On the Radio Debating Rossley
John McAdams
debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
take a pro-conspiracy position.
When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
debater was Rossley!
It was actually a lot of fun. A hoot, really.
There will, apparently, be a podcast, to which I will post a link.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Was there any mention of felon supporting? :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
YoHarvey
Let me guess. First question from Rossley: Do you support felons?
Chuck Schuyler
I hope Rossley didn't hammer you too hard with evidence/testimony from
the 26 volumes, John.
Did he call you a felon supporter?
John McAdams
>On Apr 6, 3:25=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> I accepted an invitation from a fellow in Detroit named Anton Batey to
>> debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
>>
>> He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
>> take a pro-conspiracy position.
>>
>> When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
>> debater was Rossley!
>>
>> It was actually a lot of fun. =A0A hoot, really.
>>
>> There will, apparently, be a podcast, to which I will post a link.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>LOL! Was there any mention of felon supporting? :-)
>
>Regards,
>
Yep, quite a lot of it. :-)
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On Apr 6, 1:25=A0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> I accepted an invitation from a fellow in Detroit named Anton Batey to
>> debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
>>
>> He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
>> take a pro-conspiracy position.
>>
>> When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
>> debater was Rossley!
>>
>> It was actually a lot of fun. =A0A hoot, really.
>>
>> There will, apparently, be a podcast, to which I will post a link.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
>Let me guess. First question from Rossley: Do you support felons?
>
Not the first one, no. :-)
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 12:25=A0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> I accepted an invitation from a fellow in Detroit named Anton Batey to
>> debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
>>
>> He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
>> take a pro-conspiracy position.
>>
>> When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
>> debater was Rossley!
>>
>> It was actually a lot of fun. =A0A hoot, really.
>>
>> There will, apparently, be a podcast, to which I will post a link.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>I hope Rossley didn't hammer you too hard with evidence/testimony from
>the 26 volumes, John.
>
As you might guess, he has all these obscure references to this or
that document that (he claims) support his views. I once challenged
him to read something in full and *in context* and he dodged it.
He actually asserted that every member of the DPD were shown Secret
Service lapel pins in preparation for the JFK visit, and therefore Joe
Marshall Smith could not be wrong!
>Did he call you a felon supporter?
>
Pretty much, yea.
yeuhd
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96c00436-a751-4ff7...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Regards,
I don't think your name was mentioned.
David Von Pein
Without even hearing the radio debate, there can be no question as to
who the victor was/is -- Mr. McAdams.
How can we know?
Simple -- Because there is no CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for conspiracy in the
JFK case...period.
Thus, Lee Oswald was the lone shooter in Dallas.
It's hilarious to hear Rossley thumping his chest, when there isn't
even the slimmest of chances that ANY debate about the JFK case could
result in the "CTer" coming out smelling like a rose. (And, yes, I can
say this without even hearing a single word of the radio debate in
question.)
When I was asked by Anton Batey last week on the IMDB forum to
participate in his radio debate, I asked Anton this question:
"And how far out in left field is the conspiracy theorist who
will be on your show? (If his name is Brian David Andersen, you've got
a problem, Anton.)"
Anton's answer was:
"The conspiracy theorist isn't THAT far out. He obviously thinks
there was a second gunman in the knoll area, and thinks the evidence
was covered up."
I'm thinking perhaps Anton might have been better off with Brian "JFK
WASN'T KILLED AT ALL" Andersen. :)
Here's my correspondence with Anton from last week:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa8725ff91816274
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9efb060816bb96e5
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:49da2686....@news.supernews.com...
I'm gonna Love it when that audio debate is played on the WWW John.
As I suggest to everyone I talk to;
"Until you'e read the 26 volumes, you'll never know for sure which side is
Lying to you".
tomnln
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:c17740be-7b2c-434c...@l1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
chuck believes in "Conviction" by Accusation rather than evidence/testimony
! ! !
