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

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

GD--I appreciate your collegial tone.

At times, being civil is akin to casting pearls before swine.

Swine?  Is that your "collegial" description today of an Education Forum moderator?  🙄

Meanwhile, what "pearls" is Greg Doudna casting before alleged swine, Ben?  Do tell.

In point of fact, Greg Doudna completely ignored James DiEugenio's scholarly references (above) about Fred Litwin's Warren Commission-fluffing/Garrison-smearing propaganda, while endorsing Litwin's alleged "debunking" of the Rose Cheramie story.

I asked Greg to explain how Litwin had "debunked the Rose Cheramie story," while later directing Greg to DiEugenio's detailed 1999 essay on the subject.

Greg has not yet responded to my request for an explanation.

Is this the Benjamin Cole concept of "civil, collegial" debate?

 

 

Edited yesterday at 02:24 AM by W. Niederhut

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

I asked Greg to explain how Litwin had "debunked the Rose Cheramie story," while later directing Greg to DiEugenio's detailed 1999 essay on the subject.

Presumably (and understandably) Litwin likely does not want a summary of his work posted here since he is selling a book. The Kindle version of the book is only $4.99.  I think all interested persons could afford that.

[W. Niederhut]

15 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Presumably (and understandably) Litwin likely does not want a summary of his work posted here since he is selling a book. The Kindle version of the book is only $4.99.  I think all interested persons could afford that.

My advice is that people should first read James DiEugenio's detailed, scholarly reviews of Mr. Litwin's previous work.  

Litwin and the Warren Report (kennedysandking.com)

Fred Litwin, On the Trail of Delusion – Part One (kennedysandking.com)

Fred Litwin, On the Trail of Delusion – Part Two (kennedysandking.com)

Fred Litwin, On the Trail of Delusion - Part Three (kennedysandking.com)

 

[Robert Morrow]

On 10/1/2024 at 9:03 AM, Fred Litwin said:

A Heritage of Nonsense contains nine stories that illustrate Jim Garrison’s malfeasance, his paranoia, and his conspiratorial mindset. There is a commonality that runs through this book: the insidious nature of conspiracy theorists, gullibility that stretches the imagination, and a smattering of mental illness. For the first time ever, you’ll read about the East German Stasi files of Richard Case Nagell, a man who desperately needed psychiatric help; the truth about Rose Cherami who supposedly had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination; a gay rights activist who channeled Lee Harvey Oswald at a séance; a Las Vegas entertainer who became a suspect in Garrison’s investigation because of one phone call; and the search for a lost map of Dealey Plaza. I even solve a longstanding JFK assassination mystery. And a whole lot more.

“In the late 1960s, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison spoon-fed the public scenario upon scenario of implausible JFK assassination conspiracy theories, many of which have been adopted by well-known Warren Commission critics. Using actual evidence, clear reasoning, and common sense, Fred Litwin masterfully debunks many of the more popular vignettes of Garrison's theories. A Heritage of Nonsense is a must-read for anyone who wants to be properly informed.”

— Robert A. Wagner, Author of JFK Assassinated: In the Courtroom: Debating the Critic Research Community

 

“For anyone harbouring lingering doubts that Garrison was a deluded charlatan, this book nails that coffin shut tight. With a strong commitment to first-hand testimony and primary source analysis, Fred Litwin is the highest form of amateur investigator writing about the Kennedy assassination, setting the record straight against the leading peddlers of conspiracist nonsense. Fred’s meticulous research, his compassion for the victims of shameless witch hunts, and his low tolerance for paranoid hogwash, make him a formidable opponent to anyone who places their ego and ideology ahead of clear facts and sound logic.”  

— Michel Jacques Gagné, Author of Thinking Critically About the Kennedy Assassination, and host of the Paranoid Planet podcast.

 

“No reasonable person can possibly take any of Jim Garrison's conspiracy theories seriously after reading this book. Good job, Fred Litwin!”

— David Von Pein, Author of Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report and Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt and Motive 50 Years on [with Mel Ayton]

 

“Litwin exposes JFK assassination absurdities the way The Amazing Randi exposed spoon bending illusionists. His latest is a necessary source book illuminating an abomination in US history where a libel was cloaked in an enthralling conspiracy theory. Litwin challenges us to ask ourselves: do we want the truth or to believe what feels more exotic than the truth?”

