Fred Litwins New Podcast

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

1. I apologize for misspelling your last name. Point taken.

2. Seems you as a moderator are dodging the issue here. I asked you if this is a direct violation of the forum rules as quoted by DiEugenio. 

Here is the quote from James DiEugenio: When we start putting Litwin on this site, we should all hang our heads. 

Then you flip this, and post DiEugenio's long tirade against Fred Litwin. 

Is that what moderators do???? 

Mr. Bulman, I understand you have high adoration for DiEugenio, but isn't your job, as a moderator, to enforce the rules???? 

You put me in the penalty box, so DiEugenio gets his usual pass and can insult, demean others free will, when Gerry Down did nothing more than post Fred Litwin's podcasts?

@Mark Knight can you please address this issue? Seems we have a double standard here which is blatantly unfair and totally against the rules of this forum. Fred LItwin is a member of this fourm.

 

Accurate, fact-based critiques of the arguments and work of forum members does not constitute libel, or a violation of forum rules.  It's called honest, rational debate.

James DiEugenio has published detailed critiques of Litwin's claims about the JFK assassination.

Conversely, libel is defamation based on falsehoods.  Not kosher here.

[W. Niederhut]

22 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

Does this comment violate the rules of the Forum?

By the way, here is my reply to DiEugenio's comments on my books:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/fred-litwin-s-follies

Here is another article, people might be interested in:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-scholarship-of-james-dieugenio

No shortage of insults there.

Fred

Fred,

     The "nitwit" comment is a violation of forum decorum.

     As for your essay (above) about DiEugenio, Oliver Stone, and the Jim Garrison investigation, it's the most ludicrous thing I've read on the subject since Alecia P. Long's nonsensical "review" of JFK Revisited in the Washington Post a few years ago.

    Honest question.  I know that you are a successful sales-and-marketing guy.

    Have you, perchance, been working on contract with any U.S. government-affiliated agency, since 2018, to promote public acceptance of the Warren Commission Report?

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

1. I apologize for misspelling your last name. Point taken.

2. Seems you as a moderator are dodging the issue here. I asked you if this is a direct violation of the forum rules as quoted by DiEugenio. 

Here is the quote from James DiEugenio: When we start putting Litwin on this site, we should all hang our heads. 

Then you flip this, and post DiEugenio's long tirade against Fred Litwin. 

Is that what moderators do???? 

Mr. Bulman, I understand you have high adoration for DiEugenio, but isn't your job, as a moderator, to enforce the rules???? 

You put me in the penalty box, so DiEugenio gets his usual pass and can insult, demean others free will, when Gerry Down did nothing more than post Fred Litwin's podcasts?

@Mark Knight can you please address this issue? Seems we have a double standard here which is blatantly unfair and totally against the rules of this forum. Fred LItwin is a member of this fourm.

 

You're a day late Steve.  If you had reviewed the post you find offensive you should have noted Mark addressed your "reported content" complaint now over 24 hours ago.  Nearly 24 hours before the above post in which you publicly asked him to do so.

Regarding my "high adoration for DiEugenio", about the only people I adore in this world are my wife, children and grandchildren.  I do admire Jim's pushing of the subject over the now many years, I respect his research, writings, commitment and accomplishments, agree with the great majority of them.  Nobody here walks on water.

Myself included.  This is not a job.  I volunteered when asked.  The only pay I get is occasional kind comments from a few members and a little satisfaction learning more myself and helping others to do so occasionally.  I'm here because I believe John Simkin and others created something outstanding 20 years ago which should be continued.

Back to adoration.  You note Fred should not be insulted because he is a member here.  Why does he need you to defend him?     

 

Edited August 11 by Ron Bulman

[Ron Bulman]

43 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

Does this comment violate the rules of the Forum?

By the way, here is my reply to DiEugenio's comments on my books:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/fred-litwin-s-follies

Here is another article, people might be interested in:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-scholarship-of-james-dieugenio

No shortage of insults there.

Fred

Go back and re read the comment Fred.  You've left out part of it in it's current state.  Mark Knight dealt with this over a day ago now.

[Steve Roe]

5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

You're a day late Steve.  If you had reviewed the post you find offensive you should have noted Mark addressed your "reported content" complaint now over 24 hours ago.  Nearly 24 hours before the above post in which you publicly asked him to do so.

He did? News to me, or maybe you can tell what the result of that was.

[Ron Bulman]

26 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

He did? News to me, or maybe you can tell what the result of that was.

Still defending Fred?  Look for yourself.  

[Mark Ulrik]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Still defending Fred?  Look for yourself.  

This is not how a moderator is supposed to behave. It's perfectly valid to ask what you meant. Mark Knight doesn't appear to have posted in this thread or anywhere else since July 18.

[Mark Ulrik]

4 hours ago, Fred Litwin said:

Does this comment violate the rules of the Forum?

By the way, here is my reply to DiEugenio's comments on my books:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/fred-litwin-s-follies

Here is another article, people might be interested in:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-scholarship-of-james-dieugenio

No shortage of insults there.

