Fred Litwin's new book

[Steve Roe]

9 hours 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.

 The cold hard fact is DiEugenio supports the Knudsen story in the Destiny Betrayed cartoon series. He thought it was very important to include in the film. 

Here's what DiEugenio said sometime ago about it. 

Quote

 

Yes RFK Jr does have a slight speaking disorder.

But boy was he good.  As you will see in the longer version.  He was so good that even Bob Richardson, the cameraman, commented after his final words, "Whew, powerful stuff."

The film was made to be seen twice.  The first time for the utterly excellent execution--photography and editing--and the second time to fully understand what its saying.  The material we get into, especially about John Stringer, Knudsen and Spencer, is really powerful stuff that would not be easy for an ingenue to follow.  So you have to see it twice.

 

Quote

 

Although people will say I am biased, I really think its one of the best made documentaries I have ever seen.

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by James DiEugenio

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Steve Roe
Edit language

[Steve Roe]

7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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.

David, I don't get it either. In another post you mention why hasn't Stone and DiEugenio made any public statements about acknowledging the Elmer Todd initials on CE399 blunder?

I've asked DiEugenio the same question on this forum. 

But it's not going away.

To date, Stone and DiEugenio will not state publicly this was a mistake. Viewers are still being duped by the film on that issue. Dr. Mantik has publicly stated it was a mistake. He did the honorable thing. 

Now Stone and DiEugenio should do the honorable thing.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Steve Roe
Edit language

[Steve Roe]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.

DiEugenio, this is simply not true. 

Fred Litwin has never stated Jim Garrison was an Anti-Semite. 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Steve Roe
Edit language

[Mark Knight]

Because certain members' messages are full and I cannot contact them personally, I am requesting in my Administrator role here that members please refrain from the ad hominem attacks. Criticizing another's arguments is fine. Criticizing their logic is within bounds. But calling them names, twisting someone's name intentionally, and being generally insulting with their name simply because it's alliterative is a violation of the Forum decorum. 

You can disagree all you want. But keep the disagreements centered on the argument at hand and NOT on the person making the argument. We are all better than that. If you are guilty of the above, please edit your own posts to bring them into compliance so the moderators and administrators don't have to keep responding to "Cleanup on aisle three!" complaints.

If this behavior continues, I will start calling out the violators publicly, rather than privately. [This violates a basic tenet of good management, but at this point, I am beginning to exhaust all other avenues toward keeping order.]

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Regarding Pat Speer's question on whether Fred Litwin acknowledges the work of CTs calling out other CTs we have an example of that from his current post where he quotes Pat himself:

"JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Two (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

EDIT: I should also mention that Pat's name comes up 14 times in the book.

Edited January 30, 2023 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Regarding Pat Speer's question on whether Fred Litwin acknowledges the work of CTs calling out other CTs we have an example of that from his current post where he quotes Pat himself:

"JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Two (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

EDIT: I should also mention that Pat's name comes up 14 times in the book.

Thanks. That's good to know.

[Pat Speer]

On 1/30/2023 at 6:36 AM, Steve Roe said:

 The cold hard fact is DiEugenio supports the Knudsen story in the Destiny Betrayed cartoon series. He thought it was very important to include in the film. 

Here's what DiEugenio said sometime ago about it. 

 

To be clear, Steve, one can find the Knudsen story interesting and worthwhile without relying on O'Donnell. I think that's what Jim has done. I think we would both disagree with him on this. 

But is it a total waste of time to mention that, oh yeah, the family of a White House photographer said he'd told them the autopsy photos were altered, or whatever it is he supposedly told them? I don't think the problem is mentioning that they said he said this, it's that without the full context--that none of the confirmed participants in the autopsy saw him there or knew why he would even be there--it would be misleading. 

So it comes down to what kind of film they were trying to make. If they were trying to make a film that explored the details of the case and led to some conclusions, the inclusion of the Knudsen story without context is misleading. But if they were trying stir things up by citing a bunch of stuff that was at odds with the official story, they would be remiss not to mention the Knudsen story.

Now, I received the screenplay for Christmas and it appears that Jim focused on Knudsen's recollections of the photos. That's not so bad. The problem in my opinion is that they had Horne say he thought some of the photos attributed to Stringer were taken by Knudsen, which is loopy, IMO. 

I feel that should not have made it to the final cut. To me, it's like someone discussing the filming of the Wizard of Oz, and then saying "Yeah, I think Margaret Hamilton actually sang "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." It goes to credibility. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Guest]

On 1/29/2023 at 12:02 PM, Pat Speer said:

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. 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 1/28/2023 at 9:44 PM, Cory Santos said:

3) no “e” in my name.  I am more than enough.  Lol.  Common mistake.  

Oops - Sorry, I blame tiredness. 

[Steve Roe]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

To be clear, Steve, one can find the Knudsen story interesting and worthwhile without relying on O'Donnell. I think that's what Jim has done. I think we would both disagree with him on this. 

But is it a total waste of time to mention that, oh yeah, the family of a White House photographer said he'd told them the autopsy photos were altered, or whatever it is he supposedly told them? I don't think the problem is mentioning that they said he said this, it's that without the full context--that none of the confirmed participants in the autopsy saw him there or knew why he would even be there--it would be misleading. 

