Why Have Their Been so Few DEBATES About the JFK Assassination broadcast in the US Media?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

First does anyone know how many debates there have been on US media either live or taped but JUST NOT SPLICED, ie so the resondents actually had to respond to each other in real time?

I am aware of the one in 1985 involving Bug, and I once saw a transcript of a tiny radio show with a short debate bts. PD Scott vs Posner.

Other than that I am aware of none.

I think that handled with even minimal competence, such a debate could get a stunning audience, so the commercial answer is not one as far as Im concerned (unless there was a will to generate a tiny audience for psy ops purposses)

I actually think that a debate between Guru Chomsky vs Peter Dale Scott could be a turning point in the history of American politics. That's just why I am sure it will never happen. I would have such a debate be only about one third on the assassination, but at least two thirds on JFKS foreign and domestic policies. Or better yet two separate ones on these question.

Why the policy debate? The misrepresentation of JFKs actual policies has been the fundamental way that so many liberals and leftists have been persuaded not to look into the assassination. In other words, the government knows not to go into the assassination research with these folk, so it they have to be persuaded that the JFK assassination is just a waste of time, because he 'was just another cold warrier etc"

In doing THAT, they have already divided the potential political pressure for a new investigation and reduced it by at least 60%

[Jack White]

First does anyone know how many debates there have been on US media either live or taped but JUST NOT SPLICED, ie so the resondents actually had to respond to each other in real time?

I am aware of the one in 1985 involving Bug, and I once saw a transcript of a tiny radio show with a short debate bts. PD Scott vs Posner.

Other than that I am aware of none.

I think that handled with even minimal competence, such a debate could get a stunning audience, so the commercial answer is not one as far as Im concerned (unless there was a will to generate a tiny audience for psy ops purposses)

I actually think that a debate between Guru Chomsky vs Peter Dale Scott could be a turning point in the history of American politics. That's just why I am sure it will never happen. I would have such a debate be only about one third on the assassination, but at least two thirds on JFKS foreign and domestic policies. Or better yet two separate ones on these question.

Why the policy debate? The misrepresentation of JFKs actual policies has been the fundamental way that so many liberals and leftists have been persuaded not to look into the assassination. In other words, the government knows not to go into the assassination research with these folk, so it they have to be persuaded that the JFK assassination is just a waste of time, because he 'was just another cold warrier etc"

In doing THAT, they have already divided the potential political pressure for a new investigation and reduced it by at least 60%

I highly recommend the new book JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. It is about the reasons for the assassination, and who was behind it.

Jack

[David Andrews]

For the same reasons that Bill Maher will host 9/11 critics on his HBO show, then ridicule them and encourage the audience to heckle them. The same is coming for the JFK people, no matter what the percentage polls on public opinon say for either issue.

[Ron Ecker]

I understand that Douglass's book argues that the military industrial complex was behind the assassination. If it's true (and it probably is), how striking and sad that Eisenhower explicitly warned the nation, in his farewell address three days before JFK took office, of JFK's assassins. Half a century later, the warning continues to fall on deaf ears.

[Jack White]

I understand that Douglass's book argues that the military industrial complex was behind the assassination. If it's true (and it probably is), how striking and sad that Eisenhower explicitly warned the nation, in his farewell address three days before JFK took office, of JFK's assassins. Half a century later, the warning continues to fall on deaf ears.

Not exactly true. He explores what was going on in the BACK CHANNELS of the Cold War,

things which most of us have never heard of, such as private correspondence between

JFK and Kruschev which helped end the Cold War. It is about two-thirds of things like

this, and about one-third on the event itself and aftermath. It is much like a P.D. Scott

book...but a much easier read. It helps understand JFK the man more than any book

I have seen, and why he had to die. It is NOT an assassination book, but a WHY book.

For a good review (Jim DiEugenio)... http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Jack

[William Kelly]

I understand that Douglass's book argues that the military industrial complex was behind the assassination. If it's true (and it probably is), how striking and sad that Eisenhower explicitly warned the nation, in his farewell address three days before JFK took office, of JFK's assassins. Half a century later, the warning continues to fall on deaf ears.