Fred

Thank you for posting (or reposting) this. I guess even a fairly prominent CT author like Jim D can't get it right every time. As an avid EOC reader back in the day, I particularly enjoyed the following paragraph.

Quote

For instance, in 1983 [sic; 1993] Paul Hoch gave an important speech in Chicago on how to evaluate evidence and documents. DiEugenio says that Hoch “told them to ignore any new releases that came from the Board about Clay Shaw. I wish I was kidding about that, but unfortunately I was there.” DiEugenio gets it all wrong. Hoch said that “Any post-Garrison story with Clay Shaw in it starts with a heavy burden of skepticism to overcome.” In my view, good advice, but DiEugenio turns it into a blanket prohibition.

 

 

[Brian Kelly]

I was not aware that Litwin was a member of the forum. So mea culpa on that one. Moving on… 🤓

[Jean Ceulemans]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Go back and re read the comment Fred.  You've left out part of it in it's current state.  Mark Knight dealt with this over a day ago now.

Could someone provide a link to Mark´s dealing with this? I had no sleep last night, probably why I can´t find it 🥸

Edited August 11 by Jean Ceulemans

[Steve Roe]

On 8/11/2024 at 6:14 AM, Jean Ceulemans said:

Could someone provide a link to Mark´s dealing with this? I had no sleep last night, probably why I can´t find it 🥸

Jean, your question if valid. But don't expect any answer to clear this up by Ron Bulman. Stay tuned, as we dig deeper into why Mr. Bulman refuses to clear this up once and for all. 

There is an extreme hostility on this forum by certain individual here that of course run contrary to the forum rules. 

In no way do I believe Mark Knight condones this type of behavior. The simple fact Ron Bulman refuses to answer my inquiries, yours and Mark Ulrik really raises a huge deal of suspicion. 

All I ask is clarity in this matter, and the moderator has now chosen to ignore it, hoping it will go away. It will not go away.

Edited Monday at 11:59 PM by Steve Roe

[Steve Roe]

On 8/10/2024 at 8:03 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Have you, perchance, been working on contract with any U.S. government-affiliated agency, since 2018, to promote public acceptance of the Warren Commission Report?

Pathetic and totally insulting. This is the kind of hostility that turns off everyone from this forum. Report worthy. But don't worry, they won't do anything. 

[W. Niederhut]

9 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Pathetic and totally insulting. This is the kind of hostility that turns off everyone from this forum. Report worthy. But don't worry, they won't do anything. 

Nonsense.  It's an honest, serious question about Mr. Litwin's recent career focus on attacking JFKA researchers.

I noticed in September of 2018 that Mr. Litwin had a successful background in sales and marketing, prior to writing his book attacking JFK researchers as "conspiracy freaks."

His book appeared to be a variation on the old CIA propaganda trope demeaning Warren Commission critics as kooky "conspiracy theorists."

His book was reviewed here on the Education Forum at the time.

(See Litwin's September 2018 thread, "I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak.")

[Ron Bulman]

On 8/11/2024 at 5:52 AM, Brian Kelly said:

I was not aware that Litwin was a member of the forum. So mea culpa on that one. Moving on… 🤓

Steve will be happy to know that's what I was trying to do by replying to Jean's question in a PM, where to find what he was looking for, that I didn't want to stir the pot on the open forum further.  

But Steve says it won't go away.  Ok.

Steve is still likely upset for me waring him, including a two-day suspension from posting for calling Jim DiEugenio's work that of a whacky/crackpot.

When he got back, he formally reported Jim over his hang our heads comment on behalf of Litwin.  Mark happened to look in on the forum and agreed with Steve giving Jim a 10-point warning/one day suspension.  Which he seems to have gotten over.  Mark did the same to Brian Kelly for calling Litwin a nitwit. He says mea culpa.

Steve seems to be gloating over Mark suspending Jim and Brian.  Prodding, aggressive, provocative maybe a little hostile himself as he suggested such.  Willy nilly?  Is that stalking, taunting, harassing a member/moderator?  Treating an admin disrespectfully?  

[Ron Bulman]

On 8/4/2024 at 7:57 PM, Denny Zartman said:

This attempt to explain why Oswald was wanted implies both that there was a comprehensive roll call in the building and that Oswald was the only person unaccounted for just after 12:30 p.m. . In the first place there was no such roll call and in the second place Oswald was not the only employee absent from the building after the assassination. Out of a total of 75 persons employed in the building 48 were outside at 12:30 and 5 had not reported for work that day. Others left the building almost immediately after hearing the shots. Many employees were not allowed to enter the building after the assassination and thus were absent when the police search began. In fact even among the eight employees known to have been on the 6th floor earlier that day Oswald was not “the only one who didn't show up and couldn't be accounted for.”

Rush To Judgment, by Mark Lane, 1967 Fawcett Crest first edition, pgs 67-68.

I knew I'd read something along these lines before.  Didn't remember where.  

Let's do the math.  75 - 5 = 70.  - 48 = 22 left inside.  One of whom would be Oswald.  So of the 21 left none saw Oswald, or anyone else suspicious at the time of the assassination or immediately afterwards.