McAdams' question for DiEugenio
davidemerling
Here's Professor McAdams' question for DiEugenio - which I believe is
excellent:
McAdams: "Have you ever counted how many people you think must be lying
scum, involved in the cover-up, that is to say, it's been quite clear that
you think a very large portion of the FBI is ... a very large portion of
the CIA is ... that multiple, of the Dallas cops are ... that the whole
House Select Committee on Assassinations is ... that the whole Warren
Commission was ... if I mention the Rockefeller Commission, we haven't
talked about that, you doubt would include them, too. I'm sure you believe
there has been a media cover-up. I mean, give me an estimate - how many
people? First of all, how many people involved in the assassination
conspiracy, and, number two, how many people involved in a cover-up?"
(In my opinion, a very fair question that really hits at the heart of the
ridiculous and improbable nature of DiEugenio's wild theories. At a
minimum, DiEugenio could have acknowledged that he DOES believe that all
these organizations were involved. But that would just sound stupid - and
he knows it. It is much easier to conduct your attack on these
individuals/organizations/committees in a piecemeal fashion because any
juxtaposition of ALL these attacks makes it look foolish.)
(DiEugenio's response:
DiEugenio: "Well, I never met made ... you're the one making these
claims."
(Huh? Surely he is not denying that he [DiEugenio] has not consistently
accused all these organizations of multiple wrongdoings at nearly every
turn. But - apparently he is.)
DiEugenio: "OK - I have never specified how many people I thought were
involved in the conspiracy and how many people ran along with the
cover-up."
(Exactly - but that's the question! I think, at a minimum, it would be
fair for DiEugenio to acknowledge that McAdams was correct in citing all
the organizations that have been included in the assassination/ cover-up.
But DiEugenio is not going to say that because, as I said, it sounds
stupid to say it in that manner. It is much easier to do your attack in
pieces because, if done in whole, it just sounds ridiculous.)
DiEugenio: "OK - all I do is present evidence. OK - and the listener makes
up his mind, 'Is that genuine evidence or is it not?' If it's not genuine
evidence, you know, like the Walker bullet changing its color, shape and,
you know, and caliber - OK, then you have to question it. And who was in
charge there? The FBI."
(At least we're getting somewhere. DiEugenio is acknowledging that the FBI
was involved in the assassination/cover-up.)
DiEugenio: "See - but I think this dodges the question."
(Wait a minute! But that *IS* the question! DiEugenio wants to answer a
different question. So, he redefines it just as many politicians do when
asked a difficult question. But listen to the harangue DiEugenio is about
ready to launch. He completely VALIDATES the very point McAdams was
making.)
DiEugenio: "Henry Wade was exposed by Craig Watkins in 2006 and 2007 as
being the master of frame-ups in the Dallas police force. They've gone
through 20 cases that have now been reversed - more than any other city -
almost more than any other state - in which Henry Wade sent people to jail
who were innocent. Now, on another website Mr. McAdams has, he's all for
capital punishment. God knows how many of those people would be dead, who
were innocent, if Mr. McAdams had his way. But, to Mr. McAdams, anybody
who is indicted, you know, has to be guilty. OK - well, Craig Watkins has
reversed that and he's not even halfway done yet."
(This reminds me of that scene in the movie "Animal House" where the Delta
House fraternity is in front of an administrative review board to consider
removing their charter for misconduct. After ample evidence of their
misconduct is presented, the Delta House president changes the subject by
suggesting that the board's accusations are an indictment of America.
"Well - you can do what you want to us - but we won't sit here and listen
to you badmouth the United States of America." They then all march out of
the room humming the national anthem. McAdams asks DiEugenio to delineate
the people/organizations involved in the assassination and, within 60
seconds DiEugenio has not- so-deftly tried to turn this into some kind of
McAdams-likes-to-kill- innocent-people issue. WTF? But there's more ...)
DiEugenio: "Now, if you're going to talk about J. Edgar Hoover, I mean
really, I mean this is a ridiculous question. The number of people that J.
Edgar Hoover, you know, convicted or ramrodded or framed - who ended up
being, you know, innocent ... He even used a professional perjurer - a guy
named Harvey Matusow, who confessed years later, 'I was an FBI agent and I
made up stuff on the stand.' Now, to go through all the cases that J.
Edgar Hoover, you know, was involved in, you know, from the beginning -
the Palmer Raids ... this guy ripped people out of their homes and then
planted agent provocateurs in their houses - in 1919! So, please, don't
tell me J. Edgar Hoover is as pure as the driven snow. And everybody knows
that you went along with Hoover or you got canned. There's been Harry
Whidbey (sp?), told Anthony Summers, he goes 'I'm ashamed of what we did
on the JFK case. I send in reports, OK, they were rewritten. So I got the
message that we're not supposed to investigate this case.' - and for the
motive that I said earlier. The idea that the Warren Commission would not
go along with Hoover is ridiculous because if they did not go along with
Hoover they had nobody to investigate the case. Because Warren did not
want to have private investigators. I mean, in a bureaucracy you either go
along or you get out."