Maybe you would like to debate me on that radio station next time chuck???
I was Surprised to hear McAdams admit that he doesn't have the 26 volumes
though ! ! !
tomnln
I also was Very Pleased to receive an invitation from a radio host in
Detroit to debate someone from the WCR side.
Judging from his post on the newsgroup, I expected to be debating David
Von Pein.
Apparently David didn't feel that his position was "defensible" so, he
"Backed Out" of the debate.
When I found out that I would be debating the WCR "GURU" himself, (John
McAdams) I was Elated !
John is quite correct, all involved had a GREAT Time for 3 hours & 20,
minutes.
I must say that John was at a "Disatvantage" as he doesn't own a set of
the 26 volumes & he did NOT have his files handy for Citations of his
comments.
Because we didn't have time to cover all aspects of the subject, we all
agreed to do it Again.
For those who have an interest in the subject, I strongly suggest that you
read the official evidence/testimony given under oath in the official
volumes.
Warren Commission's 26 Volumes.
Church Committee's 14 Volumes.
HSCA 'a 12 Volumes.
ARRB Report.
That will allow you to determine exactly which side is Lying to you.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d49ee0d4-66f9-4867...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Considering that you have questions, how would you feel about You debating
me on that radio show???
tomnln
Be careful John;
That audio debate is gonna be posted on the Internet.
You wouldn't want to lose any more crediblility, would you?
Chuck Schuyler
> chuck believes in "Conviction" by Accusation rather than evidence/testimony
> ! ! !
>
> Maybe you would like to debate me on that radio station next time chuck???
>
> I was Surprised to hear McAdams admit that he doesn't have the 26 volumes
> though ! ! !
I'm surprised you admit that you DO have the 26 volumes.
David Von Pein
>>> "I was surprised to hear McAdams admit that he doesn't have the 26
volumes though!!" <<<
LOL.
Why would John (or anyone) need the PHYSICAL VOLUMES themselves, Tom? I
don't own a set of the physical volumes either.
The 27 WC volumes (including the 888-page Warren Report itself) are
available for free all over the Internet...and (for a very small price)
are also available on CD-ROM. (I got my CD copy last year from Rich
DellaRosa's website; a good deal too.)
http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/contents_wc.htm
So possessing the physical VOLUMES themselves is totally unnecessary, and
you (Tom) must surely know it's unnecessary in today's "Internet" age.
And that's something that I was trying to get Vincent Bugliosi to fully
understand when Vince was doing his many radio interviews when promoting
his JFK book in 2007.
Through his secretary, I think I wrote a couple of e-mails to her on this
very subject, attempting to get word to Vince to stop embarrassing himself
(slightly) when he continued to seemingly insist that the ONLY possible
way to read all of the information in the 26 WC volumes is by possessing
the physical volumes themselves....which is just a ridiculous claim in
this computer age we live in.
Unfortunately, I was never able to get Vince to stop making that incorrect
claim about the WC "volumes". Just as I was also unsuccessful in getting
Vince to stop making the VERY wrong statement that he made in 2007 when he
claimed that "Reclaiming History" was the "only book" ever published to
include pictures of Zapruder frames 312 and 313. I, alone, have five JFK
books that have those frames printed in them.
But that just goes to show that even a master of a subject can make an
occasional innocuous error every now and then.
Perhaps Mr. Bugliosi should "debate" Thomas Rossley sometime. That would
be a howl....with Rossley calling VB a liar for two or three straight
hours....and with Vince countering with gobs of evidence favoring the
guilt of the man whom Rossley thinks was completely innocent of killing
anybody on November 22, 1963.
The only points Rossley could score with Vince would be to inform him of
the couple of minor verbal gaffes that Vince made on radio and TV in 2007
(the ones I discussed above). Other than that, ol' Tom would be toasted by
the physical evidence of the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald-- for two or three
straight hours (or until it got too embarrassing for ol' Tom R. to
continue the debate).
tims...@gmail.com
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hi tomnln,
Say, did the debate kick off anything like this description of events
from your chatroom by Grizzlie Antagonist?
