Who Should Debate Bugliosi?

[Michael Hogan]

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.

Yes sir. That is what prompted my comment.

[Tim Gratz]

Mr. Drago wrote:

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.

I totally agree with him. If the challenge of the conspiracy debater is to prove that a conspiracy exists, that is all that is necessary.

There is an old but true legal adage about a lawyer who attempts to prove "too much", that is, to prove more than is necessary to win his or her case.

I do not think it necessary to refute every single point Bugliosi makes or attempts to make. If there are twenty "facts" that either prove or strongly indicate a conspiracy, each of which he attempts to disprove, all that is strictly necessary is to prove that he has not effectively rebutted a single one of those facts. I think our hypothetical debater would want to begin by making just that point: that it is not necessary to prove Bugliosi wrong in every thing, just in some things, or even in one thing. One example might be the issue of whether Ruby knew Oswald before the assassination, a "fact" that, if true, is at least strongly indicative of a conspiracy. There were a number of reported sightings of Ruby with Oswald. In order to defeat Bugliosi, it should only be necessary to prove that a single one of those sightings was probably true.

So I think the conspiracy debater should concentrate on no more than three or four "facts" which either prove or are at least strongly indicative of a conspiracy. Twould be nice indeed if the conspiracy debater could show how Bugliosi has misstated or twisted the evidence relating to one of those points.

Although proof of alteration of the Zapruder film would certainly be proof of a conspiracy, this is an item that remains controversial even among the assassination research community, of course. This is, I submit, an item not necessary to prove to show the existence of a conspiracy. Why not concentrate on items on which there is a wide consensus among assassination researchers? Presumably, the existence of a consensus is some indication of the strength of a position. Would one item of proof be, for instance, that the so-called "magic bullet" could not possibly have caused all of the injuries attributed to it? Do we all agree with that proposition?

[Jack White]

Mr. Drago wrote:

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.

I totally agree with him. If the challenge of the conspiracy debater is to prove that a conspiracy exists, that is all that is necessary.

There is an old but true legal adage about a lawyer who attempts to prove "too much", that is, to prove more than is necessary to win his or her case.

I do not think it necessary to refute every single point Bugliosi makes or attempts to make. If there are twenty "facts" that either prove or strongly indicate a conspiracy, each of which he attempts to disprove, all that is strictly necessary is to prove that he has not effectively rebutted a single one of those facts. I think our hypothetical debater would want to begin by making just that point: that it is not necessary to prove Bugliosi wrong in every thing, just in some things, or even in one thing. One example might be the issue of whether Ruby knew Oswald before the assassination, a "fact" that, if true, is at least strongly indicative of a conspiracy. There were a number of reported sightings of Ruby with Oswald. In order to defeat Bugliosi, it should only be necessary to prove that a single one of those sightings was probably true.

So I think the conspiracy debater should concentrate on no more than three or four "facts" which either prove or are at least strongly indicative of a conspiracy. Twould be nice indeed if the conspiracy debater could show how Bugliosi has misstated or twisted the evidence relating to one of those points.

Although proof of alteration of the Zapruder film would certainly be proof of a conspiracy, this is an item that remains controversial even among the assassination research community, of course. This is, I submit, an item not necessary to prove to show the existence of a conspiracy. Why not concentrate on items on which there is a wide consensus among assassination researchers? Presumably, the existence of a consensus is some indication of the strength of a position. Would one item of proof be, for instance, that the so-called "magic bullet" could not possibly have caused all of the injuries attributed to it? Do we all agree with that proposition?

I disagree. If you produce only three or four arguments, they come back with IS THAT ALL YOU'VE GOT? HA HA HA!

Jack

[Duke Lane]

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.

I agree with Charles and Larry: nobody.

Why dignify it with response?

[Tim Gratz]

Bill Kelly wrote:

"I don't think Bugliosi has to be debated.

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

Oh, that it was that easy, Bill!

As you know, I totally agree with you re the need for a new investigation with the legal tools needed by a prosecutor but that may not happen and even if it did not sure it would prove that simple to indict and convict anyone.

I do not think it "dignifies" Bugliosi to debate him and I believe the "court" of public opinion remains important. Indeed, I believe public support would help your "cause".

Ergo, Bugliosi ought to be debated if he is willing to debate.

[Charles Drago]

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

[Tim Gratz]

Well I would not be that confrontational, I am afraid.

Why call someone "intellectually dishonest"?

I would simply show how many facts demonstrating a conspiracy are almost incontravertible and let the audience reach its own conclusions regarding the honesty of one's opponent.

But I do agree that it could be important to engage Bugliosi in a debate or confrontation, call it what you will. This would be a way to do an "end run" around the establishment media so protective of the LN thesis! Question is whether Bugliosi would ever agree to debate?

[Charles Drago]

Well I would not be that confrontational, I am afraid.

Why call someone "intellectually dishonest"?

I would simply show how many facts demonstrating a conspiracy are almost incontravertible and let the audience reach its own conclusions regarding the honesty of one's opponent.

But I do agree that it could be important to engage Bugliosi in a debate or confrontation, call it what you will. This would be a way to do an "end run" around the establishment media so protective of the LN thesis! Question is whether Bugliosi would ever agree to debate?

Tim,

You wouldn't be confrontational???

What the hell happened in Dealey Plaza? A polite expression of political differences?

This isn't the Oxford Debating Society. This is war.

This wizened puppet is a mortal enemy of your country. He defends the regicidal maniacs who killed your president.

Why call him intellectually dishonest?