* * * * *
There's more to DiEugenio's harangue - you can listen to it for yourself.
I think DiEugenio thought he was dodging the question when, in fact, he
unwittingly substantiated the very point McAdams was making regarding his
wild theories. As I've always said, "If you're dealing with a fringe
conspiracy advocate (as DiEugenio certainly is) - give them room to talk
and talk and talk. Because the more they do, the more paranoid,
distrusting, and cynical they become - to an unreasonable degree."
Notice how DiEugenio chose to speak more about issues OTHER than the
Kennedy assassination. He wanted to talk about OTHER people who were
framed in Texas. He wanted to talk about OTHER people who were dealt with
unjustly by J. Edgar Hoover. He wanted to talk about the Palmer Raids and
who lied in OTHER cases. This is what CTers do - then then extrapolate
this into the Kennedy assassination with their broad brush. And, in the
process, they ignore the hard evidence staring them in the face.
* * * * *
Then DiEugenio was given the opportunity to ask McAdams ANY question he
wanted. Of all the pertinent things to discuss with regards to the Kennedy
assassination, DiEugenio selects the most minuscule, insignificant,
innocuous point, intended, obviously, to try to embarrass McAdams. I was
hoping for something a bit more profound and pertinent. This was very
consistent with the CTer modus operandi, "Why deal with the message when
dealing with the messenger is so much easier?"
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
>
> I think DiEugenio thought he was dodging the question when, in fact, he
> unwittingly substantiated the very point McAdams was making regarding his
> wild theories. As I've always said, "If you're dealing with a fringe
> conspiracy advocate (as DiEugenio certainly is) - give them room to talk
> and talk and talk. Because the more they do, the more paranoid,
> distrusting, and cynical they become - to an unreasonable degree."
>
As the old saying goes, "Give a man enough rope...".
Thalia
You guys, as usual, do not seem to have any understanding of how power
and authority operates. My personal opinion is that Lone Nutters tend
to be authoritarian personalities types - all people in authority are
good and beyond approach, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Political pressure is non-existant, and "good" people stand up to
"evil" people at all times. Fear never comes into play. Highlighting
how J. Edgar Hoover, and other FBI agents, behaved in that era (I mean
the FBI director blackmailed people for crying out loud) demonstrates
that the FBI is not beyond reproach, and there is pattern of behaviour
which explains things like the Walker bullet metamorphising into
something that could be pinned on Oswald (even right-wing nut Walker
said the bullet he saw taken out of his door frame was NOT the bullet
that was entered into evidence by the Warren Commission) It's called
precedence. "Facism" was operating at some level in the United States
at this time - you would be advised to read about Nazi Germany and how
power and authority, end even morality istelf, is usurped under such
systems.
soilysound
The problem is, the whole premise of the question is ridiculous. Its
not a question of a grand conspiracy, it's about how various groups
can be easily manipulated to go along with a cover-up, for a whole
variety of reasons. You're going to have a queue of people stretching
around the block to nail a commie cop killer in Dallas at the height
of the cold war. The idea that they would have to be in an some grand
conspiracy is utterly ridiculous. Likewise if there's any hint of
Soviet or Cuban involvement the whole apparatus of government is going
to close shop and make sure the more politically convenient verdict
that is Oswald did it alone is reached. Again, no need for a grand
conspiracy there, This grand conspiracy idea betrays a lack of
understanding of how the real world works. I agree that Jim went on a
bit of a tangent in his answer to the question, I have heard him give
the same answer as I have before, but he seems to have a bit of a bee
in his bonnet about the FBI's historical behaviour at the moment.
davidemerling
Did you listen to the debate? Whenever it was DiEugenio's turn to speak in
response to something McAdams had said, he invariably began with a
childish giggle in a feeble attempt to make it sound as if what McAdams
just said was laughable. He usually started off with "I can't believe he
said ..." -or- "Did he really just say ..."
DiEugenio was just filled with emotion. If it were televised instead of
being on the radio, I'm sure we would have be treated to seeing him
actually foam at the mouth. He would go on these rambling diatribes of
disjointed speculation, oozing with paranoia, cynicism, accusations, and
distrust. Afterwards, I had to call my 82-yr-old mother just to verify SHE
wasn't involved in the Kennedy assassination or cover-up. I started
feeling guilty, thinking that, somehow, *I* was responsible for the
Kennedy assassination.
