Jump to content
The Education Forum

Who Should Debate Bugliosi?


Recommended Posts

Apparently Bugliosi walked out of a debate or discussion with Lamar Waldron a few days ago.

Understand Bugliosi is no dummy. He beat Gerry Spence in that jury trial on Oswald's guilt, remember.

But I think he has a much harder bridge to sell in convincing the public that there was no conspiracy in the JFK case.

A debate may never happen but I thought your thoughts would be interesting on who you believe would be the best person to "take on" Vincent in a debate over: Resolved, the JFK assassination involved more than one actor.

And also what would be used as the top four reasons (I wanted to limit it) that prove a conspiracy existed.

I would suggest either Larry Hancock or Pat Speer would reduce Vincent to irrelevancy.

Any other candidates? And if you had to select only one, who would it be?

I am also sure Gerry Hemming could defeat Bugliosi but I want to limit the discussion to current generation researchers/writers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Apparently Bugliosi walked out of a debate or discussion with Lamar Waldron a few days ago.

Understand Bugliosi is no dummy. He beat Gerry Spence in that jury trial on Oswald's guilt, remember.

But I think he has a much harder bridge to sell in convincing the public that there was no conspiracy in the JFK case.

A debate may never happen but I thought your thoughts would be interesting on who you believe would be the best person to "take on" Vincent in a debate over: Resolved, the JFK assassination involved more than one actor.

And also what would be used as the top four reasons (I wanted to limit it) that prove a conspiracy existed.

I would suggest either Larry Hancock or Pat Speer would reduce Vincent to irrelevancy.

Any other candidates? And if you had to select only one, who would it be?

I am also sure Gerry Hemming could defeat Bugliosi but I want to limit the discussion to current generation researchers/writers.

Gaeton Fonzi or Jim Marrs.

Or my best friend's 6 year old, who could point out the location

of the holes in JFK's clothes.

There's a reason Bugliosi spent 20 years and 1600 pages ignoring the

only extant, direct physical evidence of the nature of JFK's wounds.

The clothing evidence is the Achilles Heel of the LN.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing more outer space than the LN. :)

Fonzi's my main guy, absolutely.

The "debate" wouldn't last any longer than Ali-Liston II.

JFK's T3 back wound is a fact, folks, and nobody demonstrates that

better than Fonzi.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect there is still enough interest in the assassination that a debate of sixty to ninety minutes between Bugliosi and a conspiracy advocate might generate sufficient viewership to make such a program potentially attractive to a sponsor or sponsors.

Bugliosi might agree to participate either for ego or to sell more copies of his book.

After the show, the viewers could call a 900 number to express their opinions re which side won the debate (more potential revenue).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting! However, I believe you guys are looking in the wrong direction. With the possible exception of Mark Lane, the names mentioned are quite knowledgable about the Cuban Exile Connection. This just doesn't cut it. First of all, there would need to be a person who would not be put off by Bugliosi's arrogance. Then you would need someone very knowledgable, in ALL areas of JFK research from Medical to Ballistics and even about Oswald and the Dallas Police Dept and so on. You would just need to raise the citeria level in your selections to square off with the Bugs.

_______

Dixie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one -- repeat, NO ONE -- should ever "debate" Bugliosi or any accessory after the fact to the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

"Debate" implies that there are respectable, defensible, and in most cases (other than in what might best be termed laboratory situations) honestly held yet conflicting points of view to be argued.

Make no mistake: All that Bugliosi's masters want from him and Posner and lesser known accessories is support of the illusion that the lie is in fact and at least an intellectually valid and honest explanation of the assassination.

And Bugliosi brings ZERO respect to those who oppose his views.

Who, then, among those most expert in the facts of this case possesses a combination of command of those facts, erudition, grace under fire, wit, righteousness, the warrior spirit, and the willingness to denounce, degrade, and to the best of his or her ability shame Bugliosi by exposing his obeisance to the forces that murdered JFK?

Most significantly, who understands the significance of differentiating between the "how" and "who and why" of the killing?