So it comes down to what kind of film they were trying to make. If they were trying to make a film that explored the details of the case and led to some conclusions, the inclusion of the Knudsen story without context is misleading. But if they were trying stir things up by citing a bunch of stuff that was at odds with the official story, they would be remiss not to mention the Knudsen story.

Now, I received the screenplay for Christmas and it appears that Jim focused on Knudsen's recollections of the photos. That's not so bad. The problem in my opinion is that they had Horne say he thought some of the photos attributed to Stringer were taken by Knudsen, which is loopy. 

I feel that should not have made it to the final cut. To me, it's like someone discussing the filming of the Wizard of Oz, and then saying "Yeah, I think Margaret Hamilton actually sang "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." It goes to credibility. 

Pat, I think I know what you are picking up........ and putting down. 

You completely exposed Groden's scam on the autopsy and many other things.  Those are valuable contributions to those weeding through this complete morass of JFK and the silly forum game posts here on Education Forum. 

So bottom line Pat, although we may disagree on many topics on JFK, it should be noted that you have actually performed research on your topics. I respect that. Sadly, on this forum, on the conspiracy side of the argument. there is nobody that does extensive research. Nobody. 

I think that's why Fred Litwin acknowledged you in his book. He recognizes your efforts on certain topics. 

Sorry Pat, you are damaged goods now.

 

[James DiEugenio]

I talked about how Fred displayed a strange standard with Connick and DIno CInel, and also McCloy and his crimes against Jews.   Since Fred is both Jewish and gay this makes it really strange.  Except that if one upholds the WR, it excuses a lot of bad behavior in Fred's universe.

Well, let me get to my point about Fred here. I will  cite two examples.

1. Fred rewrote a CIA memo to make it read what he wanted it to.

2. Fred placed two quotes by Andrews next to each other, hoping the first would obviate the second. He does not say though that the first is public and the second is meant to be private. A promise Weisberg kept.

Why did Fred do this?

The first proves Shaw was a long time contract agent for the CIA.

The second proves Shaw was Bertrand.

These are the kinds of schemes Freddie uses in his books.  And you can only understand the how and why if you read them and take prolific notes.  I was the first to reveal both.  Tracy  Parnell I guess thought this was cool.

See, there is rhyme and reason to Fred doing stuff like this.  It is all a very cold and calculating diversion from what the truth and facts are. And Fred somehow feels he has to divert people from it.

Its not working.   JFK Revisited actually rose in the rankings this week.  Its number two in Amazon documentaries.

Which makes over six months it has been in or near the Top Ten. An incredible achievement for a JFK documentary.👋

It has never been done before, and I predict it will never happen again.

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Steve Roe]

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I talked about how Fred displayed a strange standard with Connick and DIno CInel, and also McCloy and his crimes against Jews.   Since Fred is both Jewish and gay this makes it really strange.  Except that if one upholds the WR, it excuses a lot of bad behavior in Fred's universe.

Well, let me get to my point about Fred here. I will  cite two examples.

1. Fred rewrote a CIA memo to make it read what he wanted it to.

2. Fred placed two quotes by Andrews next to each other, hoping the first would obviate the second. He does not say though that the first is public and the second is meant to be private. A promise Weisberg kept.

Why did Fred do this?

The first proves Shaw was a long time contract agent for the CIA.

The second proves Shaw was Bertrand.

These are the kinds of schemes Freddie uses in his books.  And you can only understand the how and why if you read them and take prolific notes.  I was the first to reveal both.  Tracy  Parnell I guess thought this was cool.

See, there is rhyme and reason to Fred doing stuff like this.  It is all a very cold and calculating diversion from what the truth and facts are. And Fred somehow feels he has to divert people from it.

Its not working.   JFK Revisited actually rose in the rankings this week.  Its number two in Amazon documentaries.

Which makes over six months it has been in or near the Top Ten. An incredible achievement for a JFK documentary.👋

It has never been done before, and I predict it will never happen again.

 

One of the most incoherent posts I've seen by DiEugenio. 

Fred rewrote a CIA memo to make it read what he wanted it to

What CIA Memo DiEugenio?? Post the CIA Memo. 

Is this in your Film Flam Movie?

 

 

[Bill Brown]

22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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

 

Matt D. says:

 

"Litwin then says that “one expert concluded that one of the four bullets recovered from Tippit’s body matched the revolver found in Oswald’s possession”—but 8 other experts disagreed with him..."

 

This isn't really accurate (and a bit dishonest, in my opinion).  Joseph Nicol is the "one expert" referred to here.  Nicol was able to link one of the four bullets to Oswald's revolver.  The other experts did not "disagree" with Nicol so much as they simply could not say one way or the other, re: whether that bullet could be linked to the revolver.

 

In other words, regarding this one bullet, Nicol was able to link it to the revolver and the other experts remained inconclusive, i.e. they did NOT say that the bullet didn't come from the revolver.

 

A better way to put this is, when attempting (through ballistic testing) to link a spent slug to a particular weapon, three results(?) can be reached...

