Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams Vs. James DiEugenio (2009 Radio Debate)(Streaming MP3 Audio Versions)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

MY DEBATE PROPOSAL:

On May 8, 2010, I sent the following e-mail to James DiEugenio. If he

is willing to debate me on these terms, then I'm ready, willing, and

very eager (and these terms regarding the format should positively

appeal to DiEugenio too; there's every reason in the world for him to

love this type of format just as much as I do):

=========================================

Subject: Attn.: James DiEugenio (Re: Debate With DVP)

Date: 5/8/2010 1:31:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: David Von Pein

To: James DiEugenio

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

ATTN. JAMES DiEUGENIO:

Hi Jim,

If you are still willing to debate me about the JFK assassination, I

am now ready and eager to participate in such a radio debate with you.

The most convenient times in the near future for me to engage in such

a debate would be anytime between the dates of June 1 and June 15,

2010.

As for the format of any such radio debate (which I assume would take

place on the "Black Op Radio" program, with Len Osanic serving as

moderator/host), I have an idea that I think should probably appeal to

you as well:

Instead of taking questions from third parties (such as from "Black

Op" listeners who write in questions via e-mail, etc.), I'd prefer a

format where each of the two debaters (you and I) present various

questions to the other person.

That way, you can put together several questions that you would like

an LNer like me to answer, and I can ask you various questions that

I'd like to hear you answer.

Each of us would ask the other party the same number of questions, to

keep things fair from a "numerical" standpoint.

To give you a heads-up on the number of questions I would like to

present at any such debate, I have already put together a total of 23

questions [it's now up to 33] regarding the JFK case (plus a couple

of follow-up questions within those 23 [33]) that I would like to

ask you.

Therefore, for the sake of fairness and "equal time", you would get to

ask me the same number of questions.

If Len Osanic (or others) wanted to add a few questions too, I think

that would be okay as well. But for the bulk of the debate, I would

much prefer the format I just outlined--with you and I deciding what

questions we want the other person to answer.

I don't favor the idea of the parties being shown the questions in

advance, however. That would dilute the debate severely, in my

opinion. I won't know what questions you'll be asking me; and,

conversely, you won't know what questions are going to be coming from

my side of the fence either.

Sound fair to you?

If you have other ideas on the debate format, let me know. We can

probably work out something. But I feel that the format I just

outlined should appeal to both of us, inasmuch as it would keep the

"softball" type questions from being asked in the first place.

Let me know if you are agreeable to this proposition.

Thank you.

Regards,

David Von Pein

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-34.html

===================================

A FOLLOW-UP POST AFTER JIM DiEUGENIO SCOFFED

AT MY PROPOSED DEBATE FORMAT:

It's true that I declined to debate Jim D. in 2009 when I most

certainly could have done so. But after preparing over 30 questions

for Jimbo in the months since the 2009 debate between Jim and John

McAdams, I decided to step up and challenge DiEugenio to a different

kind of JFK debate--one that would have the debaters asking the

questions, instead of relying on other people for the questions.

And that type of format regarding the questions, as I've said numerous

times since my initial challenge to Jim in early May of 2010, is a

format that I simply cannot believe DiEugenio would be AGAINST.

Because he could ask me any questions he wanted, and as many as he

wanted.

And DiEugenio's excuse of not wanting me to ask my own questions

because he's concerned that I will simply "make stuff up" is just

nuts.

Why?

Here's why:

Because from Jim's utterly crazy "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" point-

of-view, it's quite obvious that my own CORE BELIEFS about the whole

JFK case (including J.D. Tippit's murder) are beliefs that DiEugenio,

in effect, thinks were just "MADE UP" in the first place.

The facts about Lee Oswald's guilt weren't "made up" by me personally,

of course, but they certainly are core "Oswald Is Guilty" facts that

Jimbo believes are dead wrong and were literally MADE UP by somebody

along the way. Heck, Jim thinks this whole case is "made up" against

poor Patsy Oswald. The entire case, per Jim D., is nothing but one

great-big lie and cover-up and "made up" fact after another.

Plus: Again from DiEugenio's POV, what difference would it make to him

if I did just "make stuff up"? He would simply tell the listening

audience during our debate that I was making nonsense up, right? And

Jim would go on to explain the reasons he knows that I was making

stuff up. Isn't that kinda what a DEBATE is all about--to tell the

audience why your opponent is wrong and why you're right (even if it

means having to tell the audience why your opponent just MADE

SOMETHING UP out of thin air)?

Good heavens, if the shoe were on the other foot, and I were to back

out of a debate with James DiEugenio (or any of the many "Anybody But

Oswald" conspiracy [theorists] who regularly post on the Internet) merely

due to the fact that I was of the opinion that my opponent would be

inclined to "make stuff up" concerning JFK's assassination during a

radio debate with that person -- good gosh, then I'd never be able to

debate anyone like DiEugenio....because I KNOW he's going to simply

"make stuff up" himself! That's a given.

A great example being: Jim's current belief that Lee Oswald carried

NO LARGE PACKAGE WHATSOEVER into the Book Depository Building

on November 22, 1963. Jimbo, you see, now believes that BOTH Buell

Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle lied their asses off when they

each said they saw LHO carrying a long brown paper parcel on the

morning of Nov. 22nd, with Buell and Linnie being strong-armed by the

evil Dallas Police Department into making up from whole cloth their

individual stories about having seen Sweet Lee with a large package.

Now, if that wholly unsupportable and (frankly) pathetic theory about

Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle doesn't qualify as "making stuff up",

then I don't know what would qualify.

