My New Book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination

[Denny Zartman]

9 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

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

Please don't change the subject. This is a thread about your book. This is a thread about your honesty as an author and a researcher.

You made a false claim. It's not my opinion it's just the truth. You had an opportunity to acknowledge it you had an opportunity to correct it but you won't. What does this say about you as an author? What does this say about you as a researcher? What does this say about you as a person?

You say you disagree with my characterization. You make a verifiably false claim, and then just dismiss it as my characterization? It's not my characterization it's just a plain fact. You made a claim. No one forced you to make it. And when confronted with your error you refuse to acknowledge it.

I'm getting tired of tap dancing around this issue and typing "verifiably false claim" when we all know what it really is.

Edited Wednesday at 01:55 PM by Denny Zartman

[Denny Zartman]

14 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

@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).

In Fred Litwin's book "I Was a Teenage Conspiracy Freak", Fred wrote that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person missing from the Texas School Book Depository after the assassination.

It's not true. Charles Givens was also missing, among others.

When confronted with this, Fred did not acknowledge his error. He doubled down on it by saying that Oswald was the only one missing that mattered.

At that point in time there was no way that the authorities knew who mattered or did not matter - but that's beside the point. The point is the Harvey Oswald was not the only person missing from the Texas School Book Depository after the assassination of JFK. Yet Fred Litwin says he was.

Edited Wednesday at 02:02 PM by Denny Zartman

[Joe Bauer]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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?

How can anyone see this interview clip of LBJ by Walter Cronkite and still say they have full confidence that the WC "reached the right answer" regards Oswald being simply the "lone assassin?"

Here you have Lyndon Johnson himself saying although he felt the WC was comprised of the most ableist, judicious and honorable men ... that he nor anyone else can be "absolutely sure" that Oswald didn't have international connections and including "others that may have been involved."

"Others that may have been involved."?

It's right here in front of your eyes and ears.

LBJ himself is proposing that he believes there is more to the story than the WC conclusion that Oswald was just " a "lone assassin" who just got lucky all by his lonesome, frustrated, inner rage and grand historical recognition seeking self.

Does anyone here believe they have and had more inside knowledge access to all the JFKA information than Hoover and Dulles conjoined LBJ?

LBJ's nervous, hesitant, completely uncomfortable shifting body movement and fluttering and even closed eye facial expressions ( he could not look Cronkite in the eye telling him this ) scream his fighting internally with what he truly knew and was unsure about sharing with Cronkite.

LBJ here is telling Cronkite the Warren Commission "didn't" get it all right!

I've always wondered how LBJ's mind blowing WC statements in this clip never received the block buster media, literary and national discourse attention they deserved.

Take another look here at totally nervous, shifting and uncomfortable LBJ's "I don't think they ( the Warren Commission) or anyone else can be absolutely sure" about Oswald..." and others who may have been involved" quote.

 

 

1:28

Now playing

 

 

Lyndon Johnson interview with Walter Cronkite, September 1969

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:06 PM by Joe Bauer

[Denny Zartman]

10 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

As I have said, I disagree with your characterization, no matter how many times you want to discuss it.

In other words, you simply don't care whether or not you make false claims. Hey, that's your right. But in my opinion you got a lot of nerve expecting other people to want to read your new book when you're being dishonest in your old books.

Hopefully there are other people who are interested in the JFKA who actually do care whether or not a JFK author makes verifiably false claims in their books.

[Fred Litwin]

I did not write that Oswald was the only person missing from the Texas School Book Depository. I wrote that he was the only missing warehouseman. Lovelady told the media that "a roll call was taken of the dozen or so men in my work gang. Only Oswald was missing." Fraizer said much the same thing. Yes, Given was the other warehouseman that was was not there, but to the managers, the only one that stuck out was Oswald. Perhaps they knew where Givens was or that someone had said he was outside. It didn't occur to them that he was "missing."

fred

[W. Niederhut]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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. 

Greg,

  As an Orthodox Christian, I have a deeply-rooted aversion to dishonesty and the bearing of false witness. 