— Eric Dezenhall, author of Wiseguys and the White House and Best of Enemies [with Gus Russo]

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-heritage-of-nonsense

 

Joan Mellen told me this summer 2024 that in her opinion Clay Shaw had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. I agree with that opinion 100%. I do think it was both tragic and quite stupid and even immoral for Jim Garrison to prosecute and take to trial such a weak case against Clay Shaw for the JFK assassination. One reason for that is because I believe Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA patsy and had absolutely nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

I do think that Jim Garrison, acting on the suspicions of Rep. Hale Boggs, was entirely right to investigate the JFK assassination and even pin it on the U.S. government with Lyndon Johnson covering up this heinous crime.

Garrison should have dropped all charges against Clay Shaw, kept investigating and not come back to the courthouse until he had something solid on the JFK assassination.

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Robert Morrow said:

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA patsy and had absolutely nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

That's a bit of a juxtaposition Robert.  If he was a CIA patsy, he was used by them.  So, wittingly or not he had something to do with it.

[Robert Morrow]

27 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

That's a bit of a juxtaposition Robert.  If he was a CIA patsy, he was used by them.  So, wittingly or not he had something to do with it.

I was referring to Clay Shaw aka Clay Bertrand. Just because Clay Shaw lied under oath about being affiliated with the CIA, does not mean that he had anything to do at all with the JFK assassination. Shaw tried to get Oswald a lawyer Dean Andrew on short order and in my view that exculpates him in the JFK assassination.

The people who killed JFK also wanted Oswald murdered ASAP and definitely were not in the business of getting Oswald a lawyer. 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Joan Mellen told me this summer 2024 that in her opinion Clay Shaw had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. I agree with that opinion 100%. I do think it was both tragic and quite stupid and even immoral for Jim Garrison to prosecute and take to trial such a weak case against Clay Shaw for the JFK assassination. One reason for that is because I believe Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA patsy and had absolutely nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

I do think that Jim Garrison, acting on the suspicions of Rep. Hale Boggs, was entirely right to investigate the JFK assassination and even pin it on the U.S. government with Lyndon Johnson covering up this heinous crime.

Garrison should have dropped all charges against Clay Shaw, kept investigating and not come back to the courthouse until he had something solid on the JFK assassination.

 

He was a public servant for the city of New Orleans and could not investigate the case if he didn't pursue Shaw, since Ferrie and Bannister were dead. Many researchers and onlookers at the time assumed he was pursuing Shaw even though he didn't believe his involvement, because he was hoping to publicize the problems with the lone-nut scenario and unveil a conspiracy.  

I am ambivalent about this possibility. If true, it was wrong for Garrison to pursue Shaw with such vigor. BUT...it can not be doubted that Shaw had CIA ties and quite possibly ties to Ferrie and Oswald, and failed to be forthcoming about all this. And it can not be doubted that Garrison's investigation created a response from Washington--which proved that the government had not earnestly investigated the case the first time and was actively involved in a propaganda campaign/cover-up. 

So the eyes of history will be kind to Garrison, IMO, even if he was a bit of a charlatan/wackadoodle. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

He was a public servant for the city of New Orleans and could not investigate the case if he didn't pursue Shaw, since Ferrie and Bannister were dead. Many researchers and onlookers at the time assumed he was pursuing Shaw even though he didn't believe his involvement, because he was hoping to publicize the problems with the lone-nut scenario and unveil a conspiracy.  

I am ambivalent about this possibility. If true, it was wrong for Garrison to pursue Shaw with such vigor. BUT...it can not be doubted that Shaw had CIA ties and quite possibly ties to Ferrie and Oswald, and failed to be forthcoming about all this. And it can not be doubted that Garrison's investigation created a response from Washington--which proved that the government had not earnestly investigated the case the first time and was actively involved in a propaganda campaign/cover-up. 

So the eyes of history will be kind to Garrison, IMO, even if he was a bit of a charlatan/wackadoodle. 

Hey Robert, Pat. The rules were you're not suppose to fact check!

 

 

 

heh

Sorry, just joking!

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

He was a public servant for the city of New Orleans and could not investigate the case if he didn't pursue Shaw, since Ferrie and Bannister were dead. Many researchers and onlookers at the time assumed he was pursuing Shaw even though he didn't believe his involvement, because he was hoping to publicize the problems with the lone-nut scenario and unveil a conspiracy.  

I am ambivalent about this possibility. If true, it was wrong for Garrison to pursue Shaw with such vigor. BUT...it can not be doubted that Shaw had CIA ties and quite possibly ties to Ferrie and Oswald, and failed to be forthcoming about all this. And it can not be doubted that Garrison's investigation created a response from Washington--which proved that the government had not earnestly investigated the case the first time and was actively involved in a propaganda campaign/cover-up. 