In short, James DiEugenio doesn't want to be forced to answer specific

questions written by a lone-assassin advocate like myself in a public

debate. And that's because those questions about the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

which proves Lee Harvey Oswald to be the murderer of both John F.

Kennedy and J.D. Tippit will be far too much to handle from Jim

DiEugenio's "Oswald Shot Nobody" viewpoint.

Jim would be made to look so silly and foolish when answering my

dozens of questions focusing on EVERY LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE that

hangs Oswald, he has decided it would be best to reject my proposed

debate format, and stick with the questions coming from other people

instead (even though many of those questions aren't very challenging

at all, which was precisely one of Jim's complaints about the first

half of his Black Op Radio debate against John McAdams from last

September 24th).

But when given the opportunity to write his own questions (which could

potentially make me crawl under my computer desk in fear, from Jim's

POV), Mr. DiEugenio says, 'No thanks'.

I can't say I blame Jim, though. If I knew I was going to have to

admit to the four Black Op listeners that I believed that every single

piece of evidence against Lee Oswald was fake, phony, manipulated,

planted, or otherwise worthless, I think I might have a few

reservations about doing so in a public place too.

David Von Pein

July 5, 2010

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-40.html

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without taking sides, it's clear that Jim's prior objections are not met by your current proposal. Thus, you're baiting Jim by offering a format to him that you know in advance is unacceptable.

I would love to hear an honest debate, but I'm concerned that tactics will be used that will take us away from a truly honest debate and into the realm of he said/she said.

My recommendation would be for each of you to publish 20 questions ahead of time to Len and to each other. Then, during the debate, each of you can ask no more than 10 questions from that list (perhaps 5, depending on Len's time allotment). I look forward to such a debate.

David, if you are sincere about debating, then I suggest you accept this type of format and move on. Otherwise, you'll be seen as simply baiting Jim. Since I have never read any of your published works, and have in fact read Jim's, I encourage you to take the high road.

I would love to see Jim debate this person because he does just "make stuff up". David if you truly wish to debate Jim it would help if you don't address him as "Jimbo". Name calling is not exactly a way to entice one to have a serious debate.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to point out one instance on another forum where Reclaiming History was the topic.

I posted a link to the thread which was Mr Lanes rebuttal to Bogliousi. It was titled "Vinny its Round".

In response Mr Von Pein replied with a link to his site, an a piece he had written which was a conversation he had made up between Mr Bugliousi and Mr Lane.

I dont want to be rude or stir, it's just an example of made up stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK & JBC were, indeed, hit at Z224. That's not "making up stuff". That's called "evaluating the evidence properly".

Geesh.

Jim D. thinks JFK was hit at around Z190 or Z195. Can I now say that you are "making up stuff" too because of your evaluation of the Zapruder Film?

Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

BTW, Frankie's example above is really silly too. My simulated courtroom arguments are obviously just that--simulated. And I, of course, have fully identified them as such in my posts, like the one below:

Bugliosi vs Lane

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I will agree to Fairlie's proposal. Will you?

Not unless the number of questions we each get to ask is increased.

5 or 10 questions isn't nearly enough. I need at least 30 in order to pummel you incessantly with each major piece of evidence against your favorite "patsy" that you will be forced to say is fake.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James DiEugenio debating David Von Pein would be like a tortoise running against Usain Bolt !!

DiEugenio has NO chance !

The problem with DiEugenio is his bad faith.

David Von Pein knows how to weigh evidence, but more to the point, he is honest and dares call a spade a spade. Something DiEugenio can't do.

David Von Pein will say things that have been proven true, whereas DiEugenio will say things that he wants to believe, no matter what the evidence shows, unfortunately.

Still, I would love a see a debate between the two, and I would read every word.

/François Carlier/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I will agree to Fairlie's proposal. Will you?

Not unless the number of questions we each get to ask is increased.

5 or 10 questions isn't nearly enough. I need at least 30 in order to pummel you incessantly with each major piece of evidence against your favorite "patsy" that you will be forced to say is fake.

If one of those 30 questions involves Mexico City, the FBI/CIA infiltration of the FPCC, and Oswald's 201 file, I will look forward to it.

DVP just shook with fear at the thought of trying to defend those three topics that Lee just posted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DiEugenio has NO chance !

:lol:

So I take it you have never listened to Jim DiEugenio hammer Paul Nolan (aka John McAdams)?

What makes you think Von Pein would fair any better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Would fare", not "would fair".

Will I have to correct your bad spelling all the time ?

You are as bad at English as you are at weighing evidence !

/François Carlier/

Is that all you got?

You think because your some weird hybrid French Grammar Nazi that anyone cares?

You are a NOBODY

You are a NOTHING

You know I know it and every forum member knows it

Remember Francois Coli, you are a failure

Now reply and fix all my spellings and grammar you stooge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm French and learning English, but DiEugenio makes it hard for me by inventing new definitions for some words.

Under DiEugenio's definitions,

a xxxx = "someone who tells the truth to the American people, but whom I (i.e. DiEugenio) don't like" (for instance, John McAdams falls into that category. He tells the truth, so DiEugenio calls him a xxxx).

fiction = "the truth, supported by science and all the available evidence, but which I (i.e. DiEugenio) do not want to hear about, since I would love people to believe in my idiotic theories" (for instance, the single-bullet theory falls into that category. It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, so DiEugenio calls it fiction)

He has everything in reverse !

Poor man !

Good thing I use a dictionary when I want to learn English vocabulary. No sane person would want to speak DiEugenio's English ...

/François Carlier/

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...