JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Fred Litwin on December 23, 2018, 07:03:58 PM
-
Historian Max Holland has reviewed my book, "I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak."
https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2018/12/litwin.html#more (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2018/12/litwin.html#more)
"Now Fred Litwin, in his new book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak, traces his transformation from a young, energetic conspiracist to the vigorous debunker he is today. The result is a brisk, bracing, witty, and surprisingly comprehensive read, and one that ought to be considered by anyone in Generation Z who is intrigued by the assassination and thinking of joining the research community."
-
Historian Max Holland has reviewed my book, "I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak."
https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2018/12/litwin.html#more (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2018/12/litwin.html#more)
"Now Fred Litwin, in his new book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak, traces his transformation from a young, energetic conspiracist to the vigorous debunker he is today. The result is a brisk, bracing, witty, and surprisingly comprehensive read, and one that ought to be considered by anyone in Generation Z who is intrigued by the assassination and thinking of joining the research community."
Holland is, for me, hands down the smartest scholar on the assassination. He's researched deeply into the event and is able to place it in the larger context of the Cold War. For him Oswald wasn't driven by just personal demons; Oswald was a political animal who said he loathed the US, admired Castro, and was furious about JFK's covert war on Cuba. Notoriety, a desire to make history, a dislike of the world. Sure they played a role too (most likely). But we can't forget that Oswald was a well read person on the Cuban issue. I can't see how his views on that issue didn't affect his act.
This is nearly 25 years old but it holds up well: Holland on making sense of the assassination: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/holland.htm
Which raises a question, Mr. Litwin: what do you think Oswald's motivations were? Yes, it's an unanswerable question - Oswald himself may not have been able to articulate one; but many of the questions about this matter have no answers (did LHO use the scope or the iron sights?).
-
Steve: The best book on Oswald's motivation is by Jean Davison, "Oswald's Game." She believes that he read the article
in the New Orleans Times-Picayune in early september 1963 about Castro's warning to American leaders - that they
themselves would not be safe if attacks on Cuban leaders continues. She believes that that infuriated Oswald, and
by chance, he had an opportunity to strike a blow for the Cuban revolution.
-
F.Y.I.
Quote on
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry would write a book when he retired entitled JFK Assassination File and in it he made many comments that did NOT support the WC?s conclusions regarding the murder of JFK. Here is but one of them.
Quote on
Investigations were awaiting the results of the autopsy with the NA?VE assurance that the government would release a detailed autopsy report which could be used in the investigation. The photographs and autopsy evidence were NEVER released by the government. Apparently portions of the material have even been DESTROYED. The Warren Commission itself yielded to the political pressure and NEVER EXAMINED the autopsy photographs. (Jesse Curry, JFK Assassination File, p. 122) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
How in the world can you reach a conclusion on a murder involving bullet wounds IF you never look at the autopsy material? Furthermore, why in the world would this have been WITHHELD from the WC IF it really depicted the wounds claimed? IF LHO really shot JFK all by himself from behind why would this be necessary?
Quote
What changed this author's outlook so dramatically?
-
James C Jenkins,Standing at the Cold Shoulder of History. A great read. He totally disputes everything,published in the past 55 years.
-
Holland is, for me, hands down the smartest scholar on the assassination. He's researched deeply into the event and is able to place it in the larger context of the Cold War. For him Oswald wasn't driven by just personal demons; Oswald was a political animal who said he loathed the US, admired Castro, and was furious about JFK's covert war on Cuba. Notoriety, a desire to make history, a dislike of the world. Sure they played a role too (most likely). But we can't forget that Oswald was a well read person on the Cuban issue. I can't see how his views on that issue didn't affect his act.
This is nearly 25 years old but it holds up well: Holland on making sense of the assassination: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/holland.htm
Which raises a question, Mr. Litwin: what do you think Oswald's motivations were? Yes, it's an unanswerable question - Oswald himself may not have been able to articulate one; but many of the questions about this matter have no answers (did LHO use the scope or the iron sights?).
Steve,
Oswald may have been recruited and trained and/or "MKULTRA-ed" by the KGB in the USSR.
-- Tommy :)
-
You must be joking. Holland is an embarrassment to the JFK research community. Clearly a CIA asset, some of his ridiculous comments over the years have made me wretch. He goes right to the top of the list of disinformation agents beginning with Specter, Ford, Posner, Bugliosi, Myers and their ilk.