Dr. David Mantik brings many of those desired qualities to the table. So does Gaeton Fonzi. I may be prejudiced, but my dear friend George Michael Evica also has what it takes to get the job done.

In my opinion, others mentioned in this thread either are not well known to me or are sufficiently challenged in one or more of the areas listed above to remove them from consideration.

Charles Drago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS

For me, the basic ground rule for the encounter would be a clear definition of the area of discussion: HOW was JFK killed?

Strict adherence to this rule eliminates the need for expertise in the backgrounds of suspects.

All we want out of this is to bludgeon Bugliosi with the demonstrable facts of conspiracy.

If he is denied access to a conflation of "how" and "who and why," he's deader than Hogan's you-know-whats.

Not that he's alive under any circumstances.

For the purposes of this encounter, it doesn't matter if the GD Martians did it!

It ends with two questions:

Now that we have demonstrated that conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical fact ...

Are we prepared to use what we know about the "how," reverse-engineer it, so to speak, and begin to eliminate suspects?

How can we describe ourselves as a moral and just people if we choose not to utilize our knowledge of the truth to define and effect justice?

CD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, I'm going to weigh in with Charles on this one. For reference, I followed behind Bugliosi about a week ago on

an LA radio talk show. He had been on a week or so before and although the host thought he was sincere, he didn't buy

a word of his final solution. Which helps persuade me that the only folks who are going to be persuaded by Bugliosi are

those who already buy into the Oswald did it alone "legend", who are Bubliosi fans (you see a lot of them posting on

Amazon) or the establishment media (who only want a sound byte and don't want to deal with this anyway since its

sort of embarassing that they missed the real story - would be really embarassing for them to ever have to accept

that they failed the nation so badly). We have to accept that Bugliosi's line is comforting to a lot of people, not only

the media but those who just don't want to mentally cope with the thought that their could be conspiracies (and people)

who could get away with killing a President. At least that is true in the U.S.; it seems much less the case in the rest of

the world.

I think what would be much more important for our public visibility is the sort of thing David is doing which is taking a

historical story to mainstream media. One of the best things to broaden our reach since the JFK movie was the Vanity

Fair article by Summers which brought a lot of the newest 90's information into a broad circulation readership....things

Bubliosi still does not address (we have to keep harping on the fact that as far as data is concerned he is stuck in 1964

and is simply presenting the prosecution's case for the Warren Commission, not making use of any of new data, new

techniques etc - as John Newman once said, you need to keep pointing out that its not really a debate if your opponent

is either a) not in possession of all the facts and data or :rolleyes: is in denial.

So...aside from the quest for a new legal initiative, more than debate, I think what would serve us best is popular articles

by David and others - and better yet a couple of new movies or documentaries. And in those Bugliosi deserves mention

for a fine job of presenting the WC lone nut case but that's it. It's still not justice if you only hear from the prosection.

And Bugliosi's book is not history, its not an investigation; it's the prosecution's case in print...lots of print. Those with any

media reach at all should help Talbot, Mark Lane and other known figures to get print time and air time, not to debate t

but to present "the rest of the story" (with credit to Paul Harvey for that line).

-- Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only two people I know could defeat the arrogant Bug in a no-holds-barred debate.

Both have total recall of ALL THE FACTS and are the best extemporaneous speakers

I know. They can filibuster the facts so fast and furious that Bugsy cannot get a

word in edgewise. They are fiercely forceful and competitive...and loud...and unafraid.

They are Dr. Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs.

This is no job for quiet scholarly types like Peter Dale Scott or George Michael Evica,

who would be great in an academic debate...but let's face it, the Bug is not an academic...

he is a vitriolic blusterer and name caller. I like and admire Larry Hancock and many

other researchers who know the facts...but let's face it, they are not fit opponents

for a polished prosecutor filled with ego and vitriol. This is not a David and Goliath debate.

Someone is needed who can take the Bug's best shots and counterpunch with a knockout.

Marrs and Fetzer have the facts and the bravado to get the job done.

Won't happen, though. The Bug knows he couldn't handle them.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...