Who Should Debate Bugliosi?

[Charles Drago]

Jack,

I'll go with Lisa.

Then again, there was Homer driving the limo, staring at the Knoll and saying, "Oooh ... hunters!"

Then BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG

Then "Doh!"

[Charles Black]

In order to express what I truly believe, I will have to deviate from naming debators.

IMO, the true problem is the sheer magnitude of both real and faked evidence. Such a debate could not be effectively productive over the course of a few hours....perhaps not in a "few months"!

These questions have been debated already, by MASTERS, for nearly 44 years and with hundreds of millions of words. What can be brought forth that is not already understood by those on both sides of the fence, and who no doubt have their "pre prepared and often heard" answers or explanations?

I feel that the end result would be an audience still as split as the debators.

It would take something new and "absolutely knock out" to force any type closure. I am referring to something as stunning as a "verifiable" photograph of Oswald in firing position with the MC rifle, that also captures JFK's head exploding. OR, a showing of of a successfully altered 8mm Kodacolor II film strip, and what effects that alteration could and would produce. OR, proof of the authenticity of "BADGE MAN".

I truly feel that regardless of what or how many words are spoken by the debators.....without the introduction of stunning and verifiable absolute proof, that has previously not been available, all that we will end up with is thousands of MORE WORDS.

Charles Black

[Christopher Hall]

For Messrs. Gratz, Lane, and White:

Thanks for carrying on this important exchange

I wish to be clear on the distinction between "debate" and "confrontation" as I reference it for our shared purposes.

As I've previously noted, the former term carries with it the implication that both points of view under consideration, while oppositional, are equally worthy of respect as intellectually honest positions expressed by rational advocates.

Yet by definition, a ratonal human being who is reasonably well informed regarding the evidence in this case who yet defends the LN position is NOT being intellectually honest when doing so.

Further, and again by definition, such an individual cannot be an advocate for truth and justice in the case of the unsolved (in terms of "who" and "why"), conspiratorial homicide of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Accordingly, a "debate" with Bugliosi would serve only to fortify -- for the culture and for history -- the proposition that the LN "argument" is as likely to be factual as is the conspiracy position.

And again, the prime targets of opportunity for Bugliosi's masters are ... the culture and history.

However ... A "confrontation" with Bugliosi (or Posner, or any of their ilk) that begins with an unambiguous statement of the thoughts and sentiments expressed above and further is comprised of a mixture of unassailable fact, blunt contextualization of the opponent's failings and motives, and mercilessly cutting humor, simultaneously reveals and champions the truth and denies to the liars the high ground upon which they depend for protection: history's level playing field.

Debate? Never!

Confrontation? Until the battle is won!

Charles Drago

I agree with you, Charles.

I watched a segment on you-tube yesterday which featured Bugliosi on Chris Matthews and some CT person whose name I didn't hear.

Bugliosi doesn't debate fairly, with any level of civility or fact-based argument, but only with diatribe, spin and hectoring.

He is useless, and is merely pitching a book.

Kind of like he did with Helter Skelter, which was really more about him than the Mansion murders and Family.

Ignore him and he will go away until he writes some other drivel.

[Michael Hogan]

In a debate, command of the facts is not enough. The debate judges are impressed by a commanding STYLE as well as arguments.

That's why Mr. Weisberg, if he were still with us, would need to wear a suit. In his day, Harold Weisberg faced a lot of more difficult challenges than Vincent Bugliosi. Those sure were different times.

[John Simkin]

Maybe we could get Michael Moore to take on Vincent Bugliosi.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/121.html

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Maybe we could get Michael Moore to take on Vincent Bugliosi.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/121.html

How could we have missed the obvious, as they, say a prophet has no honour in his own country. What about it Mr Simpkin, I'll hold your coat John.

[David G. Healy]

For Messrs. Gratz, Lane, and White:

Thanks for carrying on this important exchange

I wish to be clear on the distinction between "debate" and "confrontation" as I reference it for our shared purposes.

As I've previously noted, the former term carries with it the implication that both points of view under consideration, while oppositional, are equally worthy of respect as intellectually honest positions expressed by rational advocates.

Yet by definition, a ratonal human being who is reasonably well informed regarding the evidence in this case who yet defends the LN position is NOT being intellectually honest when doing so.

Further, and again by definition, such an individual cannot be an advocate for truth and justice in the case of the unsolved (in terms of "who" and "why"), conspiratorial homicide of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Accordingly, a "debate" with Bugliosi would serve only to fortify -- for the culture and for history -- the proposition that the LN "argument" is as likely to be factual as is the conspiracy position.

And again, the prime targets of opportunity for Bugliosi's masters are ... the culture and history.