-
You must be joking. Holland is an embarrassment to the JFK research community. Clearly a CIA asset, some of his ridiculous comments over the years have made me wretch. He goes right to the top of the list of disinformation agents beginning with Specter, Ford, Posner, Bugliosi, Myers and their ilk.
Jim,
*retch
--Tommy :)
PS Even if Holland was a "CIA asset" (whatever that means), what would be so bad about that?
Are you one of those Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theorists who blame all the world's ills on the "evil, evil, evil" CIA, and think it should be shut down?
-
No sir, I prefer plastic wrap instead of tin foil hats, just because I try to be original. You don't see a problem with a goofball like Holland espousing scientifically impossible theories in exchange for compensation from the CIA. I do. End of that particular story.
I believe in conspiracies more than most people since a conspiracy is a crime committed by two individuals in concert with each other. Those who cling to the hopelessly moronic SBT love to wield "conspiracy" as a word weapon so that it no longer conveys its real meaning. You sir, used it in such a fashion, even tossing in the hackneyed "tinfoil hat" designation. One last thing about the CIA. I'm sure the record is mixed and there are outstanding patriotic Americans serving us every day. But there is also a long and terrifying record of CIA "activities" all over the globe spanning decades. Are you denying the truth of that also?
-
No sir, I prefer plastic wrap instead of tin foil hats, just because I try to be original. You don't see a problem with a goofball like Holland espousing scientifically impossible theories in exchange for compensation from the CIA. I do. End of that particular story.
I believe in conspiracies more than most people since a conspiracy is a crime committed by two individuals in concert with each other. Those who cling to the hopelessly moronic SBT love to wield "conspiracy" as a word weapon so that it no longer conveys its real meaning. You sir, used it in such a fashion, even tossing in the hackneyed "tinfoil hat" designation. One last thing about the CIA. I'm sure the record is mixed and there are outstanding patriotic Americans serving us every day. But there is also a long and terrifying record of CIA "activities" all over the globe spanning decades. Are you denying the truth of that also?
Jim,
The CIA is a band of MOFO ANGELS compared to the CHEKA, NKVD, OGPU, MGB, KGB, FSB/SVR, GRU, etc.
D'oh
-- Tommy :)
-
Historian Max Holland has reviewed my book, "I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak."
https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2018/12/litwin.html#more (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2018/12/litwin.html#more)
"Now Fred Litwin, in his new book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak, traces his transformation from a young, energetic conspiracist to the vigorous debunker he is today. The result is a brisk, bracing, witty, and surprisingly comprehensive read, and one that ought to be considered by anyone in Generation Z who is intrigued by the assassination and thinking of joining the research community."
I have not yet read Mr. Litwin?s book so I cannot comment on it.
However, two researches who I do respect have commented on it: Quoting from Amazon.com?s page on Mr. Litwin?s book:
?As a young man growing up in the heyday of Kennedy assassination theorizing, Fred Litwin believed a conspiracy killed JFK. And then he grew, and he studied and he researched. The result is this volume, a thorough, cogent and meticulously argued case for a lone assassin. A seasoned conspiracy skeptic will learn new things here, and a conspiracy believer open to looking at the other side could do no better than this volume.?
-John McAdams, Associate Professor of Political Science at Marquette University and author of JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy
?Mr. Litwin?s book is the best in many, many years in dealing with the truth about this horrendous piece of history?and exposing the fakirs, cons and opportunists who often call themselves ?historians.? A fine presentation!?
-Hugh Aynesworth, Author of November 22, 1963: Witness to History and JFK: Breaking the News
-
Steve: The best book on Oswald's motivation is by Jean Davison, "Oswald's Game." She believes that he read the article
in the New Orleans Times-Picayune in early september 1963 about Castro's warning to American leaders - that they
themselves would not be safe if attacks on Cuban leaders continues. She believes that that infuriated Oswald, and
by chance, he had an opportunity to strike a blow for the Cuban revolution.
Fred: Yes, I have/read the book. She's an incredibly knowledgeable person on the finer details of the assassination. She also points to the very critical coverage of the Kennedy Administration's polices towards Cuba in the radical left press - the Guardian, the Daily Worker - that Oswald read. Several issues reprinted Castro's speeches denouncing the Kennedy Administration for the guerilla attacks on Cuban soil.
