Anton Batey in league with McAdams and Von Pein?
David Von Pein
>>> "FROM THE CTKA WEBSITE--COMING SOON!! --- "Who is Anton Batey? CTKA
takes a close look at a most curious radio host who is a JFK denier,
Chomskyite, and yet happens to be in league with John McAdams and David
Von Pein. Yep, its [sic] all true."" <<<
Yeah, I've been watching the CTKA site for the last couple of weeks to see
what type of nonsense DiEugenio & Company are going to dish out regarding
Mr. Batey. I have no doubt that most of it will be pure fantasy and CT
spin.
BTW, what in the world is a "JFK denier"?
If DiEugenio is implying that Batey is a "JFK Conspiracy Denier" (which
Batey is not, AFAIK), then how would that stance make it seem odd that he
was also "in league" with myself and Professor McAdams?
Anyway, I'm sure that Mr. Batey will get a good laugh out of the CTKA
article about him, just like I am still enjoying the residual laughs
whenever I revisit DiEugenio's 2-part essay about me.
I'm guessing that Jim DiEugenio probably thinks that Anton Batey, John
McAdams, and myself are long-time friends and buddies. And Jimbo likely
also thinks that the three of us get together on a regular basis to "plot"
against the conspiracy theorists of the world.
That is the same mindset that DiEugenio possesses with respect to any
connection that I have to LNers like McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Francois
Carlier too. And nothing could be further from the truth. But I'll bet
that DiEugenio would be more than willing to call me a liar if I told him
that my "connection" to Mr. Anton Batey is virtually non- existent.
I cannot speak for Professor McAdams and his contact with Mr. Batey, of
course, but as far as myself personally, I have shared a very few e- mails
with Mr. Batey (the last of which had nothing to do with the JFK
assassination at all), and in 2009 I talked with him a few times at the
IMDB JFK forum.
And our IMDB conversations were not very cordial ones either, I might add,
as Anton was rather annoyed at me because I wouldn't debate some unknown
conspiracist on his radio show (with the CTer turning out to be Tom
Rossley).
But as far as being buddy-buddy and in constant contact with Mr. Batey --
no way. It hasn't happened. But I would wager that Mr. DiEugenio thinks
otherwise. Jim D. sees plots and devious conspiracies everywhere he looks,
of course. And apparently he's now decided to focus his high-powered
microscope on Anton Batey, for some reason.
Mr. Batey, btw, did a nice job moderating all of these debates (below)
about the JFK assassination. He stayed squarely on the fence in all of
these programs, and just let the opponents fight their battles. In fact,
when listening to any of these debates from 2009 and 2010, it's very
difficult to determine whether Batey believes in a conspiracy in the JFK
case or not. He was THAT neutral in his moderation of these debates:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mcadams.html
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-assassination-debate.html
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "FROM THE CTKA WEBSITE--COMING SOON!! --- "Who is Anton Batey? CTKA
> takes a close look at a most curious radio host who is a JFK denier,
> Chomskyite, and yet happens to be in league with John McAdams and David
> Von Pein. Yep, its [sic] all true.""<<<
>
>
>
> Yeah, I've been watching the CTKA site for the last couple of weeks to see
> Mr. Batey. I have no doubt that most of it will be pure fantasy and CT
> spin.
>
> BTW, what in the world is a "JFK denier"?
>
> If DiEugenio is implying that Batey is a "JFK Conspiracy Denier" (which
> Batey is not, AFAIK), then how would that stance make it seem odd that he
> was also "in league" with myself and Professor McAdams?
>
> Anyway, I'm sure that Mr. Batey will get a good laugh out of the CTKA
> article about him, just like I am still enjoying the residual laughs
> whenever I revisit DiEugenio's 2-part essay about me.
>
> I'm guessing that Jim DiEugenio probably thinks that Anton Batey, John
> McAdams, and myself are long-time friends and buddies. And Jimbo likely
> also thinks that the three of us get together on a regular basis to "plot"
> against the conspiracy theorists of the world.
>
> That is the same mindset that DiEugenio possesses with respect to any
> connection that I have to LNers like McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Francois
> Carlier too. And nothing could be further from the truth. But I'll bet
> that DiEugenio would be more than willing to call me a liar if I told him
> that my "connection" to Mr. Anton Batey is virtually non- existent.