It seems the only person NOT responsible was Lee Harvey Oswald.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
Apparently you and DiEugenio would disagree on many issues because at
every turn he is accusing somebody, or some organization, of lying and
covering-up. Or - he actually suggests that they may have been PART of
the assassination plan.
He does not trust the DPD.
He does not trust the Dallas district attorney's office.
He does not trust the Secret Service.
He does not trust the CIA.
He does not trust the FBI.
He does not trust the Bethesda autopsy.
He does not trust the findings of the Warren Commission
He does not trust the findings of the Rockefeller Commission
He does not trust the findings of the Church Committee
He does not trust the findings of the House Select Committee - which
includes their photographic and medical boards.
He does not trust any of the Tippit shooting witnesses.
There is no boundary, it seems.
Yet, he thinks Jim Garrison was really on to something.
I understand what you're saying - and if you have some conspiracy
theory in mind that does not involve all these people/organizations, I
would be very interested in hearing it. But what YOU are describing
does not even come close to describing what DiEugenio has been saying.
For instance, does your simplistic conspiracy (i.e. does not involve
many people) involve Kennedy being hit in the head by a shot from the
grassy knoll? Because, if it does, you are going to see your "simple"
conspiracy spiral out of control very rapidly.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> The problem is, the whole premise of the question is ridiculous.
I disagree!
The premise of the question is very clear and pertinent.
Any person who has common sense knows that, logically, there has to be a
limit to the breadth of this conspiracy & cover-up.
Common sense tells us that you cannot brutally kill the President of the
United States and have all these individuals, government institutions,
committees, and law enforcement agencies complicit to the extent that
DiEugenio has maintained. It would involve hundreds of people engaging in
the most despicable behavior, often doing the very opposite of what their
organization was designed to do. Can you imagine Secret Service agents,
trained to take a bullet for the president, actually conspire to
facilitate the killing of the very man they have been tasked to protect
with their life?
This isn't about naive thinking on the part of LNers. We all agree that
there have been conspiracies throughout history. We agree that there have
been instances of betrayal. We understand that our government doesn't
always give us the straight scoop.
But you still have to look at the evidence in each, individual case. There
is just no evidence to support that kind of grand scheme and cover-up that
DiEugenio advocates.
DiEugenio says, "I have never specified how many people I thought were
involved in the conspiracy and how many people ran along with the
cover-up."
Why not? If you're trying to solve a crime and reveal a cover-up, wouldn't
you be keeping meticulous track of the guilty parties? For instance, I'm
wondering if doctors Humes, Boswell, and Finck or on DiEugenio's list of
cover-up artists or, worse yet, co-conspirators.
The fact is this: DiEugenio is never going to do the math on this because
he knows that he is going to come up with a ridiculous number. He doesn't
want to hear people laugh at him when he says: "2 plus 2 equals three
hundred twenty-five."
His answer to McAdams is "I have never specified ..."
Exactly! And that's what McAdams was asking - Has DiEugenio ever taken the
time to add it all up?
Instead of launching into his self-serving and disjointed diatribe,
DiEugenio could have saved a lot of time and simply answered, "No."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
cdddraftsman
It shouldn't be any big surprise to anyone that DiEugenio is at best a
maintenance man to plug the USS Conspiracy thats sprung a thousand leaks .
This is his job that he gets paid for , whether or not he does a good job
or bad doesn't really matter , he know the public is skeptical and he can
feed off that to sound somewhat believable .
All he has to do is show up and the task is complete , the details hardly
matter and here's why :
Difficulty in Debunking Myths Rooted in the Way the Mind Works by Shankar
Vedantam.
Excerpts:
"The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad
information with accurate information .
But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications ,
for all their intuitive appeal , can paradoxically contribute to the
resiliency of popular myths."
"Denials inherently require repeating the bad information .... which may
be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.
"Indeed, repetition seems to be a key culprit.
Things that are repeated often become more accessible in memory and one of
the brain's subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are
true.
In politics and elsewhere , this means that whoever makes the first
assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies
it later."
"The experiments...illustrate another basic property of the mind , it is
not good at remembering when and where a person first learned something.
People are not good at keeping track of which information came from
reputable sources and which came from less trustworthy ones or even
remembering that some information came from the same untrustworthy source
over and over again."
end ....
There are many other reasons for JFK Assassination distrust based upon
different belief systems , many are occult and cultish in nature .
Maybe the JFK Assassination signals a evolutionary landmark in human
thinking that is degressing .... eh ?
end ....
tl ...
..
.
cdddraftsman
Wow you'd think with what you just said that the FBI did nothing but
protect Jgar's job for all those years .
I seem to recall a few arrests they made , but maybe that was faked ?