GRIZZLIE ON:
The host sees my new screen name, and he says in that nasal accent,
"Hewwo, ---- -----, ah yoo heah to tawk about de Kennedy assassinashun?"
But you can hear the apprehension in that polite greeting. He's been
through the drill before and he knows what to half-expect.
GRIZZLIE OFF
Let's hope CE 2121 wasn't mentioned, eh? LOL!
yeuhd
> I was Surprised to hear McAdams admit that he doesn't have the 26 volumes
> though ! ! !
Everyone has the 26 volumes of testimony and evidence. They have been
available in their entirety on the Web for several years now.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd36d023-a21f-49b5...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> He's got OFFICIAL RECORDS, and you're STUCK with it!
>
Thank You, Thank You Very Much !
(sounded just like him)
tomnln
it looks like the "FURTHEREST OUT" was David
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1499aef4-ecea-4cd9...@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Without even hearing the radio debate, there can be no question as to
> who the victor was/is -- Mr. McAdams.
>
> How can we know?
>
> Simple -- Because there is no CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for conspiracy in the
> JFK case...period.
>
> Thus, Lee Oswald was the lone shooter in Dallas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pain (in the ass) wrote;
> It's hilarious to hear Rossley thumping his chest, when there isn't
> even the slimmest of chances that ANY debate about the JFK case could
> result in the "CTer" coming out smelling like a rose. (And, yes, I can
> say this without even hearing a single word of the radio debate in
> question.)
I write;
David ALWAYS "answereth before he heareth" (Prov.18-13)
tomnln
>
>
>>>> "I was surprised to hear McAdams admit that he doesn't have the 26
> volumes though!!" <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> Why would John (or anyone) need the PHYSICAL VOLUMES themselves, Tom? I
> don't own a set of the physical volumes either.
WE KNOW ! IT SHOWS !
Anthony Marsh
Maybe his university has it. Several local colleges have copies.
doug.w...@gmail.com
You mean I can quit hitting the garage sales trying to find my own 26
volumes?
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:75fe67d3-6986-4d06...@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Hi tomnln,
GRIZZLIE ON:
GRIZZLIE OFF
Regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Timmy;
Grizzlie has Never been in my chat room (TOO Chicken. As are you)
Unless of course he used a Criminal Alias.
#2 Let's hope that CE 2121 Is Indeed mentioned when you decide to debate me
on that radio show.
I'm sure my good friend McAdams & I can arrange that.
Are you up to it Timmy?
Seeing that you never made the Starting team, maybe you could "Pinch-Hit"
for McAdams.
As a matter of fact Timmy;
TWO of your people came into my room Pretending to be me ! ! ! !
I don't ever remember Anyone wanting to be you ! ! !
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ritchie Linton
this subject.Its always been a very compelling murder mystery& altho' I am
sure'the butler did it'=with a handgun in the car=on it will go
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:49da2686....@news.supernews.com...
tomnln
EVERYONE does NOT know that.
Ritchie Linton
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pcqCl.10655$oA....@newsfe03.iad...
David Von Pein
VIA THE IMDB FORUM, RADIO HOST ANTON BATEY SAID:
"There was no clear cut “winner” [in the April 5, 2009, radio
debate between John McAdams & Thomas Rossley on WHPR-FM in Highland
Park, Michigan]. Both men did extremely well, and represented their
respective positions very first-class, as both Professor McAdams and
Mr. Rossley would concur.
"The bad news is that there was a huge snowstorm in the Detroit
area after the debate and knocked the power out, which “corrupted” the
sound file that it was being saved on. The good news is that it can be
retrieved; I just need somebody to come here and do [it]. The debate
will be posted within a few days, maybe less.