Max Holland mentions that threat from Castro as well in the piece I linked above. Oswald must have read it; it was in the New Orleans Times Picayune. It's interesting that Marina said she came home one day in early September late August (according to her account in the McMillan book) after walking their child and saw Oswald with his rifle dry-firing it. He told her (she said), "Fidel needs help." Three weeks later he's at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City trying to get into Cuba. I wonder if the threat by Fidel was related to Oswald's actions?
Still, the impetuous nature of his act makes me question his motives: he goes to retrieve his rifle on a Thursday, he gets a ride from a friend, he apparently didn't test/practice with the rifle over those two months that it was in the garage, he didn't seem to have any escape route. In contrast to the Walker attempt there wasn't much planning in this action. If he was driven by JFK's policies towards Cuba then why wait until the last second? It seemed more of an impulsive act than a rational one.
Good luck with the book.
-
Fred: Yes, I have/read the book. She's an incredibly knowledgeable person on the finer details of the assassination. She also points to the very critical coverage of the Kennedy Administration's polices towards Cuba in the radical left press - the Guardian, the Daily Worker - that Oswald read. Several issues reprinted Castro's speeches denouncing the Kennedy Administration for the guerilla attacks on Cuban soil.
Max Holland mentions that threat from Castro as well in the piece I linked above. Oswald must have read it; it was in the New Orleans Times Picayune. It's interesting that Marina said she came home one day in early September after walking their child and saw Oswald with his rifle dry-firing it. He told her (she said), "Fidel needs help." Three weeks later he's at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City trying to get into Cuba. I wonder if the threat by Fidel was related to Oswald's actions?
Still, the impetuous nature of his act makes me question his motives: he goes to retrieve his rifle on a Thursday, he gets a ride from a friend, he apparently didn't test/practice with the rifle over those two months that it was in the garage, he didn't seem to have any escape route. In contrast to the Walker attempt there wasn't much planning in this action. If he was driven by JFK's policies towards Cuba then why wait until the last second? It seemed more of an impulsive act than a rational one.
Good luck with the book.
Because Oswald's opportunity to assassinate JFK arose strictly by chance, that tells us his motive had to be an impulsive one in that situation. Most assassins tell us a great about themselves and their motivations by who they decide to target. They generally have to seek out this person. So the decision as to who they target is important in understanding their motivation. Oswald was not in that situation. The opportunity to assassinate JFK fell into his lap. JFK came to him instead of the reverse. Even Oswald probably could not articulate the why in a manner that makes any real sense because his act was not that of a rational person. He likely would have contrived some noble societal purpose but when all is said in done what was going on is that Oswald couldn't stand to be ignored. He wanted someone to take notice of him. The extent to which there was any genuine political motivation behind his act is even more speculative. Oswald needed a cause to promote himself. He couldn't be a player in mainstream politics but being part of a fringe element allowed him to at least create a fantasy that he was someone important and smarter than the average citizen who he held in contempt. So he cultivated this fantasy image of himself as some type of revolutionary figure. It wasn't the cause but desire to be known that was his primary motivation. The cause was a means to an end in my opinion. He certainly could have convinced himself that he was acting for noble political reasons - not many people will acknowledge that they are evil - but that was intertwined with a desire to make his mark.
-
Because Oswald's opportunity to assassinate JFK arose strictly by chance, that tells us his motive had to be an impulsive one in that situation. Most assassins tell us a great about themselves and their motivations by who they decide to target. They generally have to seek out this person. So the decision as to who they target is important in understanding their motivation. Oswald was not in that situation. The opportunity to assassinate JFK fell into his lap. JFK came to him instead of the reverse. Even Oswald probably could not articulate the why in a manner that makes any real sense because his act was not that of a rational person. He likely would have contrived some noble societal purpose but when all is said in done what was going on is that Oswald couldn't stand to be ignored. He wanted someone to take notice of him. The extent to which there was any genuine political motivation behind his act is even more speculative. Oswald needed a cause to promote himself. He couldn't be a player in mainstream politics but being part of a fringe element allowed him to at least create a fantasy that he was someone important and smarter than the average citizen who he held in contempt. So he cultivated this fantasy image of himself as some type of revolutionary figure. It wasn't the cause but desire to be known that was his primary motivation. The cause was a means to an end in my opinion. He certainly could have convinced himself that he was acting for noble political reasons - not many people will acknowledge that they are evil - but that was intertwined with a desire to make his mark.
