Fred Litwins New Podcast

[Greg Doudna]

Just now, Robert Morrow said:

Oh, so you are saying that it is morally right for the CIA to lie in an investigation in the murder of a U.S. President (just because some embarrassing ties might come out), even if the CIA did not do it but let's say for example, one of their former (or current) assets murdered the President without the sanction or involvement of key players in the CIA?

Did I get that correct? This is the morally right thing to do? Or are you just giving us what you think might have been in the head of Allen Dulles?

QUOTE

Therefore, Dulles logically and reasonably concluded: if the agency can deny and succeed with the denial, whether or not it is truthful, they must, will, and not only that, it is the morally right thing to do, to deny it under oath.

QUOTE

Robert, obviously I am stating Dulles' view. It is not my view. I do not agree with it. Irony sometimes does not come through well. 

[Robert Morrow]

5 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Robert, obviously I am stating Dulles' view. It is not my view. I do not agree with it. Irony sometimes does not come through well. 

Got it. Actually I agreed with most of your post ... except for my misinterpretation of what you said.

Clay Shaw did not kill JFK. Btw Joan Mellen in 2024 thinks this as well.

Edited 20 hours ago by Robert Morrow

[Robert Morrow]

On 8/15/2024 at 3:37 PM, Gerry Down said:

This would fall into the category of hearsay.

Douglas Caddy says Phil Dyer said Clay Shaw said x,y,z.

And even then it might not be that straight forward as there appears to be other people involved, such as a number of women. So it’s not clear if Phil Dyer heard Clay Shaw say something of if it’s one of the women who said what (they thought) Clay Shaw said and Douglas Caddy took it up wrong from Phil Dyer and thought Phil Dyer himself heard Clay Shaw say something when it might have been one of the women who relayed to Phil Dyer what Clay Shaw said.

In the search for historical truth, HEARSAY IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO USE.

The study of history is not a criminal trial with rules of evidence. There are no rules, except that you might want to see if other information can confirm the hearsay that you hear.

Edited 20 hours ago by Robert Morrow

[Greg Doudna]

4 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

Got it. Actually I agreed with most of your post ... except for my misinterpretation of what you said.

Clay Shaw did not kill JFK. Btw Joan Mellen in 2024 thinks this as well.

No problem, and I don't mind the question. I wondered after yours if I should edit to avoid the possible misunderstanding, but decided this exchange will serve. Thanks.

[Robert Morrow]

4 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No problem, and I don't mind the question. I wondered after yours if I should edit to avoid the possible misunderstanding, but decided this exchange will serve. Thanks.

I think you should edit it and then add a sentence on parentheses saying you edited it for clarity. That is what I do when I have to fix a post.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Robert Morrow said:

I think you should edit it and then add a sentence on parentheses saying you edited it for clarity. That is what I do when I have to fix a post.

I added an edit at those lines to make it clearer. 

[John Kowalski]

9 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

In the search for historical truth, HEARSAY IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO USE.

The study of history is not a criminal trial with rules of evidence. There are no rules, except that you might want to see if other information can confirm the hearsay that you hear.

Robert:

I disagree with your declaration about the search historical truth. Rules are required to determine truth, without them anybody can say anything and no one can dispute it. How do we know made the better argument?

 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

Robert:

I disagree with your declaration about the search historical truth. Rules are required to determine truth, without them anybody can say anything and no one can dispute it. How do we know who made the better argument?

 

I largely agree.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, a recent news development illustrates this point. 

Politician 1 says he once spoke to the old flame of Politician 2 on a helicopter that almost crashed and that this old flame said she was a bad person. The followers of Politician 1 readily believe this, and this would undoubtedly get reported down through history except--oops--it turns out the old flame of Politician 2 is still alive at 90, and says 1) he never rode on a helicopter with Politician 1 and 2) he never bad-mouthed Politician 2 to Politician 1. Now many would probably still believe Politician 1 on this and still repeat his clam throughout history except it turns out that another man has come forward--of the same race and from the same background as the old flame--and he says he DID ride on a helicopter that almost crashed with Politician 1 and that he never bad-mouthed Politician 2 to Politician 1. He is specific, moreover, and his description of the helicopter ride matches other accounts. 

SO...long story short. NO credible historian or researcher will repeat Politician 1's claim about speaking to the old flame except as an example of Politician 1's lies and/or faulty memory. 

And there's this to consider. The old flame was 90 years-old when he came forward to debunk Politician 1's claim and the second man to come forward was 95 years-old. The odds of both these men being alive and able to discuss the situation are very small.

Well, if either one was dead, well, Politician 1's nonsense would be repeated on down through history by people supposedly interested in the truth. 

As it is, it probably still will be...but only by people interested in repeating gossip with no real interest in the truth. 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Pat Speer

[Jean Ceulemans]

Unless one of them (guess who) is known to be a case of pseudologia fantastica. If he is not such a case, I don´t know who is.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Unless one of them (guess who) is known to be a case of pseudologia fantastica. If he is not such a case, I don´t know who is.

Jean,

   Pat Speer has not demonstrated, using the example of Politician 1, that hearsay evidence is necessarily invalid, but that it is not monolithic.

    It's validity depends on the say-er.

    And, yes, Trump seems like a bona fide case of pseudologia fantastica.

     His childhood schoolmates have pointed out that Donald could never admit that he was wrong, even when it was painfully obvious to everyone in the room.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW it was not just Holden and Brown, its the VP of the Trump Org, Res also. 

Boy Trump got caught in a vise.  Jon Stewart had a field day with this.