Who Should Debate Bugliosi?

[Tim Gratz]

The objective is to have a debate on those issues with leading proponents of both sides of the question. Presumably public exposure to our POV helps advance the case for a conspiracy.

[Don Jeffries]

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

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

John,

I saw Michael Moore on an episode of Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" some years ago. Gerald Posner was another panelist, and while the obnoxious (and anything but politically incorrect) Maher couldn't agree eagerly enough with Posner's Oswald-did-it mantra, Moore just smiled and said nothing. So, I have to assume he either accepts the official fairy tale, or just knows nothing about it and doesn't care enough to learn. Either way, he would obviously not put up much of an argument on this subject.

[Charles Drago]

The objective is to have a debate on those issues with leading proponents of both sides of the question. Presumably public exposure to our POV helps advance the case for a conspiracy.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WORNG

The objective is to DENY debate, because the conspiracy question has been answered to the degree of metaphysical certitude.

CONSPIRACY IS TRUTH.

There is NO NEED WHATSOEVER for help as far as the case -- the PROVEN case -- for conspiracy is concerned.

There is GREAT NEED for help in explaining the truth to the conspiracy's surviving victims.

Until and unless we understand this CRITICAL distinction, the conspirators have nothing to fear.

It's CONFRONTATION that we seek.

Charles

Edited July 13, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Kathleen Collins]

Well, I know of one person who shouldn't debate Bugliosi: Jim Fetzer. I just saw him interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on youtube.com. I don't know if I'm allowed to say this on the Forum, but he came across like such a pussy! No substance to him! At least try to talk over O'Reilly. He sat there like a mummy. I also think he should have dressed better. Oh, and I was surprised he's a retired Professor. Didn't they throw him out for some reason? Harrassing a woman or something?

See if you agree:

Kathy

[Pamela Brown]

... Oh, and I was surprised he's a retired Professor. Didn't they throw him out for some reason? Harrassing a woman or something?...

You're right. He had some difficulty at UMD and chose to 'retire'.

[Pamela Brown]

Bugliosi is a prosecutor. He is good at that. Mark Lane is a defense attorney. He fought and won the case against "Spotlight" and E. Howard Hunt. Lane may be the most skilled adversary.

However, I do agree that 'debating' per se will probably get nowhere, unless the debate appropriately orients RH. It is, in fact, documentation of the ongoing coverup. It is WC redux. It is shameless in its ignoring even HSCA in order to claim LHO acted alone. So the issue to 'debate', if there is one, is why the LHO/LNT myth is being dragged out yet again after so many years.

[David G. Healy]

'Kathleen Collins' wrote:

Well, I know of one person who shouldn't debate Bugliosi: Jim Fetzer. I just saw him interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on youtube.com. I don't know if I'm allowed to say this on the Forum, but he came across like such a pussy! No substance to him! At least try to talk over O'Reilly. He sat there like a mummy. I also think he should have dressed better. Oh, and I was surprised he's a retired Professor. Didn't they throw him out for some reason? Harrassing a woman or something?

[...]

***************

you're out of line, Kathleen, and don't let the facts get in your way.... Also, when one reaches the age of 65, retirement is certainly a choice, won't you agree?

[Pat Speer]

Bugliosi is claiming that his book answers all the questions. Bugliosi, however, is working mostly by script. If the errors in his script are exposed, then his whole attack will fall apart. For example, a good percentage of Bugliosi's arguments center around the idea that Oswald killed Tippit, and he would only have killed Tippit if he'd killed Kennedy. The proper response to this would be to concede that Oswald could have killed Tippit, but DENY that he only would have killed Tippit if he'd killed Kennedy. Most people will immediately grasp that if Oswald felt he'd been set up, then he may very well have killed Tippit while trying to escape. Bugliosi will almost certainly continue to harp on this idea, however, because it is in his script, and he'll eventually look so desperate he'll lose credibility. I'm confident that we can mop up the floor with him, on his terms, on the accepted evidence, because he's not half as good as he thinks he is, and not nearly as good as the media seems to believe.

[Charles Black]

Although the "proposed confrontation or debate" would certainly draw much needed attention of the public to this case, I must continue to assert that it will bring "No Closure" !

With nothing "really new" that can be interjected by either side....I foresee a "tug of war"....... a very stationary "tug of war" at that !