Not exactly true. He explores what was going on in the BACK CHANNELS of the Cold War,

things which most of us have never heard of, such as private correspondence between

JFK and Kruschev which helped end the Cold War. It is about two-thirds of things like

this, and about one-third on the event itself and aftermath. It is much like a P.D. Scott

book...but a much easier read. It helps understand JFK the man more than any book

I have seen, and why he had to die. It is NOT an assassination book, but a WHY book.

For a good review (Jim DiEugenio)... http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Jack

I'll echo Jack in saying the Douglass book is really a great one....who shot what from where, etc. is important....BUT the WHY and generally the WHO is tackled in this book. An essential read!

My 2 cents:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/07...nspeakable.html

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Citizens- Who am I to discriminate agains a Virtuous Tangent? (VT)

THe purpose of this thread was specifically on the subject of DEBATES ie events shown live or unedited in which there was a greater risk to media controllers about more truth getting out to a big enough audience to matter, than under targetted hack jobs like Oswalds Ghost, in which PBS used known CIA very friendly journalists, in a broadcast-- it should be noted -- specifically aimed at the left.

A debate -- especially a live one-- would be a much riskier affair, if it had the credibility that would come with not using a straw dog clip and cut method like Oswalds Ghost or the usual idea of what passes for bipartisan media objectivism--network interviews with Gary Mack.

[Len Colby]

For the same reasons that Bill Maher will host 9/11 critics on his HBO show, then ridicule them and encourage the audience to heckle them.

Not exactly, Maher never invited "9/11 critics (unless you count Ron Paul) on his HBO show". On one program however some "truthers" were disruptive and he asked security to kick them out, I imagine the same would happen to "debunkers" if they acted in a similar manner at a "truth movement" event.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/20/w...91_n_69243.html

The same is coming for the JFK people, no matter what the percentage polls on public opinon say for either issue.

Public opinion is pretty far apart on 9/11 and the assassination. Polls show that 5 - 10 believe in an "inside job" and an additional 20% or so believe "they let it happen on purpose"but IIRC over 60% of the population believe the assassination was a conspiracy.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Len I suspect part of the differences in Public opinon you mention have to do with differences in how both were treated in the major Corporate Media.

Until roughly 1980 one could read about JFK research on mainstream media, in big city newspapers etc.

This was never the case for those who challenged the government's conspiracy theory about 9/11. I dont mean that the facts were not there in the Corporate Media they were until roughly 2003, but rather, theories ideas and attitudes, that alternative theories might be something more than those persued by wacky individuals.

During the 1980s there was a clear narrowing of JFK related material in the Corporate Media but IMHO it was really the years 1992-96 that were the clear "tying of the tubes" so to speak in terms of Corporate Media receptivity to serious challenges to the WC. Books yes, but they would be ignored, while trash was front paged everywhere, and now we get Tom Hanks.

The Key events of 92 -96 period were

-- Pre-Review of Oliver Stones Movie front page attack in Newsweek six months before it came out.

-- 93 the wallpapering of the universe with positive reviews of Posner

-- 96 X-files comes out. No I do not think there was conscious effort, but yes that show was critical to what happened to the idea of "Conspiracy Theory" . It

was in these years that the bag of CT was taken out and filled with stones, culturally speaking. Could be wrong on exact year of X-files but around then.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Len Colby]

Len I suspect part of the differences in Public opinon you mention have to do with differences in how both were treated in the major Corporate Media.

From my POV it's because the latter is completely devoid of any merit. Have you seen any JFK polls broken down by schooling? Some 9/11 ones are and they show acceptance of thruther views are inversly proportional to educational level. These studies were carried out by Zogby but formulated and paid for by truth.org

By "it" I was referring to both public acceptance and media coverage

EDIT typo

Edited May 15, 2009 by Len Colby

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Len I suspect part of the differences in Public opinon you mention have to do with differences in how both were treated in the major Corporate Media.

From my POV it's because the latter is completely devoid of any merit. Have you seen any JFK polls broken down by schooling? Some 9/11 ones are and they show acceptance of thruther views are inversly proportional to educational level. These studies were carried out by Zogby but formulated and paid for by truth.org

By "it" I was referring to both public acceptance and media coverage

EDIT typo

----------------

Len in my view your comments about education level (not that I accept them at face value-- would have to look more closely) do not surprise me. Look at American Universites today. Chris Hedges recent article about them was dead on. They are technochratic monastaries. Most of the 9/11 dismissal is aimed at raising class anxiety at any middle class organism . It works. They are scared of beign called a conspiracy theorist, and this tendency is if anything more pronounced among Chomsky-Goodman-Cockburn left liberals.

