Who Should Debate Bugliosi?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Robert Charles Dunne, Forcefull, factfull and erudite.

[Jack White]

I'd place Fonzi near the top of any list, for sure.

I think Marrs' controversial views on other matters might lessen his credibility.

You do not know Marr's views. Marrs is an investigative reporter. Because

he investigates and reports about CONTROVERSIAL subjects does not

make his views controversial. I have read all of his books, and they

are filled with facts, not opinions.

I have known Jim for about forty years. His curiosity leads him to tackle

subjects which mainstream reporters shy away from.

Jack

[John Simkin]

Robert Charles Dunne, Forcefull, factfull and erudite.

I agree, but once again I don't think he will do it.

[David G. Healy]

Robert Charles Dunne, Forcefull, factfull and erudite.

yep, I forgot about Robert...

So I'd make my selection to Mark Lane & Robert Charles Dunne (Robert hasn't posted for a while has he?)

Edited July 11, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

Robert Charles Dunne, Forcefull, factfull and erudite.

yep, I forgot about Robert...

So I'd make my selection to Mark Lane & Robert Charles Dunne (Robert hasn't posted for a while has he?)

Robert is a great writer and thinker...but is he a debater? I don't know.

Mark Lane would be good, but I doubt that he has kept up with the case

in recent years. Like the Bug, his facts may be antiquated. Does he know

about the two Oswalds? Z-film alteration. Likely not.

Jac

[Charles Drago]

Again, if the event's raison d'etre is to demonstrate conspiracy, then two LHO's and Z-film authenticity are irrelevant issues.

All that is needed is a presentation of the physical, photographic, audio, medical, eyewitness, and earwitness evidence proving that more than one assassin shot JFK.

Conspiracy is historical fact. Game, set, match.

Keep to "how."

Keep it simple.

If, and only if, a separate and distinct part of the program is devoted to the identification of likely suspects and motives do any other areas of study become relevant.

This is all about intellectual discipline.

STAY ON MESSAGE!

HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW?????????

(Sounds like a receiving line at a Native American wedding.)

Charles

[Jack White]

Again, if the event's raison d'etre is to demonstrate conspiracy, then two LHO's and Z-film authenticity are irrelevant issues.

All that is needed is a presentation of the physical, photographic, audio, medical, eyewitness, and earwitness evidence proving that more than one assassin shot JFK.

Conspiracy is historical fact. Game, set, match.

Keep to "how."

Keep it simple.

If, and only if, a separate and distinct part of the program is devoted to the identification of likely suspects and motives do any other areas of study become relevant.

This is all about intellectual discipline.

STAY ON MESSAGE!

HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW?????????

(Sounds like a receiving line at a Native American wedding.)

Charles

But Charles...it is NOT simple.

EVERY point of the Bug must be refuted...and then NEW evidence

presented showing his research is stuck in the sixties.

You and I know that you are correct. But if you keep it too simple

the general public won't care...the basic simple stuff has been

there more than 40 years, and has not sunk in yet with the average

person. Shock treatment is required.

Jack

[Kathleen Collins]

We need someone who is not intimidated by Bugliosi and the rest of them who say LHO killed Kennedy from behind. Bugliosi was a prosecutor. We need someone who's a tough liberal and is very knowledgable about the Conspiracy and someone who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the Kennedy Assassination and knows LHO wasn't the lone assassin.

On Hannity and Colmes, Hannity comes across stronger than Colmes does. As a matter of fact, Colmes is pretty weak, in my opinion. We need a tough person. Why not someone from this Forum? I'm thinking Terry Mauro, who knows a lot and is tough; or I don't know if he's on this Forum but how about Greg Burnham? He's been on TV before and I think he likes to spar. We need someone who is tough -- emphasized. Or else, how about A.J. Weberman, who's so obsessive he probably knows everything about the Kennedy Assassination?

I mean we can't have Barbara Walters. She was good for Robert Blake, but not for Kennedy. We can't have a wimp. And considering TV people I think is a mistake.

In the old days I would have suggested Gore Vidal, had he known a lot about the opinions on this Forum and the sources. I know he doesn't believe in Secret Societies. And thinks Kennedy was the worst President we ever had because he brought us closest to nuclear extinction No, Gore Vidal wouldn't be the candidate, then or now.

Kathy

[Charles Drago]

But Jack ... it remains for us to underscore the simplicity of the "how" part of this case.

Pre-encounter rule setting must include a "'how'-only" stipulation. Every time Bugliosi strays, he gets mercilessly scolded. Hounded. Devastated!

This exchange only incidentally would be about the quality of his research. Demonstrations of the T-3 posterior wound of entrance as fact and how this fact alone proves conspiracy are followed by illustrations of how and WHY Bugliosi CHOSE to get it all so very wrong. That's where you expose his locked-in-1964 stasis and his dark agenda.

Relentless reminders that he is OFF POINT, OFF POINT, OFF POINT will serve to make him a laughing stock whenever he attempts one of his "Why would Castro hire Oswald?" circumlocutions.

