined  his work.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

One last point before I retire, one which is as bad as the above I think and shows Fred for what he is. And which no one else will bring up since they are not familiar with the Neocon from Ottawa.

In his books and in a column he wrote he actually tried to imply that somehow JG was anti Semitic.  Not kidding.

Why? Because JG wrote about Bloomfield up in Canada in relation to Permindex.  In nothing I have read from JG's files, have I found any trace of this in anything Garrison wrote about Bloomfield. Bloomfield was part of Permindex, there is not a question about that.  See Maurice Phillips and John Kowalski.

So what does Fred do?  He says it was the authors of Dope Inc who smeared Bloomfield, you know the Larouchies. Can you believe that?  Somehow because JG was investigating Bloomfield, Fred wants to smear him as anti Semitic any way he can no matter what the connection or non connection.. As the reader can see, Fred is deeply into character smearing. And it does not matter if it is justified or not.

But here is the problem, and this shows you what Fred is up to.  When there is a genuine cause to raise this issue, Fred is silent.  What I am talking about?  The case of John McCloy.  McCloy aided the escape of a man who emptied an orphanage of about 42 boys and girls the ages of 3-15 and sent them to their deaths at Auschwitz.  Who did he aid? Namely Klaus Barbie.  When Roosevelt was thinking of bombing the railway lines into the death camps, McCloy objected. Why? He said the Germans might do something worse. Worse than the Holocaust?

Fred is Jewish.  But i guess signing the Warren Commission forgives someone for aiding the ilk of Barbie and not stopping a massive atrocity.  (Note the parallel with Connick.)

This is the real Fred. Geez did anyone bring this stuff up?

More to follow.