"The guy I'd really like to get is John McAdams"
David Von Pein
James DiEugenio said these things on "Black Op Radio"
on August 13, 2009:
"I don't want to debate every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the pigpen
[aka: alt.assassination.jfk and alt.conspiracy.jfk; Jim D. probably
thinks that aaj and acj are the exact same thing].
"I mean, McAdams' forum is a collection of every Warren
Commission zealot on the planet [a curious overstatement made by
DiEugenio here indeed]. ....
"I could debate those guys from now until next year, because
there's so many of them. But I specifically extended the invitation
[on July 2, 2009] to those four people [John McAdams, Gary Mack, Dave
Reitzes, and David Von Pein].
"Why should I debate some guy from France [DiEugenio is talking
about Francois Carlier here] or some guy from Australia? Kennedy was
an American President. If they can't get one of those four guys to
debate me, then why won't they ask them why they won't do it? ....
"The guy I would really like to get of those four...is John
McAdams. That's the guy I'd really like to get to reply. .... First
question I want to ask him -- What's your name, John McAdams or Paul
Nolan?" -- James DiEugenio; 8/13/09
www.BlackOpRadio.com/black436e.ram
======================
I'd very much like to hear Prof. McAdams debate DiEugenio on the
radio. That would be very interesting.
Naturally, DiEugenio's unsupportable theories would be thoroughly and
handily destroyed by the likes of John McAdams. And I, too, could
easily demolish Mr. DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy conjecture fairly
easily as well (and I have, several times, via my online articles),
but I'm having a little difficulty getting official permission to
appear on such a radio program from my CIA boss in Washington.
You see, if I were to appear on a radio program to talk about the JFK
case, my CIA salary will automatically have to be increased by a good-
sized sum. And I'm already making the maximum amount of payola that
the CIA will pay any of its current crop of "JFK Assassination
Disinformation Agents". That particular division of the agency is
already spending a huge sum of greenbacks every month to fight the
CTers of Planet Earth.
I've been told by one of my fellow disinfo agents (Hugh Aynesworth)
that the budget to fight conspiracy-happy kooks on virtually-deserted
and meaningless Internet fora has increased steadily every year since
1999. And my recent batch of 30+ new JFK Blogs certainly hasn't eased
the CIA's ongoing financial concerns either. (And those blogs don't
come cheap to the agency. They pay me handsomely for each one of them
I create.)
So, if I ever get my official "CIA/Aynesworth" clearances to go on
"Black Op Radio" (aka: "The Home Of Conspiracy-Giddy Kooks"), I might
have a desire to debate Jim DiEugenio at great length.
But until the CIA can send me my permission slip, I guess it's up to
Professor McAdams, or Mr. Mack, or Mr. Reitzes. Although I have my
doubts as to whether any of those three guys could debate DiEugenio on
the air either, unless their CIA supervisors are a lot less strict
about such things than is my boss at the agency. But, you never can
tell.
BTW, .John -- Fellow CIA disinfo agents Priscilla McMillan and Ruth
Paine wanted me to ask you if you received their monthly CIA checks in
the mail by mistake? Priscilla and Ruth told me there might have been
a mix-up at the agency concerning the addresses of the 14 aliases
you've been using, and perhaps one of their checks ended up in one of
your mailboxes by mistake.
Anyway, if you've got time, drop me a line. (When you write, remember
to use DVP Alias #39, and McAdams Alias #11. Ten-Four?)
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>James DiEugenio said these things on "Black Op Radio"
>on August 13, 2009:
>
> "I don't want to debate every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the pigpen
>[aka: alt.assassination.jfk and alt.conspiracy.jfk; Jim D. probably
>thinks that aaj and acj are the exact same thing].
>
> "I mean, McAdams' forum is a collection of every Warren
>Commission zealot on the planet [a curious overstatement made by
>DiEugenio here indeed]. ....
>
> "I could debate those guys from now until next year, because
>there's so many of them. But I specifically extended the invitation
>[on July 2, 2009] to those four people [John McAdams, Gary Mack, Dave
>Reitzes, and David Von Pein].
