McADAMS VS. ROSSLEY DEBATE (VIA YOU TUBE)
David Von Pein
4/5/09 JFK-assassination debate between John McAdams and Tom Rossley
(via host Anton Batey's YouTube channel):
www.youtube.com/profile?user=AntonBatey&view=videos&query=jfk+assassination+mcadams
David Von Pein
www.youtube.com/profile?user=AntonBatey&view=videos&query=jfk+assassination+mcadams
COMMENTS ABOUT THE TOM ROSSLEY/JOHN McADAMS RADIO DEBATE ON WHPR-RADIO
(HIGHLAND PARK, MICHIGAN) ON APRIL 5, 2009:
First off -- great job! Both of you. It was cordial, but still hard-
hitting in many spots from both participants. It was really a pleasure
to listen to. I enjoyed the whole thing.
And kudos to the host, Anton Batey, who I think did a very good job of
moderating and asking some good questions that covered a wide variety
of areas. And additional kudos to Anton for also riding the fence very
nicely too. He certainly did not show any bias whatsoever toward one
side or the other. Excellent job.
RANDOM OBSERVATIONS:
The biggest oversight on Prof. McAdams' part, IMO, was when the "back
and to the left" topic cropped up a couple of times during the
debate...with Prof. McAdams not ONCE mentioning the initial FORWARD
movement of President Kennedy's head on the Zapruder Film at the
critical moment of impact when Oswald's bullet was crashing into the
back of JFK's head.
Now, it's possible that John did mention the forward head movement in
the UNCUT debate (which, as I understand it from Tom Rossley, was 3
hours and 20 minutes in total length, which was then edited down by
Anton Batey to 1 hour and 45 minutes for the 11-part YouTube version
linked above).
So, I suppose perhaps a mention of the initial forward movement of
JFK's head could have been mentioned by John and then subsequently cut
out of Anton's trimmed-down version.
But I think that John McAdams would agree that any discussion about
the movements of JFK's head during the key head-shot frames of the
Zapruder Film should certainly include some remarks about the very
important forward movement of the President's head at the critical
IMPACT point.
Tom Rossley, who is (as everyone with a brain here knows full well) a
conspiracy-loving kook of the very first order (hey, why mince words,
right? the guy's nuts), came up with a brand-new crackpot idea
regarding Governor John Connally's wounds that I don't think I have
ever heard any other conspiracy theorist dish up in the past -- and
that's when Tom stated during the WHPR radio debate that Governor
Connally had NOT been shot in the back by a bullet at all....but,
instead, had been shot in the CHEST from the FRONT by a bullet. And
this bullet evidently exited the UPPER BACK of John B. Connally.
Now that's a hot (new) one on me!
Maybe Tom has proposed that nutsville theory here at these Internet
forums in the past, but I sure don't recall reading it.
Tom bases his "Connally Was Shot In The Chest" nuttiness on the
initial news reports (and some statements by Connally's doctor that
Rossley has totally misinterpreted, as per the kook's norm) that said
that Connally had, indeed, been shot "in the chest".
But even a first-grader should be able to figure this one out -- it's
obvious that the initial "shot in the chest" reports (which were
stated on national TV, no doubt about that) were erroneous and were,
in large part being based on the area of Connally's body where some
witnesses observed the most blood pouring out of the Governor--which
was, of course, in his chest.
This "in the chest" nonsense is very similar in nature to the
erroneous early reports (like Bill Newman's) which stated that JFK had
been shot "in the temple".
Since the temple area at the RIGHT-FRONT of Kennedy's head (i.e., the
EXIT point for Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet) was the place where
witnesses, naturally, saw all of the blood on the President, they
incorrectly asserted that Kennedy had been shot IN the "temple" area.
But, quite obvious, Newman nor anyone else in Dealey Plaza could have
possibly seen the exact ENTRY HOLE on Kennedy's head to make a
conclusive determination about where precisely the point of entry was
located on JFK's head.
Back to Connally's "chest" for a moment longer -- It appears then, per
Mr. Rossley, that apparently the gunman who fired that bullet into
Connally's chest from the front must have been lying on the
floorboards of the limousine (seeing as how such a bullet would have
been moving UPWARD through Governor Connally's body, per Rossley's
impossible theory).