Maybe there aren't Federal Prisons bursting at the seams with
Americans who wanted to get rich quick stepping on the backs of
others ?
Jim Garrison comes to mind more so than JEH^ ^^ .
end ....
tl
^ Example :
Alcohol/Drug Prohibitions ....!
Yesterdays Alcohol Prohibition : Gansters / mafia / bribes / corrupt
politicians/police / drive by shootings / citizens=criminals all
because USG trys regulating moral behavior .
Is
Todays Drug Prohibition : Cartels / Mafia / bribes / corrupt
politicians/police / drive by shootings / citizens=criminals all
because USG trys " " " " .
Google (D) Tip O'Neal & the Conspiracy Laws in the aftermath of Len
Bias death . Corrupt (D) liberal politicians like O'Neil loved drug
laws because it gave him a opportunity to accept $ so he could make
more moral behavior regulating laws . JE Hoover saw thru this charade
& distanced his agency away from corrupting influences that would of
destroyed the FBI . That's why he never admitted the existence of the
Mafia . What we need are laws that regulate law makers . Their
inclinations to make laws that exculpate the guilty in order to
incriminate the innocent is the problem .
^^ Q : Did JEH Have JFK Killed ? :
"I never understood why the CTer's think Hoover wanted JFK dead.
Hoover was the master of blackmail and he was very aware of the darker
side of Camelot. While Hoover didn't agree w/all of JFK's policies,
that was nothing new to Hoover. He had enough dirt on JFK to protect
his vital interests. While RFK may have been more anti-mob than Hoover
cared for, JFK's death only enhanced RFK's stature, and made blackmail
of the Kennedy family for their moral failings almost impossible.
An RFK administration with a martyr brother to ward off attack would
have been Hoover's worst nightmare"!
David Von Pein
LNer DAVID EMERLING SAID:
>>> "I'm wondering if doctors Humes, Boswell, and Finck [are] on
DiEugenio's list of cover-up artists or, worse yet, co-conspirators." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Oh, there's no doubt that Jim DiEugenio thinks that all three of President
Kennedy's autopsy doctors were liars and "cover-up" artists.
How can we know that DiEugenio thinks this is true?
Well, for one (big) thing -- Mr. DiEugenio completely disagrees with
virtually EVERYTHING that Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck wrote in the
autopsy report that EACH one of those men signed on 11/24/63.
And DiEugenio, on earlier Black Op Radio shows, has also said that he
believes that Dr. Humes lied to the Warren Commission and to the HSCA and
to the ARRB with respect to the burning of Humes' original autopsy notes
and first draft of the autopsy report.
DiEugenio, incredibly, thinks that instead of Humes burning the materials
in his home fireplace (which is, of course, where it occurred and where
Humes always maintained the burning of those autopsy materials occurred),
Humes really didn't burn them at all (per Jim D.)!
DiEugenio thinks that the notes were burned in Admiral Calvin Galloway's
office at Bethesda. And evidently Dr. Humes (apparently at Galloway's
request) then decided to tell the lie about burning the autopsy papers in
his own home. So, Admiral Galloway is also on DiEugenio's list of
"cover-up" agents and "liars" too, with Humes continuing the lie and
cover-up for decades on end (per the loony theories of Mr. James
DiEugenio).
And, of course, DiEugenio also must believe that Humes, Boswell, and Finck
were ALL a major part of a "cover-up", because each one of those doctors
(per DiEugenio) lied his ass off MULTIPLE TIMES to the various Government
entities questioning them about the autopsy and the location of JFK's
wounds.
Not to mention Dr. Finck's testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, which
is additional testimony regarding Kennedy's wounds that DiEugenio has no
choice but to disregard entirely. Hence, DiEugenio must think that Finck
lied yet again at the Shaw trial when Finck said this:
DR. FINCK -- "I have a firm opinion that the bullet entered in the back of
the head and exited on the right side of the top of the head producing a
very large wound."
QUESTION -- "Doctor, did you find any evidence which would indicate that
the President was hit by more than one shot in the head?"
DR. FINCK -- "No."
======================
In addition, in recent weeks and months, DiEugenio has added several more
people to his ever-growing list of "suspicious" characters connected in
some way with the events of November 22, 1963. Jim has decided that all
four of the following individuals are liars and/or conspirators:
Buell Wesley Frazier
Linnie Mae Randle
Marrion L. Baker
Roy S. Truly
There seems to be no limit as to the number of people that DiEugenio
believes were involved in the "framing" of Lee Harvey Oswald and/or the
"covering up" of the true facts after the assassination.
And these people who are deemed "suspicious" in Jim's eyes are people from
all walks of life, with many of these "suspicious" characters being
ordinary citizens who have no ties to law enforcement or the official
investigations into JFK's murder whatsoever -- such as ordinary housewives
like Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle. (And, yes, DiEugenio definitely
thinks that Mrs. Paine is an evil, rotten liar who wanted to falsely paint
sweet Lee Harvey as a Communist and as the murderer of the President.)