So the eyes of history will be kind to Garrison, IMO, even if he was a bit of a charlatan/wackadoodle. 

If Jack Anderson's recounting of his six-hour meeting with Garrison is on target (as related here by the FBI), Garrison may have suspected that Shaw was a New Orleans' "handler" of LHO, and not directly involved in the actual JFKA. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62412#relPageId=60&search=In_this connection, Marvin Watson called me late last night

Interestingly, Kerry Thornley met with LHO in New Orleans, and Thornely has been recorded on film as saying he participated in meetings that were precursor sessions  to a JFKA plot. 

Thornely is the "author" who wrote a book on LHO one year before the JFKA, and served in the Marines with LHO. 

LHO's trip the New Orleans, apparently concurrent to CIA'er George Joannides setting up a second residence in the city, sure seems fishy. 

My guess is LHO was an intel state asset, there to penetrate anti-Castro groups. The whole gay angle, and LHO bringing in gay Mexicans to Dana Andrews office suggests LHO was trying to get inside the David Ferrie-Clay Shaw circle. 

There was in 1963 various Kennedy Administration attempts to corral the anti-Castro groups, but some groups, such as Alpha 66, were having none of it.

LHO was also reported to have seen at Alpha 66's HQ in Dallas. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul Bacon]

9 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Presumably (and understandably) Litwin likely does not want a summary of his work posted here since he is selling a book.

And yet he brought it here, to sell.  What do you think he thought would happen?

[Jean Ceulemans]

I know a couple of guys that bought the book since it was announced here, so...

In todays world it doesn´t matter how you get some attention, it´s the attention that´s important.  IMO he hasn´t done anything wrong with announcing it here.  Now, if we all agreed on the content, we wouldn´t be here....

[Jean Ceulemans]

11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Swine?  Is that your "collegial" description today of an Education Forum moderator?  🙄

Meanwhile, what "pearls" is Greg Doudna casting before alleged swine, Ben?  Do tell.

In point of fact, Greg Doudna completely ignored James DiEugenio's scholarly references (above) about Fred Litwin's Warren Commission-fluffing/Garrison-smearing propaganda, while endorsing Litwin's alleged "debunking" of the Rose Cheramie story.

I asked Greg to explain how Litwin had "debunked the Rose Cheramie story," while later directing Greg to DiEugenio's detailed 1999 essay on the subject.

Greg has not yet responded to my request for an explanation.

Is this the Benjamin Cole concept of "civil, collegial" debate?

 

 

 

[Fred Litwin]

Dr. Niederhut: You want people to read Mr. DiEugenio's analyses of my books. Well, people should also read my rebuttal, no?

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

As for Rose Cherami, here is a post I wrote about Dr. Wayne Owens:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-dr-wayne-owens-hear-rose-cherami-predict-the-jfk-assassination

fred

[Jean Ceulemans]

21 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Greg,

    I'm planning to study the Rose Cheramie story-- including Greg Parker's essay-- in more detail.

    But, meanwhile, let me point out that you never even responded to James DiEugenio's detailed, scholarly references on this very thread about Fred Litwin's work!  

    That seems quite odd.  Why the silence?

     After all, Mr. Litwin's recent Tales of Mystery and Imagination about Jim Garrison didn't appear ex nihilo.  

    Here's the backstory-- four James DiEugenio essays about Fred Litwin's previous two books on the subject of the JFK assassination and Jim Garrison's investigation.

     I'm re-posting these for you, Jean Ceulemans, and the Education Forum.

     

Litwin and the Warren Report (kennedysandking.com)

Fred Litwin, On the Trail of Delusion – Part One (kennedysandking.com)

Fred Litwin, On the Trail of Delusion – Part Two (kennedysandking.com)

Fred Litwin, On the Trail of Delusion - Part Three (kennedysandking.com)

 

I have read those a number of years ago, and I have read Litwin´s articles.  If you only read one side... that´s up to you. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

17 hours ago, Robert Reeves said:

You post zero substance. In fact, you constantly disagree with members. You belittle their views:  but you have no research done by yourself to qualify your views. And when pointed out that you are, in fact - wrong ... you go underground and refuse to even acknowledge or debate the claims you've spewed.

I see you!

I only disagree with members who repeat long-debunked nonsense about this case, which, on this forum, is far too many. By all means - point out a specific instance where I was "in fact wrong," in your words.