"The debate was very, very good[,] but it may have to be cut
down due to it’s [sic] length. There were times when both gentlemen
broke off for 15-20 minutes at times and argued about things that were
not relevant; as I’m sure they both would agree in retrospect.
"I’ll definitely let you all know when it’s posted." -- ANTON
BATEY; 04/06/2009
www.imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/flat/134145127?d=latest&p=3#134963210
Ritchie Linton
>
> Thus, Lee Oswald was the lone shooter in Dallas.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Indeed=patsy takes the fall=but have U ever considered
the fact that it was ONLY a sole=4 no-one would frame a sole while
considering the multiples sadly made imfamous in the Stone film.
Robert Harris
ROFLMAO!!
So, the debate was about whether one guy did it or two thousand. Is that
a fair assessment?
Robert Harris
In article <7b4jt41a958apn822...@4ax.com>,
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> I accepted an invitation from a fellow in Detroit named Anton Batey to
> debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
>
> He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
> take a pro-conspiracy position.
>
> When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
> debater was Rossley!
>
> It was actually a lot of fun. A hoot, really.
WhiskyJoe
> "The bad news is that there
> was a huge snowstorm in the
> Detroit area after the
> debate and knocked the
> power out, which "corrupted"
> the sound file that it was
> being saved on. The good
> news is that it can be
> retrieved; I just need
> somebody to come here
> and do [it]. The debate
> will be posted within a
> few days, maybe less.
Well, it only took them
less than a week to totally
modify the Zapruder film.
This shouldn't take that long.
If McAdams fell backwards out
of chair or something, I hope
they remember to cut that
part out.
Anthony Marsh
> ROFLMAO!!
>
> So, the debate was about whether one guy did it or two thousand. Is that
> a fair assessment?
>
>
>
Straw man argument. Weak.
Chuck Schuyler
> ROFLMAO!!
>
> So, the debate was about whether one guy did it or two thousand. Is that
> a fair assessment?
>
> Robert Harris
The only thing they both agreed on was that your theory is wrong.
tomnln
chuckie is commenting on ANOTHER issue he's NOT familiar with ! ! !
No wonder he did\n't wanna participate in a radio debate ! ! !
bigdog
Will these conspirators ever stop tampering with the evidence?
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:696d88a3-8e5f-4b2e...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
bigdog isn'r smart enough to figure out that the evidence was under the
Totsal Control of the Authorities ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Oh Lucy; You Got Some "Splainin To Do"
WhiskyJoe
>>> "The bad news is that there
>>> will be posted within a
>>> few days, maybe less.
>> WhiskyJoe:
>> Well, it only took them
>> less than a week to totally
>> modify the Zapruder film.
>> This shouldn't take that long.
> bigdog:
> Will these conspirators
> ever stop tampering with
> the evidence?
This huge delay is being to
look more and more suspicious.
I wonder what is it is that
McAdams must have let slipped?
And I want to know is
how many men with the true
recording of the
McAdams-Rossley debate
have died already.
John McAdams
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:hdkvt4pu62pdd8kit...@4ax.com...
I write;
Like ALL LN's, when Stumped by evidence/testimony, McAdams reverts to Sick
Humor ! ! !
Let's see if McAdams has all of the "Official Citations" when we debate
the next time.
Unless of course he RUNS like the rest of his third class TEAM !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Harris
<f32980fa-f10d-4c09...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
Hehe, I challenged .john to debate me many years ago. I don't even have
to tell you what his reply was, do I?
Robert Harris
John McAdams
wrote:
I and several other people debated you for years on this newsgroup.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
davidemerling
> He's got OFFICIAL RECORDS, and you're STUCK with it!
But even within those OFFICIAL RECORDS, Rossley picks and chooses what he
accepts. Plus, Rossley pretends all that we've come to know about the
assassination in past decade, over and above what appears in the WR or the
HSCA Report, does not exist - unless he, personally, chooses to accept it.