The opening statement would be all-important. It would have to include an up-front version of my "conspiracy is fact, anyone denying it is crazy or criminal" premise, followed by anticipation and demolition of the bases of the "arguments" he will present. It also will put him on notice of how straying from "how" will not be tolerated.

Jack, the complexities of this case are many and deep. But they do not extend to the proof we have of "how" JFK was killed.

Conspiracy is open and shut. As someone else accurately posted, a six-year-old could do it.

Charles

Edited July 11, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Cliff Varnell]

Again, if the event's raison d'etre is to demonstrate conspiracy, then two LHO's and Z-film authenticity are irrelevant issues.

All that is needed is a presentation of the physical, photographic, audio, medical, eyewitness, and earwitness evidence proving that more than one assassin shot JFK.

Conspiracy is historical fact. Game, set, match.

Keep to "how."

Keep it simple.

If, and only if, a separate and distinct part of the program is devoted to the identification of likely suspects and motives do any other areas of study become relevant.

This is all about intellectual discipline.

STAY ON MESSAGE!

HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW?????????

(Sounds like a receiving line at a Native American wedding.)

Charles

But Charles...it is NOT simple.

EVERY point of the Bug must be refuted...and then NEW evidence

presented showing his research is stuck in the sixties.

You and I know that you are correct. But if you keep it too simple

the general public won't care...the basic simple stuff has been

there more than 40 years, and has not sunk in yet with the average

person. Shock treatment is required.

Jack

The basic simple stuff has been there for 40+ years and many, many

CTs ignore it -- just as Bugliosi does.

The holes in the clothes are 2" to 3" too low for the SBT.

Period.

Fonzi gets it. Marrs gets it. Groden gets it. Twyman gets it.

Why argue the fact of conspiracy on anything else?

The burden of proof is on LNers to show how a tucked-in

custom-made dress shirt could ride up 2+" when it only

has a fraction of an inch of slack.

3/4" does not equal 2+".

What the hell more do we need to argue?

That is why Bugliosi refuses to mention

the location of the clothing holes vis a vis the SBT.

Let's not fight him on what he says, let's fight him

on what he disingenuously ignores.

Jim Marrs vs. Vincent Bugliosi would be a one-punch knock-out.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Hogan]

Anyone who has read Breach of Trust knows that Professor Gerald McKnight would quickly prove that Bugliosi's most basic assertions about the Warren Commission's findings are nonsense.

If he were still alive, Harold Weisberg in a tailored suit could do the same thing masterfully, without breaking a sweat.

[Charles Drago]

Best choice yet, Michael -- IF Professor McKnight understands and accepts the "stick to the 'how'" strategy.

CD

[William Kelly]

I don't think Bugliosi has to be debated.

Just solve the crime and indict those responsible and his book will become meaningless.

While I'm sure Bugliosi was a good debater in school, making presentations and introducing evidence in a court room is his forte,

He's best at putting on an animated stand up court routine that requires the prosecutor to have the evidence at hand, evidence that he didn't develop, evidence that street cops developed, that detectives and staff investigators paid to investigate develop. He depends on compentent others to bring him the goods that he in tern presents in court.

Nor is he a writer, who jots down notes on a yellow legal pad and then reads them into a microphone and tape recorder, which results in a transcript typed by a secretary.

Although he might think he was terrific in the mock trial in London, that's his element, and writing a book is out of his element, except where he can oratate.

That's what makes me believe the rumors that Bugliosi farmed out chapters and issues to others he trusts, with similarly closed minds, like Dale Meyers and Pat Lampert and Priscilla Johnson MacM. Jean Davis comes to mind too, but I think she might have some scruples.

Bugliosi certainly knows that there are two kinds of forensics. The school forensic society, in which debaters take sides and espouse opposing views, and the legal forensic term that refers to the introduction of evidence in court.

Rather than debtae Bugliosi in a format that ends with an opinion poll on who "won" the verbal argument, I think it would be more fitting to apply the legal forensic term and place the evidence of the crimes related to the assassination in court, where they belong.

The outcome of a verbal debate would be unsatisfactory, regardless of who the survey says won.

BK

[David G. Healy]

Anyone who has read Breach of Trust knows that Professor Gerald McKnight would quickly prove that Bugliosi's most basic assertions about the Warren Commission's findings are nonsense.

If he were still alive, Harold Weisberg in a tailored suit could do the same thing masterfully, without breaking a sweat.

GREAT call, Michael!

[Jack White]

Anyone who has read Breach of Trust knows that Professor Gerald McKnight would quickly prove that Bugliosi's most basic assertions about the Warren Commission's findings are nonsense.

If he were still alive, Harold Weisberg in a tailored suit could do the same thing masterfully, without breaking a sweat.

I never saw Harold in a "tailored suit"...he was a sports shirt kind of guy.

Jack

PS...somebody who could knock out the Bug with one punch is CYRIL WECHT,

but Bug would attack him on false issues.