>
> "Why should I debate some guy from France [DiEugenio is talking
>about Francois Carlier here] or some guy from Australia? Kennedy was
>an American President. If they can't get one of those four guys to
>debate me, then why won't they ask them why they won't do it? ....
>
> "The guy I would really like to get of those four...is John
>McAdams. That's the guy I'd really like to get to reply. .... First
>question I want to ask him -- What's your name, John McAdams or Paul
>Nolan?" -- James DiEugenio; 8/13/09
>
>www.BlackOpRadio.com/black436e.ram
>
Which shows that he wouldn't debate, but just engage in ad hominem.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>James DiEugenio said these things on "Black Op Radio"
>on August 13, 2009:
>
>
>BTW, .John -- Fellow CIA disinfo agents Priscilla McMillan and Ruth
>Paine wanted me to ask you if you received their monthly CIA checks in
>the mail by mistake?
Actually, no. I was going to ask whether *they* had gotten *mine!*
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thalia
Ha ha ha ha ha ha, very funny.
Jas
opinions here...
Now, that's what I call rhetoric.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5e00254d-a821-43e1...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:00ce851j041t2qna7...@4ax.com...
To hear a GREAT Debate>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
pamela
> On 15 Aug 2009 10:30:53 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
No, that would be McAdams response. The LNT position is so weak its
proponents usually sink to the level of fallacy of logic.
David Von Pein
>>> "The LNT position is so weak its proponents usually sink to the level
of fallacy of logic." <<<
<bladder bursts>
Only in a make-believe world of conspiracy could a murder case which has
all of its physical evidence pointing toward one single individual named
Oswald (as is the situation with the physical evidence against LHO in the
JFK case, as well as the Tippit case) be considered "weak".
Good job, "Pam".
The next topsy-turvy comment to be uttered by "Pam" will probably be
something about how the sun is really COLD, not HOT. After all, that's the
type of upside-down universe that JFK conspiracy theorists reside in.
Right, "Pamela"?
www.Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
slice...@comcast.net
Surely you could go on for just a minute, pro bono, just to
perhaps find out where the strap muscles are located in the human
body?
David Von Pein
>>> "Surely you could go on for just a minute, pro bono, just to perhaps
find out where the strap muscles are located in the human body?" <<<
So, are you calling Dr. Humes a liar when he (not Specter) said that
the strap muscles in JFK's neck were "bruised" by the passage of the
bullet?
DiEugenio thinks the strap muscles were ABOVE the injured areas in
JFK's body. So I guess the CTers must think Dr. Humes is a liar on
this point too, eh?
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "The LNT position is so weak its proponents usually sink to the level
> of fallacy of logic." <<<
>
> <bladder bursts>
>
> Only in a make-believe world of conspiracy could a murder case which has
> all of its physical evidence pointing toward one single individual named
> Oswald (as is the situation with the physical evidence against LHO in the
> JFK case, as well as the Tippit case) be considered "weak".
>
Do we really have to remind you that ALL the evidence pointed to
Dreyfus's guilt? Or maybe you didn't take History.
slice...@comcast.net
Look, Dave, you're the one "calling" Humes a liar because of his
low entry wound in the skull. Only a truly incompetent autopsist
could get that entry location so wrong, especially while holding the
Prez's head in his hands, eh? You've tarnished the poor man's
reputation far worse than any dreaded CT could. That's just something
you're going to have to live with, I guess.
But hey--if this one exchange has shown us anything it's that
you've got all the knowledge and energy in the world to take on Jimmy
D on the old Black Op Radio show. You know there'll be ground rules
and everything. So I say you go for it. The only person stopping you
is you.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/af30e9a70409f7c1
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_5_review.html
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_5b_review.html
A KOOK AT IMDB.COM WROTE:
>>> "This review [Parts 5 and 5b, linked above] was just recently posted
by respected researcher Jim DiEugenio. It points out inaccuracy after
inaccuracy and lie after lie contained in Bugliosi's recent book. It then
goes on to correct the inaccuracies by detailing what REALLY occurred.
Geez, you'd think that Bugliosi's publisher could afford to have a fact
checker or two on staff wouldn't you? .... The truth is always refreshing
- especially on a website like this [www.imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board]
that's filled with shills, frauds, liars, and phonies. Ooops - no offense,
Lone Nutters!" <<<
DVP SAID:
Now, back to that "bridge" that connects the "New Orleans" trio of Shaw,
Banister, and Ferrie to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in
Dallas. Where's that bridge once again? You failed to say.