If McAdams made mention to anything outside the record, that we KNOW
exists, Rossley would arrogantly blurt out something like, "And, SIR, tell
me where I can read that in the official record? What page number? Tell me
what volume and page number!"
And if McAdams mentions anything in the OFFICIAL RECORD, Rossley would
usually mention some obscure document that, supposedly, contradicts it by
mostly just saying, over and over again, "It's on my website! It's on my
website!" In fact, that was his primary argument throughout the lengthy
debate - "It's all on my website!"
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> Without even hearing the radio debate, there can be no question as to
> who the victor was/is -- Mr. McAdams.
>
> even the slimmest of chances that ANY debate about the JFK case could
> result in the "CTer" coming out smelling like a rose. (And, yes, I can
> say this without even hearing a single word of the radio debate in
> question.)
You have to realize, however, that more than 75% of the listening audience
were already predisposed towards a conspiracy. And, in the wake of the
debate, THEY are the ones more likely to be vocal. That's always the case.
If there's anything we've learned about this, those deeply entrenched in
conspiratorial thinking can almost NEVER be convinced otherwise - even
when confronted with overwhelming evidence. And they are blinded by the
ridiculousness of the cumulative conspiratorial assertions they make;
never pausing to see how implausible it all is. As Mr. Rossley did, they
simply (nit)pick away at misstatements, misprints, honest mistakes, and
other expected inconsistencies that would naturally occur in any vast
fact-finding inquiry of this magnitude. They don't see how disjointed
their criticisms are and cannot piece together any cogent explanation of
the assassination that is not infinitely more implausible than the
official explanation that they attack with such irrational vitriol.
As ridiculous as Rossley sounded with his far-fetched arguments, one after
another, that kind of blather actually *resonates* with his audience.
Soft-spoken, logical, and courteous Prof. McAdams doesn't have the
charisma and the sensationalistic delivery that this crowd craves. They
think that the louder you are, the more accusations you make, and more you
say, "It's on my website" - the more compelling it is. They wet their
pants over that kind of stuff.
The problem is this: For those needing a lot of excitement and intrigue in
their life - the evidence doesn't present a conclusion that titillates
this craving. They are like crack addicts who need their daily fix. Only,
in their case, their "crack" is wild allegations with conspiratorial
overtones. They cannot accept that one day, a disturbed 24-yr-old
ex-Marine took his mail order rifle to his place of employment, poked it
out the window, pulled the trigger three times, and managed to snuff out
the life of the most important man in the world. What's the fun in that?
This is a GAME for them! And every time somebody is willing to debate them
- it's like agreeing to play Candyland with a 4-yr-old. They get so
excited they practically wet themselves. Rossley probably studied in
preparation and had all kinds of notes and books surrounding him - kind of
like a Dungeon & Dragon geek preparing for a little live action role
playing. McAdams didn't need to to that because he had the facts on his
side. All he had to do was repeated and it's easy to keep track of them
since it's the truth and flows naturally.
No, actually it's more like playing game of Clue. But, instead of Mrs.
Peacock in the Conservatory with the candlestick - it's more like the CIA
in the Dal-Tex building with the Mauser.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:49da2686....@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > On 6 Apr 2009 11:54:24 -0400, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Apr 6, 12:25=A0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >>> I accepted an invitation from a fellow in Detroit named Anton Batey to
> >>> debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
>
> >>> He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
> >>> take a pro-conspiracy position.
>
> >>> When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
> >>> debater was Rossley!
>
>
> >>> There will, apparently, be a podcast, to which I will post a link.
>
> >>> .John
>
> >>I hope Rossley didn't hammer you too hard with evidence/testimony from
> >>the 26 volumes, John.
>
> > As you might guess, he has all these obscure references to this or
> > that document that (he claims) support his views. I once challenged
> > him to read something in full and *in context* and he dodged it.
>
> > He actually asserted that every member of the DPD were shown Secret
> > Service lapel pins in preparation for the JFK visit, and therefore Joe
> > Marshall Smith could not be wrong!