Maybe Brian David Andersen (author of the JFK fantasy book "My God,
I'm Hit!") was right after all. Maybe there WAS a secret compartment
somewhere in the President's SS-100-X limousine where a midget shooter
could hide himself and from where he could have popped up and fired
some bullets at JBC and JFK on November 22nd.
And Rossley thinks that Connally's chest wound was SMALLER than JBC's
back wound. More fantasy from Conspiracist Tom, I see.
Of course, as we all know, Dr. Shaw (one of Connally's surgeons at
Parkland Hospital) appeared on live television within hours of the
shooting on 11/22/63 and told the world that Connally had very likely
been struck by only "one" bullet, with that bullet positively coming
from behind Governor Connally, with the back wound being undeniably a
wound of ENTRY, not exit.
For Rossley to go on the radio and actually make the absurd claim that
John Connally's chest wound was a wound of ENTRY is beyond ridiculous
(given the mountains of evidence indicating just exactly the opposite)
-- it's insane.
So, Rossley's got Kennedy AND Connally being shot from the front -- a
sort of "SBT in reverse", it would seem (although Rossley thinks they
were hit by separate FRONTAL bullets; and Rossley also has Connally
being hit by TWO bullets, which means his anti-SBT theory has to
account for FOUR disappearing bullets, in order to replace the SBT's
one single bullet). LOL.
Like always, a conspiracy kook has everything 100% backwards.
Another "new one" that I had never once heard before was when Tom
Rossley said that there's evidence of some kind to indicate that Dan
Rather was in Jack Ruby's Carousel Club on Thursday, November 21st
(the night before the assassination), and that Rather saw Lee Oswald
together with Ruby that night.
Well, just as I thought, Mr. Rossley has misrepresented the crux and
meat of this misunderstanding regarding Dan Rather. It took me just a
couple of minutes to clear up this matter in my own mind, via taking a
look at Warren Commission Exhibit #2983 (linked below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0259a.htm
As we can easily see in CE2983, it was a simple mix-up regarding WHO
it was who claimed to have seen Oswald in the Carousel Club. That
Commission Exhibit clears it up nicely, with the end result being that
Dan Rather never claimed to have seen Oswald at the Carousel Club at
all. Instead, it was Bill DeMar (an entertainer who occasionally
worked for Ruby at the Carousel) who said he might very well have seen
Oswald in the audience one night at some time prior to the
assassination.
Also -- CE2983 mentions nothing about the exact DATE when DeMar
supposedly saw Oswald there, which means Rossley is stretching the
truth once again when Tom said that Rather supposedly saw LHO at
Ruby's club on 11/21/63.
In addition, CE2983 says absolutely nothing about DeMar (or Rather)
having seen Oswald TOGETHER WITH RUBY at any time prior to November
22nd. That exhibit only mentions a potential Oswald sighting, but
nothing about Oswald and Ruby being seen TOGETHER at any point in
time.
And in Dan Rather's televised interview with Bill DeMar on November
24, 1963 (which is currently available to watch in its entirety on my
YouTube channel), DeMar doesn't mention a thing about Oswald being
WITH RUBY when DeMar supposedly saw LHO in the Carousel. In fact,
DeMar says exactly the opposite when asked about it by Dan Rather,
indicating that Oswald was positively NOT with Ruby in the club.
DeMar merely said that he thought Oswald was "in the audience" during
one of DeMar's performances at the Carousel at some point prior to
November 22nd.
So, once again, Rossley is stretching the facts to the breaking point
to meet his pro-conspiracy requirements. As always.
Another great "Rossley Moment Of Hilarity" during the radio debate was
when Tom R. declared that the negative paraffin test result on Lee
Harvey Oswald's cheek meant (conclusively!) that Oswald positively did
not fire a rifle on November 22, 1963.
Rossley, naturally, totally discounts two critical facts regarding
paraffin tests when he declares Oswald to be completely innocent of
assassinating JFK based on just the negative paraffin result to LHO's
cheek, to wit:
Tom, even though he says otherwise, disregards the fact that paraffin
tests are wholly unreliable (as testified to by multiple law-
enforcement officials after the assassination).
As Prof. McAdams explained to Rossley during the radio debate, the
main reason that police departments even use the paraffin test at all
is mainly for "intimidation" purposes (at least in circa 1963 at any
rate). The police hope they can trick a suspect (although I think Mr.
McAdams used the wrong word in the debate when he said "witness"
instead of "suspect") into a confession through the use of such a test
(and, similarly, with the use of the lie detector test as well).