The medieval monastaries could never produce a group as politically irrelevent as todays American Universities. You need to come back from Brazil to believe just how completely air brained and worse than Russia apolitical the university educated are here these days. Anyone from another country could never believe it.

[Terry Mauro]

Len in my view your comments about education level (not that I accept them at face value-- would have to look more closely) do not surprise me. Look at American Universites today. Chris Hedges recent article about them was dead on. They are technochratic monastaries. Most of the 9/11 dismissal is aimed at raising class anxiety at any middle class organism . It works. They are scared of beign called a conspiracy theorist, and this tendency is if anything more pronounced among Chomsky-Goodman-Cockburn left liberals.

The medieval monastaries could never produce a group as politically irrelevent as todays American Universities. You need to come back from Brazil to believe just how completely air brained and worse than Russia apolitical the university educated are here these days. Anyone from another country could never believe it.

Here's a organization "Campus Watch". They seem to be a self anointed "watch dog", always on the look out for any "thought crimes" on campus. The Middle East seems to be their specialty

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/7358

From Who's Who at Campus Watch

Teri Blumenfeld - Research Manager, DanielPipes.org

Ms. Blumenfeld moderates the forums for DanielPipes.org and assists with research for Dr. Pipes. Ms. Blumenfeld was a founder of Meditran, an Arab-Israeli center in Jerusalem. She holds a BS from San Francisco State University and conducts research for terrorism trials. Contact: comments@danielpipes.org

I wonder if Teri Blumenfeld is any relation to the late Isadore Blumenfeld?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Cann

You just never know these days.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Terry Mauro

[Don Jeffries]

The major television networks have almost never allowed an intelligent discussion about the JFK assassination, let alone a debate. In the past, when the subject was broached, either a totally ineffective "critic" (think David Scheim or John Davis) argued the conspiracy side, or when a true critic was selected, it was usually Cyril Wecht or Mark Lane. Now I admire Wecht quite a bit, but if you've ever seen him on television, you know that he tends to talk fast, use too many scientific or medical terms and become emotional quickly. Because of this, he tended to come off as a bit ineffective. As for Lane, he also shows his emotions easily, becomes frustrated at the obvious bias of the host(s) and spends much of his precious air time protesting that.

Speaking of Lane, Penn Jones ran a bit in The Continuing Inquiry years ago, where it was claimed that he participated in a series of "staged" debates with David Lifton's friend Wesley Liebeler. wherein each time, they would both react identically at the same moment in an obviously scripted manner. Lane is one of my early heroes, so I'd like not to believe this, but who knows? It really wouldn't surprise me.

One thing is certain; you will never see a truly knowledgable, Vincent Salandria-type of critic allowed to debate Posner or Bugliosi on any televistion network. But then again, I don't even think they ask anyone to "debate" these clowns anymore. They just trot out a lame, bought and sold talking head like Keith Olbermann/Sean Hannity, etc., to ask softball questions of the most recent LN celebrity.

[Terry Mauro]

The major television networks have almost never allowed an intelligent discussion about the JFK assassination, let alone a debate. In the past, when the subject was broached, either a totally ineffective "critic" (think David Scheim or John Davis) argued the conspiracy side, or when a true critic was selected, it was usually Cyril Wecht or Mark Lane. Now I admire Wecht quite a bit, but if you've ever seen him on television, you know that he tends to talk fast, use too many scientific or medical terms and become emotional quickly. Because of this, he tended to come off as a bit ineffective. As for Lane, he also shows his emotions easily, becomes frustrated at the obvious bias of the host(s) and spends much of his precious air time protesting that.

Speaking of Lane, Penn Jones ran a bit in The Continuing Inquiry years ago, where it was claimed that he participated in a series of "staged" debates with David Lifton's friend Wesley Liebeler. wherein each time, they would both react identically at the same moment in an obviously scripted manner. Lane is one of my early heroes, so I'd like not to believe this, but who knows? It really wouldn't surprise me.