>
> >>Did he call you a felon supporter?
>
> > Pretty much, yea.
>
> > .John
>
> > --
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> I'm gonna Love it when that audio debate is played on the WWW John.
>
> As I suggest to everyone I talk to;
>
> "Until you'e read the 26 volumes, you'll never know for sure which side is
> Lying to you".
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/
That's funny that you say that. Because I used to be a conspiracy
believer, devouring any book I could get my hands on, almost ALL of which
were conspiracy oriented.
Everything I knew about the Warren Report came from those conspiracy
books.
Eventually, one day, I decided I would sit down and actually read the
Warren Report for myself.
You're right - I *dd* feel lied to - by all those conspiracy authors.
I found the Report very readable and well-organized. And, when they
weren't sure of something, they said so. And when they speculated, they
said so. I also found it very exhaustive, even giving consideration to
possible conspiracies. It was a very compelling case, I thought - not at
all what I was expecting based on the conspiracy books I have read.
And, of course, now, with the advent of the internet anybody can read the
complete testimonies and much more.
The liars were the conspiracy authors who selectively quoted testimony out
of context not knowing that there will be a day when even Joe the Plumber
can sit down at his computer and check the facts for himself.
Here was my first revelation with regards to the testimony:
When you read the initial testimony of the Parkland doctors you do NOT get
the impression that there was this gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's
head. When you read their testimony, in its totality, you discover they
were actually confused about the specifics of the head wound or, openly
admit they didn't look closely, or didn't check at all. And yet THIS is
what the conspiracy authors want us to believe over the more thorough
examination of the three autopsy doctors. No wonder there has been such an
attack on the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. Because if
those are accurate (and they have been found to be genuine and unaltered)
- then the contention that Kennedy had a gaping hole in the back of his
head (ostensibly to accommodate the shot from the grassy knoll that not
even the HSCA would admit struck Kennedy) must be wrong.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> Perhaps Mr. Bugliosi should "debate" Thomas Rossley sometime. That would
> be a howl....with Rossley calling VB a liar for two or three straight
> hours....and with Vince countering with gobs of evidence favoring the
> guilt of the man whom Rossley thinks was completely innocent of killing
> anybody on November 22, 1963.
I would like to see Mr. Rossley make his silly legal arguments to Bugliosi
about why all these inquiry boards did not prosecute the witnesses who had
their testimony dismissed as false or unreliable by prosecuting them for
perjury.
To me, any debate on the Kennedy assassination should start off with the
moderator trying to find common ground and see what the opponents will
stipulate to.
For instance, I think every debate on the Kennedy assassination should
start of with the following question:
"Whether you believe in a conspiracy or not - whether you think there were
more than one gunman or not - will you both state your position as to
whether you believe Lee Harvey Oswald fired *any* shots at the
presidential limousine, from the 6th floor sniper's nest, on November 22,
1963 with, at least, one bullet striking somebody in the presidential
limousine?"
Because if the CTer is going to claim that Oswald was completely innocent,
there is no utility in going off on wild tangents until THAT point is
resolved -or- at a minimum, they agree to disagree, which isn't likely.
Bugliosi believes that people who hold the view that Oswald is completely
innocent are not deserving of any attention. It's a waste of time dealing
with them. He (Bugliosi) is much more willing to give consideration that
Oswald may have been PART of a conspiracy. Bugliosi says that anybody who
thinks Oswald is completely innocent is either a "silly person" or
somebody completely ignorant of the facts in the case.
Since Rossley obviously cannot say that he is completely ignorant of the
facts - that leaves only one other option. And, after listening to the
debate, I think it's pretty obvious which it is.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
No you didn't. You evaded the issue totally, uttering inane non
sequitars like, "Bob, nobody is ducking" or "Did Alvarez agree that
there was a shot at 285?"
Those were never arguments john. They were deliberate evasions.
