(PART 118)




"Who is Anton Batey?"

CTKA takes a close look at a most curious radio host who is a JFK denier, Chomskyite, and yet happens to be in league with John McAdams and David Von Pein.

Yep, its all true.”


Yeah, I've been watching the CTKA site for the last couple of weeks to see what type of nonsense Jim DiEugenio & Company are going to dish out regarding Mr. Batey. I have no doubt that most of it will be pure fantasy and CT spin.

BTW, what in the world is a "JFK denier"?

If DiEugenio is implying that Batey is a "JFK Conspiracy Denier" (which Batey is not, AFAIK), then how would that stance make it seem odd that he was also "in league" with myself and Professor McAdams?

Anyway, I'm sure that Mr. Batey will get a good laugh out of the CTKA article about him, just like I am still enjoying the residual laughs whenever I revisit DiEugenio's 2-part essay about me.

I'm guessing that Jim DiEugenio probably thinks that Anton Batey, John McAdams, and myself are long-time friends and buddies. And Jimbo likely also thinks that the three of us get together on a regular basis to "plot" against the conspiracy theorists of the world.

That is the same mindset that DiEugenio possesses with respect to any connection that I have to LNers like McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Francois Carlier too. And nothing could be further from the truth. But I'll bet that DiEugenio would be more than willing to call me a liar if I told him that my "connection" to Mr. Anton Batey is virtually non-existent.

I cannot speak for Professor McAdams and his contact with Mr. Batey, of course, but as far as myself personally, I have shared a very few e-mails with Mr. Batey (the last of which had nothing to do with the JFK assassination at all), and in 2009 I talked with him a few times at the IMDB JFK forum.

And our IMDB conversations were not very cordial ones either, I might add, as Anton was rather annoyed at me because I wouldn't debate some unknown conspiracist on his radio show (with the CTer turning out to be Tom Rossley).

But as far as being buddy-buddy and in constant contact with Mr. Batey -- no way. It hasn't happened. But I would wager that Mr. DiEugenio thinks otherwise. Jim D. sees plots and devious conspiracies everywhere he looks, of course. And apparently he's now decided to focus his high-powered microscope on Anton Batey, for some reason.

Mr. Batey, btw, did a nice job moderating this 2009 debate and this 2010 debate and these 2010 and 2011 debates about the JFK assassination. He stayed squarely on the fence in all of those programs, and just let the opponents fight their battles. In fact, when listening to any of those debates, it's very difficult to determine whether Batey believes in a conspiracy in the JFK case or not. He was THAT neutral in his moderation of those debates.


You worthless piece of s**t. Anton told you from the beginning [that] he was a Warren Commission Supporter.


The above post from Kook Rossley prompted me to dig into my JFK archives to see if perhaps Rossley was right about something (for a change).

And, amazingly enough, he was correct. (Miracles must be possible after all.)

Anton Batey did, indeed, make the following statement in late March of 2009 on the JFK forum at the Internet Movie Database website (IMDB):

"I frequently host a local radio station in Detroit, and was wondering if there are any lone gunman theorist[s] who would be interested in a radio phone debate against a conspiracy theorist. I will be the host of the show, and will be objective (although I personally believe the killing was done by Oswald...alone)." -- Anton Batey; March 2009

I have no idea, however, if Anton's current (2011) core beliefs regarding the assassination are the same as the ones indicated via the 2009 quote shown above, although they very well may be the same.

I think I can be confident enough in saying, however, that nothing Tom Rossley said in any of his debates against either John McAdams or John Corbett could have possibly swayed Mr. Batey into believing that a conspiracy existed in Dallas in November 1963.

This type of thing (i.e., confirming an individual's quote from years ago) is one big reason I like to save most of my Internet posts. It provides a nice database from which to search older posts and discussions that, frankly, I just cannot remember off the top of my head.

My memory is getting worse. And that makes me sad. But what is even sadder and more heartbreaking is having to say "you were correct" to a mega-kook like Thomas Rossley.

But, oh well, sometimes life's tasks aren't pleasant ones.


I like the way you try to deny at first that you have any connection with Batey and McAdams and then you just blurt out that you have shared several e-mails with him and talked to him. Giving credence to the claim that you three are members of a cabal.


You're hilarious, Marsh.

A "cabal"?? LOL.

Combining all manners of communication (e-mail, IMDB forum posts, and YouTube messages), I have spoken with Anton Batey perhaps four or five times--total. And I've never once spoken to him (or John McAdams or Dave Reitzes) in person.

But I'll bet Jim DiEugenio won't hesitate for a minute in putting a nice big ol' inaccurate spin on this matter in his CTKA article on Batey, as he will probably be insinuating that Batey and myself are like blood brothers who conspire behind closed doors 24/7 against the evil CTers of Planet Earth.

And why are you deliberately misstating what I said about the e-mails, Tony? I never said "several e-mails". Just the opposite in fact. Here's what I said:

"I have shared a very few e-mails with Mr. Batey (the last of which had nothing to do with the JFK assassination at all)..." -- DVP


Noam Chomsky and his Acolyte Exposed....

This is a really neat article by a new writer named Brian Hunt. I helped him fill it in with some detail work. But it's his baby:


I don't know if you knew this awful stuff about Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge or Chomsky and Faurisson, or how Chomsky has deceived everyone about what he really thought about the JFK case. But it's all here.

Anyway, Anton Batey somehow takes him seriously. And therefore does all he can with Chomsky's propaganda to distort who JFK was.

Brian helps put him in his place. Hopefully this is a first dig at the Left Gatekeepers, like Norman Solomon, Amy Goodman and Chomsky's biggest promoter, David Barsamian.

In part two, Brian goes into the assassination itself and shows us Batey's connections to Von Pein and McAdams.

