www.JusticeForKennedy.blogspot.com/2009/10/tip-of-hat.html

      "Kudos to Jim DiEugenio for "debating" John McAdams on the JFK
assassination on Black Op Radio. I put debate in quotes as McAdams is
just way too silly. He arrogantly talks down to us, and with a lisp
yet! Jim's knowledge of the case was superb, and I salute how he
handled himself, he kept his cool, knew his facts, and didn't get
angry. Well done, Jim!" -- JFK Conspiracy Theorist Joseph Backes;
October 10, 2009

==================

Of course, as usual, a conspiracy theorist has everything backwards
and upside-down. Fact is, James DiEugenio lost his "cool" on a couple
of occasions during the 4-hour Black Op Radio debate, and on one
occasion in particular during Part 2 of the debate on October 8, 2009,
when DiEugenio claimed that Professor John McAdams didn't have his
facts straight. Jim was practically shouting during that particular
segment.

Mr. McAdams, on the other hand, kept his "cool" throughout the entire
four hours, never once even raising his voice in response to
DiEugenio's avalanche of conspiracy-flavored nonsense.

I doubt that I could have remained as cool and composed as Mr. McAdams
if it were I who had been confronted with DiEugenio's non-stop parade
of conjecture and speculation about how Jim believes that virtually
every piece of evidence in the whole JFK case had been faked or
mishandled or "covered up" to hide the truth, etc.

I salute Mr. McAdams and his iron composure while debating someone who
is actually silly enough to believe that all of the following things
are true:

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot John F. Kennedy.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot J.D. Tippit.

3.) The backyard photographs showing Oswald holding Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle #C2766 are not genuine photos (i.e., those pictures are
"fakes").

4.) FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was part of a massive cover-up after
JFK's assassination.*

* = DiEugenio, incredibly, doesn't seem to realize that Hoover would
probably be one of the VERY LAST PEOPLE on the planet in November 1963
who would want to be involved in a cover-up in order to frame Lee
Harvey Oswald as the sole assassin of President Kennedy.

Hoover knew his Federal Bureau of Investigation would take a severe
public beating when it was discovered that the FBI had been keeping
tabs on Oswald weeks prior to the assassination.

So why on this Earth would Hoover then want to engage in a cover-up to
try and make an INNOCENT Oswald look guilty?! If anything, Hoover
would have been doing just the opposite in 1963 -- he would have been
bending over backwards trying to prove that Oswald was completely
innocent.

Or does DiEugenio think that Hoover WANTED to give his precious Bureau
a permanent black eye by having people say what many people have been
saying since 1963? -- I.E., "Hoover's FBI is to blame for JFK's death
because they knew Oswald was in Dallas and they should have been
watching him more closely".

It's just crazy to think that J. Edgar Hoover--OF ALL PEOPLE!--would
be wanting to frame or railroad Oswald for JFK's assassination. That's
nutty talk.

And because what I just said about J. Edgar Hoover is so obviously
(and logically) true, it makes Part 7 of DiEugenio's review of Vincent
Bugliosi's book a total waste of time and effort:

www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_7_review.html

I could add about 36 more items of silliness to my above list of
really stupid things that DiEugenio believes, but any reasonable
person undoubtedly gets my point after just revealing the above four
items of outright idiocy.

To repeat, my August 2009 prediction about the McAdams/DiEugenio
debate turned out to be 100% accurate. Maybe I'm related to Kreskin:

      "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. ....

      "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

www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417...

=====================================

THE McADAMS/DiEUGENIO DEBATE (TOP 4 LINKS):

www.Box.net//static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&v=1