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

[Dean Hagerman]

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/

Weak

[David Von Pein]

The idea that JBC and JFK were hit at z 224 is nothing but a fiction. The purpose of which is to salvage the SBT. Why? Because at around this time, in the Z film, you have JFK just barely emerging from behind the sign and he has clearly been hit. There is a grimace on his face, and his hands begin to go upwards to grab his neck. There is no noticeable reaction in JBC. As Mili Cranor once wrote, this single frame destroys the SBT. (Which, BTW, is why Dale Myers had to lie about it and distort it in his fake simulation.)

Talk about "making stuff up". Jim DiEugenio has just done quite a bit of that in the above paragraph.

For starters, in Zapruder Film frame #224 (which is a frame of the Z-Film that DiEugenio actually is silly enough to say "destroys the SBT"), President Kennedy is just barely visible as he starts to emerge from behind the Stemmons road sign, as we can see here:

Yes, folks, it's the above frame (#224) that Jim DiEugenio thinks "destroys the SBT", even though we can't even see John F. Kennedy's face in Frame 224!

I think a good question for Jim D. to answer is this one:

If JFK had been hit as early as Z190 to Z195 (as you have said on Black Op Radio, and probably in your online articles as well), then why are JFK's hands as low as they are in Z224 and Z225?

DiEugenio thinks the same way the HSCA did in 1978 apparently....i.e., Kennedy was hit a about Z190, but then LOWERED his arms to where we can see them in Z224 and Z225, before very rapidly moving those same arms upward toward his neck and mouth, which is an UPWARD movement that does not even begin until Z226, as we can see HERE.

A delayed reaction perhaps, Jim?

But I doubt very much that you would like to endorse any kind of a "delayed reaction" explanation, in light of the fact that you seem to think that any similar delayed reaction on the part of Governor Connally around frames Z224-Z226 is out of the question. Right, Jim?

Of course, in reality, there is no delayed reaction on the part of EITHER of the victims, with everything we see happening to John B. Connally just a split second AFTER Z224 being perfectly consistent with a bullet striking him in the upper back at precisely Z224 -- e.g., Connally's right shoulder pitches slightly downward and forward at exactly Z224 (the moment-of-impact frame, IMO); Connally's mouth opens at Z225 (it was closed at Z224; just a coincidence?); Connally's shoulders "hunch up" at Z225, in what is an obvious involuntary reaction to having been hit by the bullet; and, of course, there's the key "hat flip", which begins at Z226, which is a very quick and rapid movement of Connally's right arm (the same one that was hit by a bullet; coincidence?).

(And I didn't even mention the "lapel flip" above. But the lapel/coat movement is really just a "bonus". Because even without that coat movement, there is ample evidence via the Zapruder Film that Connally is INVOLUNTARILY reacting to a bullet hitting him at Z224.)

And all of the above-mentioned signs of Governor Connally being hit at Z224 are totally ignored by most conspiracy theorists...even though they can watch these JBC reactions over and over again, as many times as they like, in the Zapruder Film, such as the toggling clip seen below:

.

DVP borrowed this phony idea over at Lancer, evidently not bothering to check it out in advance. I nailed him on it in my essay on him. .... So now he has to say both men are hit here, even though it's plain as day they are not.

This is a classic example of a person who simply has no capacity whatsoever for properly evaluating evidence (in this instance, the Zapruder Film).

When a reasonable person who isn't buried in "THE SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE" lore, it couldn't be more obvious that the two victims in the limousine (JFK & JBC) are reacting at precisely the same time to a bullet hitting each of them in their respective upper backs.

Only a person who is completely blind could possibly look at the following toggling Z-Film clip a few times in a row and then say to themselves: "Nope, those guys are definitely not reacting to a bullet at the same time." Incredibly, James DiEugenio apparently is one of those blind people:

THE SBT IN MOTION

Click [HERE] to see that essay and get to know the true DVP.

