RADIO DEBATE -- JOHN McADAMS VS. JAMES DiEUGENIO
David Von Pein
JFK conspiracy theorist (and Jim Garrison supporter) James DiEugenio
squared off against lone-assassin believer John McAdams in Part 1 of a
radio debate on Len Osanic's "Black Op Radio" program on Thursday
evening, September 24, 2009 (linked above).
The debate is scheduled to continue for another couple of hours on the
October 1, 2009, "Black Op" show. If you're reading this archived post
after 10/1/09, the audio links to Part 2 of the debate are available
at the link below:
www.Box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r
The 2-hour "Part 1" of the DiEugenio/McAdams debate contained some
pretty basic stuff associated with the 1963 assassination of President
John F. Kennedy, with all of the expected responses from both
participants. The questions that the debaters were confronted with are
outlined at the "BlackOpForum" link below:
www.BlackOpForum.info/index.php/topic,379.0.html
The best part of the debate was when Professor McAdams asked the Black
Op listeners (just as he had done during another radio debate against
conspiracist Tom Rossley on April 5, 2009) to please take note of all
of the many people and groups whom Jim DiEugenio has accused of being
involved in some kind of "plot" or "cover-up" relating to the JFK case
-- e.g., the autopsy doctors, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the
Dallas Police Department (and just about everybody and anybody in-
between who had any "official" connection in any way to the
investigation of President Kennedy's murder).
As Mr. McAdams said a few times during the 9/24/09 debate when
responding to DiEugenio's silliness and "factoids" -- it's "absurd".
My second favorite portion of the debate was when Jim DiEugenio
admitted that he believed Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of killing
Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit. Such a misguided belief definitely
places Mr. DiEugenio in the "Kook" category for all time.
As it turns out, my predictions from one month ago concerning the
debate's likely outcome have proven to be perfectly accurate. Here's
what I said in two separate Internet posts in August 2009:
"Jim DiEugenio couldn't possibly win a debate about the JFK
assassination, because he believes in stuff that never happened (such
as his belief that some kind of "New Orleans plot" was afoot to kill
John Kennedy in the summer and fall of 1963).
"Furthermore, DiEugenio sinks even further into the CT Abyss
when he makes silly statements like this one below, which appears in
"Part 5b" of his review of Bugliosi's book:
"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly
on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio
"And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was,
indeed, being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in
advance of the assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose
"patsy" plot apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall
guy is wandering around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though
the conspirators are planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper).
Brilliant, huh?
"In short, John McAdams (or any LNer) could be half asleep and
still rip DiEugenio (or any CTer) to pieces in a Kennedy-assassination
debate. Of course, it's really always been that way. But CTers,
naturally, would be of the opinion that DiEugenio won the debate after
it took place. And, as usual, they will be 100% incorrect in that
opinion." -- DVP; August 19, 2009
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b938763feab9f12e
=========================
"Every CTer is going to declare DiEugenio the "winner" of the
debate by a mile, while all the LNers (including myself, guaranteed)
will declare McAdams the victor. No doubt about that. In fact, I've
already declared Prof. McAdams the winner (just as Jim DiEugenio
predicted I would do on the 8/20/09 Black Op show).
"And the reason I can be so sure of that foregone conclusion is
quite simple -- it's because I already know the stuff that McAdams
will be saying when countering all of DiEugenio's pro-CT bullshit.
It's all been said thousands of times by many LNers in the past.
"McAdams will talk in a common-sense manner, and he will cite
the actual, factual evidence of Lee Oswald's sole guilt in the JFK and
Tippit murders, [while] DiEugenio will claim that none of the factual
evidence against Lee Oswald can be trusted. It's all either "fake",
"fraudulent", "manufactured", "mysterious", "questionable", or
"tainted" in some manner. EVERY single rock-solid piece of evidence
against Oswald will be declared null & void by DiEugenio. Wait and
see.