But would you like to have a serious, indepth discussion about this??
LOL, I didn't think so.
Robert Harris
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
> For instance, I think every debate on the Kennedy assassination should
> start of with the following question:
>
> "Whether you believe in a conspiracy or not - whether you think there were
> more than one gunman or not - will you both state your position as to
> whether you believe Lee Harvey Oswald fired *any* shots at the
> presidential limousine, from the 6th floor sniper's nest, on November 22,
> 1963 with, at least, one bullet striking somebody in the presidential
> limousine?"
The most amusing part of the debate was when he was asked if any shots
were fired from the 6th floor window, and he answered with a
dismissive, "I don't know."
"I don't know"?
Talk about missing the forest for the trees! He's *certain* about
every trivial detail in peripheral issues, but when it comes to a
major question that's actually important, he muffs it.
Robert Harris
<reharris1-5B721...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <ph5du41j9mpg4403q...@4ax.com>,
> John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Apr 2009 22:19:35 -0400, Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article
> > ><f32980fa-f10d-4c09...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Apr 7, 1:18 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > ROFLMAO!!
> > >> >
> > >> > So, the debate was about whether one guy did it or two thousand. Is
> > >> > that
> > >> > a fair assessment?
> > >> >
> > >> > Robert Harris
> > >>
> > >> The only thing they both agreed on was that your theory is wrong.
> > >
> > >Hehe, I challenged .john to debate me many years ago. I don't even have
> > >to tell you what his reply was, do I?
> >
> > I and several other people debated you for years on this newsgroup.
>
>
> No you didn't. You evaded the issue totally, uttering inane non
> sequitars like, "Bob, nobody is ducking" or "Did Alvarez agree that
> there was a shot at 285?"
>
> Those were never arguments john. They were deliberate evasions.
>
> But would you like to have a serious, indepth discussion about this??
..john?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7b9a03f8b1e3d964
>>> "You have to realize, however, that more than 75% of the listening
audience were already predisposed towards a conspiracy." <<<
Yes, that's certainly true. But, much to the chagrin of Mr. Rossley, that
"more than 75%" is not really in his "Anybody But Oswald" corner at all.
Not even close, in fact (at least when based on the assassination poll I'm
going to be talking about next).
A "JFK Assassination" poll conducted by ABC News in November 2003 shows us
that 83% of the 1,031 people participating in that particular poll said
they thought that Rossley's favorite innocent patsy (i.e., a man named
Oswald) was, indeed, firing a gun at JFK on 11/22/63, with only 7% of
those same 1,031 individuals saying they thought Oswald was not a gunman.
Rossley must hate polls like the one below, because stuff like this (with
a specific question being asked about "GUNMAN"/"GUNMEN") only goes to show
that the type of crazy Anybody-But-LHO mentality that is possessed by so
many CTers within the cyber walls of Internet forums is certainly not even
close to being the mentality of Americans in general (at least when based
on the 2003 ABC News poll below, at any rate):
POLLING QUESTION:
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy
assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald
there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the
assassination at all?"
POLLING RESULTS:
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
===========================================
RELATED LINKS:
83% THINK OSWALD WAS SHOOTING AT JFK, PER ABC'S 2003 POLL:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c0189f6da4be3133
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7c280d9b25ca6a96
===========================================
tomnln
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:576e5d94-c7f7-4565...@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 7:22 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Perhaps Mr. Bugliosi should "debate" Thomas Rossley sometime. That would
> be a howl....with Rossley calling VB a liar for two or three straight
> hours....and with Vince countering with gobs of evidence favoring the
> guilt of the man whom Rossley thinks was completely innocent of killing
> anybody on November 22, 1963.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see Mr. Rossley make his silly legal arguments to Bugliosi
about why all these inquiry boards did not prosecute the witnesses who had
their testimony dismissed as false or unreliable by prosecuting them for
perjury.