And when you're done reading DiEugenio's article (plus the addendum to it), be sure to take a look at my five rebuttal articles and my 8-part audio/video series about Mr. DiEugenio. Perhaps a new picture of Jim's outlandish theories will emerge:

DVP Vs. DiEugenio

Lots more SBT (common sense) talk at my blog below:

The Single Bullet Theory

And for additional "common sense", go here:

Quoting Common Sense

Edited August 5, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I guess you know more than Connally's doctor, Robert Shaw? Shaw said there was no evidence that JBC was hit until around Z 237.

LOL. This is beyond hilarious!

OF COURSE I know just as much about what I can see in the Zapruder Film as Dr. Robert R. Shaw!

You're kidding with this silliness about SHAW'S interpretation of the Z-Film, right James?

Anyway -- EVERYBODY who continues to say there isn't a shred of evidence in the Z-Film for Connally being hit prior to the Z230s is simply delusional (including LNers Mark Fuhrman and Jim Moore) -- because my last post illustrates HEAPS of stuff indicating that Connally is reacting to a gunshot well before the Z230s. (Even if my Z-frames that I've downloaded from Bill Miller at JFK-Lancer are "mud", per DiEugenio; but thanks for the great gifs anyway Bill; I've always appreciated them; and I've always been glad I downloaded them to my computer before they went AWOL from the Lancer files, which they now have.)

What DVP does here is about as low as what Myers does in his phony "simulation". He does not show you the still frames. He puts together a gif to make believe that Connally turning around is Connally getting hit! LOL

Oh, goodie! More "phony" xxxx! This time it's Dale Myers' "phony" stuff! Tomorrow--McGeorge Bundy will be "in" on the plot and cover-up!

For those who care to see it again, I'll offer up this excellent gif clip, which depicts Connally clearly reacting to an external stimulus (i.e., a bullet hitting him) in the Z220s of the Zapruder home movie:

To Jim D., Connally's hunching up his shoulders and grimacing and opening his mouth at precisely Z225 and jerking that RIGHT arm skyward at Z226 is stuff that's considered to be CONNALLY NOT GETTING HIT BY A BULLET. According to James D., JBC was merely "turning around" in that gif clip. Meh.

And, Jim, are you actually saying that the tiny sliver of JFK's head that is visible in Z224 is enough for you to make a determination that JFK is reacting to a bullet hitting him??

If so, you'd better get busy on that new book of yours....because you are apparently the only person on the planet who can SEE THROUGH A ROAD SIGN.

Now let us quote another good witness. Connally himself. After seeing the Z frames up to Z 230: "You can see the grimace in the President's face. You cannot see it in mine. There is no question about it. I haven't been hit yet." (ibid,emphasis added. p. 71)

John B. Connally's opinion regarding the Z-Film is no better (or more valid) than Dr. Shaw's. And, btw, these people were looking at the film YEARS before the best-quality copies became available (via MPI Home Video's "Image Of An Assassination" in 1998), and before anyone had the great advantage that we have today to examine the Z-Film frames via toggling gif clips on our computer screens.

If John Connally were alive today to look at the gif clip I posted above, do you really think he would still maintain an opinion that he had not been hit until after frame 230?

Plus, Jim likes to ignore another quote of John Connally's, one he made in 1967 on CBS-TV:

GOVERNOR CONNALLY -- "The only way that I could ever reconcile my

memory of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-

Bullet Theory is....it HAD to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit

us both."

EDDIE BARKER -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first

bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the

third one hit President Kennedy?"

CONNALLY -- "That's possible. That's possible."

So much for Connally ALWAYS denying the "possibility" of the SBT.

(Let's watch as DiEugenio spins the above 1967 Connally quote into an advertisement for how corrupt, rotten, and evil CBS News and Walter Cronkite were in June of 1967 when they aired the JBC quote I just excerpted. Don't let me down, Jim.)

