James DiEugenio Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 (edited) Now, why did McCombs confide in Hugh? Because he was best of friends with Clay Shaw. Yep, the guy supervising the alleged re-investigation for Life was exchanging letters with Shaw. So what happened? The two best investigators on the case, Ed Kern and Josiah Thompson got retired. Thinking that the story cost too much money. Not true, another reporter, Patsy Swank, stayed on the case until 1968. Then, Aynseworth went to work for Shaw's lawyers. Now there is an objective journalist for you. No wonder Fred admired him. Edited October 2 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 BTW, if you do not believe me, here is the exact quote, I was not making it up. “One of the many blessings of this project was getting to know Hugh Aynesworth … He’s one of the great reporters in America, and it’s been an honor to know him.” ~Fred Litwin 😳 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 (edited) Now if you think that is inexplicable, how about this one: “The authors of the Warren Report were honorable men who conducted an honest investigation and reached the right answer.” Honorable men?! That is an astonishing statement. I mean who the heck could say that about Allen Dulles, John McCloy and Gerald Ford today? Edited October 2 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: What is this, Lone Nutter Appreciation Day on the Education Forum, with special guest, Greg Doudna-- the man who adamantly insists that CIA asset Ruth Forbes Paine wasn't a CIA asset? I wouldn't be surprised if CIA regarded Ruth as an asset. I don't know that, just wouldn't be surprised if so. But if you mean Ruth herself was in a witting paid or unpaid relationship with the CIA, if you mean that sense, you can assert that a million times as unqualified fact but it doesn't change there's never been evidence. I notice you don't seem to know, or more troubling, care, about the difference between suspicion and assertion of something as if it is a proven fact. I'm not saying that's impossible, but that would surprise me if so. Ruth Paine was a good and decent person who helped Marina, newcomer in a new land, the best she could, has had good values she lived to the best of her lights. There is nothing in the public record of known knowledge that contradicts the good person I knew Ruth to be in the St. Petersburg, Florida Friends Meeting. Does not the possibility of falsely accusing someone who might be innocent unjustly bother you? Apparently not. But I suppose that is between you and God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 (edited) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1381/Six-DiEugenio-Rants Edited October 2 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kelly Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 (edited) Never mind... Edited October 2 by Brian Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Litwin Posted October 2 Author Share Posted October 2 Mr. DiEugenio tries to hijack this thread and talk about Hugh Aynesworth and Harry Connick, Sr. My new book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination, is dedicated to Hugh Aynesworth. Back to my book, if people are interested in the Stasi files of Richard Case Nagell, you might want to read my book. If you want to see how many conspiracy authors believe the fabulist Raymond Broshears, well, you'll love my chapter on him. And I totally show that there is nothing to the Rose Cherami story. Oh, and I solved the Bolton Ford mystery. And there's a lot more. For those of you with an open, please read my book. Over at my blog, I'll be posting primary documents that relate to the book. And for those of you going to JFK Lancer, I'll be there presenting on Nagell's Stasi files. Be sure to say hello. fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 51 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said: Mr. DiEugenio tries to hijack this thread and talk about Hugh Aynesworth and Harry Connick, Sr. My new book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination, is dedicated to Hugh Aynesworth. Back to my book, if people are interested in the Stasi files of Richard Case Nagell, you might want to read my book. If you want to see how many conspiracy authors believe the fabulist Raymond Broshears, well, you'll love my chapter on him. And I totally show that there is nothing to the Rose Cherami story. Oh, and I solved the Bolton Ford mystery. And there's a lot more. For those of you with an open, please read my book. Over at my blog, I'll be posting primary documents that relate to the book. And for those of you going to JFK Lancer, I'll be there presenting on Nagell's Stasi files. Be sure to say hello. fred Fred, you made a verifiably false claim in one of your previous books. When confronted about your verifiably false claim, you refused to retract or acknowledge your error. So, from now on, why should anyone trust anything that you say about the JFK assassination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Litwin Posted October 2 Author Share Posted October 2 I disagree with your characterization. But whatever, if you don't want to read my books, don't. If you have an interest in the Stasi file of Richard Case Nagell, you might want to read my book. But hey, I can't force you to read my book. fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 11 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said: I disagree with your characterization. But whatever, if you don't want to read my books, don't. If you have an interest in the Stasi file of Richard Case Nagell, you might want to read my book. But hey, I can't force you to read my book. fred Facts aren't matters of opinion. You made a false claim in one of your previous books. You know it was false. Yet you doubled down on it instead of acknowledging it. In light of this, why should anybody trust anything that you say now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 It's not that I don't want to read your book. I've read one of your books. In it, you made a verifiably false claim. You know you did. When you were confronted on your false claim, you refused to acknowledge it. Rather, you doubled down on it. Yet you still want to be on this forum pretending to be an expert, and now you're here asking people to read your new book. You're an author who makes verifiably false claims. You're only human. Anybody can make mistakes. But, instead of acknowledging your error, you doubled down on it. That's not right. You'd never give a conspiracy author the same leeway if they had made a verifiably false claim in one of their books, like you did. In light of this, I'd just like to know why you think anybody should continue to read your books. How do we know you are not continuing to make false claims in your new book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 @Fred Litwin made a verifiably false claim in one of his earlier books. When confronted on it, instead of acknowledging his error, he doubled down on it. That turns what could have been an honest accidental human mistake, something that happens to everyone, into something far more nefarious. Can anyone on this forum defend that? Why does Fred Litwin get a pass on this? I'd really like to know. Is honesty a quality that we don't want in authors anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Litwin Posted October 2 Author Share Posted October 2 If you really want to discuss honesty, well have a look at this: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-scholarship-of-james-dieugenio As I have said, I disagree with your characterization, no matter how many times you want to discuss it. And as for the scholarship in my books, I post my notes and sources online so that anybody can read them: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/notes-and-sources-for-a-heritage-of-nonsense But if you don't want to read my book, then don't. fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ceulemans Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 (edited) @Denny Zartman Ok, that was before my time I guess, what was it? Can it be settled, or is it a blame for eternity? So far I have read only 1 (!) post on the actual content of this recent book (thanks Greg). Some of the rest looked like a throwing contest (of some low level kind IMO). Edited October 2 by Jean Ceulemans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 9 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said: @Fred Litwin made a verifiably false claim in one of his earlier books. When confronted on it, instead of acknowledging his error, he doubled down on it. Did @Fred Litwin think we wouldn't remember this, or did he think we just wouldn't care? I care if a JFK author was trying to pass themselves off as an expert while also making a verifiably false claim that they refused to acknowledge or correct. In my view they lose all credibility. Am I alone on this? Is a JFK authors basic honesty and accuracy not important to anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now