Between the three major investigations you don't seem to know that there
was one witness charged/convicted with Perjury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't presume to answer for Anton Batey but, I think if you can get Mr.
Bugloisi to enter into a debate, Mr Batey would be pleased to set it up.
Would you like me to ask Mr. Bugloisi or, are you just talking?
ps;
Only ONE of us gave Official Citations for our position.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c1b1f11-ae28-42ee...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Like all LN's Mr. Emerling offers Generalties ONLY.
The Warren Report is one book consisting of 888 pages.
It breaks down to two issues.
1 The Charges against Oswald.
1 The "Conclusions" of the Commission.
Those "Conclusions" are supposedly based on 26 supplemental volumes of
evidence/testimony.
When I read the WCR I could have believed either way...LN/CT.
When I read the evidence/testimony, it Proved that the authorities......
Withheld evidence
Altered evidence
Destroyed evidence
Suborned Perjury from witnesses
Intimidated Witnesses.
Every one of which is a Felony called "Obstruction of Justice".
Mr. Emberling Never stated exactly what led him to believe in a CT.
Mr. Emberling then Never stated exactly what led him to believe in LN.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:460586c7-eccc-4ea2...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Emberling's disrespect for the vast majority of the American is duly
noted in his first paragraph above.
Mr. Emberling also prefers his "Opinions" over Citations for official
records of evidence/testimony.
Mr. Emberling offers NOTHING of lagal value to the discussion.
He needs>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My website contains more evidence/testimony from YOUR official records
than you've ever seen.
Had you known anything of evidence/testimony you would have included it in
your posts.
Guilt/Innosence is NOT determined by "Opinions" in America.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
Except that you never actually managed to read the whole thing. And
never bothered to read the internal memos and executive sessions.
Chuck Schuyler
> Hehe, I challenged .john to debate me many years ago. I don't even have
> to tell you what his reply was, do I?
>
> Robert Harris
I think John's position in regard to debating you, is that when you are at
least as well known and respected as Rossley in the Conspiracy Research
Assassination Community, Kennedy, President Of The United States
(CRACKPOT-US, for short) movement, he'll formally debate you.
Make a few more YouTube videos, and myself and the other CIA operatives
tasked with marginalizing your theories at boards like this will take it
up with him at our next top-secret conference.
David Von Pein
>>> "Talk about missing the forest for the trees! He's [Rossley] *certain* about every trivial detail in peripheral issues, but when it comes to a major question that's actually important, he muffs it." <<<
Indeed. And if Rossley decides that no shots at all came from the
Depository's Sniper's Nest (a la Bob Groden), Rossley must then
totally dismiss (as a liar or a cover-up agent, I guess) the never-
wavering comments made by Harold Norman, when Norman says he
positively heard multiple shots being fired from directly above his
head (i.e., from the 6th Floor of the TSBD).
Oh, well...that's just one more person to add to Rossley's never-
ending list of plotters and/or cover-uppers (Mr. Norman).
Of course, I'm pretty confident that Norman was probably already on
Tom's list of "liars" and/or "plotters" long before Mr. Rossley
debated Mr. McAdams on April 5, 2009.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Talk about missing the forest for the trees! He's [Rossley] *certain* about every trivial detail in peripheral issues, but when it comes to a major question that's actually important, he muffs it."<<<
>
> Indeed. And if Rossley decides that no shots at all came from the
> Depository's Sniper's Nest (a la Bob Groden), Rossley must then
Groden never said that. The ONLY person who said that was Lifton.
Robert Harris
<reharris1-F9BD2...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
LOL!!
Robert Harris
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:7b4jt41a958apn822...@4ax.com...
>I accepted an invitation from a fellow in Detroit named Anton Batey to
> debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
>
> He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
> take a pro-conspiracy position.
>
> When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
> debater was Rossley!
>
> It was actually a lot of fun. A hoot, really.
>
> There will, apparently, be a podcast, to which I will post a link.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Well; SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------