>
> I cannot speak for Professor McAdams and his contact with Mr. Batey, of
> course, but as far as myself personally, I have shared a very few e- mails
> with Mr. Batey (the last of which had nothing to do with the JFK
> assassination at all), and in 2009 I talked with him a few times at the
> IMDB JFK forum.
>
I like the way you try to deny at first that you have any connection
with Batey and McAdams and then you just blurt out that you have shared
several e-mails with him and talked to him. Giving credence to the claim
that you three are members of a cabal.
WhiskyJoe
If Anton Batey is not in league with John McAdams,
then why did Anton choose Tom Rossley to debate
McAdams about the JFK assassination?
David Von Pein
>>> "I like the way you try to deny at first that you have any connection
with Batey and McAdams and then you just blurt out that you have shared
several e-mails with him and talked to him. Giving credence to the claim
that you three are members of a cabal." <<<
You're hilarious, Marsh.
A "cabal"?? LOL.
Combining all manners of communication (e-mail, IMDB forum posts, and
YouTube messages), I have spoken with Anton Batey perhaps four or five
times--total. And I've never once spoken to him (or John McAdams or Dave
Reitzes) in person.
But I'll bet Jim DiEugenio won't hesitate for a minute in putting a nice
big ol' inaccurate spin on this matter in his CTKA article on Batey, as he
will probably be insinuating that Batey and myself are like blood brothers
who conspire behind closed doors 24/7 against the evil CTers of Planet
Earth.
And why are you deliberately misstating what I said about the e-mails,
Tony? I never said "several e-mails". Just the opposite in fact. Here's
what I said:
"I have shared a very few e-mails with Mr. Batey (the last of which
had nothing to do with the JFK assassination at all), and in 2009 I talked
with him a few times at the IMDB JFK forum. And our IMDB conversations
were not very cordial ones either [see post linked below for proof of
this], I might add, as Anton was rather annoyed at me because I wouldn't
debate some unknown conspiracist on his radio show. .... But as far as
being buddy-buddy and in constant contact with Mr. Batey -- no way. It
hasn't happened. But I would wager that Mr. DiEugenio thinks otherwise.
Jim D. sees plots and devious conspiracies everywhere he looks, of
course." -- DVP
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9efb060816bb96e5
Bud
And you also, since you`ve gotten e-mail from .John.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > And our IMDB conversations were not very cordial ones either, I might add,
> > as Anton was rather annoyed at me because I wouldn't debate some unknown
> > conspiracist on his radio show (with the CTer turning out to be Tom
> > Rossley).
>
> > But as far as being buddy-buddy and in constant contact with Mr. Batey --
> > no way. It hasn't happened. But I would wager that Mr. DiEugenio thinks
> > otherwise. Jim D. sees plots and devious conspiracies everywhere he looks,
> > of course. And apparently he's now decided to focus his high-powered
> > microscope on Anton Batey, for some reason.
>
> > Mr. Batey, btw, did a nice job moderating all of these debates (below)
> > about the JFK assassination. He stayed squarely on the fence in all of
> > these programs, and just let the opponents fight their battles. In fact,
> > when listening to any of these debates from 2009 and 2010, it's very
> > difficult to determine whether Batey believes in a conspiracy in the JFK
> > case or not. He was THAT neutral in his moderation of these debates:
>
> >http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john...
>
> >http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-assassination-debate.html
John McAdams
wrote:
Looks like Jim's article is out.
What a bunch of huffing and puffing over nothing.
http://www.ctka.net/2011/batey_article.html
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "What a bunch of huffing and puffing over nothing." <<<
Yeah, I noticed it last night. I nearly fell asleep. A totally
pointless, meaningless article.
Of course, I didn't come close to reading the whole thing. (I can't
imagine anyone doing that.)
And that's only "Part 1".
Good Lord.
David Von Pein
http://www.box.net/shared/cvv5ky3y2i
Jim DiEugenio, as per his norm, read aloud on Black Op Radio pretty
much the whole Part 1 of the Anton Batey article this week (2/17/11).
I'd be surprised if Len Osanic wasn't sleeping soundly throughout most
of this one-hour segment (linked above). I didn't hear Len snoring
during the broadcast, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was.
The most hilarious part of the whole February 17th program isn't
DiEugenio's particular disagreements with Noam Chomsky or Anton Batey,
but it's the way DiEugenio mispronounces Batey's last name throughout
the entire radio segment.