This is the stuff we should be talking about instead of Nelson and Hersh.

And then hooks up with the likes of John McAdams and Dave Von Pein to give us the second helping on the JFK murder itself.


This is part 2 of the Brian Hunt essay that I helped on:


Note how fast Batey drops the structuralist approach he used in the first part to denigrate JFK. Why? Because if he uses that method with the Commission, he rips open people like Dulles, McCloy, Ford and Hoover. They really did establish the power structure of the USA in the 20th century. And it is not a pretty site [sic]: Red Scare I, Red Scare II (via Hoover), Incorporation of Gehlen (McLoy [sic] and Dulles) CIA coups in Iran and Guatemala (Dulles), CIA assassinations (Dulles), the saving of Klaus Barbie (McCloy), the Japanese internment (McCloy), the illegal CIA activity cover up (Ford).

Quite a list to ignore, right? But when you have an agenda, you can do it.

This guy is even worse than Chomsky. Read it and you will understand.


Looks like Jim's article is out.

What a bunch of huffing and puffing over nothing.


Yeah, I noticed it last night. I nearly fell asleep. A totally pointless, meaningless article.

Of course, I didn't come close to reading the whole thing. (I can't imagine anyone doing that.)

And that's only "Part 1".

Good Lord.


Jim DiEugenio, as per his norm, read aloud on Black Op Radio pretty much the whole Part 1 of the Anton Batey article this week (2/17/11). I'd be surprised if Len Osanic wasn't sleeping soundly throughout most of this one-hour segment.

The most hilarious part of the whole February 17th program isn't DiEugenio's particular disagreements with Noam Chomsky or Anton Batey, but it's the way DiEugenio mispronounces Batey's last name throughout the entire radio segment.

I know that the mispronouncing of someone's name is a totally unimportant matter in the grand scheme of things, but in DiEugenio's case, it almost seems to be a chronic disease of some kind. And not just with Anton's name. Jim mangles a lot of other names on a regular basis too, including my own and Vincent Bugliosi's. And I have a feeling that Jim continually distorts Bugliosi's name just out of sheer spite. Because I know darn well he knows Vincent's "G" is silent.

BTW, Anton Batey's last name is pronounced BAY-tee. And for verification of that fact, all one needs to do is listen to the first 10 seconds of the 4/5/09 and 3/13/10 debates that Mr. Batey moderated, and you'll hear Batey himself say his own name aloud on the air. But perhaps DiEugenio doesn't think Anton knows how to pronounce his own name.

And I know that DiEugenio listened to the April '09 debate between John McAdams and Tom Rossley, because he has commented on how lousy the debate and the debate format were during multiple episodes of Black Op Radio since that debate occurred in 2009.

As for the bulk of the “Who is Anton Batey?” article, it was truly a "Who Cares?" type of article (and Black Op show) as far as I am concerned. Others are free to disagree, of course.

But I think we all already knew that Mr. DiEugenio was very much "anti-Chomsky", and he certainly is very much "anti-LNer" when it comes to the topic of John Kennedy's assassination (regardless of who the Lone Assassin believer happens to be -- whether it is myself or John McAdams or Vince Bugliosi or Anton Batey).

So, in my personal view, Part 1 of that article on Batey is a whole lot of to-do about nothing. There are always going to be disagreements about President Kennedy's policies and intentions regarding certain matters (such as Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, et al).

It seems to be a perpetual debate that never really leads anywhere -- such as the question of "Would Kennedy have pulled entirely out of Vietnam or not?" had he not been killed in Dallas?

The Batey article, for the most part, seems to merely be a smear piece against Noam Chomsky. And since Batey supports many of Chomsky's views, Batey gets smeared in the process.

Part 2 of the article should be a screamer too....as I look forward to seeing what "connections" Brian Hunt and James DiEugenio think I personally have to Mr. Anton Batey.


Another yawner from Mr. Irrelevant.

In Part 2 we will see why Davey Boy is up in arms about the exposure of Anton Batey. (BTW, he used to complain that I mispronounced his name also. Which shows where his head is at.)

BTW, I didn't read a large part of it. Most of it I did not read at all. There is so much Batey screws up, or leaves out, it's incredible. Sort of like DVP on the assassination.

DVP sums up with his usual "Who cares".

Right, who cares if:

1. Chomsky tried to cover up the Pol Pot genocide in Cambodia, one of the worst of modern times.

2. If Chomsky tried to conceal his ties to a Holocaust denier in France.

3. In direct opposition to what he said when Stone's film came out, Chomsky actually thought of leading an effort to reopen the JFK case in 1969, because he was convinced it was a conspiracy!

This is not important in figuring out who Chomsky is? OK, Mr. Orwell.

And Batey does not tell you any of this while quoting from his master as if it is the Gospel truth. There's openness and honesty for you.

Like I said, we will see why DVP does not like the article in Part 2. Anyway, as usual, Davey Boy's reaction is a direct inverse barometer to how important an article is.

Recall, Davey used to say that BOR [Black Op Radio] had all of two listeners. When in fact Len now has thousands of listeners all over the world. And his traffic has gone up 38% in the last month. That is how much DVP's comments on BOR are worth.


I couldn't care less what Noam Chomsky says. I've never read anything written by him--ever--BTW. I couldn't have even told you last week whether or not he was an "LNer" or a "CTer" when it came to his opinions about the JFK murder. I just don't care one way or the other.

As for Anton Batey -- his opinions are his own, and he has every right to them, and he has every right to speak them freely (on YouTube, or wherever). As does Chomsky, of course.

BTW #2 -- I have never once talked about any of the details concerning the JFK assassination with Anton Batey. Never once.

Now, call me a liar, DiEugenio. I dare ya.

David Von Pein
February 12-18, 2011
February 12-18, 2011