One thing is certain; you will never see a truly knowledgable, Vincent Salandria-type of critic allowed to debate Posner or Bugliosi on any televistion network. But then again, I don't even think they ask anyone to "debate" these clowns anymore. They just trot out a lame, bought and sold talking head like Keith Olbermann/Sean Hannity, etc., to ask softball questions of the most recent LN celebrity.

Don,

Mark Lane and his work on the JFK assassination has always been tainted by his close involvement with the likes of Bertrand Russell, Hugh Trevor Roper and "The British Who Killed Kennedy Committee". I look at that title almost like a "play on words" , an "inside joke" by Bertrand Russell.

It was Bertrand Russell's "Pugwash Conferences" that kept the policy of MADD(nuclear stand off or cold war) in place between the US and Soviets until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989-1991 period.

And despite Russell's professed passion in solving the JFK assassination he was no fan of President Kennedy and his policies.

If you wish to get a taste of Russell's true feelings toward JFK you should contact the JFK Library in Boston and request a copy of Betrand Russell's "cables" to President Kennedy during the Cuban Missiles Crisis.

Lane and Bertrand Russell also mis lead Jim Garrison in my opinion. Garrison had nabbed one of the high level directors of Permindex in Clay Shaw. Russell, Schoenman and Lane helped shift Garrison towards the CIA in order to protect Permindex and the British.

If you want to read a very interesting book about JFK's break with the British, then you should read a book published in 1993 "Report to JFK". This is the real life account of the battle between Kennedy and the British around the Skybolt missile program that occured at the height of the cold war. British PM Macmillan in his memoirs recounted how JFK had to be "arm twisted" into giving the British the Polaris Missiles.

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_de....taf?ti_id=3261

And you if stopped and thought about it, many of the so called "conspiracy" programs, books, etc. are made in Great Britian for consumption here in the USA. Mark Lanes book Rush to Judgement is an example of this. Lane got plenty of media coverage, speaking engagement etc. for RTJ while Harold Weisberg for example could not get a single publisher to publish his book.

And for further ponderance keep in mind that Joe Kennedy Sr. married off his daughter to the nasty "Cecil" family who claimed to be the real power behind the British Monarchy for centuries.

[Len Colby]

Len in my view your comments about education level (not that I accept them at face value-- would have to look more closely) do not surprise me. Look at American Universites today. Chris Hedges recent article about them was dead on. They are technochratic monastaries. Most of the 9/11 dismissal is aimed at raising class anxiety at any middle class organism . It works. They are scared of beign called a conspiracy theorist, and this tendency is if anything more pronounced among Chomsky-Goodman-Cockburn left liberals.

The medieval monastaries could never produce a group as politically irrelevent as todays American Universities. You need to come back from Brazil to believe just how completely air brained and worse than Russia apolitical the university educated are here these days. Anyone from another country could never believe it.

You are rationalizing of course, I imagine if you discovered it was the other way round you would claim this showed that resistance to such theories is a sign of ignorance. This also contradicts the pretext behind Scholars for Truth and Scholars for Truth and Justice

The rejection of truther theories by the better educated fits in with the exceptionally low numbers of people with special insight into 9/11 either from their participation and or professional experience who publicly question the commonly accepted version of what happened that morning. As far as I know only one firefighter who was their has publicly indicated he suspects the towers were demolished.

911Truth.org sponsored Zogby polls in 2004, 2006 and 2007. I don't think the data regarding educational level for the 1st has been made public.

2006 POLL

Two of the questions for the May 2006 poll were only marginally related to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

"Some people have said that the Bush Administration exploited the September 11th attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq. Others say that Bush acted correctly by going into Iraq because Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

AND

"How would you rate the US media's performance regarding 9/11, including their coverage of victim families' unanswered questions, theories that challenged the official account, and how the attacks were investigated?" Exc, Good, Fair, Poor, NS

I would have chosen the 1st option, for 1st and "good" for the 2nd the only real difference associated with educational level was that less well educated respondents were less likely to be able to answer the 1st question (pg 3).

Another question was leading and misleading:

"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?"

1) 9/11 Commission did NOT investigate the collapses of the Twin Towers only their evacuation, WTC 7 was evacuated without incident.

2) The collapse of 7 had been studied by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Structural Engineers Association of NY (SEAoNY) and other engineering associations (i.e. the FEMA Report) and was being studied by NIST.