I know that the mispronouncing of someone's name is a totally
unimportant matter in the grand scheme of things, but in DiEugenio's
case, it almost seems to be a chronic disease of some kind. And not
just with Anton's name. Jim mangles a lot of other names on a regular
basis too, including my own and Vincent Bugliosi's. And I have a
feeling that Jim continually distorts Bugliosi's name just out of
sheer spite. Because I know darn well he knows Vincent's "G" is
silent.
BTW, Anton Batey's last name is pronounced BAY-tee. And for
verification of that fact, all one needs to do is listen to the first
10 seconds of the 4/5/09 and 3/13/10 debates that Mr. Batey moderated
(linked below), and you'll hear Batey himself say his own name aloud
on the air. But perhaps DiEugenio doesn't think Anton knows how to
pronounce his own name.
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mcadams.html
And I know that DiEugenio listened to the April '09 debate between
John McAdams and Tom Rossley, because he has commented on how lousy
the debate and the debate format were during multiple episodes of
Black Op Radio since that debate occurred in 2009.
As for the bulk of the Batey article, it was truly a "Who Cares?" type
of article (and Black Op show) as far as I am concerned. Others are
free to disagree, of course.
But I think we all already knew that Mr. DiEugenio was very much "anti-
Chomsky", and he certainly is very much "anti-LNer" when it comes to
the topic of John Kennedy's assassination (regardless of who the lone-
assassin believer happens to be -- whether it is myself or John
McAdams or Vince Bugliosi or Anton Batey).
So, in my personal view, Part 1 of Brian Hunt's article on Batey is a
whole lot of to-do about nothing. There are always going to be
disagreements about President Kennedy's policies and intentions
regarding certain matters (such as Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, and the
Cuban Missile Crisis, et al).
It seems to be a perpetual debate that never really leads anywhere --
such as the question of "Would Kennedy have pulled entirely out of
Vietnam or not?" had he not been killed in Dallas?
The Batey article, for the most part, seems to merely be a smear piece
against Noam Chomsky. And since Batey supports many of Chomsky's
views, Batey gets smeared in the process.
Part 2 of the article should be a screamer too....as I look forward to
seeing what "connections" Brian Hunt and James DiEugenio think I
personally have to Mr. Anton Batey.
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17383&st=0&p=219819&#entry219819
JIM DiEUGENIO WROTE:
Another yawner from Mr. Irrelevant.
In Part 2 we will see why Davey Boy is up in arms about the exposure of
Anton Batey. (BTW, he used to complain that I mispronounced his name also.
WHich shows where his head is at.)
BTW, I didn't read a large part of it. Most of it I did not read at all.
There is so much Bataey screws up, or leaves out, its incredible. Sort of
like DVP on the assassination.
DVP sums up with his usual "Who cares".
RIght, who cares if:
1. Chomsky tried to cover up the Pol Pot genocide in Cambodia, one of the
worst of modern times.
2. If Chomsky tried to conceal his ties to a Holocaust denier in France.
3. In direct opposition to what he said when Stone's film came out,
Chomsky actually thought of leading an effort to reopen the JFK case in
1969, because he was convinced it was a conspiracy!
This is not important in figuring out who CHomsky is? OK, Mr. Orwell.
And Batey does not tell you any of this while quoting form his master as
if it is the Gospel truth. There's openness and honesty for you.
Like I said, we will see why DVP does not like the article in Part 2.
Anyway, as usual, Davey Boy's reaction is a direct inverse barometer to
how important an article is.
Recall, Davey used to say that BOR had all of two listeners. When in fact
Len now has thousands of listeners all over the world. And his traffic has
gone up 38% in the last month. That is how much DVP's comments on BOR are
worth.
=================================
DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:
I couldn't care less what Noam Chomsky says. I've never read anything
written by him--ever--BTW. I couldn't have even told you last week whether
or not he was an "LNer" or a "CTer" when it came to his opinions about the
JFK murder. I just don't care one way or the other.
As for Anton Batey -- his opinions are his own, and he has every right to
them, and he every right to speak them freely (on YouTube, or wherever).
As does Chomsky, of course.
BTW 2 -- I have never once talked about any of the details concerning the
JFK assassination with Anton Batey. Never once.
Now, call me a liar, DiEugenio. I dare ya.