David Von Pein Offers To Debate With Jim DiEugenio on Black Op Radio

24 views
Skip to first unread message

John McAdams

unread,
May 27, 2010, 11:10:02 PM5/27/10
to

Bud

unread,
May 29, 2010, 12:37:54 AM5/29/10
to
On May 27, 11:10 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=ecba9cb7f284198eba382d9...
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Am I the only one who finds the idea of debating the assassination
strange? I mean, all the issues have rote CTer and LNer viewpoints,
isn`t it just a case of restating the viewpoint on each issue?

In any case, I see DiEugenio takes exception that DVP calls Black Op
Radio "retard radio", I think I might have coined that phrase. Nice to
see David putting it to good use stinging the kooks.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
May 29, 2010, 9:04:00 PM5/29/10
to


>>> "I see DiEugenio takes exception that DVP calls Black Op Radio "retard

radio". I think I might have coined that phrase. Nice to see David putting

it to good use stinging the kooks." <<<

Yes, Bud, I think you're possibly right there re: the origins of the
phrase "Retard Radio". I think I might very well have swiped that from
you. (Just like I did with the "K" word in 2006.) So I want to give you
the credit right now. ;)

I will say, however, that after utilizing the "R" word a few times (maybe
more than a few) in recent months, I have cut back on my use of that word
after hearing people at various forums tell me that they are personally
offended by my use of it, because it is perceived by them that I am making
fun of the (literally) mentally handicapped.

But I can assure my critics that whenever I use that "R" word, it is not
done with the intent to belittle anyone with any REAL mental deficiency.
In fact, I had an aunt and an uncle in my own family who suffered from
severe mental retardation.

And after reading my last statement above, I'm sure several conspiracy
theorists would be eager to tell me that I suffer from the same mental
handicap as my late aunt and uncle. I'm quite sure James "OSWALD SHOT
NOBODY" DiEugenio would agree with that assessment wholeheartedly. ~grin~

Bud said:

>>> "Am I the only one who finds the idea of debating the assassination

strange? I mean, all the issues have rote CTer and LNer viewpoints. Isn't

it just a case of restating the viewpoint on each issue?" <<<

Yes, Bud, I think essentially you are exactly correct there.

But, for that matter, that is what we do every day at these JFK forums too
-- i.e., restate our LN vs. CT issues ad nauseam, day after day. And how
much good does it do? How many people are turned around by anyone else's
written words, or spoken words?

Answer: Very few (at most).

But my main interest in debating the JFK assassination with Jim DiEugenio
is so that I could confront him with EACH AND EVERY piece of evidence that
he has decided is NO GOOD or FAKE or MANUFACTURED regarding BOTH the
Kennedy murder and the J.D. Tippit murder too.

And that's why I want to be able to use my own questions on Jim. And, to
be totally fair, as I have emphasized when conversing with Jim D. on
multiple occasions recently, DiEugenio too would be able to ask his own
questions. And I don't give a damn what those questions are, because Jim
will never be able to tear down, piece by piece, my huge wall of physical
evidence that I want to throw at him.

Via such a debate format, I can guarantee that Jim will not be able to
slip and slide around the vast amount of evidence that easily convicts the
person who DiEugenio, incredibly, thinks was totally innocent of shooting
anyone on November 22, 1963. (And I also think that DiEugenio believes
that Oswald is innocent of the assassination attempt against General
Walker too, which is yet another item on my long list of questions for
Jim, should he decide to accept my debate format in the future--which I'm
doubting he ever will accept.)

In a more "conventional" type of debate format, DiEugenio would likely be
able to sidestep or ignore several individual pieces of evidence connected
with Oswald's guilt. But he will not be able to do so if he debates me via
the format I have proposed. He will be forced to tell the audience exactly
why he thinks EVERY LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE against his favorite patsy is
fake, fraudulent, or tainted.

And as author and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan said:

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team
of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is in
complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The
JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c. 2005)

James DiEugenio obviously completely disagrees with Mr. Sturdivan's above
comments. In fact, to a person like Jim, it seems the MORE evidence and
corroboration there is of Oswald committing his crimes, the more INNOCENT
Mr. Oswald becomes.

And that's a very strange and illogical policy to live by, isn't it?

