(PART 662)

Subject: FW: Debate Invitation
Date: 8/17/2009 2:32:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Len Osanic
To: John McAdams
CC: David Von Pein, Dave Reitzes, Gary Mack, James DiEugenio



I would like personally to bring to your attention, Jim DiEugenio has made an offer to debate any of the four -- McAdams, Mack, Reitzes or Von Pein -- regarding the facts [of the] JFK assassination on Black Op Radio.

I think a discussion/debate would be of interest, because both sides of the research community are tuning in to the show, with a world wide audience. While you have a different point of view, it would be of interest to put to rest things that should've been resolved in the endless forum debates that need addressing. Just what are the facts.

As of right now, I don't have a format and am open to suggestions. Meaning that once any of you accept at least the offer to discuss the case, we can have a further discussion to formulate ground rules which at least both sides agree on and are made public ahead of time, to ensure some pressure to stick to them.

It may not be that anyone changes their mind, but it would be interesting for listeners, students of the case, to hear you, in you[r] own words, reasons for your conclusions.

Please let me know either way.

Thanks for your consideration,
Len Osanic


Subject: Re: FW: Debate Invitation
Date: 8/17/2009 12:07:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: John McAdams
To: Len Osanic
CC: David Von Pein, Dave Reitzes, Gary Mack, James DiEugenio


I'm always up for a debate on the assassination, but there would be a couple of provisos.

1.) No silly "Paul Nolan" stuff. If DiEugenio brings that up, I'll start talking about his crazy ex-girlfriend, who for many months told people I was a "General in the Navy," and saw spooks under every bed. She also thought the ICPSR is sinister.

2.) I'm not that good in discussing the minutiae of the Garrison case, so Dave Reitzes would be the best person to deal with that. I can certainly deal with the Garrison case in general.

3.) Von Pein would be very good as a debater, and Gary Mack is the dean of assassination researchers, probably the most respected person in the field, except among a narrow group who have gone ballistic because he hasn't toed the conspiracy line on every issue.




I would add another proviso. For me to participate, there would have to be somebody else on my side. Osanic would clearly be on the DiEugenio side. Nothing like WDSU when poor Oswald was outnumbered 3 or 4 to one. No word on this from Osanic. The other people who were invited, obviously, can answer for themselves and make their own demands in terms of ground rules.


Yes, Len Osanic would clearly be on the "CT" side, that's true. But Mr. Osanic is pitifully poor when it comes to specific details about the assassination itself (unless it involves his pal, Fletcher Prouty), so I really cannot see Osanic putting in his 2-cents' worth very often in a one-on-one debate between a CTer and an LNer. (IMO, that is.)

Plus, having two LNers on the phone lines at the same time might not be a good idea. There would probably be a lot of "Who should talk next?" moments and talking at the same time, etc. It could be rather awkward. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong on that point.

Anyway, John, I was glad to get that e-mail from you the other day about the debate. I received the same mail you sent to Len Osanic on August 17th. You must have hit the "Reply To All" button when you sent it. I'm not sure if that was on purpose or by mistake. But, anyway, I received it.

And I personally think that John McAdams is the perfect "LNer" to take on James DiEugenio in a debate. I know of very few people who possess as much overall knowledge (and common sense) about the JFK assassination as Prof. McAdams does.


What happens if DiEugenio wins the debate?


How would that be possible?

Answer -- It's not.

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.


This is just more CT games playing. The verdicts have been in for some years now and they aren't going to change regardless of what happens on Black Op radio. Who listens to that anyway? Nightwatchmen? Insomniacs?


You don't need to listen to the show "live" in order to hear it. Each program is archived via downloadable Internet links [although many of the older shows aren't archived any longer].

A few examples of James DiEugenio's very silly beliefs about the JFK case can be heard over and over again by CLICKING HERE.

David Von Pein
August 19, 2009
August 19, 2009