It does not take genius to determine exactly the points and answers which will be brought forth by both sides. I really do not understand how one can expect an issue that has been debated already for 43 years, by some very brilliant minds, to in the matter of a few hours or even a few months, be resolved to anyone's satisfaction....There are no NEW arguments. There are no new FACTS. It can only be a REHASH of 43 years.

I can see "responsible good" coming from a debate ONLY in the introduction of some of the former "unknowing" public to the complexities of the case.

From my viewpoint, an ongoing "conspiracy to cover" can be proven as fact.......but only if a great deal of the incontrovertible evidence can be presented. The time frame of even an extended debate would not reasonably be possible to present all such evidence.

As we know, for every point there is a counterpoint that can be made by a knowledgeable debator. It would take the preponderance of evidence, which is definitely available but not possibly expressable in the time frame of a debate, to be presented, in order to refute the Warren Commission Redux of Mr. Bugliosi!

Other than the "needed reinterest" in the case, I see only re-posturing as the result of such a debate.

The Bugliosi team will even attack the "probable conspiracy" (addendum / conclusion) of the HSCA on the grounds of the reliability of the "sound testing". This alone could drag on for an eternity.

As I have already stated, I would cast my vote FOR a debate...but ONLY for the sake of publicity. Certainly not expecting CLOSURE !

Charles Black

[Cliff Varnell]

on his terms, on the accepted evidence

I can't imagine anything more wrong-headed.

We do not advance the truth by repeating provable lies.

As a line of attack, it needs to be stressed that the autopsy report was a political

document fixed to conform to a political decision to blame the crime on a lone shooter

and 3 shots.

Repeating the talking points of the cover-up is counter-productive, to put it politely.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This nasty must have come from the pen of Josiah Thompson. It certainly does not read like something a woman would have written. O'Reilly is tough. Compare my appearances on "Hannity & Colmes", which are also archived on YouTube. Try either http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojY4VF52JJQ...ted&search= (Norman Mineta's retirement was announced the next morning) or

(where I was even able to say they had their "facts Foxed" for the second time).

Several years ago, I had an inappropriate relationship with a woman, who happened to be the Chancellor's best friend. For reasons I still do not understand, she turned on me and I paid for it. I retired several years later, after 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. It was a great career. Anyone who wants to check it can visit http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ for themselves. If Tink was not behind this post, which trades on rather obscure information, I will eat my hat! Someone around here is a pussy, but it ain't me.

Anyone with a serious interest in Bugliosi's book should visit http://www.assassinationscience.com, especially the section entited "The Latest on JFK", which includes a recent piece by Gerald Posner, my response, the H. L. Hunt "confession", a piece I published in THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES, and reviews of Bugliosi's book by David Mantik and me. That might provide a more suitable basis for drawing inferences about my ability to debate the author of this monstrous book than this carefully contrived attack. I would relish the opportunity to confront him in a public forum.

Well, I know of one person who shouldn't debate Bugliosi: Jim Fetzer. I just saw him interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on youtube.com. I don't know if I'm allowed to say this on the Forum, but he came across like such a pussy! No substance to him! At least try to talk over O'Reilly. He sat there like a mummy. I also think he should have dressed better. Oh, and I was surprised he's a retired Professor. Didn't they throw him out for some reason? Harrassing a woman or something?

See if you agree:

Kathy

Edited July 14, 2007 by James H. Fetzer

[Charles Drago]

This nasty must have come from the pen of Josiah Thompson. It certainly does not read like something a woman would have written. O'Reilly is tough. Compare my appearances on "Hannity & Colmes", which are also archived on YouTube. Try either http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojY4VF52JJQ...ted&search= (Norman Mineta's retirement was announced the next morning) or

(where I was even able to say they had their "facts Foxed" for the second time).

Several years ago, I had an inappropriate relationship with a woman, who happened to be the Chancellor's best friend. For reasons I still do not understand, she turned on me and I paid for it. I retired several years later, after 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. It was a great career. Anyone who wants to check it can visit http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ for themselves. If Tink was not behind this post, which trades on rather obscure information, I will eat my hat! Someone around here is a pussy, but it ain't me.

Anyone with a serious interest in Bugliosi's book should visit http://www.assassinationscience.com, especially the section entited "The Latest on JFK", which includes a recent piece by Gerald Posner, my response, the H. L. Hunt "confession", a piece I published in THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES, and reviews of Bugliosi's book by David Mantik and me. That might provide a more suitable basis for drawing inferences about my ability to debate the author of this monstrous book than this carefully contrived attack. I would relish the opportunity to confront him in a public forum.