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
May 29, 2010, 11:57:13 PM5/29/10
to

http://www.Box.net/shared/rg360ak180

More distortions of the facts by James DiEugenio:

DiEugenio said on Black Op Radio on May 27, 2010 [linked above], that
Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History", was dishonest by
adding emphasis to various authors' quotes via the use of italics.

DiEugenio claimed that Bugliosi should have put a notation after every
single use of italics in "Reclaiming History", saying that the italics
(i.e., emphasis) had been added by the author (Bugliosi).

But Jim D. obviously doesn't realize that Mr. Bugliosi wrote the
following disclaimer regarding the use of italics very early in the
book (in the Introduction section):

"Note: Throughout this book emphasis by italics in quotations
has been added by the author unless otherwise indicated." -- Page xvi
of "Reclaiming History"

http://www.Box.net/shared/mdd18gyksy


And:

Jim DiEugenio has now added one more "liar" to his already huge list
of liars and cover-up artists associated with President Kennedy's
assassination. And that person is witness Howard L. Brennan.

Brennan could conceivably have already been on DiEugenio's "liars"
list prior to May of 2010. I'm not sure if he was or not. But as of
5/27/10, we can now be certain that DiEugenio thinks that the late
Howard Brennan was positively a liar, because DiEugenio has said he
now believes that Brennan never viewed a police lineup AT ALL on
November 22, 1963:

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all
manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created
witness." -- Jim DiEugenio; 5/27/10

Nice, huh? DiEugenio has decided that Howard Leslie Brennan was a
rotten liar too. (Jim recently also added civilian witnesses Buell
Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle to his list of liars as well.)

For the record, Brennan said this to the Warren Commission:

"They told me they were going to conduct a lineup and wanted me
to view it, which I did." -- Howard L. Brennan; Via his 1964 Warren
Commission testimony [at 3 H 147].

Plus, Brennan also said the following things in his Sheriff's
Department affidavit that he filled out on the DAY OF THE
ASSASSINATION (I wonder if DiEugenio thinks this is a fake document
too?):

"In the east end of the building and the second row of windows
from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the
President's car arrived. .... He was a white man in his early 30's,
slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175
pounds. .... I then saw this man I have described in the window and he
was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the
barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was
looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion.
Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of
sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from
about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in
appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him
again." -- Howard L. Brennan; 11/22/63

So, Brennan--on the day of the assassination!--told the Dallas County
Sheriff's Department (via his affidavit) that "I could identify this
man if I ever saw him again".

And so, even though these key words are contained within Brennan's
November 22nd affidavit -- "I could identify this man if I ever saw
him again" -- Jim DiEugenio thinks that the police NEVER TOOK THIS MAN
NAMED HOWARD BRENNAN TO VIEW A LINEUP.

In addition, there is CE2006, which contains an FBI report of an
interview that the FBI had with Brennan on January 7, 1964. Here are
some highlights from that FBI interview (which took place two months
before Brennan's Warren Commission session):

"Mr. BRENNAN added that after his first interview at the
Sheriff's Office, on November 22, 1963, he left and went home at about
2 P.M. While he was at home, and before he returned to view a lineup,
which included the possible assassin of President KENNEDY, he observed
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S picture on television. Mr. BRENNAN said that this,
of course, did not help him retain the original impression of the man
in the window with the rifle; however, upon seeing LEE HARVEY OSWALD
in the police lineup, he felt that OSWALD most resembled the man
whom he had seen in the window."

And in addition to now labelling Howard Brennan as a liar regarding
the lineup, DiEugenio is also forced (by necessity) to place the label
of "liar" around the neck of Secret Service agent Forrest V. Sorrels
as well. And that's because Sorrels made the following statements to
the Warren Commission concerning Howard Brennan viewing a lineup on
the night of November 22, 1963 [at 7 H 354]:

"I also got information to Captain Fritz that I had this
witness, Brennan, that I had talked to, and that I would like very
much for him to get a chance to see Oswald in a lineup. And Captain
Fritz said that would be fine. So I instructed Special Agent
Patterson, I believe it was, after I had located Brennan--had quite a
difficult time to locate him, because he wasn’t at home. And they
finally prevailed upon his wife to try to help me locate him, and she,
as I recall it, said that she would see if she could locate him by
phone. I called her, I believe, the second time and finally got a
phone number and called him and told him we would like for him to come
down and arrange for him to meet one of our agents to pick him up at
the place there. And when they came down there with him, I got ahold
of Captain Fritz and told him that the witness was there, Mr. Brennan.
He said, “I wish he would have been here a little sooner, we just got
through with a lineup. But we will get another fixed up.”

