JOHN McADAMS VS. JAMES DiEUGENIO
(2009 JFK ASSASSINATION RADIO DEBATE):
JFK conspiracy theorist (and Jim Garrison supporter) James DiEugenio squared off against lone-assassin believer John McAdams in Part 1 of a radio debate on Len Osanic's "Black Op Radio" program on Thursday evening, September 24, 2009. The second part of the debate took place on October 8, 2009.
Both parts of the McAdams/DiEugenio debate can be heard below. The total length for both segments is 3 hours and 50 minutes. Part 1 runs for 1:54 and
Part 2 lasts 1:56.
McADAMS VS. DiEUGENIO
PART 1
SEPTEMBER 24, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------
McADAMS VS. DiEUGENIO
PART 2
OCTOBER 8, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------
1-PART VERSION:
------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2-hour "Part 1" of the DiEugenio/McAdams debate contained some pretty basic stuff associated with the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, with all of the expected responses from both participants.
The best part of the debate was when Professor McAdams asked the Black Op listeners, just as he had done during another radio debate against conspiracist Tom Rossley on April 5, 2009 [which can be heard HERE], to please take note of all of the many people and groups whom Jim DiEugenio has accused of being involved in some kind of "plot" or "cover-up" relating to the JFK case -- e.g., the autopsy doctors, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the Dallas Police Department (and just about everybody and anybody in-between who had any "official" connection in any way to the investigation of President Kennedy's murder).
As Mr. McAdams said a few times during the 9/24/09 debate when responding to DiEugenio's silliness and "factoids" -- it's "absurd".
My second favorite portion of the debate was when Jim DiEugenio admitted that he believed Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of killing Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit. Such a misguided belief definitely places Mr. DiEugenio in the "Kook" category for all time.
As it turns out, my predictions from one month ago concerning the debate's likely outcome have proven to be perfectly accurate. Here's what I said in two separate Internet posts in August 2009:
"Jim DiEugenio couldn't possibly win a debate about the JFK assassination, because he believes in stuff that never happened (such as his belief that some kind of "New Orleans plot" was afoot to kill John Kennedy in the summer and fall of 1963).
Furthermore, DiEugenio sinks even further into the CT Abyss when he makes silly statements like this one below, which appears in "Part 5b" of his review of Bugliosi's book:
"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio
And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed, being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?
In short, John McAdams (or any LNer) could be half asleep and still rip DiEugenio (or any CTer) to pieces in a Kennedy-assassination debate. Of course, it's really always been that way. But CTers, naturally, would be of the opinion that DiEugenio won the debate after it took place. And, as usual, they will be 100% incorrect in that opinion." -- DVP; August 19, 2009
=========================
"Every CTer is going to declare DiEugenio the "winner" of the debate by a mile, while all the LNers (including myself, guaranteed) will declare McAdams the victor. No doubt about that. In fact, I've already declared Prof. McAdams the winner (just as Jim DiEugenio predicted I would do on the 8/20/09 Black Op show).
And the reason I can be so sure of that foregone conclusion is quite simple -- it's because I already know the stuff that McAdams will be saying when countering all of DiEugenio's pro-CT bullshit. It's all been said thousands of times by many LNers in the past.
McAdams will talk in a common-sense manner, and he will cite the actual, factual evidence of Lee Oswald's sole guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders, [while] DiEugenio will claim that none of the factual evidence against Lee Oswald can be trusted. It's all either fake, fraudulent, manufactured, mysterious, questionable, or tainted in some manner. EVERY single rock-solid piece of evidence against Oswald will be declared null & void by DiEugenio. Wait and see.
DiEugenio will undoubtedly spout off something about the supposed New Orleans plot to kill President Kennedy, with the names Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister rising to the surface (even though Jim Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was a total failure, but DiEugenio doesn't give a damn about that fact, so Jim D. will still pretend that there's actually some definitive evidence of some kind with which he can still prop up King Kook Garrison 40 years after Garrison knowingly prosecuted an innocent man for conspiracy to commit murder). ....
Final Results -- Since McAdams has ALL of the hard evidence (and DiEugenio has absolutely none)....John McAdams will win the debate. That is a foregone conclusion (unless the unthinkable happens, and Prof. McAdams decides to switch over to the CT side before debating Jimmy D.; and I doubt that's going to happen)." -- DVP; August 21, 2009
=========================
BACK TO THE PRESENT DAY (9/26/09):
Regarding Jim DiEugenio's belief that an assassination plot against JFK was hatched in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 (with David Ferrie, Guy Banister, and Clay Shaw evidently being the top three "conspirators"), I will again repeat the following common-sense question that I first posed in July 2009 (which is a question that no conspiracy theorist, including James DiEugenio, can possibly answer without being forced to fall back on 100% pure speculation and unsupportable guesswork):
"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of this particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a true fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.
And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because (once Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a shred of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.
Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 indicates that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would still be true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three previously-named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister).
In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the grand leap from this:
LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY BANISTER,
....to this:
SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY?
Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly, monumentally ridiculous." -- David Von Pein; July 31, 2009
David Von Pein
September—October 2009
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (SEPTEMBER 26, 2009)
====================================