And 19-year-old TSBD stock boy Wesley Frazier is now apparently a big part
of DiEugenio's conspiracy-based fantasy too, because Jim D. doesn't think
that Lee Oswald carried ANY kind of a large paper bag into the Book
Depository on the morning of 11/22/63.
Can you believe it, folks?! According to DiEugenio, Oswald carried NO
LARGE BAG AT ALL into work on November 22nd!
The above nonsensical belief is enough (all by itself) to severely reduce
Mr. DiEugenio's credibility regarding his research into the JFK
assassination.
Lots more about James "Thread Dangler Extraordinaire" DiEugenio:
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
soilysound
much so that they have to concoct a strawman scenario where everyone
in the world is in on a grand conspiracy, something which he never
says or even implies at any point. What he says is that lots of people
in this case have participated in the cover-up, consciously or
unwittingly, by design or by mistake, through prejudice or malice.
Those that use the 'grand conspiracy' argument have a black and white,
cartoonish view of the world more suited to a comic book than the
complex way the world, people and systems really works.
The way I see it, Oswald could be the lone gunman and it still
wouldn't have stopped those around the case in the atmosphere of the
time lying and tampering with evidence to make sure they nailed him.
That's the way the police worked in those days, if they thought
someone was guilty, they had few qualms about 'helping' the evidence
along.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 13, 9:38 am, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The problem is, the whole premise of the question is ridiculous.
>
> I disagree!
>
> The premise of the question is very clear and pertinent.
>
> Any person who has common sense knows that, logically, there has to be a
> limit to the breadth of this conspiracy & cover-up.
>
Wrong. Not when it comes to the government.
> Common sense tells us that you cannot brutally kill the President of the
> United States and have all these individuals, government institutions,
> committees, and law enforcement agencies complicit to the extent that
> DiEugenio has maintained. It would involve hundreds of people engaging in
They do it all the time. There is not much else for a government to do.
> the most despicable behavior, often doing the very opposite of what their
> organization was designed to do. Can you imagine Secret Service agents,
> trained to take a bullet for the president, actually conspire to
> facilitate the killing of the very man they have been tasked to protect
> with their life?
No one here said facilitate in the killing. The cover-up was to prevent
WWIII because they all thought that Castro was behind it.
>
> This isn't about naive thinking on the part of LNers. We all agree that
> there have been conspiracies throughout history. We agree that there have
Oh yeah, so show me and prove it with evidence.
You still think that Watergate was a third-rate burglary.
> been instances of betrayal. We understand that our government doesn't
> always give us the straight scoop.
>
What is this, euphemism of the day? You'd call the Holocaust a vacation.
Robert Harris
<ed96e8e1-5590-410b...@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again from the October 8th debate ...
>
> Here's Professor McAdams' question for DiEugenio - which I believe is
> excellent:
>
> McAdams: "Have you ever counted how many people you think must be lying
> scum, involved in the cover-up
Wow!
What an amazingly hypocritical thing to say, coming from somebody who
practically made a career out of telling us that the witnesses in Dealey
Plaza and Parkland were totally full of crap.
Robert Harris
davidemerling
> DiEugenio seems to have quite rattled the lone nut camp doesn't he? So
> much so that they have to concoct a strawman scenario where everyone
> in the world is in on a grand conspiracy, something which he never
> says or even implies at any point.
How can you say that with a straight face?
DiEugenio doesn't "imply" a grand conspiracy? Are you serious?
Just say "FBI" ... and DiEugenio will wax on about corruption.
Just say "CIA" ... and he'll but tell you they were the primary force
behind the assassination.
Just say "Dallas Police Department" or "Henry Wade" ... and the man
will foam at the mouth.
Just say "Warren Commission" ... and he'll giggle like a little school
girl.
At every turn, he accuses somebody of lying and covering-up.
DiEugenio has not rattled any cages. He's an oddity, and the fact that so
many of you idolize him speaks volumes about how desperate YOU are. Hell,
many of you have your pet theories that completely run counter to many of
the things DiEugenio asserts. But does that bother anybody in the
conspiracy community. No! And why not? Because they all have one thing in
common - they're IN LOVE with a conspiracy. ANY conspiracy! It's the only
glue the holds them together.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
wrote:
Which "witnesses" do you mean?
The real witnesses, or the ones you bring forward and interpret
tendentiously?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "[James] DiEugenio seems to have quite rattled the lone nut camp[,] doesn't he?" <<<
Why in the world would anyone think that? In fact, almost nobody is
talking about the McAdams/DiEugenio debate online at all. Even
DiEugenio's Internet promoter and mouthpiece (a guy by the name of
Seamus Coogan) hasn't been saying too much about the debate (as of the
date of this post).
I'm somewhat surprised by the almost total lack of interest in that
four-hour radio debate by anyone on either the CT or LN side of the
fence.
David Emerling and I have chimed in here and there with a few comments
about the debate, but generally speaking there's been no critique
about it whatsoever (on any of the JFK forums). Very odd, IMO.
Of course, all reasonable people who know anything about the actual
evidence in the JFK case (even if those reasonable people haven't
expressed an opinion on the Internet....and, as I mentioned, very few
have done so) know full well that Prof. John McAdams was victorious in
both parts of the Sept/Oct. 2009 Black Op Radio debate. And that's
because McAdams rests on the side of the debate that possesses EVERY
LAST SCRAP OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE -- i.e., the "Oswald Was Guilty" side.
Whereas, Jim DiEugenio rests on the side of the debate that has
exactly ZERO pieces of physical evidence to support his view that
Oswald was innocent of killing BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
>>> "So much so that they [LNers] have to concoct a strawman scenario where everyone in the world is in on a grand conspiracy, something which he [James DiEugenio] never says or even implies at any point." <<<
Bullshit.
DiEugenio has suggested that every one of the following people and/or
organizations (covering both a PRE-assassination timeline and a POST-
assassination timeline) played a part in some kind of conspiracy and/
or cover-up. And a list this long certainly qualifies as "grand" in my
book:
1.) The Warren Commission (as a unit).
2.) The HSCA (as a unit).
3.) The Clark Panel (as a unit).
4.) The Dallas Police Department (as a unit).
5.) The FBI (as a unit).
6.) The CIA (as a unit).
7.) Jack Ruby.
8.) Michael Baden.
9.) Admiral Calvin Galloway of the Bethesda Naval Medical Center.
10.) Arlen Specter.
11.) Dr. James J. Humes.
12.) Dr. J. Thornton Boswell.
13.) Dr. Pierre A. Finck.
14.) Virtually all of the "MSM" (mainstream media).
15.) David Ferrie.
16.) Clay Shaw.
17.) Guy Banister.
18.) The "Second Oswald" (who is a "person" that DiEugenio actually
believes did exist prior to 11/22/63, with Jim D. often citing author
John Armstrong and Armstrong's 2003 book of insanity, "Harvey And
Lee").
19.) Ruth Paine.
20.) Michael Paine.
21.) George DeMohrenschildt.
22.) Buell Wesley Frazier.
23.) Linnie Mae Randle.
24.) Roy S. Truly.
25.) Police Officer Marrion L. Baker.
26.) The unknown individual(s) who DiEugenio thinks "faked" the
backyard photos of Lee Oswald.
27.) Henry Wade.
28.) J. Will Fritz.
29.) J. Edgar Hoover.
30.) Lyndon B. Johnson.
31.) Joseph Alsop.
32.) Eugene Rostow.
33.) Earl Warren.
34.) Allen Dulles.
35.) Gerald Ford.
36.) John McCloy.
37.) Nicholas Katzenbach.
38.) James Angleton.
39.) Richard Helms.
40.) Elmer Moore.
41.) William Sullivan.
And the above list is by no means complete and comprehensive in
nature. There are undoubtedly many more individuals and groups that
could added as well.
But apart from the craziness that has DiEugenio believing that all of
the above-named people and organizations played some kind of
"conspiratorial" or "cover-up" role in JFK's death, the two biggest
things (by far) that enable me to place Mr. James DiEugenio into the
"Kook" category are the following two totally-silly beliefs that Mr.
DiEugenio currently possesses:
1.) "Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on
the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio (Via "Part 5b" of
DiEugenio's "Reclaiming History" book review, linked below)
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_5b_review.html
Hence, per DiEugenio, Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot John F. Kennedy
with a gun on November 22, 1963.
2.) When the question was asked "Who shot J.D. Tippit?", DiEugenio
made the following statement during Part 1 of the Black Op Radio
debate (linked below):
"It's pretty clear it wasn't Oswald." -- James DiEugenio;
September 24, 2009
Hence, per DiEugenio, Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot Dallas policeman
J.D. Tippit with a gun on November 22, 1963.
Believing in the above two things (in tandem) automatically qualifies
the believer of such fantasies for a spot in the "Kook Club".
soilysound
Sounds like your cage is quite rattled.
I don't really understand what you mean about people having different
theories. Firstly to expect everyone who doesn't buy the lone nut
scenario to agree on the same alternative fairytale is absurd, and
second, I don't think I have ever heard Di Eugunio come up with any
particularly theory about what happened. His position seems to be that
he doesn't know what happened, but he does know what didn't happen and
he's content to point out the numerous gaping holes in the lone nut
case.