"DiEugenio will undoubtedly spout off something about the
supposed "New Orleans" plot to kill President Kennedy, with the names
"Shaw", "Ferrie", and "Banister" rising to the surface (even though
Jim Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was a total failure, but
DiEugenio doesn't give a damn about that fact, so Jim D. will still
pretend that there's actually some definitive evidence of some kind
with which he can still prop up King Kook Garrison 40 years after
Garrison knowingly prosecuted an innocent man for conspiracy to commit
murder). ....
"Final Results -- Since McAdams has ALL of the hard evidence
(and DiEugenio has absolutely none)....John McAdams will win the
debate. That is a foregone conclusion (unless the unthinkable happens,
and Prof. McAdams decides to switch over to the CT side before
debating Jimmy D.; and I doubt that's going to happen)." -- DVP;
August 21, 2009
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d89c3f37af584baf
=========================
BACK TO THE PRESENT DAY (9/26/09):
Regarding Jim DiEugenio's belief that an assassination plot against
JFK was hatched in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 (with David
Ferrie, Guy Banister, and Clay Shaw evidently being the top three
"conspirators"), I will again repeat the following common-sense
question that I first posed in July 2009 (which is a question that no
conspiracy theorist, including James DiEugenio, can possibly answer
without being forced to fall back on 100% pure speculation and
unsupportable guesswork):
"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of
this particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a
true fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New
Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with
in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy
Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving
that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY
WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER
22, 1963.
"And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because
(once Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a
shred of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals
to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy
in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.
"Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63
indicates that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would
still be true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three
previously-named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and
Banister).
"In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE
and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the
grand leap from this:
""LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY
BANISTER",
"....to this:
""SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY"?
"Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of
ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental
leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly,
monumentally ridiculous." -- David Von Pein; July 31, 2009
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/af30e9a70409f7c1
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
aeffects
<snip the nutter-troll nonsense>
entire class wrote the review, eh shithead? ROTFLMFAO!
--and--
No fucking advertising shithead! Your EGO that far out-of-control?
Geeeeesh!
David Von Pein
www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1185.msg16089.html#msg16089
www.Box.net//static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r
>>> "I was surprised that McAdams did not know apparently of the 3 paper bags." <<<
Jim DiEugenio, like most conspiracists, enjoys basking in conspiracy-
tinged speculation, such as with the "paper bag" issue. Jim evidently
thinks that fellow CTer Pat Speer has proven that the bag that L.D.
Montgomery of the DPD carried out of the TSBD on the afternoon of
JFK's assassination (as seen in photographs) is not and could not be
the same bag as the "Sniper's Nest" bag that is currently in evidence
(which is CE142).
Pat Speer, of course, couldn't be more wrong on this issue, as he is
attempting to do something with 2-dimensional photographs that simply
cannot be done -- he's attempting to extract 3-dimensional information
from a 2D picture. Ask anyone who knows a lot about photo analysis and
photogrammetry (Dale Myers comes to mind), and they'll tell you how
hopeless such an endeavor truly is:
"I don’t know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this
way -- no one can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding
a ruler or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer
monitor. The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology
leads to false results." -- Dale K. Myers; August 20, 2008
www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm
But DiEugenio WANTS to believe that there was some "mystery bag"
removed from the Depository, and Pat Speer's incorrect photo analysis
serves Jim's purpose just fine, thank you.
In reality, of course, there were TWO paper bags that were assigned
"CE" numbers by the Warren Commission in 1964 -- CE142 (which is the
bag seen in the Sniper's Nest by policemen Carl Day and Bob
Studebaker, with Lt. Day's handwritten notations appearing on that
bag):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0269a.jpg
And there is CE364:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0492b.jpg
CE364 is a "replica" bag that was made by the FBI at the TSBD on
December 1, 1963. And the reason for the replica bag being created was
fully and logically explained by James Cadigan of the FBI during his
Warren Commission testimony:
JAMES CADIGAN -- "Commission Exhibit 364...is a paper sack similar to
Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book
Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas
to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was
dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they
thought...it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask, "Did you see a
bag like that?", so they went to the Texas School Book Depository and
constructed from paper and tape a similar bag."