[...]

"So when we got to the assembly room, Mr. Brennan said he would
like to get quite a ways back, because he would like to get as close
to the distance away from where he saw this man at the time that the
shooting took place as he could. And I said, “Well, we will get you
clear on to the back and then we can move up forward.” They did bring
Oswald in in a lineup. He [Brennan] looked very carefully, and then we
moved him up closer and so forth, and he said, “I cannot positively
say.” I said, “Well, is there anyone there that looks like him?” He
said, “Well, that second man from the left,” who was Oswald--“he looks
like him.”" -- Forrest V. Sorrels

-------------------

In short, James DiEugenio doesn't care how many innocent people he has
to smear in order to promote his nonsensical theories. The more liars,
the merrier, it would seem.

It has become quite apparent to me in the last several months that Mr.
DiEugenio is a delusional nutcase when it comes to the topic of the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Bud

unread,
May 30, 2010, 2:25:03 PM5/30/10
to
On May 29, 9:04 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I see DiEugenio takes exception that DVP calls Black Op Radio "retard
>
> radio". I think I might have coined that phrase. Nice to see David putting
> it to good use stinging the kooks." <<<
>
> Yes, Bud, I think you're possibly right there re: the origins of the
> phrase "Retard Radio". I think I might very well have swiped that from
> you. (Just like I did with the "K" word in 2006.) So I want to give you
> the credit right now. ;)

Yah, I coined it here....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/994c7c56108267c7

I just don`t follow the discussions on other assassinated-related
forums very often, but when I saw that phrase used by DiE, it warmed
my heart that the dart got a "youch!".

> I will say, however, that after utilizing the "R" word a few times (maybe
> more than a few) in recent months, I have cut back on my use of that word
> after hearing people at various forums tell me that they are personally
> offended by my use of it, because it is perceived by them that I am making
> fun of the (literally) mentally handicapped.

I can see why true retards would object to being lumped in with
them.

> But I can assure my critics that whenever I use that "R" word, it is not
> done with the intent to belittle anyone with any REAL mental deficiency.
> In fact, I had an aunt and an uncle in my own family who suffered from
> severe mental retardation.
>
> And after reading my last statement above, I'm sure several conspiracy
> theorists would be eager to tell me that I suffer from the same mental
> handicap as my late aunt and uncle. I'm quite sure James "OSWALD SHOT
> NOBODY" DiEugenio would agree with that assessment wholeheartedly. ~grin~
>
> Bud said:
>
> >>> "Am I the only one who finds the idea of debating the assassination
>
> strange? I mean, all the issues have rote CTer and LNer viewpoints. Isn't
> it just a case of restating the viewpoint on each issue?" <<<
>
> Yes, Bud, I think essentially you are exactly correct there.
>
> But, for that matter, that is what we do every day at these JFK forums too
> -- i.e., restate our LN vs. CT issues ad nauseam, day after day. And how
> much good does it do? How many people are turned around by anyone else's
> written words, or spoken words?
>
> Answer: Very few (at most).

Which is why I usually don`t debate the case. I usually attempt to
show my opponent had come to bad conclusions using faulty reasoning.
Of course my opponent will not see it that way, but others might. And
I apparently enjoy arguing.

> But my main interest in debating the JFK assassination with Jim DiEugenio
> is so that I could confront him with EACH AND EVERY piece of evidence that
> he has decided is NO GOOD or FAKE or MANUFACTURED regarding BOTH the
> Kennedy murder and the J.D. Tippit murder too.
>
> And that's why I want to be able to use my own questions on Jim. And, to
> be totally fair, as I have emphasized when conversing with Jim D. on
> multiple occasions recently, DiEugenio too would be able to ask his own
> questions. And I don't give a damn what those questions are, because Jim
> will never be able to tear down, piece by piece, my huge wall of physical
> evidence that I want to throw at him.

This is why you don`t see crackpots like DiE spell out their beliefs
in their entirety, they give them piece-meal. If they were all put
together it would be obvious that the idea is so ridiculous it doesn`t
even merit consideration.

Of course.

> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages