I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[Bill Chapman]

But in the beginning they were going to use it as firm evidence. It was only after it came back negative for the cheek that it became worthless supposedly. If it was not a valid test why was it administered?

Try reading more carefully. The paraffin tests were used to intimidate people during interrogation; not used as evidence at trial.

Firearm Factoids
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

[Tom Scully]

You say you are "aware" of the evidence which implies I am unaware. Let me ask you, was the Warren Commission unaware of the evidence? How about the HSCA and the FBI? The same evidence you reject they found very compelling so perhaps it is just the way you are interpreting that evidence. And no, I do not wish to enter into another tired debate with you. You are well aware of the evidence against LHO and have argued it many times here. Any further debate would just hit the same talking points. The bottom line is any CT theory must assume massive fraud and I don't accept that. If I am wrong about that please post your theory that explains how the conspiracy was carried out and who was specifically guilty.


And BTW, I'll ask you the same question that I ask all CTs and they don't answer. When will you be taking this ironclad, obvious evidence to the proper authorities who will presumably immediately agree with you and do something to right the injustice? Or perhaps they will stop listening to you when you say to them that there is no evidence against LHO?

Mr. Parnell, I am surprised to read you dishing up and serving something I would not be surprised to see authored
by Armstrong surrogate, Jim  Hargrove. You impressed me in the past that facts mattered most to you.  Your last
post resorts to pounding the table.

I thought you had more in common in your methodology with John I. than with Armstrong/Hargrove.

I want to keep my positive opinion that you are a facts guy. Your post is beneath you. It is no fault of yours
that DPD and DSD failed to preserve and avoid contaminating the alleged crime scene before documenting it
and the evidence it contained in its original state or that DPD lost their prisoner inside their own shop.
It is your fault if your conclusion is  founded more on your trust of the claims of the Dallas police than on the
impeachable and unimpeachable evidence accompanying police claims.

Mr. Iacoletti, in consideration of the evidence, dismisses extraordinary claims due to the weighr of the
actual evidence record. I am surprised he is not your kind of guy. You are taking personal offense in reaction
to his comments. What prompts you to attempt to put him through hoops when the alternative is to post evidence
supporting your claims and admit which of them are extraordinary vs. the weight of the available evidence?

[Rob Caprio]

Try reading more carefully. The paraffin tests were used to intimidate people during interrogation; not used as evidence at trial.

Firearm Factoids
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

So you are saying that the police used false evidence to intimidate people that they had in custody?

[Paul May]

Told you Caprio has no clue about this case. All those hours as a Publix cashier prevent him from truly understanding the evidence. He?s adept at copy and pasting because of his biases. But a deep understanding, requiring going to sites,  conducting interviews with those involved, getting perspectives from live witnesses, totally beyond him. Hence, he hides behind the anonymity of the while laughed and scoffed at for repeating the garbage day after day, year after year. Never changes.

[Bill Chapman]

So you are saying that the police used false evidence to intimidate people that they had in custody?

No, the paraffin test was useless as evidence in those days. You can look it up...

[Rob Caprio]

No, the paraffin test was useless as evidence in those days. You can look it up...

So again, why was it administered? And, why was the result of his hand test told to the media if it was useless?

[Oscar Navarro]

My new book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak, is now available for purchase.

Fred Litwin recounts how he became a JFK conspiracy freak at eighteen, and then slowly moved to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. This book demonstrates how the left and the right have used the JFK assassination to drive home myths about power in America. There is also the horrible persecution of a gay man prosecuted for conspiring to kill Kennedy, the ugly story of Oliver Stone?s homophobic film JFK, an expos? of conspiracy nonsense on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a look at how the Soviets tried to influence American public opinion into believing the CIA was behind the assassination, and the incredible secret why some JFK assassination documents must remain locked up forever. And a whole lot more.

PRAISE for I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

?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

?This is a great book for conspiracy buffs?and, more important, for those who debunk such theories. Fred Litwin does a terrific job in blowing up the myriad JFK assassination scenarios, not least in completely demolishing The Fifth Estate?s decades-long efforts to ?uncover? the truth. The CBC?s lead investigative show is revealed here to be more than slightly unhinged.?
     J. L. Granatstein, Author of Who Killed Canadian History?

?Who killed John F. Kennedy has become the conspiracy theory of conspiracy theories. Despite the many recent books debunking all of them, scores of people still believe Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved or had accomplices, and was directed by either Moscow, the CIA, the FBI, Lyndon Johnson, Fidel Castro,  or whomever one chooses to accuse.

In Fred Litwin?s marvelous book, he charts how he went from becoming one of the earlier skeptics to someone dedicated to dissecting their arguments and carefully tearing them apart. The penultimate chapter is the one in which Litwin takes a scalpel to the vehicle that has unfortunately convinced many Americans there was a real conspiracy. That source is the famous Oliver Stone movie, JFK, in which Litwin shows the director created a nonexistent homosexual cabal planning to assassinate Kennedy, which was also in cahoots with the CIA. The agency, according to Stone, wanted Kennedy dead because he was about to pull U.S. troops out of Vietnam! Exposing Stone?s lies after lies, the director won?t know what hit him if he dares to read Litwin?s book.

Litwin continues to update the many books and new theories that keep coming to prove conspiracy, up to the present. What he has accomplished is to put the final nail in the coffin of all the conspiracy theorists, who develop new ones as old theories are proven wrong. He has given us a beautifully written and compelling book, one in which Litwin tells the bold, unvarnished truth. How anyone reading this can still conclude that JFK was killed by various conspirators, rather than the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, is beyond my comprehension. Everyone still concerned with JFK?s death and thinks it?s a mystery, must read Fred Litwin?s I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak. They will be glad they did.?
     Ronald Radosh, Professor Emeritus of History at CUNY, opinion columnist for The Daily Beast and co-author of A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel.

?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

Mr. Litwin, first let me congratulate you on writing and getting a book published. Now to the meat of the matter. For someone who is convinced that Oswald was the lone assassin and that there was no conspiracy what is in your book that would make someone want to spend a few bucks? There are plenty of web sites one can use for free and there other books which make the claim that there is no further need to examine the case as it has already been solved.


Sincerely,


Oscar

[Fred Litwin]

I believe I tell the story of assassination critics in a new way. And I also tell a personal story. In addition, I have
a chapter of new information about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and their predilection for conspiracy. People
who believe that LHO was the lone gunman like the book - there are four 5-star review on Amazon and one five-star
review on Amazon.co.uk. For people who believe there was a conspiracy, well, I don't have to worry about
getting any low-star reviews, because they simply won't read my book.