Re: "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 off 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]. ....
"I could debate those guys from now until the end of 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 don'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
demolish Mr. DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy conjecture fairly easily as
well (and I have done so, 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?)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/30862a47e68d86fe
aeffects
you live in a wetdream, you shithead....
>
> Naturally, DiEugenio's unsupportable theories would be thoroughly and
> handily destroyed by the likes of John McAdams. And I, too, could
> demolish Mr. DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy conjecture fairly easily as
> well (and I have done so, 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.
the best you shithead nutter-trolls can do is whine about how you'd do
thid and that, then run. You're game was exposed years ago dipshit!
> 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".
and you actually think WE think your important enough to be paid a
disinfo group, sheeeeeet shithead you can'[t even get Bugliosi's
secretary to back up yopur contention your Vinnie's right hand gofer
(unpaid at that)....
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.)
you've not been told nothing by anyone of consequence concerning the
JFK assassination, you need to learn how to speak the truth
shithead.....
> 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.
shithead, above you begged off.... no sense trying to show you have
letters asshole... no one here is buying your bullshit! ROTFLMFAO
<snip the rest of the losers nonsense>
Gil Jesus
show up as a reference.
Sam Brown
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b2aa5239-6dd5-4cd5...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5ececc23b7bdae69
>>> "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"?
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>Von Pein backed out of the debate because he couldn't get himself to
>show up as a reference.
It *would* have been a tad embarrassing for him to stand there and cite himself.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5ececc23b7bdae69
>>> "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?
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5ecec...
>
> >>> "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?
David,
You're a coward, a little man that can't face the evidence. Vincent
Bugliosi will fare the never ending attack, on his book Reclaiming
History. He'll go down as a just another fool, a fool with or without
your help. So chill dude....
How is Rosemary these day's? She speaking to you yet? Hell, has Vin
noticed your USENET efforts yet? Has he autographed your copy of
Reclaiming History, YET?
David Von Pein
>>> "You're a coward, a little man that can't face the evidence." <<<
Healy's back into his "pot/kettle" mode I see. Nice.
>>> "Vincent Bugliosi will...go down as just another fool, a fool with or without your help." <<<
The word "irony" was tailor-made for a crackpipe like David G. Healy,
as the above two quotes from the lips of Healy amply demonstrate.
The previously-mentioned words "pot" and "kettle" were also apparently
designed expressly with a kook named "Healy" in mind.
>>> "So chill dude...." <<<
Nah, I'd rather make fun of kooks like you. Okay, "dude"?
>>> "How is Rosemary [Newton] these day's [sic; needless apostrophe added by Mr. Crackpipe, as per his illiterate norm]?" <<<
She's just fine. In fact, I've talked to her via e-mail on three
different occasions very recently (on July 26, August 5, and August
10, 2009).
The most-recent conversation I had with Rosemary was regarding a
question I wanted to ask Vincent Bugliosi concerning the admissibility
vs. inadmissibility in a court of law of Stretcher Bullet CE399.
Rosemary faxed Vince my question, but he was out of town at the time.
Rosemary's exact words to me were these:
==============================================
Subject: CE399
Date: 8/10/2009 12:06:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Hi Dave,
Vince [Bugliosi] called me yesterday and asked that I let you
know that he'll get to your questions in a couple of weeks. He's doing
several TV shows (including Larry King) and is going to Canada for a
few days for the documentary they're doing on his last book ["The
Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder"].
I'll be in touch with you to give you the information you
wanted. In the meantime, stay cool.
Regards, Rosemary
==============================================
>>> "Hell, has Vin noticed your USENET efforts yet?" <<<
Oh, indeed he has. Here's a sampling. ....
==============================================
Subject: Re: Straightening Out James DiEugenio's Nonsense (Again)
Date: 8/5/2009 12:25:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Hi Dave,
Sorry I didn't answer you sooner, but I spent several days in
Las Vegas. It's not as enjoyable as it was in the seventies. ....
Anyway, thanks for the "boxing match" between you and DiEugenio. I'll
see that Vince gets it.
Stay cool, Rosemary
==============================================
Subject: Re: The "Reclaiming History" HBO Series
Date: 7/26/2009 5:36:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Hi Dave,
I faxed your e-mail to Vince and he just called to tell me that
he is giving the scriptwriter for the HBO special your e-mail address.
Hey, Dave, you may be listed on the credits!
Also, Vince told me to thank you for your feedback on the JFK
subject.
You mentioned reading an article featuring Bill Paxton. Could
you give me the link to this so I can send it on to Vince. I read one
online about a year ago that he wrote. It may be the same one you saw.
Anyway...thanks again.
Rosemary
==============================================
Subject: Re: JFK Article That Might Interest Vince
Date: 12/3/2008 12:23:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Hi Dave,
Thanks for sending the DiEugenio article. I'll be sending this
to Vince today. And, yes, I remember all too well his name and also
his face which has been on TV often enough.
Sometimes I wonder whether logic and common sense has been
flushed down the toilet in our society.
Happy holidays to you. Here's hoping there's some snow around in
your neck of the woods! Throw a snowball for me and aim it at
ignoramuses!!
Rosemary
==============================================
Subject: A Sincere Thanks
Date: 7/18/2007 9:57:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Hi Dave,
I called Vince today and told him that you received his book
which he was happy to hear. Having an inscription written by Vince in
a book he authored is, I think, very special. In fact, he came to my
house last night to bring work for me and inscribed my book. My
grandson will be the inheritor of several of Vince's books which he
has inscribed for me. ....