  Litwin is selling a false, revisionist history of an honest, conscientious man -- one of the true heroes of the JFKA Truth movement, along with Fletcher Prouty and Oliver Stone, whose reputations have been similarly impugned by CIA-funded propagandists during the past 32 years.  It's disgraceful.

   You seem to be complicit in that sordid CIA endeavor.

   Theologically speaking, you're straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.

    As for your claims about Nagell and Rose Cheramie, I'm calling BS-- and I say that as a board-certified psychiatrist who has conducted sodium amytal interviews, on occasion.

     Surely, you are not denying that Nagell and Cheramie had documented foreknowledge of the JFK assassination op, are you?

[Greg Doudna]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:39 PM by Greg Doudna

[Jonathan Cohen]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

  Litwin is selling a false, revisionist history of an honest, conscientious man -- one of the true heroes of the JFKA Truth movement, along with Fletcher Prouty and Oliver Stone, whose reputations have been similarly impugned by CIA-funded propagandists during the past 32 years.  It's disgraceful.

   You seem to be complicit in that sordid CIA endeavor.

   Theologically speaking, you're straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.

    As for your claims about Nagell and Rose Cheramie, I'm calling BS-- and I say that as a board-certified psychiatrist who has conducted sodium amytal interviews, on occasion.

     Surely, you are not denying that Nagell and Cheramie had documented foreknowledge of the JFK assassination op, are you?

I again find these comments rather troubling, especially from a moderator. Are you insinuating that Greg Doudna is a "CIA-funded propagandist" ? Are you "calling BS" on a book you proudly proclaim you haven't read? 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Litwin is selling a false, revisionist history of an honest, conscientious man -- one of the true heroes of the JFKA Truth movement, along with Fletcher Prouty and Oliver Stone, whose reputations have been similarly impugned by CIA-funded propagandists during the past 32 years.  It's disgraceful.

 I think Mr. Niederhut is a little confused. The reputations of Garrison, Prouty and Stone have not been "impugned." Rather, their ridiculous assertions have been repeatedly debunked and as a result they have no remaining reputations. Like Johnathan, I would be interested to know who the "CIA-funded propagandists" are and what proof Niederhut has to back up this claim.

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I again find these comments rather troubling, especially from a moderator. Are you insinuating that Greg Doudna is a "CIA-funded propagandist" ? Are you "calling BS" on a book you proudly proclaim you haven't read? 

I'm calling BS on Litwin's false revisionist history denying the CIA conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Did Fred meet Hugh Aynesworth at a Company picnic, or what?

60 years if this Mockingbird propaganda is, frankly, more than I can stomach-- especially on the Education Forum.

As for my volunteer status as a moderator, I'd prefer to be a regular member who is at liberty to tell the truth without worrying about offending delusional people.

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 I think Mr. Niederhut is a little confused. The reputations of Garrison, Prouty and Stone have not been "impugned." Rather, their ridiculous assertions have been repeatedly debunked and as a result they have no remaining reputations. Like Johnathan, I would be interested to know who the "CIA-funded propagandists" are and what proof Niederhut has to back up this claim.

I'm Dr. Niederhut, Tracy.

And your claims about the CIA-funded smear campaigns against Garrison, Prouty, and Stone are blatantly false.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

10 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Did Fred meet Hugh Aynesworth at a Company picnic, or what?

Evidently, Dr. Niederhut (I stand corrected) counts Litwin among the "CIA-funded propagandists." But will he provide any evidence for his assertion?

[Jean Ceulemans]

I had a professor that once said : "Certain people don´t study, they believe". 😀

 

[Fred Litwin]

There is absolutely no evidence that Nagell and Cherami had documented foreknowledge of the JFK assassination op.

fred

[W. Niederhut]

21 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

There is absolutely no evidence that Nagell and Cherami had documented foreknowledge of the JFK assassination op.

fred

This is blatantly false, Fred.

But, at least, Jean Ceulemans believes you-- in lieu of studying actual history.