It couldn't be that Saint James DiEugenio is blowing smoke (again), could
it?
DiEugenio, btw folks, is an expert "thread dangler" (i.e., he's a
conspiracy theorist who loves to hint about things that just don't seem
quite right to him, or things that look "questionable" in his mind (with
that word "questionable" being a direct DiEugenio quote from his 8/13/09
Black Op Radio appearance, regarding two more things that Jim D. has added
to his pile of "questionable" things surrounding the murder of JFK).
But what Jim DiEugenio will never be able to do (and nobody else can do it
either) is build that "Conspiracy Bridge" that enables him to say that ANY
of the people that Jim Garrison attempted to destroy in 1967, 1968, and
1969 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister) were involved in
any way whatsoever with the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas on
11/22/63.
To give anyone who cares another good example of DiEugenio's "thread
dangling" --- On August 13, 2009, on the weekly "Black Op" conspiracy-
fest on Internet radio, DiEugenio declared that Buell Wesley Frazier's
testimony regarding the "curtain rod" package was suspicious and
"questionable".
www.BlackOpRadio.com/black436e.ram
But, of course, Jim D. doesn't go any further with this suspicion of his.
He's apparently going to be writing about it in more depth in the future,
possibly when he gets around to Part #7,789 of his silly "Bugliosi's Tome
Is Nothing But Crap" book review. But for right now, it's another in a
never-ending series of "questionable" threads that Jim has dangled out
there for other conspiracy kooks to latch onto (and go NOWHERE with, just
as Jim goes nowhere with them).
And DiEugenio also now believes (apparently out of the blue, because it
sounded to me like this was a new and fresh hunk of "questionable"
evidence and witness testimony that Jim has decided to whine about) that
the whole Marrion Baker/Roy Truly/Lee Oswald lunchroom scenario needs to
be put under a "microscope".
In other words -- Jim D., although he didn't expressly say this outright
on Black Op Radio, obviously thinks that there's something rotten in the
state of Denmark (and in the state of Texas, at the TSBD) when it comes to
Baker's and Truly's accounts of what happened when they each saw Lee
Harvey Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom shortly after JFK was killed
on November 22nd.
That is a very odd stance for a conspiracist to take too, because most
conspiracy-seeking individuals utilize the Baker/Truly/Oswald lunchroom
encounter as virtual PROOF that Saint Oswald is innocent of killing
Kennedy (since the CT-Kooks like to pretend that Oswald could not possibly
have shot JFK from the 6th Floor and then descended the four floors of the
Depository in approx. 90 seconds; but the re- creations that were done
regarding this issue have proved that the CTers are wrong, but the kooks
never stop belly-aching about it nonetheless).
I'm confident that it won't be long before we hear Mr. DiEugenio
speculating about how BOTH Roy Truly and Officer Marrion Baker were evil,
rotten liars who wanted to frame that poor sap named Oswald for a murder
he never committed.
Such is the way with conspiracy theorists. They love to ACCUSE, but never
PROVE.
Fortunately, though, we have at least a few sensible minds among the
nation's population when it comes to the topic of JFK's assassination --
like Vincent T. Bugliosi. As Vince's secretary (Rosemary Newton) told me
on July 5, 2007:
"His [Vincent Bugliosi's] capacity for logic and common sense is
extraordinary. He is a perfectionist and, I might add, deplores
incompetence, and does not suffer fools."
And with so many conspiracy-happy "fools" in the world today, it's no
wonder that Vincent has gotten a little cranky when having to deal with
them (and their incredibly-foolish) books during Mr. Bugliosi's
20-year-long odyssey while writing "Reclaiming History".
Speaking of Vince....Happy 75th Birthday, VB. (Vince turns 75 tomorrow,
August 18th.)
In honor of that occasion, I unveiled my newest JFK-related blog
today--all about "The Bug":
ShutterBun
> Do we really have to remind you that ALL the evidence pointed to
> Dreyfus's guilt? Or maybe you didn't take History.