Jim,

Bravo! Don't take this B.S. for a minute! And by the way, you don't owe any one of us an explanation for your personal choices. It is your work alone that is legitimately open to public review.

Regards,

Charles

[Terry Mauro]

Well, I know of one person who shouldn't debate Bugliosi: Jim Fetzer. I just saw him interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on youtube.com. I don't know if I'm allowed to say this on the Forum, but he came across like such a pussy! No substance to him! At least try to talk over O'Reilly. He sat there like a mummy. I also think he should have dressed better. Oh, and I was surprised he's a retired Professor. Didn't they throw him out for some reason? Harrassing a woman or something?

See if you agree:

Kathy

*******************************************************************

Kathleen. That's not the kind of way to win friends and influence people. Dig yourself! Totally inappropriate.

[Terry Mauro]

Bugliosi is a prosecutor. He is good at that. Mark Lane is a defense attorney. He fought and won the case against "Spotlight" and E. Howard Hunt. Lane may be the most skilled adversary.

However, I do agree that 'debating' per se will probably get nowhere, unless the debate appropriately orients RH. It is, in fact, documentation of the ongoing coverup. It is WC redux. It is shameless in its ignoring even HSCA in order to claim LHO acted alone. So the issue to 'debate', if there is one, is why the LHO/LNT myth is being dragged out yet again after so many years.

*****************************************************************

"Mark Lane is a defense attorney. He fought and won the case against "Spotlight" and E. Howard Hunt. Lane may be the most skilled adversary."

I'd like to see him teamed up with Fonzi, and Doug Horne, as well.

"However, I do agree that 'debating' per se will probably get nowhere, unless the debate appropriately orients RH. It is, in fact, documentation of the ongoing coverup. It is WC redux. It is shameless in its ignoring even HSCA in order to claim LHO acted alone."

And, let us not forget who hobbled that committee's efforts after Johannides was given a position on it.

[Terry Mauro]

This nasty must have come from the pen of Josiah Thompson. It certainly does not read like something a woman would have written. O'Reilly is tough. Compare my appearances on "Hannity & Colmes", which are also archived on YouTube. Try either http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojY4VF52JJQ...ted&search= (Norman Mineta's retirement was announced the next morning) or

(where I was even able to say they had their "facts Foxed" for the second time).

Several years ago, I had an inappropriate relationship with a woman, who happened to be the Chancellor's best friend. For reasons I still do not understand, she turned on me and I paid for it. I retired several years later, after 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. It was a great career. Anyone who wants to check it can visit http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ for themselves. If Tink was not behind this post, which trades on rather obscure information, I will eat my hat! Someone around here is a pussy, but it ain't me.

Anyone with a serious interest in Bugliosi's book should visit http://www.assassinationscience.com, especially the section entited "The Latest on JFK", which includes a recent piece by Gerald Posner, my response, the H. L. Hunt "confession", a piece I published in THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES, and reviews of Bugliosi's book by David Mantik and me. That might provide a more suitable basis for drawing inferences about my ability to debate the author of this monstrous book than this carefully contrived attack. I would relish the opportunity to confront him in a public forum.

Well, I know of one person who shouldn't debate Bugliosi: Jim Fetzer. I just saw him interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on youtube.com. I don't know if I'm allowed to say this on the Forum, but he came across like such a pussy! No substance to him! At least try to talk over O'Reilly. He sat there like a mummy. I also think he should have dressed better. Oh, and I was surprised he's a retired Professor. Didn't they throw him out for some reason? Harrassing a woman or something?

See if you agree:

Kathy

**************************************************************************

I agree with C.D., Fetz. You don't owe anyone an explanation. Your work, and the collaboration you've had with Mantik, Lifton, Healy, and White, your contribution to the Lancer Conferences, your association with Len Osanic and Prouty's forum, should speak for itself. Although, I wasn't too keen on the "rain sensor" chapter in the original printing, I realize it wasn't your initial idea, and more of an oversight, compared to the body of work you've done over the years to advance this case.

Your personal life is your own, and any female's apparent hormonal imbalance, whether PMS, or pre-menopausal, which is what it seemed to smack of from my

personal assessment of the whole scam that was leveled at you, has no relevance when it comes to judging your competency as a writer, a researcher, or as an investigator. In my humble opinion, you were set up and framed. That's how it appeared to me. Similar to what they tried to do to Wecht. Obviously.

Ter