3) No one said WTC 7 was less of a priority because it "was not hit by any planes"

4) The question was leading because a correct answer was suggested.

A majority of respondents in all groups who were aware of the collapse said "the Commission should have also investigated it" but people interested in 'alternate' explanations would be more likely to be aware of 7 WTC and as noted above the question had serious flaws. Despite those flaws rejection of the truther position rose with educational level. "Aware & ok to investigate only Tower collapse" was chosen by 7.9, 13.3,14.5 and 19.9% of high school dropouts, HS graduates, those with some college and college graduates respectively. (pg 10)

The two most relevant questions were:

"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

AND

"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

I would have been tempted to choose the 1st option for the 1st question because I think to a degree the commission provided cover for the foul ups by the Bush and Clinton administrations. However I probably have gone with the 2nd because I don't think there was a cover up in the sense used by truthers.

EDUCATION -- cover up / no cover up

HS dropouts -- 55.5 % / 38.4 %

HS graduates -- 47.5 % / 42.2 %

some college -- 35.5 % / 54.8 %

college grads -- 33.7 %/ 54.4%

(pg 6)

The breakdown for the 2nd question was essentially the same (pg 13)

Note that both questions were leading but once again the better their education the less likely respondents were to choose the ' "truth" movement' answer.

2006 Zogby - http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZog...nByCategory.pdf

2007 POLL

In a late August 2007 Zogby carried out a another 911Truth.org poll . Only 4.6% of likely voters said they believed MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) was the theory of 9/11 they were "more likely to agree with" 26.4% answered LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose).

Acceptance of the "MIHOP" and LIHOP theories was pretty much inversely proportional to educational level 6% of high school dropouts, 9.6% of HS graduates, 3.8% of those with some college and 3% college graduates believe in the former and 28, 35.7, 28.2%, and 21.1% of the same groups respectively believe in the latter. (pg 5)

There is a reason why HS dropouts were less likely than HS grads to choose MIHOP or LIHOP, the were very indecisive 29.1% did not answer. The responses of participants who choose "official story" was 36.9, 48.8, 61.8 and 72.1% of high school dropouts, HS graduates, those with some college and college graduates respectively.

The 2007 poll included a different but just as flaw version of the 7 WTC question. Once again a majority of all groups said "the 911 Commission...should...have also investigated the collapse" but that probably more to do with the misleading nature of the question than the respondent's views if they had been properly informed. Once again the relationship between educational level and holding truther views was inverse.

"World Trade Center Building 7 was the 47-story skyscraper a block away from the Twin Towers that housed the mayor's emergency management center and offices of the SEC, Secret Service and CIA. It was not hit by any airplanes during the September 11th attacks, but still collapsed nearly eight hours later that day. FEMA did not explain this collapse, the 911 Commission ignored it, and the promised official study is now 2 years overdue. Do you think that the 911 Commission was right to concentrate their investigation on the collapse of buildings which were directly hit by airplanes or should they have also investigated the collapse of Building 7?" (pg 12)

EDUCATION -- "right to concentrate on" TT's / "should have investigated"

HS dropouts -- 6.3 % / 79.7 %

HS graduates -- 23.2 % / 72.1 %

some college -- 35.5 % / 54.8 %

college grads -- 33.7 / 60.1

The 2007 poll repeated other questions similar to ones from the 2006 poll and once again were leadingly worded. The same pattern repeats itself the better educated the respondents the less likely they are to take the "truther"position and the more likely they are to accept the widely accepted one.

"In October 2006, a New York Times/CBS poll found that only 16% of Americans believe they have been told the whole truth about this administration's foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks. Based upon your knowledge of 9/11 events, do you agree or disagree that the Congress should investigate the executive branch's conduct prior to, during and following the September 11 attacks?" (pg 9)

"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that the nation needs a new independent investigation of the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is absurd. Who are you more likely to agree with?" (pg 15)

Zogby 2007 - http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/911_Truth.pdf

There are "Lawyers", "Architects and Engineers", "Firefighters", "Pilots", "Scholars" and even "Political Leaders" "for 9/11 Truth", the data however suggests a significant constituency remains unorganised. There should be a 'High School Dropouts for 9/11 Truth'.

EDIT - Formatted for clarity

Edited May 18, 2009 by Len Colby