Thumb1:
-
And, guess what Brian? You couldn't provide ANY evidence for any of your statements at
FP4JFK. All you can do it quote conspiracy books.
-
You're going to bear witness against me in a court? What, are you delusional?
Again, I'll repeat the challenge from FP4JFK...if you have evidence that Shaw was Bertrand, then post it.
-
Because Oswald's opportunity to assassinate JFK arose strictly by chance, that tells us his motive had to be an impulsive one in that situation. Most assassins tell us a great about themselves and their motivations by who they decide to target. They generally have to seek out this person. So the decision as to who they target is important in understanding their motivation. Oswald was not in that situation. The opportunity to assassinate JFK fell into his lap. JFK came to him instead of the reverse. Even Oswald probably could not articulate the why in a manner that makes any real sense because his act was not that of a rational person. He likely would have contrived some noble societal purpose but when all is said in done what was going on is that Oswald couldn't stand to be ignored. He wanted someone to take notice of him. The extent to which there was any genuine political motivation behind his act is even more speculative. Oswald needed a cause to promote himself. He couldn't be a player in mainstream politics but being part of a fringe element allowed him to at least create a fantasy that he was someone important and smarter than the average citizen who he held in contempt. So he cultivated this fantasy image of himself as some type of revolutionary figure. It wasn't the cause but desire to be known that was his primary motivation. The cause was a means to an end in my opinion. He certainly could have convinced himself that he was acting for noble political reasons - not many people will acknowledge that they are evil - but that was intertwined with a desire to make his mark.
Cool story, bro.
-
As opposed to a looney narcissist that drives around under the influence of God knows what singing along to Jefferson Airplane.
-
Brian, you need help. I hope you get it quickly.
-
And, guess what Brian? You couldn't provide ANY evidence for any of your statements at
FP4JFK. All you can do it quote conspiracy books.
I am still waiting for the evidence that convinced you that no conspiracy took place in the JFK assassination.
-
DiEugenio wrote:
" How hard up is Litwin?
First, he hangs out now at McRae's menagerie. You know, where people go who have been thrown out of here.
What he is doing over there points out the difference between this forum and McRae's and why I would never post there. "
The DiEugenio Formula: A knew B + B knew C = C Knew A ???
The illiterate Wee Jimmy DiNobrainio who can't even spell my name correctly, tells his idiotic lies because he has never recovered from the shame
and the continuing embarrassment of being exposed by me, many years ago, as a secret supporter of the late Bill Cooper's "The driver shot JFK" theory.
No wonder he deleted the evidence of his support for Cooper and turned to Burger munching for comfort.
Long live the Burger munching double chinned wonder, he amuses me greatly. :)
(https://images.freeimages.com/images/premium/previews/1382/13826628-cartoon-fat-man-with-fast-food.jpg)
-
Why trust Groden?
After all, he screwed up when he went to Lovelady's home and took a photo of him wearing a short-sleeved, vertically-striped shirt instead of the long-sleeved, bold plaid shirt he'd worn on 11/22/63.
That wasn't Groden, that was the FBI.
-
[no good deed goes unpunished by the narcissist]
-
"Dead positive" is an overstatement, but I agree they look similar. That doesn't back Groden's story one way or the other. Showing somebody a single photo and asking is this person you saw is just as invalid as when the police did it with a single photo of Oswald. If you actually really did talk to Groden at all, this was a badly designed experiment.
There's no evidence of another Mrs. Reid named Delores ever being at the TSBD. And if Groden was waiting until Jeraldean died before telling her story, then why did he wait another 40 years after that? Reid was already dead before the HSCA.
I don't know who "identified" this as being Mrs. Reid, or what the identification was based on:
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/alleged-reid.jpg)
P.S. Your supposed photogrammetric prowess might be more believable if I didn't have to post all of your photos for you...
-
Mrs Robert A Reid and Geraldine Reid had the same telephone number.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10483#relPageId=364&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95614#relPageId=71&tab=page
Right, what are the odds? They also had the same husband!
(https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2015/209/145566340_1438205122.jpg)
-
I'm copying and pasting, with my widdle android, a pertinent post from page 2 of that evil, evil website to this nice, nice one, so please be patient ...