Well ... If he's rational, and if he enjoys reasonable access to the JFK evidence, and if he yet champions the LN lie, then I for one cannot conjure a more accurate description of the SOB.

Charles

[Jack White]

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

Charles...I agree, but the TOPIC of this thread was whom to nominate TO DEBATE the Bug.

Based on that premise, I suggested CONFRONTATIONAL opponents like Marrs, Fetzer or Wecht,

rather than "academic" debaters like G.M. Evica and P.D. Scott. However, it is just a pipedream.

Bugsy is too smart to debate ANYONE who knows the FACTS. But the public doesn't know that.

Jack

[Charles Drago]

I understand, Jack.

And I'm glad that you share my sense of the need for confrontation.

Yeah, the notion of "debate" is embedded in this thread's title. Which was enough to set this contrarian off!

Just to be clear: I'm not calling for a Chris Matthews-esque shouting match, but rather the deployment of a weaponized hybrid of intellect and emotion, tightly controlled, dramatically rendered, and precisely aimed.

Charles

[Jack White]

I understand, Jack.

And I'm glad that you share my sense of the need for confrontation.

Yeah, the notion of "debate" is embedded in this thread's title. Which was enough to set this contrarian off!

Just to be clear: I'm not calling for a Chris Matthews-esque shouting match, but rather the deployment of a weaponized hybrid of intellect and emotion, tightly controlled, dramatically rendered, and precisely aimed.

Charles

You have likely seen Wecht, Marrs and Fetzer in action. If limited to one "debater"

...which of those three would you choose, or would you nominate one I have not thought of?

My assessment:

Marrs...best command of facts, instant recall, voice of reason, comfortable stage presence

Wecht...best orator but command of some facts may be outdated

Fetzer...excellent speaker, instant recall, knows facts, maybe TOO confrontational/emotional

Your assessment? Others?

Thanks.

Jack

[Charles Drago]

You have likely seen Wecht, Marrs and Fetzer in action. If limited to one "debater"

...which of those three would you choose, or would you nominate one I have not thought of?

Okay,

I want to be careful here. Dr. Wecht, Mr. Marrs, and Professor Fetzer have earned our respect many times over. And Jim Fetzer is my friend.

Each would bring to the confrontation myriad strengths and, beyond any question, the courage of his convictions.

But I would pass on all three for a Bugliosi operation, and for reasons relating to my perceptions of their respective abilities to execute the strategy that I favor.

In other words, I don't see these gentlemen as working effectively within the relatively narrow parameters of the confrontation as I -- seemingly alone -- envision it. And I don't think it serves any useful purpose to be more forthcoming.

Right now I'd have to go with Professor Gerald McKnight or Dr. David Mantik, with an ever so slight preference for the former.

But I remain open to suggestions.

Charles

Edited July 12, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Jack White]

You have likely seen Wecht, Marrs and Fetzer in action. If limited to one "debater"

...which of those three would you choose, or would you nominate one I have not thought of?

Okay,

I want to be careful here. Dr. Wecht, Mr. Marrs, and Professor Fetzer have earned our respect many times over. And Jim Fetzer is my friend.

Each would bring to the confrontation myriad strengths and, beyond any question, the courage of his convictions.

But I would pass on all three for a Bugliosi operation, and for reasons relating to my perceptions of their respective abilities to execute the strategy that I favor.

In other words, I don't see these gentlemen as working effectively within the relatively narrow parameters of the confrontation as I -- seemingly alone -- envision it. And I don't think it serves any useful purpose to be more forthcoming.

Right now I'd have to go with Professor Gerald McKnight or Dr. David Mantik, with an ever so slight preference for the former.

But I remain open to suggestions.

Charles

David Mantik is my friend and one of the most brilliant people I know. But even he

would admit, I think, that his oratorical ability is limited. I am unacquainted with

McKnight. In a debate, command of the facts is not enough. The debate judges

are impressed by a commanding STYLE as well as arguments. Bug DOES have

style better than most....but no substance.

Now if the debate were limited to the MEDICAL AREA, Mantik could knock out

Bugsy with one hand tied behind his back, despite lacking fiery oratory.

Jack

[Evan Marshall]

You have likely seen Wecht, Marrs and Fetzer in action. If limited to one "debater"

...which of those three would you choose, or would you nominate one I have not thought of?

Okay,

I want to be careful here. Dr. Wecht, Mr. Marrs, and Professor Fetzer have earned our respect many times over. And Jim Fetzer is my friend.

Each would bring to the confrontation myriad strengths and, beyond any question, the courage of his convictions.

But I would pass on all three for a Bugliosi operation, and for reasons relating to my perceptions of their respective abilities to execute the strategy that I favor.

In other words, I don't see these gentlemen as working effectively within the relatively narrow parameters of the confrontation as I -- seemingly alone -- envision it. And I don't think it serves any useful purpose to be more forthcoming.

Right now I'd have to go with Professor Gerald McKnight or Dr. David Mantik, with an ever so slight preference for the former.

But I remain open to suggestions.

Charles

David Mantik is my friend and one of the most brilliant people I know. But even he

would admit, I think, that his oratorical ability is limited. I am unacquainted with

McKnight. In a debate, command of the facts is not enough. The debate judges

are impressed by a commanding STYLE as well as arguments. Bug DOES have

style better than most....but no substance.

Now if the debate were limited to the MEDICAL AREA, Mantik could knock out

Bugsy with one hand tied behind his back, despite lacking fiery oratory.

Jack

Bart Simpson

[Michael Hogan]

I think David Wrone is a name worth mentioning.

Brian LeCloux puts it well in this post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=61126