I certainly HOPE you're not comparing the tenuous evidence against
Dreyfus (a single handwritten document!) with the Mount Everest of
evidence against Oswald.
If you want a case to compare with Dreyfus, best look at the Clay Shaw
case.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 17, 5:33 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Do we really have to remind you that ALL the evidence pointed to
>> Dreyfus's guilt? Or maybe you didn't take History.
>
> I certainly HOPE you're not comparing the tenuous evidence against
> Dreyfus (a single handwritten document!) with the Mount Everest of
> evidence against Oswald.
>
No, not exactly. The mountainous evidence against Dreyfus, the fact that
it was manufactured, and misrepresented by the actual traitors, and the
fact that Dreyfus spent many years in prison before he was proved
innocent.
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>James DiEugenio said these things on "Black Op Radio"
>on August 13, 2009:
>
> "I don't want to debate every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the pigpen
>[aka: alt.assassination.jfk and alt.conspiracy.jfk; Jim D. probably
>thinks that aaj and acj are the exact same thing].
>
> "I mean, McAdams' forum is a collection of every Warren
>Commission zealot on the planet [a curious overstatement made by
>DiEugenio here indeed]. ....
>
> "I could debate those guys from now until next year, because
>there's so many of them. But I specifically extended the invitation
>[on July 2, 2009] to those four people [John McAdams, Gary Mack, Dave
>Reitzes, and David Von Pein].
>
> "Why should I debate some guy from France [DiEugenio is talking
>about Francois Carlier here] or some guy from Australia? Kennedy was
>an American President. If they can't get one of those four guys to
>debate me, then why won't they ask them why they won't do it? ....
>
> "The guy I would really like to get of those four...is John
>McAdams. That's the guy I'd really like to get to reply. .... First
>question I want to ask him -- What's your name, John McAdams or Paul
>Nolan?" -- James DiEugenio; 8/13/09
>
>www.BlackOpRadio.com/black436e.ram
>
>======================
>
>I'd very much like to hear Prof. McAdams debate DiEugenio on the
>radio. That would be very interesting.
>
Well . . . I did get an "invitation" (and so did you) after this was
posted.
Here it is:
<Quote on>
From: Len Osanic <osa...@prouty.org>
To: "McAdams, John" <john.m...@marquette.edu>
CC: "DaveV...@aol.com" <DaveV...@aol.com>, "drei...@aol.com"
<drei...@aol.com>, "gm...@jfk.org" <gm...@jfk.org>,
"jfk...@ctka.net"
<jfk...@ctka.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:34:54 -0500
Subject: FW: Debate Invitation
Thread-Topic: Debate Invitation
Hello,
I would like personally to bring to your attention, Jim DiEugenio has made
an offer to debate any of the four Mcadams, Mack, Reitzes or Von Pein
regarding the facts JFK assassination on Black Op Radio.
I think a discussion/debate would be of interest, because both sides of
the research community are tuning in to the show, with a world wide
audience. While you have a different point of view, it would be of
interest to put to rest things that should've been resolved in the endless
forum debates that need addressing. Just what are the facts.
As of right now, I don't have a format and am open to suggestions. Meaning
that once any of you accept at least the offer to discuss the case... We
can have a further discussion to formulate ground rules which at least
both sides agree on and are made public ahead of time, to ensure some
pressure to stick to them.
It may not be that anyone changes their mind, but it would be interesting
for listeners, students of the case, to hear you, in you own words,
reasons for your conclusions.
Please let me know either way.
Thanks for your consideration,
Len Osanic
www.blackopradio.com
<quote off>
I responded as follows:
<quote on>
I'm always up for a debate on the assassination, but there would be a
couple of provisos.
1.) No silly "Paul Nolan" stuff. If DiEugenio brings that up, I'll
start talking about his crazy ex-girlfriend, who for many months told
people I was a "General in the Navy," and saw spooks under every bed.
She also thought the ICPSR is sinister.
2.) I'm not that good in discussing the minutiae of the Garrison
case, so Dave Reitzes would be the best person to deal with that. I
can certainly deal with the Garrison case in general.