 

1. A match

 

2. Not a match

 

3. Inconclusive.

 

Regarding this one particular bullet, Nicol matched it to the revolver.  The other experts' findings were inconclusive.  However, only a finding of "not a match" would mean that the other experts actually disagreed with Nicol.

 

So my question is, why the dishonesty?  Why not just tell it how it really is?  Let's get it right, guys.

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bill Brown

[James DiEugenio]

Now why does Fred pull these see through stunts, knowing that someone like  me, who is familiar with New Orleans, will pluck them out and expose them to the light of day?

One reason may be that perhaps it does not matter to him. He has a different agenda.  I hate to write that but what other excuse can one think of? After all, see how much Fred wrote about in his Garrison book concerning the FInck testimony at Shaw's trial. Can you tell us about that Mr. Brown?

 Shaw even admitted he knew Oswald.  What does Fred say to that testimony? Well the guy must be mistaken since Shaw was going to file a civil  suit and would not say something like that.   The problem here is that Fred did not know what his soul sister was going to write in her book, namely Ms. Long.  She said that Shaw had no confidence the suit would be filed or prosecuted vigorously since he did not think his lawyers bought into it.  🙂. Hmm., another Litwinian fig leaf disposed of.

So with these facts established here is what the bottom line is. Shaw committed perjury at least four times on the stand.  And he duplicated this in his public appearances.  Freddie Boy does not want to admit this.  Because it would expose as a farce what he is doing.

But its even worse than that.  A source inside the CIA revealed later on that the Agency's Security office ordered a concealment  of Shaw's true CIA status back in 1964.  If that is not consciousness of guilt I do not know what is.  But then flash forward to the nineties. Manuel Legaspi, the CIA analyst at the Board, wrote that Shaw's 201 file had been severely vitiated. Coming and going there was a huge Agency cover up about Clay Shaw. What is left is pretty bad--covert security clearance, well imbursed and valuable contract agent, but we lost much more than that.

Shaw could never admit this. Even to his lawyers.  And the CIA was shocked that Shaw did not tell them.  But as one source said, Shaw realized Garrison was on to something big. And he knew that people in high places were going to have to help him for CYA purposes. Again, this constitutes consciousness of guilt.

But I hate to say it, he was correct.  Which is why Helms created the Garrison Group. Does Fred talk about that one?  I  sure  do for pages on end. Maybe Mr. Brown can write about it? After all the goal is to get the info out there right? Isn't that what we are all trying to do? 😜

Edited January 31, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Gerry Down]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now why does Fred pull these see through stunts, knowing that someone like  me, who is familiar with New Orleans, will pluck them out and expose them to the light of day?

One reason may be that perhaps it does not matter to him. He has a different agenda.  I hate to write that but what other excuse can one think of? After all, see how much Fred wrote about in his Garrison book concerning the FInck testimony at Shaw's trial. Can you tell us about that Mr. Brown?

 Shaw even admitted he knew Oswald.  What does Fred say to that testimony? Well the guy must be mistaken since Shaw was going to file a civil  suit and would not say something like that.   The problem here is that Fred did not know what his soul sister was going to write in her book, namely Ms. Long.  She said that Shaw had no confidence the suit would be filed or prosecuted vigorously since he did not think his lawyers bought into it.  🙂. Hmm., another Litwinian fig leaf disposed of.

So with these facts established here is what the bottom line is. Shaw committed perjury at least four times on the stand.  And he duplicated this in his public appearances.  Freddie Boy does not want to admit this.  Because it would expose as a farce what he is doing.

But its even worse than that.  A source inside the CIA revealed later on that the Agency's Security office ordered a concealment  of Shaw's true CIA status back in 1964.  If that is not consciousness of guilt I do not know what is.  But then flash forward to the nineties. Manuel Legaspi, the CIA analyst at the Board, wrote that Shaw's 201 file had been severely vitiated. Coming and going there was a huge Agency cover up about Clay Shaw. What is left is pretty bad--covert security clearance, well imbursed and valuable contract agent, but we lost much more than that.

Shaw could never admit this. Even to his lawyers.  And the CIA was shocked that Shaw did not tell them.  But as one source said, Shaw realized Garrison was on to something big. And he knew that people in high places were going to have to help him for CYA purposes. Again, this constitutes consciousness of guilt.

But I hate to say it, he was correct.  Which is why Helms created the Garrison Group. Does Fred talk about that one?  I  sure  do for pages on end. Maybe Mr. Brown can write about it? After all the goal is to get the info out there right? Isn't that what we are all trying to do? 😜

There was potentially an innocent explanation for the CIA cover up of Shaw in 1964. There was a lot of scrutiny in 1964 surrounding the trade mart because Oswald had been passing out leaflets there. Shaw, the manager of the trade mart was a valuable CIA asset. Therefore it would make sense for the CIA to naturally tighten their security around Shaw in 1964 given all the investigatory and media attention surrounding the trade mart after the jfk assassination. The last thing the CIA wanted was for the cover of their asset, Clay Shaw, to be inadvertently blown with all the attention focusing on the trade mart.