I've gone a few rounds with Pat Speer on a similar (but not identical)
JFK-assassination sub-topic concerning the "paper bag". Here are two
examples:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d226a67106841c38
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61bd2fadc9a53517
MORE "DEBATE" NOTES:
Jim DiEugenio sounded especially ridiculous when he said to the Black
Op Radio audience (during his 9/24/09 debate with John McAdams) that
there were "three autopsies" performed on President Kennedy's body.
DiEugenio apparently thinks that when the Clark Panel was assembled to
study the autopsy photos and X-rays in 1968, this qualified as an
extra "autopsy" being done on JFK's body. Of course, as usual, Jim D.
is off the rails of reality when he implied such a nonsensical thing.
The Clark Panel was created so that four pathologists could examine
JFK's autopsy photos and X-rays, with the Panel then writing a report
as to what information was revealed in those pictures and X-rays. And
the Clark Panel did just that, reaching the only conclusion they could
possibly reach, and that is: JFK was shot only TWO times, with both
bullets entering Kennedy's body from BEHIND.
The Clark Panel also clarified the location of the entry wound in
JFK's head, with the Panel (again) coming to the only possible
rational conclusion in that regard too -- i.e., the entry wound was
located high on Kennedy's head, near the cowlick area. And this
declaration, per DiEugenio's way of thinking, means that the Clark
boys performed another "autopsy" on the President. LOL.
More Laughs:
DiEugenio slipped ever deeper into "kook" territory when he declared
that it was his belief that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the gunman who
murdered Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit. I was smiling ear to ear
when I heard Mr. DiEugenio say that on 9/24/09.
Prior to that specific date of 9/24/09, I hadn't actually heard Jim D.
come right out and say that he thought Oswald was innocent of Tippit's
murder (in addition to LHO being innocent of JFK's assassination too;
Jim, incredibly, evidently thinks that Oswald didn't shoot anybody on
11/22/63).
So it was nice to be able to hear DiEugenio himself say that he
believes Oswald didn't shoot Tippit (although Jim almost certainly HAS
said it before September 2009, either on radio or TV or somewhere
within his written articles and books, but I had not been aware of it
prior to 9/24/09), because such a belief will forever ensure his
enrollment in the "Anybody But Oswald" Kook Club. And that particular
type of horribly-misguided "ABO" conspiracy theorist is always super-
easy to combat and dismantle....because his "ABO" beliefs are so
totally silly (and provably wrong) right from the get-go.
================================================
QUOTING McADAMS:
"I want the listeners to start making a count of the number of
people that, if you believe Jim [DiEugenio], had to be involved with
faking evidence. What he said about [Silvia] Duran was just absurd."
[Later....]
"I'm just sitting here doing a count of the number of evil
conspirators in Jim's theory, and of course it includes all the
autopsists, it includes everybody who worked for the House Select
Committee and every other panel, and now it includes the Dallas
Police.
"For example, he talks about the paper bag. .... He doesn't
mention that Oswald's palmprint and a fingerprint were found on that
bag. So the [allegation of the] bag in evidence being different from
the bag brought out from the Depository, I'm afraid that's just
crackpot photo analysis along the lines that Jack White would probably
do." -- John McAdams; September 24, 2009
================================================
ADDITIONAL "DEBATE" TALK:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/11dad392a41571cb
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
================================================
blaz...@gmail.com
blaz...@gmail.com
lazu...@gmail.com
Jason Burke
you think, lazboy?
And you *still* failed miserably.
lazu...@gmail.com
lazu...@gmail.com
Jason Burke
Even if there *was* a conspiracy, a moron like you couldn't find it.
Can you piss by yourself? Or do you still need mommy's help?