3.) Von Pein would be very good as a debater, and Gary Mack is the
dean of assassination researchers, probably the most respected person
in the field, except among a narrow group who have gone ballistic
because he hasn't toed the conspiracy line on every issue.
.John
<quote off>
I would add another proviso. For me to participate, there would have
to be somebody else on my side. Osanic would clearly be on the
DiEugenio side. Nothing like WDSU when poor Oswald was outnumbered 3
or 4 to one.
No word on this from Osanic.
The other people who were invited, obviously, can answer for
themselves and make their own demands in terms of ground rules.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
<TOP POST>
I'm glad Barb convinced me, some nine years ago, to take a closer look at
the medical evidence, although she didn't exactly warm up to some of the
conclusions I came to in the end. It's been rewarding in more ways than
one, e.g. I can sit back and laugh at these proposed debates between two
sides that won't give an inch and are both soooo wrong.
DiEugenio knows the medical evidence was covered up (understated during
the autopsy and literally mangled by Fisher, whose lies were intended to
debunk Garrison's mulitple gunman scenario but perpetuated by his
disciples on the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA). The problem is that
DiEugenio assumes like, Harris, Marsh, Speer and a host of other CTs, that
the reason the medical evidence was covered up must have been because
there was an assassination conspiracy. DiEugenio--and the others--are dead
wrong there...the BOH damage was simply collateral damage from a bullet
(that deformed as it penetrated the skull) fired by LHO...and the low
entry did not hardly mean that there was another shooter firing at near
ground level. In fact it would have been a miracle if the bullet did not
deflect given that it stuck something hard enough to deform it so.
.john, DVP, Mack and Reitzes won't even admit that there was a
"possibility" Humes was right about there being occipital damage and a low
entry....that's so bizarre. Heck, Humes writes in the autopsy report that
there was brain matter exuding from the large wound that extended into the
occipital (not to mention that he testified he saw that part of the
cerebellum was lacerated)....and then puts a photograph in the record that
shows no such thing. Don't you see that Fisher exploited the fact that
that photo was taken much later in the autopsy? And DVP has even admitted
that it was possible that Boswell shoved loose pieces of rear skull that
were still adhered to the underside of the scalp back into place prior to
the x-rays....that's not just POSSIBLE, that's what happened...unless, of
course, some 25 eyewitnesses at both PH and Bethesda, including the
autopsy docs, were hallucinating!
Cripes people, compromise...unless you want to debate this stuff the rest
of your lives....even though I find some of the arguments humorous.
I've talked to Werner Spitz--in fact I'm supposed to bring him up to date
re. my efforts to get the medical evidence re-examined and probably will
be talking to him tonight. He hints that I should let it all go...but
then, in the next breath asks me to bring him up to date? I wonder why?
:-)
Again, thank you all--this has truly been an interesting, if not
laughable, lesson in human nature for me---I've witnessed how pride can
blind the eyes of obviously very intelligent individuals so that they come
to less than intelligent conclusions. JUST MY TWO CENTS OF COURSE...WHY ON
EARTH WOULD I BE RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING...I'VE ONLY BEEN STUDING THE MEDICAL
EVIDENCE, MOSTLY RELATED TO THE HEAD SHOT, FOR ABOUT NINE YEARS
NOW...THANKS AGAIN, BARB.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Jas
human defensive mechanisms not unlike "fight or flight."
Their beloved theories have been crystal-clearly and sophisticatedly
challenged by him, and of course the only way they can respond is with
venom, not reasonableness.
I always think it's amusing when no one challenges his logic and reasoning
in his successful prosecution of Manson in the Tate/La Bianca murders, as
self-narrated in depth in "Helter Skelter," but when it comes to the JFK
assassination, suddenly his logic and reasoning is flawed, incorrect, and
full of lies.
Says something, no?
Another interesting point to note:
after he came out with "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,"
conspiracists worldwide are forever barred from utilizing their oft-used
anti-LN battle-ranting against him like "rightwing, pro-U.S government,
Warren apologist, liberal hater, etc. etc. "
That really takes the ammunition from them, and must be terribly
frustrating.