Which is as intellectually honest a position its possible to hold in
this entire quagmire.
David Von Pein
>>> "DiEugenio doesn't "imply" a grand conspiracy? Are you serious? Just say "FBI" ... and DiEugenio will wax on about corruption. Just say "CIA" ... and he'll but tell you they were the primary force behind the assassination. Just say "Dallas Police Department" or "Henry Wade" ... and the man will foam at the mouth. Just say "Warren Commission" ... and he'll giggle like a little school girl. At every turn, he accuses somebody of lying and covering-up. DiEugenio has not rattled any cages. He's an oddity, and the fact that so many of you idolize him speaks volumes about how desperate YOU are. Hell, many of you have your pet theories that completely run counter to many of the things DiEugenio asserts. But does that bother anybody in the conspiracy community. No! And why not? Because they all have one thing in common - they're IN LOVE with a conspiracy. ANY conspiracy! It's the only glue the holds them together." <<<
Excellent, David E.
I'm adding this to my "Quotes" blog.
www.Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
soilysound
would have to be in on the cover up is actually a lot less than 100, and
many of those you could put into the subconcious prejudice/ bias camp.
Less than a 100 people is the least grand grand conspiracy I have ever
heard of. You could get all the people he lists in a modestly sized bus.
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave, I'm enjoying your use of the phrase 'as a unit'. Covers a lot
of sins, that does! Looking at [your] list, I count at a maximum...100 or
so people, and a load of those could be put into the 'prejudiced, biased,
confused or mistaken' categories. So we have less than...100 people.
That's the least grand 'grand conspiracy' I've ever heard of. Your grand
conspiracy could fit in a bus!" <<<
"Soily" is hilarious. He/she thinks that even if all of the previously-
mentioned entities/people were involved in a plot/cover-up, it wasn't very
"grand" at all. Merely TRIPLE-DIGITS in the number of humans involved.
That's all.
Meh.
LOL.
Robert Harris
john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
Name three witnesses whom I have misrepresented.
Yeah, I know - dead silence follows. LOL
Robert Harris
soilysound
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> >>> "Dave, I'm enjoying your use of the phrase 'as a unit'. Covers a lot
>
> of sins, that does! Looking at [your] list, I count at a maximum...100 or
> so people, and a load of those could be put into the 'prejudiced, biased,
> confused or mistaken' categories. So we have less than...100 people.
> That's the least grand 'grand conspiracy' I've ever heard of. Your grand
> conspiracy could fit in a bus!" <<<
>
> "Soily" is hilarious. He/she thinks that even if all of the previously-
> mentioned entities/people were involved in a plot/cover-up, it wasn't very
> "grand" at all. Merely TRIPLE-DIGITS in the number of humans involved.
> That's all.
>
> Meh.
>
> LOL.
>
> www.BATTLING-A-CONSPIRACY-KOOK.blogspot.com
TRIPLE DIGITS! Ohhh that sounds like a scary number! Actually, as your
list shows, we're talking a fair bit less than a 100 people at
maximum, and even then you can fit a lot of those in the sub-conscious
prejudice/institutional bias category. If all the people you say makes
up a grand conspiracy can fit in a couple of elevators, then its not
really very grand.
And if you actually count it up, the GRAND CONSPIRACY of people who
the CT camp say must be either be lying, mad or deluded is probably
far greater than the GRAND CONSPIRACY of people they say must be in on
the cover-up.
davidemerling
> Name three witnesses whom I have misrepresented.
>
> Yeah, I know - dead silence follows. LOL
>
> Robert Harris
Although many CTers do misrepresent witnesses - that is not as common as
CTers accepting as, 100% accurate, minority testimony -or- testimony that
is contradicted by evidence.
For instance, it is by far, the "minority" testimony to assert that more
than 3 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Even if you choose to cite the
HSCA's 4-shot conclusion, you cannot escape the Dealey Plaza testimony of
the MAJORITY of those who heard 3 or less shots. So, you might find a
witness who heard 4 shots from various directions and, true, you would not
be misrepresenting them. But the fact that you would think that that
testimony OUTWEIGHS other testimony would be the issue of dispute. This is
just an example.
Another example - is that you might find a witness who claims that the
three expended shells were all neatly lined up on the floor near the
sniper's nest - as if they had been meticulously placed there. I can't
dispute that that person SAID that - but I CAN dispute its accuracy based
on EVIDENCE. For instance, there is a photograph taken of the shells NOT
neatly lined up -plus- the testimony of others who claim that the shells
were scattered rather randomly.