He [Vince B.] did ask me to relay that he would be most
appreciative if you continue your excellent work on the internet
effectively responding (through common sense, as well as facts) to the
JFK conspiracy community. And also to keep him informed of any
developments in which you feel would be of interest to him.
Dave, keep up the good work; I am really in awe of the work you
did on this subject on the internet.
Best regards,
Rosemary
==============================================
Subject: DVP Links
Date: 7/13/2007 12:38:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Hi Dave,
I received your e-mail yesterday. Thank you so much! You really
do a remarkable job on this subject. I sent Vince some of the pages
which, of course, he appreciated.
Keep up your superb discourse.
Regards,
Rosemary
==============================================
Subject: Bugliosi Fan
Date: 7/5/2007 9:21:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Hi Dave,
Thank you for your wonderful e-mail. I just spoke to Vince and
he asked me to get your mailing address, if this is okay with you. He
seems to think he met you at the museum in Dallas some time ago.
Working for Vince has been an extended education for me. His
capacity for logic and common sense is extraordinary. He is, like I
said in my response to (what's his name?) oh, yes, David Lifton, that
he is a perfectionist and, I might add, deplores incompetence, and
does not suffer fools.
I find it unbelievable since I posted (or I should say John
McAdams did for me, since I'm a novice at blogging or posting
responses) the incredible stupidity regarding this subject. Some of
these people really sound psychotic about the Kennedy assassination
and they all have different groups doing the horrible act.
Again, thank you, and any help you can give me to respond to
these crazies will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Newton
==============================================
[END E-MAIL EXCERPTS.]
==============================================
>>> "Has he [Vincent Bugliosi] autographed your copy of Reclaiming History, YET?" <<<
He did that in 2007 (on two copies). And he wrote a lot more than just
his signature on one of the copies too.
aeffects
<snip the nutter troll nonsense>
shithead, you've been around long enough to know how this works, fire
up an alias for Rosemary get her out here.... I could care less what
the dipshit Bug'o has to say... Ya can't redeem a loser-author
shithead, YOU above ALL should know that..... Your case for
instance.... losing out to Dale Myers, shameful--- simply shame on
YOU!
Now get that alias out here, we want to see you dance, asshole! Now
get on it!
David Von Pein
Can anybody tell me what Healy just said? I don't have my "Kook
Dictionary" handy at this time.
Thanks.
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":
lazu...@webtv.net
asshole can do is dance-keep shouting in O'Reilly/ Hannity mode because
he has got a bustedhand.
Anybody that would lie and Say Oswald was not with Shaw and Ferrie in
Clinton La. is a lying sack of shit, but he must, and you must to deny a
connection between the 3. When you start lying to defend the likes of
Shaw and Ferrie and Bannister, Walker and Hoover, Johnson etc...it's too
late...much too late...
David Von Pein
Okay, Laz, I'll ask you this question that no CTer can answer:
Even if Oswald did know Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister in New Orleans in
the summer of '63, where's the THREAD or the BRIDGE that connects
Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister to the assassination in November in Dallas?
Where?
Do CTers think they can actually continue to utilize Perry Russo's
bald-faced lie forever?! Just how far can Russo's LIE take you kooks
anyway?
Answer -- It DESTROYS Garrison's case for "conspiracy to murder JFK".
Completely.
aeffects
the 45 questions dipshit, ya know, the ones you've been running from
for 2 years now..... get on it or forever hold your nonsense... LMFAO!
Some nutter-troll researcher this David Von Pein / Dave Reitzes, moron
ShutterBun
Any chance you'll ever nut up and post all 45 in one place? I've
already got ammo on the 3 or 4 I've managed to find on Google. Why
not start up a blog, post all 45 points, and take on all comers?
ShutterBun
> I could make Bugliosi look like a fool in 2 minutes-the only thing that
> asshole can do is dance-keep shouting in O'Reilly/ Hannity mode because
> he has got a bustedhand.
>
> Anybody that would lie and Say Oswald was not with Shaw and Ferrie in
> Clinton La. is a lying sack of shit
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!! (and if you'll pardon me, HA!)
Go ahead and prove Oswald was with Shaw and Ferrie in Clinton, LA, at
the time specified. Extra points for providing ANYTHING other than
"three years stale" eyewitness testmony.
I may be a lying sack of shit, but you're a sack of shit that hasn't
even got the brains or ambition to even lie.
Go ahead, boy. Prove the Clinton witnesses were correct. Hint:
Garrison's whole team couldn't do it, in their home state. But you're
welcome to. Fuck-stick.
aeffects
troll.... search is your friend..... they've been posted here multiple
times, even all at once for you cool hand hucksters... (I'm sure .john
has them all memorized, even he ran from them)
ShutterBun
> troll.... search is your friend..... they've been posted here multiple
> times, even all at once for you cool hand hucksters... (I'm sure .john
> has them all memorized, even he ran from them)
So...you have something OTHER than the Garrison case? Cuz I done
read all that. Is someone still honestly citing them, outside of the
Garrison investigation? (rhetorical question, I've no doubt they are,
I just wanna know who to point at and laugh)
David Von Pein
Bump....
ATTEMPT #2:
=============================
============================
lazu...@webtv.net
Jackson prove conspiracy?Of course not, but it does show a relationship
between the 3 and if someone is willing to lie about that that they
weren't there, even though there is some 8-12 witnesses black, white
what have you which saw them stand out lke a sore thumb, that person
will lie about anything... Laz
David Von Pein
That's just what I thought, Laz -- you've got no "bridge" to connect
the "New Orleans trio" to the assassination. Thanks for confirming
that for me.