James
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d0e098b8-15b5-4913...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Subject: FW: Debate Invitation
Date: 8/17/2009 2:32:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Len Osanic
To: John McAdams
CC: David Von Pein, Dave Reitzes, Gary Mack, James DiEugenio
------------------------------
Hello,
I would like personally to bring to your attention, Jim DiEugenio has
made an offer to debate any of the four Mcadams, Mack, Reitzes or Von
Pein regarding the facts JFK assassination on Black Op Radio.
I think a discussion/debate would be of interest, because both sides
of the research community are tuning in to the show, with a world wide
audience. While you have a different point of view, it would be of
interest to put to rest things that should've been resolved in the
endless forum debates that need addressing. Just what are the facts.
As of right now, I don't have a format and am open to suggestions.
Meaning that once any of you accept at least the offer to discuss the
case. We can have a further discussion to formulate ground rules which
at least both sides agree on and are made public ahead of time, to
ensure some pressure to stick to them.
It may not be that anyone changes their mind, but it would be
interesting for listeners, students of the case, to hear you, in
you[r] own words, reasons for your conclusions.
Please let me know either way.
Thanks for your consideration,
Len Osanic
www.blackopradio.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: FW: Debate Invitation
Date: 8/17/2009 12:07:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: John McAdams
To: Len Osanic
CC: David Von Pein, Dave Reitzes, Gary Mack, James DiEugenio
------------------------------
I'm always up for a debate on the assassination, but there would be a
couple of provisos.
1.) No silly "Paul Nolan" stuff. If DiEugenio brings that up, I'll
start talking about his crazy ex-girlfriend, who for many months told
people I was a "General in the Navy," and saw spooks under every bed.
She also thought the ICPSR is sinister.
2.) I'm not that good in discussing the minutiae of the Garrison case,
so Dave Reitzes would be the best person to deal with that. I can
certainly deal with the Garrison case in general.
3.) Von Pein would be very good as a debater, and Gary Mack is the
dean of assassination researchers, probably the most respected person
in the field, except among a narrow group who have gone ballistic
because he hasn't toed the conspiracy line on every issue.
.John
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN McADAMS THEN SAID (VIA THE A.A.J. FORUM):
>>> "I would add another proviso. For me to participate, there would have to be somebody else on my side. Osanic would clearly be on the DiEugenio side. Nothing like WDSU when poor Oswald was outnumbered 3 or 4 to one. No word on this from Osanic. The other people who were invited, obviously, can answer for themselves and make their own demands in terms of ground rules." <<<
DVP SAID:
Yes, Len Osanic would clearly be on the "CT" side, that's true. But Mr.
Osanic is pitifully poor when it comes to specific details about the
assassination itself (unless it involves his pal, Fletcher Prouty), so I
really cannot see Osanic putting in his 2-cents' worth very often in a
one-on-one debate between a CTer and an LNer. (IMO, that is.)
Plus, having two LNers on the phone lines at the same time might not be a
good idea. There would probably be a lot of "Who should talk next?"
moments and talking at the same time, etc. It could be rather awkward. But
that's just my opinion. I could be wrong on that point.
Anyway, .John, I was glad to get that e-mail from you the other day about
the debate. I received the same mail you sent to Len Osanic on August
17th. You must have hit the "Reply To All" button when you sent it. I'm
not sure if that was on purpose or by mistake. But, anyway, I received it.
And I personally think that John McAdams is the perfect "LNer" to take on
James DiEugenio in a debate. I know of very few people who possess as much
overall knowledge (and common sense) about the JFK assassination as Prof.
McAdams does.
Regards,
David Von Pein
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>
>DVP SAID:
>
>Yes, Len Osanic would clearly be on the "CT" side, that's true. But Mr.
>Osanic is pitifully poor when it comes to specific details about the
>assassination itself (unless it involves his pal, Fletcher Prouty), so I
>really cannot see Osanic putting in his 2-cents' worth very often in a
>one-on-one debate between a CTer and an LNer. (IMO, that is.)
>
>Plus, having two LNers on the phone lines at the same time might not be a
>good idea. There would probably be a lot of "Who should talk next?"
>moments and talking at the same time, etc. It could be rather awkward. But
>that's just my opinion. I could be wrong on that point.