Seldom does the disagreement revolve around the misrepresentation of
witness, rather, it revolves around the VERACITY of the witness's
statement. Although, I must say, Mark Lane was the MASTER of
misrepresenting witness statements.
Take Beverly Oliver, for instance. You might truthfully convey her views
as she has expressed them - but the dispute would not be over what she
said, rather, whether what she says is TRUE or not.
This is why CTers are often characterized as nit-pickers and hair-
splitters. They tend to put tremendous weight on outlying testimony - or-
people who make silly/well-intended mistakes - then they try to
extrapolate that into some major piece of their pet conspiracy theory.
I'm not well-versed in the Robert Harris Conspiracy Theory, I must admit.
I'm not really keeping track of all the various theories you guys have.
I'm not taking separate notes on YOUR theory and how it differs from the
Anthony Marsh Conspiracy Theory or the Tom Rossley Conspiracy Theory or
the Jim DiEugenio Conspiracy Theory. Well, actually, I *do* know the
DiEugenio Theory ... it embraces elements of EVERY conspiracy theory I
have ever heard - no matter how mutually exclusive they may be.
Are you fishing for a compliment about how you have never misrepresented a
witness? :)
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
>
> Yeah, I know - dead silence follows. LOL
>
> Robert Harris
By the way, wouldn't it be better for your challenge to be "Name ONE
witness whom I have misrepresented"?
Just kidding!
I think some of us actually make honest mistakes in this regard. In other
words, we THINK the witness is saying ONE thing when, in fact, they are
ACTUALLY saying something different. It's not always an attempt at
deception, rather, just a mistake of interpretation.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
<7a11bac4-ba0e-494d...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's why I cite 'em verbatim David.
And that's why mcadams can't back up his sleezy accusation to save his
life:-)
Robert Harris
WhiskyJoe
> from David Emerling:
> Did you listen to the debate? Whenever it
> was DiEugenio's turn to speak in response
> to something McAdams had said, he invariably
> began with a childish giggle in a feeble
> attempt to make it sound as if what McAdams
> just said was laughable. He usually started
> off with "I can't believe he said ..." -or-
> "Did he really just say ..."
Actually, I think I see what McAdams's winning
tactic is when he debates CTers. Right after
McAdams's is done making his statement and
just before the CTer can respond, he makes
a silly face. Inevitably, the CTer sounds
silly when he starts his response with
a giggle.
Of course, DiEugenio was using standard
CT tactics. Pretend any LN argument is
the most ridiculous thing you ever heard.
Give the "Single Bullet Theory" a ridiculous
name like the "Magic Bullet Theory".
McAdams's never stoops to such low tactics.
The nearest he came was the debate with
Rossley, when Rossley bought up the
"U-R-A-Fink" police report as proof that
Oswald and Ruby knew each other before
the assassination. Naturally, when McAdams
realized which document Rossley was referring
to, there was a note of incredulity in his
voice, like McAdams was uncertain that
Rossley was actually using this argument.
Which I think is natural. It was surprising
that Rossley was doing that.
WhiskyJoe
> from David Emerling:
> Did you listen to the debate? Whenever it
> was DiEugenio's turn to speak in response
> to something McAdams had said, he invariably
> began with a childish giggle in a feeble
> attempt to make it sound as if what McAdams
> just said was laughable.
Was DiEugenio trying a cheap trick in laughing
at everything McAdams said? Or was what McAdams
saying really that funny. If someone always
laughs at your jokes, do they really think
your funny or are they just being polite or
have some other motive. Well, if your always
telling the same jokes, it must be because
they are being polite or have some other
motive. I don't think that McAdams has the
talent of a Abbott and Costello and can
tell the same jokes over and over again
and still be funny.
Of course, for a change of pace, in their next
debate, why don't DiEugenio and McAdams try
working from a script:
McAdams: Look DiEugenio, you've been studying
this assassination for so long, you must have
it all figured out by now. You must have some
idea how many where involved in the conspiracy
and the cover up.
DiEugenio: I certainly do. I know how many
and all their names?
McAdams: Alright then, who fired from the
Grassy Knoll?
DiEugenio: Yes.
McAdams: I mean the fellow's name.
DiEugenio: Who.
McAdams: The guy on the Grassy Knoll.
DiEugenio: Who.
McAdams: The headshot shooter.
DiEugenio: Who.
McAdams: The frame 313 shooter.
DiEugenio: Who is on the Grassy Knoll!
McAdams: I'm asking YOU who's on the
Grassy Knoll. Your the CTer.
etc.
On second thought, I don’t think they could
pull it off. It doesn't work if Abbott
(DiEugenio) can't keep from giggling.
tomnln
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:da24db64-8be5-462b...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Did you also notice that McAdams did NOT offer Proof that it was a
"forgery" ! ! !