On The Trail Of Delusion

[Jon Banks]

If you link to a page containing research or thoughtful commentary, why does it matter if you wrote it or someone else did?
If you really believed that, you wouldn't be posting here. And you wouldn't be replying to me.

There’s a huge difference between posting links for the purpose of discussion versus posting links to get clicks for your own blog or to promote your own books…

[Fred Litwin]

Having it both ways:

- Fred only wrote his book for money.

- No one will buy your book.

My blog posts are pretty substantive. They usually don't even mention my own book. I have published
hundreds and hundreds of primary Garrison documents are not not available elsewhere.

fred

[Jon Banks]

I'm pretty sure Fred is not into JFK research for book sales. And I doubt if traffic on his blog has led to more than a handful of book sales.

Contrast with the CT promotion of "JFK Revisited" as if it's a must-see factual documentary, rather than Riefenstahlesque brainwashing.

The world according to Jerry:

All LN's have honest intentions.

All CT'ers are evil.

 

[Jon Banks]

"All"?

I thought you saw the world in shades of gray, not absolutes.

I'm not talking about myself Jerry.

But in my opinion there are honest and dishonest people on both sides of the debates...

[Jon Banks]

Sure. All LNers also think both sides have some issues. Fred Litwin does a credible job exposing the dishonesty of "JFK Revisited".

Some of his posts are dishonest.

Like the post about how JFK Revisited  “crucifies” Clay Shaw who is only mentioned in passing in the two hour film.

As for your dislike of JFK Revisited due to its bias, I suppose you can now understand how those of us who don’t accept the Warren Commission’s conclusions feel when they get force-fed one-sided narratives about the Kennedy assassination from the mainstream media.

[Fred Litwin]

What on earth is dishonest on my post on Clay Shaw and JFK Revisited?

The so-called documentary makes a big deal out of Lee Harvey Oswald not having a trial, and then they
bring up Clay Shaw and say he was tried for conspiracy to kill JFK, without mentioning he WAS tried
and found not guilty.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again

fred

[Jon Banks]

What on earth is dishonest on my post on Clay Shaw and JFK Revisited?

The so-called documentary makes a big deal out of Lee Harvey Oswald not having a trial, and then they
bring up Clay Shaw and say he was tried for conspiracy to kill JFK, without mentioning he WAS tried
and found not guilty.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again

fred

So what? JFK Revisited is not a remake of the 1991 “JFK” film. The Shaw trial wasn’t relevant to the documentary.

It’s almost as if you were disappointed that Stone didn’t make another film about Garrison and Shaw.