>
>Anyway, .John, I was glad to get that e-mail from you the other day about
>the debate. I received the same mail you sent to Len Osanic on August
>17th. You must have hit the "Reply To All" button when you sent it. I'm
>not sure if that was on purpose or by mistake. But, anyway, I received it.
>
It was on purpose. No reason not to let everybody know what my
position was. Everybody else, of course, could reply as they saw fit.
>And I personally think that John McAdams is the perfect "LNer" to take on
>James DiEugenio in a debate. I know of very few people who possess as much
>overall knowledge (and common sense) about the JFK assassination as Prof.
>McAdams does.
>
Thanks for the nice comment. Of course you are now considered a very
good LN advocate, or you would not have gotten the invitation.
I haven't heard from Osanic.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7f45e055-df0b-43b9...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------
Hello,
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
..John
David Von Pein
Subject: Jim DiEugenio Vs. Vince Bugliosi And David Von Pein
Date: 8/21/2009 1:18:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio
------------------------------
Attn. James DiEugenio:
Hi Jim,
Just so you don't feel left out in the cold, I'm sending you the
following links (most of which I also sent to Len Osanic on 8/17/09 as
well).
The first link below should be of particular interest to you, because
it's an Internet message dated August 2, 2009, and it proves that you
were wrong (yet again) when you boldly proclaimed on the Black Op
Radio program of 8/20/09 that I had not once mentioned anything about
the Warren Commission source note (#171) that appears on Page 89 of
the WCR.
When, in fact, as can easily be seen via the post below, I wrote an
Internet forum message concerning Source Note #171 eighteen days prior
to your blatantly-inaccurate statement on Black Op on August 20th.
Enjoy your crow:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e26da650570ff1de
JAMES DiEUGENIO VS. VINCENT BUGLIOSI (AND DAVID VON PEIN):
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/msg/afd7f1525756c87b
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc1d90f0571b73f0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0d88c6282b5b0b3d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fd04575d203dedeb
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1745f5a6ed26ebaa
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/10311d20ec887eac
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aab389dd01f6057c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb486bcbb592bacf
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5ba15e70104a7109
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a101a348cc925133
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/842dfd2cec4cad90
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7ec49165bfe469b7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccb55780900c1e64
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e8df40765d436d6c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f40f7c3d2563783f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a9943337e4aa6779
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ef61d777dcc9543d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/625da252cb9b3ae9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/650f29e8d860c8a3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a3800545b6421ebf
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cad40a0472049e42
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/af30e9a70409f7c1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e26da650570ff1de
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/65bdbdfdd1d2a571
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/12206c02d5e3b7fd
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f557577b964ece7f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/df74428f09245d40
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fd8c13fa18ffaa94
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b938763feab9f12e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c7749ee049eb0478
http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
David Von Pein
>>> "With Johnny Mack and Jimmy D. neither has any respect for each other's views, like on this board, but should be interesting..." <<<
I think so too. But it's really pretty much a moot point and a
foregone conclusion when it comes to anybody who posts on these JFK
boards, because 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
easy -- 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:
1.) 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.
2.) 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.
3.) 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).
4.) McAdams, hopefully, will counter DiEugenio's laughable #3 item
above with something along these reasonable and factual lines:
"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
5.) 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).
tomnln
Burnham & John McAdams?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f6ecd5c5-c80d-4872...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "You really should be the one to debate DiEugenio." <<<
Thank you, John. Coming from you, that is a tremendous compliment. And
I sincerely mean that.
But, to tell you the truth, the more I listen to Black Op Radio (and
the more I hear James DiEugenio mangle the facts, month after month,
regarding JFK's murder), the stench from that conspiracy-laden pit is
telling me that I should probably stay a million miles away from it.
But, like a messy car wreck, I just can't seem to stop listening to
that silly all-conspiracy radio network each and every Thursday. I
became hooked on Black Op Radio in September 2008 while doing some
research concerning DiEugenio and his never-ending multi-part review
of Vincent Bugliosi's book.
Jim, btw, announced last week that his Bugliosi review is going to be
even LONGER than he originally anticipated. Seven parts aren't nearly
enough evidently, so it's going to be a NINE-part series of nonsense
now.
