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

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

This is blatantly false, Fred.

OK, then SHOW us how it is blatantly false. Otherwise you are just making things up. Most serious researchers have long since dispensed with Nagell's story. Even Larry Hancock admits it has serious issues.

[W. Niederhut]

Two witnesses of Rose Cheramie's foreknowledge of the JFK assassination in Dallas were Lt. Francis Fruge of the Louisiana State police, and psychiatrist, Dr. Victor J. Weiss, Jr. 

Both Lt. Fruge and Dr. Weiss documented Cheramie's foreknowledge of the JFK assassination through contacts with the Dallas PD, and A.H. Magruder, respectively.

Rose Cheramie (spartacus-educational.com)

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:39 PM by W. Niederhut

[Fred Litwin]

Just not true. Have you checked Weiss's HSCA outside contact report? Fruge's report to Jim Garrison said nothing about foreknowledge.

You will be shocked when you learn the truth in my book,

fred

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-dr-victor-weiss-talk-to-rose-cherami-before-the-jfk-assassination

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

Just not true. Have you checked Weiss's HSCA outside contact report? Fruge's report to Jim Garrison said nothing about foreknowledge.

You will be shocked when you learn the truth in my book,

fred

Fred,

    Are you denying that Lt. Fruge contacted the DPD after JFK's murder, to report Rose Cheramie's foreknowledge of the assassination plot?

    Are you denying that Dr. Weiss told his friend, A.H. Magruder, about Cheramie's foreknowledge of the plot?

[Jean Ceulemans]

25 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

This is blatantly false, Fred.

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

Where have I said that?

I made a comment in general about the level of conversation at that moment, no less, no more.

I don´t even have the book (yet).

 

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Fred Litwin said:

I wrote that he was the only missing warehouseman.

And you were 100% wrong when you wrote that.

The fact that you still can't admit this calls your integrity into question.

I'd like to know why you think you are allowed to write something that's completely false, not admit it, and then come into this forum trying to sell your next book.

1 hour ago, Fred Litwin said:

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.

There was no such roll call.

Warren Commission Hearings Volume 7, Page 382 - TSBD superintendent Roy Truly denies making a check of his employees.

1 hour ago, Fred Litwin said:

It didn't occur to them that he was "missing."

It occurred to somebody that Givens was "missing" because the Dallas Police thought that Givens being "missing" was important enough to send out a description of him.

Warren Commission Hearings Volume 6, Page 321 - Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer describes putting out a description for Charles Givens, “...he was missing from the building. He wasn't accounted for.”

[Fred Litwin]

Once Magruder called Garrison's office with his story about Dr. Weiss, Garrison put anne Dischler and Francis Fruge on the case. I have all of Dischler's notes. She called Dr. Weiss and he said it was Dr. Bowers who had talked with Cherami. And she then called Bowers who denied talking to Cherami.

fred

[Greg Doudna]

W., there’s no credibility whatever in the foreknowledge claim of Cheramie. Litwin brings out additional background in his chapter that seals that notion dead. My opinion. Should be thanked by CRs (critical researchers of the WRs findings), because bogus stories are distractions and do not assist in arriving at true truth. If CRs do not clean up messes, very sharp oppositions like Litwin will. Read, think for oneself, strive for evidence-based thinking, pick and choose among every author’s work, try to read the best-argued opposing arguments on any contested issue and understand those opposing arguments on any issue that matters, whether or not one thinks it is correct. 

As one who has had a personal interest in the Cheramie story having lived for two years in the town in east Texas, population 1200, as a college student, where Cheramie was killed, and having known a friend there who has talked to me about locals in the area involved in that the night of her death, and having read the son’s book with some sympathy on the human side … I have a conjecture that I think might possibly better explain a detail. 

Her death on that road from being run over was clearly unintentional by the driver who hit her. That driver, a young man, a local, tried his best to save her, got her to a hospital, for some reason was turned away the first place he went and drove some miles in a mad dash to get her to another hospital. (I am going from memory as told to me without rechecking of police reports.) He stayed with her hours as I recall being told, but she died from being run over. 

I have looked at what I believe was the location on the road where it happened. It was late at night on a largely-rural two-lane road connecting two towns, Big Sandy and Gilmer, just outside of Big Sandy. She had been hitchhiking, had luggage with her. Then, she was dead, run over by a car, not intentionally by the driver of the car. Those are the starting facts. 

The young man said her body had been laying prone on the road, and by the time he saw her there it was too late, he tried to miss her but didn’t, ran over her. Then he flags down the next car, some black men in it, seeks their help in moving Cheramie into the young man’s car so he can rush her to medical attention. The black men are scared to get involved in who knows what that was, being black in east Texas. I don’t remember maybe they did help after all, anyway the young man did get her into his car and he drove to find medical attention. 