<snipping the rest of DiEugenio's nutty diatribe>

Edited August 5, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Terry Mauro]

[David Von Pein]

What Did John Connally See?

John Connally's Complete Bedside Interview

With NBC's Martin Agronsky (11/27/63):

http://media2.myfoxdfw.com/html/JFKvideo/video/jfk026.html

http://media2.myfoxdfw.com/html/JFKvideo/video/jfk027.html

http://media2.myfoxdfw.com/html/JFKvideo/video/jfk028.html

Edited August 5, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Terry Mauro]

What Did John Connally See?

John Connally's Complete Bedside Interview

With NBC's Martin Agronsky (11/27/63):

http://media2.myfoxdfw.com/html/JFKvideo/video/jfk026.html

http://media2.myfoxdfw.com/html/JFKvideo/video/jfk027.html

http://media2.myfoxdfw.com/html/JFKvideo/video/jfk028.html

Does Connally describe the shooting in parts 2 and 3?

In part one Connally states that he heard a shot turned to his right saw the President slumping and then began to turn back to his left and felt the impact of a bullet striking him.

The 1967 interview he is asked a hypothetical and he answers.

Even Jackie Kennedy when she testified to the WC was describing the shooting of her husband and Governor Connally when she said something to the effect "and then I read where one bullet had struck both men" .

[David Von Pein]

Main point being: John Connally is on video saying that the SBT is "possible", which is something that a lot of conspiracy theorists have maintained Connally NEVER EVER said in his whole life.

[David Von Pein]

Got any explanation for these "reactions" yet, Jim? Or do you want to ignore them (as usual)?:

[David Von Pein]

Thompson explains how he showed 4 x 5 stills to JBC made from the original print. Did we get anything better than the original yet?

Hilarious. As if looking at STILL frames is going to trump these in-motion clips below. Jim, you're a howl!

Edited August 5, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

And you are so far out there you aren't even aware how easily your own writing can be impeached.

Classic irony here. And Jim D. lets it sail right over his cranium.

I.E.,

The above quote was uttered by a man who thinks that Lee Harvey Oswald was COMPLETELY INNOCENT of shooting John Kennedy AND J.D. Tippit.

And Jim thinks he can "impeach" my writings.

How great is that on the Pot/Kettle scale, folks?

(LOL. Oh, man. This forum is going to be murder on that weak bladder of mine.)

[David Von Pein]

Jim,

STILL frames aren't good enough and you know it. But you still had the gall to suggest that my posting gif clips was WORSE than just posting individual still frames....which is just nuts.

Anybody can pick out a still frame from the Z-Film in the Z220s or Z230s and declare: LOOK, CONNALLY'S NOT BEEN HIT YET!

But when watching the gif type clips I have provided, you get the full picture, not just a still snapshot.

BTW, yes, I'll admit my error regarding the "better quality versions". I should have probably realized that Thompson was using the original film.

But I doubt if Connally ever looked at something like this below. If he had, I'll bet he would have sung a different tune to Josiah Thompson:

Edited August 5, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

And you don't think YOU "see what you want to see" when you evaluate the very same Z-Film, Jim?

You're a Pot/Kettle goldmine, my friend.

And, yes, I'm quite sure John Connally did watch the Z-Film IN MOTION several times during his life. But I'll bet he never evaluated the frames in the Z220s the same way I have (or Dale Myers has). And he almost certainly never looked at the kind of gif toggling clips that I have seen online.

BTW, Jim, where did the THREE bullets go that you think must replace CE399 and the SBT?

You've got JFK hit in the throat from the front. And then JFK's hit in the back from the rear. (Neither bullet exits his body. How amazing and silly is that, Jim?)

And then you've got at least one other bullet striking JBC...and it, naturally, isn't CE399. So that bullet, too, VANISHES off the mortal coil! (How convenient for your anti-SBT needs.)