~large sigh~
BTW -- DiEugenio and Len Osanic announced on the 8/20/09 Black Op
program that the "McAdams vs. DiEugenio" debate was definitely going
to take place, which was an announcement that I thought was a bit
premature, because neither DiEugenio or Osanic mentioned anything
about the "provisos" that John McAdams talked about in his e-mail
response to Len Osanic on August 17th.
The final "proviso" mentioned by Mr. McAdams, however, probably isn't
known to Osanic and Jim D. (unless John e-mailed that demand to
Osanic), with John stating that he wanted to have another LNer appear
with him during the debate in order to level out the playing field,
since Osanic, who would serve as "moderator", is clearly a
conspiracist and would be on the side of DiEugenio throughout any such
debate.
Anyway, it seemed to me that Jim's and Len's "announcement" about
Prof. McAdams positively accepting the debate challenge was a tad
premature at this time, given John's conditional stipulations.
www.BlackOpRadio.com/black437b.ram
John McAdams
>Does anyone know where I can get an audio copy of the debate between Greg
>Burnham & John McAdams?
I'm afraid the buff who broadcast that edited it sharply before
posting it.
You probably will find it impossible to get the original, unedited
version.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:hiqu85h3gueqm789a...@4ax.com...
David Von Pein
Subject: Re: Jim DiEugenio Vs. Vince Bugliosi And David Von Pein
Date: 8/22/2009 5:30:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: James DiEugenio
To: David Von Pein
-----------------------------
Dear DVP:
You did a cover-up job on the strap muscles and you know it.
But keep it up and keep on running from a debate.
You look more and more like what you are: a chicken.
JIM D
========================================================
Subject: Re: Jim DiEugenio Vs. Vince Bugliosi And David Von Pein
Date: 8/22/2009 5:52:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio
-----------------------------
Hi James! Good to hear from you, my friend!
While I have your attention.....
You know damn well that the whole "strap muscles" thing began when you
said on the 7/16/09 Black Op (retard) broadcast that I said something
that I never ever said about Humes' testimony as it related to
Specter's "B.S. story" (your quote) as it related to the "PROBING"
issue ONLY. Nothing else. It was ALL ABOUT THE "PROBING" ISSUE.
Now, you want to move those goal posts closer to your CT goal line, so
that you can pretend that you weren't wrong when you said that Humes
and Specter discussed the "strap muscles" as they related to the
PROBING of John Kennedy's upper-back wound.
But, as you obviously have to know by this time (if you're any kind of
a "researcher" at all), Humes and Specter never ONCE talked about the
"strap muscles" as those muscles relate to any "probing" issue at all.
It never happened. Period.
But, Jim, keep pretending you won that mini-debate with me. I'm sure
it satisfies your enormous ego to think you've defeated another lowly
LNer who does nothing but write out his "paper debates" on John
McAdams' "pigpen" 24/7.
BTW, Professor McAdams' "alt.assassination.jfk" forum is a totally-
different forum from the "pigpen" you keep referring to on Len
Osanic's weekly "Black Op [Retard] Radio" shows.
The McAdams forum is a moderated forum that will not allow personal
attacks or hateful remarks toward its members, while the
"alt.conspiracy.jfk" newsgroup/forum is unmoderated (hence, it is
crawling with conspiracy-happy kooks), and the primary reason I go
there at all is because it's the best unmoderated online JFK forum I
know of where I can easily and instantly archive individual messages
for my JFK Blog:
You should visit my blog and JFK-related webpages sometime, Jim. You
might learn something. And that "something" just might be an added
dose of "common sense". Lord knows, you and Mr. Osanic could use a
helping of that stuff when it comes to your beliefs about President
Kennedy's assassination.
You're beginning to look more and more like what you are: an "Anybody
But Oswald" conspiracy-happy nut. And that fact is illustrated very
nicely within the following article that I penned on 8/22/09, dealing
with your latest crazy conspiracy-flavored notion regarding Buell
Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6c156af9606019ee
Best wishes for another ridiculous and lengthy part to your God-awful
review for Vincent Bugliosi's masterwork, "Reclaiming History",
David Von Pein
P.S., for a factual look at Mr. Bugliosi's magnificent conspiracy-
bashing tome, go here:
www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
========================================================