From that account there have been suspicions of foul play. Was she put out there in the middle of a road so that she would be run over, etc.

Here is what I suppose. I just doubt Cheramie was lying in the road when she was hit. It sounds to me like she was most likely upright by the side of the road in the dark and the driver hit her by mistake in the dark. If she was actually off to the side of the road, as she may have been and if in her right mind would have been, then it could be a case of a driver who not only hit and killed someone, which is bad enough, but it was his fault if she was off the road and he had hit her. Something like that. The only evidence she was lying prone out in the road is the sayso of the young man who accidentally hit her. There was motive for him to tell the story the way he did so as not to be at fault.

It’s dark at night … lonely two-lane rural road, young man in a car alone maybe not watching the speed limit … unseen person right at the side of the road … and then hits that person and then the panic, both to do the right thing in getting her to medical attention and the accident reported, but also not to be charged with manslaughter or whatever legal consequences from hitting and killing someone that was the drivers fault. In the young man’s story he broke no motor vehicle law and it wasn’t his fault, an unavoidable accident. 

The young man was a local, son of a local police officer or something like that. Everybody knows everybody. The local authorities don’t know Rose Cheramie, the victim. But they all know and like the kid. They know he didn’t mean to do it. It became an acceptable story to close the case, that she was lying prone in the road when he accidentally ran her over.

i don’t know that’s what happened. But I just suspect something like that accounts for the oddity in the story. 

That’s my minor possible contribution to that case.

Edited Wednesday at 05:33 PM by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

Nothing shows us the kind of man, and writer, that Fred Litwin is than this.

It turned out that Weiss was lying because he did not want to be pulled into the case.

And this shows you not just who Litwin is but who Jonathan Cohen is.

I find it very hard to believe that Litwin does not know the true circumstances.  Which makes it all the worse. 

This is the man Lancer invited to its  conference.

CAPA will be Litwin free.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Parnell is offering some very bad scholarship.

Prouty offered two things to the film JFK.

First, the military protection stand down.  Which ended up being accurate.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-the-arrb

Second Kennedy's withdrawal program from Vietnam which Johnson reversed.

Do I really have to even talk about this?  There have been whole books written about it: Goldstein, Blight, Kaiser, Newman.

But the MSM did not want to hear this, since they had been in on that cover up.  So they smeared the messenger.

The ARRB proved this was correct with many disclosures, especially the May 1963 Sec/Def conference in Hawaii.  If you do not know what that is, you should not be talking about Fletcher Prouty.

Edited Wednesday at 05:50 PM by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

As per Stone and Garrison, in my book The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today  I went through the whole first third of the film scene by scene.  

In light of the ARRB disclosures, there were many instances where in fact, the film understates things.

And when one compares JFK to other films based on true events, say The Untouchables, the comparison is rather favorable.

Now, if you know little or nothing about New Orleans,  and you have an axe to grind, like say Epstein did , then you can say the opposite.  But again, that is just pure MSM hokum.  Which is not what this site is supposed to be about.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Parnell is offering some very bad scholarship.

 The Afterword of Fred's book mentions three authors whose work promotes some of the theories he debunks. The authors are: James Douglass, Vince Palamara and James DiEugenio.

[James DiEugenio]

Fred has just been debunked above by me and Denny.  

But if you need more of Fred being demolished, here is another one

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/i-was-not-a-teenage-jfk-conspiracy-freak?fbclid=IwY2xjawFqeKFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTrnp5Op7OZnJYZGxCwp6aysvIlbEBB4lyRQGXI2lIO3n2g7an52Fa2C_A_aem_bSnb06dmP8bXvsX1tb5bKg

 

This one is by me on the same book:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/litwin-and-the-warren-report

 

But if you really want to know who Fred is, please read this.  Fred is a culture warrior. And it is that which informs his work on the JFK case.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/reviews/fred-litwin-culture-warrior

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:14 PM by James DiEugenio

[Fred Litwin]

What nonsense. Want to see some real debunking???

Why did Oliver Stone and James DiEugenio use a fake flyer in their documentary series?

Blog Posts on the Fake Oswald Handbill

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/paul-bleau-and-the-fake-oswald-handbill

Conspiracy theorist Paul Bleau featured a fake Oswald handbill in a podcast.

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills

An analysis of the handbill used in Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed.

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-two

An examination of where the fake handbill came from.

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-three

A look at James DiEugenio's use of the fake handbill.

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-four

Jefferson Morley is the latest researcher to use a fake Oswald handbill.