However ... A "confrontation" with Bugliosi (or Posner, or any of their ilk) that begins with an unambiguous statement of the thoughts and sentiments expressed above and further is comprised of a mixture of unassailable fact, blunt contextualization of the opponent's failings and motives, and mercilessly cutting humor, simultaneously reveals and champions the truth and denies to the liars the high ground upon which they depend for protection: history's level playing field.

Debate? Never!

Confrontation? Until the battle is won!

Charles Drago

you're absolutely correct...!

[Jack White]

Maybe we could get Michael Moore to take on Vincent Bugliosi.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/121.html

Michael Moore would have three strikes before he started.

1. The unshaven disheveled fat boy digs satire and laughs with his facts

2. He is not conversant with the issues of the case, as far as I know

3. He would face ridicule as a nut who thinks 911 was an inside job

Now I happen to like him...but I would not want him to represent

the real researchers of the case.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

I think it should be someone who knows Bugliosi's style, and is as up-to-date on the evidence and latest developments as the Bug.

I also think it needs to be conducted in a fitting manner and location.

For the above reasons, I nominate Charley Manson with the event staged by the World Wrestling Federation inside a caged ring.

Charles Drago to officiate.

[Charles Drago]

This thread should be pinned.

[Pat Speer]

If such a debate were to occur, the debater should not be someone who already thinks he KNOWS the evidence, but rather someone who is willing to look through Bugliosi's 53 reasons to believe Oswald did it, and study the background of those assertions, so he knows Bugliosi's position better than Bugliosi.

After reading through Bugliosi's list, I focused on four items that caught my attention, and researched them thoroughly.

1) He asserts that Charles Givens was the last to see Oswald before the shooting, and that he saw him on the sixth floor. Fact: there are 2 to 4 witnesses who saw Oswald on the lower floors after Givens and one would have little difficulty convincing an audience that this is bunkum.

2) He asserts that Oswald changed his story and admitted he'd descended the stairs before seeing Officer Baker. Fact: this is based on Harry Holmes' month-after recollections of his conversation with Oswald. The contemporaneous notes of Fritz and Kelley reflect no such change in Oswald's story. Once again, there would be no problem convincing an audience this is bunkum.

3) He asserts that that the paraffin tests suggest Oswald fired the shots that killed Kennedy. Fact: he ignores that the paraffin casts were later tested using NAA, and that little gsr was found on the cast of Oswald's cheek. This test suggests Oswald's innocence, not guilt. One could use this to blow Bugliosi out of the water and expose him as a lazy or dishonest researcher.

4) He asserts that fibers from Oswald's shirt were found on the rifle. Fact: this test was performed on the morning of the 23rd, before Fritz and feebies found out that Oswald had changed his shirt and that he hadn't been wearing the shirt he was wearing when arrested while at work on the 22nd. They subsequently tried to prove that Oswald had worn this shirt to work, but couldn't find ONE co-worker, outside Charles Givens, and then only temporarily, to state that Oswald had been wearing the shirt in question to work. The FBI and WC instead relied upon the recollections of Oswald's former landlady, who's seen Oswald only briefly on a bus, and she admitted that she'd barely looked at him. This raises the strong possibility that the DPD or FBI planted the fibers on the rifle.

Should one research the other 49 claims in such detail, I think one could blow Bugliosi out of the water on most of them. As stated, the one who should debate Bugliosi is the one who will counter Bugliosi, on Bugliosi's evidence, and not someone who'll rely upon what he read 20 years ago.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

If we are serious about this, someone could contact Bugliosi's publisher and see if he was interested in participating.

I would suggest modeling it perhaps after a presidential debate.

I would hold it in a dignified forum, e.g. a university campus. Tickets could be sold or distributed through a raffle.

Next thing to consider would be the rules of the debate. Perhaps there could be two different formats: one, resolved that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and that he acted alone; two, resolved, that there was a conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination. Which of the two propositions to be argued would decide, for instance, which debater went first. I would suggest the format be determined by a flip of a coin. This would be done weeks before the event.

Perhaps there could be a panel of four persons to question the debaters: two from each camp.

Next question to throw out for discussion: who would be good to act as the moderator of the debate? A well-known and respected moderator could help sell the program. What about Greta Van Susterin, or perhaps someone from Court TV?

Finally, I would suggest the debate be scheduled in connection with the 44th anniversary of the assassination.

What say you?

[Tim Gratz]

I suggest the possibility of two of these names as conspiracy panelists:

Debra Conrad

John Simkin

Gaeton Fonzi

Rex Brafdord

Pat Speer

Bill Kelly

Larry Hancock

For the other side, one whose name comes to mind as a potential panelist would be Professor MacAdams.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Greg Parker]

This thread should be pinned.

[David G. Healy]

What is the objective? Conspiracy in the murder of JFK? -or- SBT-LHO did it?