Plus, as Mr. Rossley should know full well, the FBI did tests with
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination, with an FBI
agent being given a paraffin test very shortly after firing multiple
shots from CE139 (Oswald's very own rifle), with that test resulting
in a "negative" reading for nitrates on BOTH the agent's hands and
CHEEK.
Therefore, via such a test conducted by the FBI, we KNOW that a FALSE
NEGATIVE is possible. And yet Mr. Rossley has the gall to declare that
Oswald never fired a rifle on 11/22/63 based solely on the results of
the paraffin test.
And here's another lulu from the lips of veteran assassination
researcher (and mega-kook galore) Thomas Rossley --- Tom suggested to
the radio audience that Oswald couldn't possibly have used his Italian
miltary Carcano rifle to murder John F. Kennedy in November of 1963
because he had no bullets available to put into his Carcano in
November of 1963 (alluding to the silly factoid about how the
manufacturing of MC ammunition had been discontinued years prior to
1963)!
How about that, folks?
Of course, to a reasonable person looking into JFK's assassination, it
becomes rather obvious that since Oswald purchased his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle from a mail-order firm in Chicago, Illinois, in March of
1963 (Klein's Sporting Goods Co.)....it stands to reason that Klein's
Sporting Goods Company was probably not selling rifles to customers if
NO AMMUNITION FOR THOSE RIFLES WAS READILY AVAILABLE!
I guess Rossley wants to believe that Klein's was advertising (and
selling) WW2 Army surplus Carcano rifles to the public -- but nobody
could ever hope to use these rifles because no ammo could be purchased
to put into these guns!
But (again) to a reasonable person, a different truth emerges -- i.e.,
Klein's was selling people Mannlicher-Carcanos via mail-order, so it's
quite obvious that bullets for those Carcanos was certainly available
to purchase.
In fact, in the very same magazine ad that Oswald used to purchase his
rifle, Klein's also offered the ammunition for that rifle (108 rounds
for $7.50):
The above February 1963 magazine ad is the one that Oswald used to
order his rifle. The advertisement below is the similar November 1963
Klein's ad, which also features the "6.5 Italian Carbine", and the one
linked below shows (in easier-to-read blow-up form) the area of the ad
which offers "6.5MM ITALIAN MILITARY AMMO; 108 ROUNDS; 6-SHOT CLIP
FREE; $7.50" (and the exact same "ammo" purchasing option can also be
seen at the bottom of the February '63 ad that Oswald used):
Oswald decided not to spend the extra $7.50 for the bullets when he
ordered his rifle and scope from Klein's in March of '63, but it's
fairly obvious that Carcano bullets WERE being made available to
customers by Klein's in 1963.
Oswald must have purchased his bullets someplace other than Klein's;
but if Klein's had the ammo available in 1963, it stands to reason
that other places had them for sale as well.
Rossley no doubt disagrees. But such is the way with conspiracy-happy
theorists. They'll grasp for any crazy straw they can latch onto...all
the while throwing ordinary common sense out the window in the
process.
Debate Winner -- Professor John McAdams (naturally).
David Von Pein
April 9, 2009
David Von Pein
Addendum/Correction:
When I said this above....
"So, Rossley's got Kennedy AND Connally being shot from the
front -- a sort of "SBT in reverse", it would seem (although Rossley
thinks they were hit by separate FRONTAL bullets; and Rossley also has
Connally being hit by TWO bullets, which means his anti-SBT theory has
to account for FOUR disappearing bullets, in order to replace the
SBT's one single bullet)."
....I was slightly in error, because I just remembered that Rossley
only needs a mere THREE bullets to replace the SBT, and that's because
Rossley believes (and said so during the 4/5/09 radio debate) that the
shot that he says hit JFK in his throat from the front EXITED the
President's upper back and then struck the pavement on Elm Street.
But even a "mere" 3-bullet SBT replacement is absurd and everyone with
some common sense should know why.
David Von Pein
The host/moderator of the 4/5/09 McAdams/Rossley debate, Anton Batey,
wanted me to inform people that he plans on posting the entire uncut
debate sometime soon.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e9d14602-1b1d-43be...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> The host/moderator of the 4/5/09 McAdams/Rossley debate, Anton Batey,
> wanted me to inform people that he plans on posting the entire uncut
> debate sometime soon.
That Grave will be BIG Enough for ALL of you LN's.
justm...@gmail.com
Does that mean he'll post the parts where he was trying to control his
laughter at Rossleys comments?
snl1...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Didn't anyone hear Tom "get excited" during part 5, at 9:32? Tom
gets so excited that he can't even talk, then, you hear a strange
sound with regard to his voice, and he comes back saying "Excuse me, I
get excited! "
justm...@gmail.com
He was agitated right from the start....he used the same lines he uses
in his paltalk chat room when someone enters...plugging his website,
like a broken record. Right away accusing everyone of being felons
LOL.....45 years and he's like a senile parrot....it's too bad Polly
never gave him a cracker and shut him up
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0923f055-6f58-42e9...@o18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for bringing that up.
I got word that Four employees who were in the Studio were laughing their
asses off at McAdams.
They couldn't believe that he teaches at the University level or, ANY school
level.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
There's your Laugh Loser.
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d83300b9-e8ba-4dd2...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Hey, the Rock 'n Roll Drummer is back.
I didn't see you sneak in.
How's about YOU "Pinch-Hitting" for McAdams next time???
If either of you were ever in my chat room you used Criminal Aliases.
It's understandable being ASHAMED of using your own names.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
<snl1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:67fca28f-f6a7-4b7b...@r28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Have you gotten married yet steve????
What do you think of the testimony that Oswald SOLD a rifle steve???
snl1...@yahoo.com
> <snl141...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wouldn't you like to know? Mrs. Barber says hello!
>
> What do you think of the testimony that Oswald SOLD a rifle steve???
I don't!
snl1...@yahoo.com
> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d83300b9-e8ba-4dd2...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 10, 9:29 pm, snl141...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 9:13 pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 5:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The host/moderator of the 4/5/09 McAdams/Rossley debate, Anton Batey,
> > > > wanted me to inform people that he plans on posting the entire uncut
> > > > debate sometime soon.
>
> > > Does that mean he'll post the parts where he was trying to control his
> > > laughter at Rossleys comments?
>
> > Didn't anyone hear Tom "get excited" during part 5, at 9:32? Tom
> > gets so excited that he can't even talk, then, you hear a strange
> > sound with regard to his voice, and he comes back saying "Excuse me, I
> > get excited! "
>
> He was agitated right from the start....he used the same lines he uses
> in his paltalk chat room when someone enters...plugging his website,
> like a broken record. Right away accusing everyone of being felons
> LOL.....45 years and he's like a senile parrot....it's too bad Polly
> never gave him a cracker and shut him up
>
> Hey, the Rock 'n Roll Drummer is back.
>
> I didn't see you sneak in.
Don't you wish?
>
> How's about YOU "Pinch-Hitting" for McAdams next time???
Someone worthy of my time, and I would be happy to! You certainly
don't fit that description.
>
> If either of you were ever in my chat room you used Criminal Aliases.
Don't flatter yourself, Tom. I'm not interested, nor have I ever
been, in your "chat room".
snl1...@yahoo.com
> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Funny...I heard directly from Anton, a completely different story.
aeffects
sure you did Steve-o......
YoHarvey
What do you think of the testimony that Oswald SOLD a rifle steve???
An absolute and blatant lie by Rossley..............again.
snl1...@yahoo.com
David Von Pein
WHPR Radio Debate (John McAdams vs. Tom Rossley); April 5, 2009;
Unedited audio version linked below:
PART 1 -- http://RapidShare.com/files/219864254/FULL1.mp3.html
PART 2 -- http://RapidShare.com/files/219903064/FULL2.mp3.html
bigdog
Sounds like Rossley was choking the chicken during the debate.
tomnln
see>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/_glenn_emmett_smith.htm
see>>>
David Von Pein
FYI---
The link below can serve to replace all of the various links from earlier in this thread that are now dead (re: McAdams' 2009 debate with Retard Rossley)----
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mcadams.html
tom...@cox.net
> FYI---
>
> This link should replace all the various links from earlier in this post
> that are all now dead (re: McAdams' 2009 debate with Retard Rossley)----
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mca
> dams.html
===========================================================================
==="featuring john mCadams? ? ? ?
in 5 and 1/2 hours he never gave a single citations i mopped the fucking
floor with that stupid criminal bastard not to mention that you yourself
refused to accept anton batey's invitation to debate ! ! ! becaue you also
know nothing about official evidence/testimony or, you also are just
another criminal in on the cover-up ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
