JOSEPH BACKES SAID:
Kudos to Jim DiEugenio for "debating" John McAdams on the JFK assassination on Black Op Radio. I put debate in quotes as McAdams is just way too silly. He arrogantly talks down to us, and with a lisp yet! Jim's knowledge of the case was superb, and I salute how he handled himself, he kept his cool, knew his facts, and didn't get angry. Well done, Jim!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Of course, as usual, a conspiracy theorist has everything backwards and upside down. Fact is, James DiEugenio lost his cool on a couple of occasions during the 4-hour Black Op Radio debate, and on one occasion in particular during Part 2 of the debate on October 8, 2009, when DiEugenio claimed that Professor John McAdams didn't have his facts straight. Jim was practically shouting during that particular segment.
Mr. McAdams, on the other hand, kept his cool throughout the entire four hours, never once even raising his voice in response to DiEugenio's avalanche of conspiracy-flavored nonsense.
I doubt that I could have remained as cool and composed as Mr. McAdams if it were I who had been confronted with DiEugenio's non-stop parade of conjecture and speculation about how Jim believes that virtually every piece of evidence in the whole JFK case had been faked or mishandled or "covered up" to hide the truth, etc.
I salute Mr. McAdams and his iron composure while debating someone who is actually silly enough to believe that all of the following things are true:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot John F. Kennedy.
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot J.D. Tippit.
3.) The backyard photographs showing Oswald holding Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 are not genuine photos (i.e., those pictures are "fakes").
4.) FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was part of a massive cover-up after JFK's assassination.*
* DiEugenio, incredibly, doesn't seem to realize that Hoover would probably be one of the VERY LAST PEOPLE on the planet in November 1963 who would want to be involved in a cover-up in order to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole assassin of President Kennedy.
Hoover knew his Federal Bureau of Investigation would take a severe public beating when it was discovered that the FBI had been keeping tabs on Oswald weeks prior to the assassination. So why on this Earth would Hoover then want to engage in a cover-up to try and make an INNOCENT Oswald look guilty?! If anything, Hoover would have been doing just the opposite in 1963 -- he would have been bending over backwards trying to prove that Oswald was completely innocent.
Or does DiEugenio think that Hoover WANTED to give his precious Bureau a permanent black eye by having people say what many people have been saying since 1963? -- I.E., Hoover's FBI is to blame for JFK's death because they knew Oswald was in Dallas and they should have been watching him more closely.
It's just crazy to think that J. Edgar Hoover--OF ALL PEOPLE!--would be wanting to frame or railroad Oswald for JFK's assassination. That's nutty talk.
And because what I just said about J. Edgar Hoover is so obviously (and logically) true, it makes Part 7 of DiEugenio's review of Vincent Bugliosi's book a total waste of time and effort:
I could add about 36 more items of silliness to my above list of really stupid things that DiEugenio believes [EDIT: and here are several more, just for good measure], but any reasonable person undoubtedly gets my point after just revealing the above four items of outright idiocy.
To repeat, my August 2009 prediction about the McAdams/DiEugenio debate turned out to be 100% accurate. Maybe I'm related to Kreskin:
"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.
[...]
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
David Von Pein
October 12, 2009