Fascinating is the fact that in her 1964 WC testimony, Jeraldean Reid (AKA Mrs. Robert A. Reid) said she was standing near Ochus Campbell and Roy Truly some distance directly in front of the front steps during the assassination and that Campbell told her that the shots had come from the Grassy Knoll area.
EDIT: I just read her 11/23/63 affidavit (see below). In it she says she was standing near Campbell but that someone else said the shots had come from the Grassy Knoll area. This is different from what she testified later to the Warren Commission.
Jeraldean Reid appears in a few photographs and films:
24v5e9e.jpg
The four-image montage (viewable elsewhere on THIS forum) with red arrows pointing to my putative Jeraldean Reid which was created by someone I may know but who wasn't credited by whoever I lifted it from back in 2015. LOL
The frame with the vertical red arrow is from the Dave Wiegman film. In the youtube video below, that frame is easiest to see in slow motion at 1:04. I figure this frame (with the vertical red arrow) was shot about four seconds before the first shot rang out.
For spatial-positions-of-the-witnesses reasons, please compare that frame with the frames viewable at 0.45 in the following version of the Wiegman film--
[2:48 version of DAVE WIEGMAN film viewable on youtube]
I believe the two suit-wearing men barely visible on the far right at 0:45 in the video (above the Chevy's right tail fin), just a few people away from where Jeraldean Reid was standing (she is hidden behind another woman at 0:45) could be Roy Truly and Ochus Campbell.
FWIW, she said that about two minutes after the assassination she encountered, shortly after she entered her large second-floor office area, a t-shirt wearing Oswald passing through in the general direction of the front elevator / front stairs with a full bottle of Coke.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/reid.htm
Her first name was not Jeraldine or Geraldine. It was Jeraldean. Her maiden name was Bray. She was born on August 24, 1912, so she was fifty-one years old on 11/22/63.
--Tommy :sun
PS The photo of her sitting with Homicide Detective Jim Leavelle was taken on 11/23/63 according to Leavelle's April 7, 1964, WC testimony, ergo her different clothing.
Mr. BALL. You went to work at what time Saturday morning, November 23, 1963?
Mr. LEAVELLE. It would be around 8 o'clock, I imagine.
Mr. BALL. And did you take some statements that day?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Chances are I may have, I do not remember.
Mr. BALL. Here is----
Mr. LEAVELLE. It says took one affidavit from R. S. Truly, supervisor of Texas School Book and the other of employee, Mrs. R. A. Reid.
Mr. BALL. You are refreshing your memory from a report that you made, is that correct?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Yes.
Here is Reid's 11/23/63 affidavit from the Dallas Municipal Archives:
51. Affidavit In Any Fact typed, by Mrs. R. A. Reid. Statement as an employee of the Texas School Book Depository. States she saw Oswald leave the back office near the lunch room after the shooting, 11/23/63.
00001327 1 page 05 02 051 http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/13/1327-001.gif
I would appreciate some constructive feedback / observations.
Thanks,
--Tommy :sun
PS
Note that in her affidavit, Jeraldean Reid / Mrs. Robert A. Reid mentions standing near Campbell, and in her WC testimony she says she stood near both Campbell and Truly.
.......
[...]
On 7/28/2015 at 10:41 PM, Chris Davidson said:
Thomas,
Here's a static version for you.
Chris
.......
Yes, Chris. IMHO your red arrow on the right is pointing at Truly.
I think it's a little easier to recognize his facial features, hat, and short stature in the enhanced GIF I posted, especially when looking at the GIF before it starts running.
IEJmpY.gif
But now your red arrow on the right in the previous post lets everybody know the guy I'm talking about.
What's significant is that the tall guy next to him could be Ochus Campbell (is he wearing a white shirt and a tie, but no jacket? -- the potential O.V. Campbell whom new member Linda recently pointed out in the Martin and Hughes clips also appears to be wearing a white shirt but no jacket), and that a woman who resembles the woman Det. Jim Leavelle was talking with the next day in the Homicide and Robbery Bureau -- fifty-one year old Mrs. Robert A. Reid? -- can be seen about six feet away from them in the GIF.
Thanks!
--Tommy :sun
Edited July 29, 2015 by Thomas Graves
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy :)
-
Here's why I think the Leavelle film was taken on Sunday.
-
Too many back and forth personal insults.
If it continues, the thread will be locked for a non negotiable 24 hour calming down period.
(https://i.gifer.com/2Use.gif)