WHERE DID ALL THESE BULLETS GO, JIM? Where?

[David Von Pein]

We have read the Al Maddox testimony about that bullet, we know about the 7.65 shell the FBI recovered and deep-sixed, and Day's testimony in the papers about another bullet. So we know what happened to the bullets.

And we have all of these EXTRA BULLETS (from NON-Oswald guns), even though Oswald was being set up and framed as the LONE PATSY in the Book Depository--right Jimbo?

What a great "patsy" plot that was, huh? Shoot from a variety of guns and many different locations--and then just hope and pray all the evidence funnels back on your one patsy (and hope and pray the US Govt. and the Dallas Police want to frame the VERY SAME PATSY the pre-assassination goofball plotters were trying to frame)!

Totally logical, Jim. (If you love ridiculous and impossible-to-pull-off conspiracy plots, that is. And it's obvious Jim D. favors those, vs. an average run-of-the-mill "SHOOT ONLY FROM WHERE THE PATSY IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOCATED" type of one-patsy frame-up job.)

Oh, my bladder!

The Patsy Plot Silliness

BTW, what happened to the Tague bullet?

The Shot That Missed

Edited August 5, 2010 by David Von Pein

[François Carlier]

Francois:

The above is about on the level of your box of Italian bullets found near a gravel pit.

Did you check out the Kurtz book and essay before you wrote it? Or like with the unsourced card you submitted, from Gary Mack, you were so eager to counter me, you went ahead and printed it without checking. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

The essay was written and published before the book was. I know since I read it. Did you read it?

Do you have a video of the Zapruder film? Did you check out frame 224? Same thing. Its just as I described.

Does is matter to you? Nope.

Keep it coming. One thing I will say for you: you have a good chin.

Sir, with regard to your accusing McAdams of being a xxxx, I was not referring to your post above and that specific example (about Michael Kurtz's book) but to your general and repeated comments about him. In numerous posts on this forum you accuse him of being a xxxx (meaning that he tries to defend the lone-nutter conclusion by his lies) and I do resent that. I say here that John McAdams is NOT a xxxx. He honestly believes in Lee Oswald's guilt and I am convinced that he defends the Warren Commission's conclusions with his heart and with conviction.

He is not my friend, and he certainly has not "sent" me here (LOL), but I am willing to defend him when he is wrongfully accused of being a xxxx, which he is not. Instead of accusing him falsely, please stick to the facts. No ad hominem attacks, please.

As for me and the "Oswald's bullets" matter, I am sorry I was away and did not take the time to answer you but I shall do that very seriously in a long post this evening (in the "What's the point" thread), when I come back from work. But I shall refrain myself from posting in this thread now, since I want to read the debate between you and David Von Pein.

And also, very rapidly, as far as the shots are concerned, you are aware that I am the author of a lone-nutter book on the Kennedy assassination. In it, I clearly state this (I copy/paste because I am in a rush)

Pour récapituler : la séquence de tirs

Il y a eu exactement trois tirs. Tous tirés par Lee Oswald, situé derrière Kennedy

1. le premier tir a raté sa cible. Il a été tiré à l’image, ou aux alentours de l’image, Z160

2. le deuxième tir a touché Kennedy dans le dos, précisément à l’image Z224

3. le troisième tir a touché Kennedy à la tête, précisément à l’image Z313.

durée entre Z160 et Z224 = 3,50 secondes.

durée entre Z224 et Z313 = 4,85 secondes.

temps total = 8,35 secondes.

It's easy to translate, and you can see there is NOTHING new in what I write. I myself believe that JFK was hit at Z224 (or, to be more precise, between Z223 and Z224, if you prefer, as the bullet travels faster than can be seen on the film.)

/François Carlier/

Edited August 5, 2010 by François Carlier

[Dean Hagerman]

No ad hominem attacks, please.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

Hey Francis, why dont you send me 9 emails in a row again smart guy?