JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1186)


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

David Von Pein Offers To Debate With Jim DiEugenio on
Black Op Radio
.... CLICK HERE.



BUD SAID:

I see DiEugenio takes exception that DVP calls Black Op Radio "retard radio". I think I might have coined that phrase. Nice to see David putting it to good use stinging the kooks.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Bud, I think you're possibly right there re: the origins of the phrase "Retard Radio". I think I might very well have swiped that from you. (Just like I did with the "K" word [Kook] in 2006.) So I want to give you the credit right now. ;)

I will say, however, that after utilizing the "R" word a few times (maybe more than a few) in recent months, I have cut back on my use of that word after hearing people at various forums tell me that they are personally offended by my use of it, because it is perceived by them that I am making fun of the (literally) mentally handicapped. But I can assure my critics that whenever I use that "R" word, it is not done with the intent to belittle anyone with any real mental deficiency.


BUD SAID:

Am I the only one who finds the idea of debating the assassination strange? I mean, all the issues have rote CTer and LNer viewpoints. Isn't it just a case of restating the viewpoint on each issue?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Bud, I think essentially you are exactly correct there.

But, for that matter, that is what we do every day at this JFK forum too -- i.e., restate our LN vs. CT issues ad nauseam, day after day. And how much good does it do? How many people are turned around by anyone else's written words, or spoken words?

Answer: Very few (at most).

But my main interest in debating the JFK assassination with Jim DiEugenio is so that I could confront him with EACH AND EVERY piece of evidence that he has decided is NO GOOD or FAKE or MANUFACTURED regarding BOTH the Kennedy murder and the J.D. Tippit murder too.

And that's why I want to be able to use my own questions on Jim. And, to be totally fair, as I have emphasized when conversing with Jim on multiple occasions recently, DiEugenio too would be able to ask his own questions. And I don't give a damn what those questions are, because Jim will never be able to tear down, piece by piece, my huge wall of physical evidence that I want to throw at him.

Via such a debate format, I can guarantee that Jim will not be able to slip and slide around the vast amount of evidence that easily convicts the person who DiEugenio, incredibly, thinks was totally innocent of shooting anyone on November 22, 1963. (And I also think that DiEugenio believes that Oswald is innocent of the assassination attempt against General Walker too, which is yet another item on my long list of questions for Jim, should he decide to accept my debate format in the future--which I'm doubting he ever will accept.)

[2016 Edit -- I was right. He never accepted it.]

In a more "conventional" type of debate format, DiEugenio would likely be able to sidestep or ignore several individual pieces of evidence connected with Oswald's guilt. But he will not be able to do so if he debates me via the format I have proposed. He will be forced to tell the audience exactly why he thinks EVERY LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE against his favorite patsy is fake, fraudulent, or tainted.

And as author and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan said:

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan

James DiEugenio obviously completely disagrees with Mr. Sturdivan's above comments. In fact, to a person like Jim, it seems the MORE evidence and corroboration there is of Oswald committing his crimes, the more INNOCENT Mr. Oswald becomes.

And that's a very strange and illogical policy to live by, isn't it?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

DVP is [a] piece of work that not even Central Casting could dream up for a villian [sic] in a Cecil B. DeMille extravaganza. .... Last year, at the request of a forum member at Black Op, I extended a debate challenge to Gary Mack, DVP, [Dave] Reitzes and John McAdams. .... DVP chickened out. .... So now, months after the initial challenge to him was turned down, he began to email me about a debate. Except there was a qualifier. Please sit down before you read this. He wanted to set the ground rules! Yep. It's true. He did not want a scripted debate in which both sides knew the questions in advance. He wanted an off-the-cuff debate, where you could create your own questions willy nilly.

[...]

I told him that the decision is not mine, but Len's [Osanic]. But that I would not agree to an unscripted debate for a simple reason: if McAdams made stuff up for a scripted debate, I can imagine what a fabricator like Von Pein could do when he could create his own questions.

[...]

Bottom Line: When DVP had the opportunity to debate me fair and square, he chickened out. Now he wants to debate me in a format where he can make stuff up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

DiEugenio is full of crap here.

And here's why:

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 kooks 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 November 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
May 29, 2010
July 5, 2010