Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

James DiEugenio

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About James DiEugenio

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

9,048 profile views
  1. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    Mathias: I appreciate you wanting to neutralize DVP's carnival barker act, but please pay attention to the title of the thread. The CB has a past history of doing this kind of thing, completely heisting a thread and then he says, well it wasn't all my fault.
  2. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Note Paul's use of primary sources to solve that riddle? BTW, I agree with Chris, there was another visit.
  3. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    So you, he, and Reitzes never talked about an appearance on Anton Batey's radio show for a debate?
  4. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    Will someone please tell the Carnival Barker that this thread is about John McAdams, his harassment of Cheryl Abbate, his dismissal at Marquette by two administrative hearings, and his recent court case which ruled against him I would not want to comment on that either if I was him because it shows the kinds of people he cavorts with.
  5. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    As per McAdams, in the Abbate case, he showed all the trademarks that he had previously used in the JFK arena. Having studied the Abbate case at length and in depth, I know what I am talking about. He deliberately set out to make her radioactive by using a mischaracterization of the incident. And then he tried to hide his own role in it. He was the student's faculty advisor and the student had switched to him just recently. He immediately mischaracterized the whole series of events that took place afterwards, by saying that Marquette had "blown the kid's complaint off", and he also left out the fact that the student was flunking the class. Which was a very important piece of information for obvious reasons. (If Mr. Scientist does not understand why, I will inform him of why.) He then wrote a series of blog posts and appeared on radio and named the student teacher multiple times. ( He later mischaracterized all these actions on TV by saying he had been suspended over "a blog post".) By naming her, and then going public, he set her up for the written threats she got, some to her own school mailbox. She was physically threatened and this created a real psychological fear, and the college had to provide her a security guard. It got so bad she had to flee her position at Marquette. She went to Colorado U at Boulder. This was a real professional sacrifice, since she now had to make up and repeat many credit units. If she had been attacked, or killed, Marquette would have faced a horrific law suit and terrible publicity. Especially in light of the fact of McAdams' past behavior in regards to students and teachers, which was detailed in both administrative reviews. Because of those factors, I would not have been surprised if her family would have gotten over ten million dollars in a wrongful death action, maybe more with punitive damages. And topflight lawyers would have been begging to represent them. As I said, I know this case well since I wrote about it on three occasions and actually read the Dean's report and the final faculty report, combined at about 170 pages. The personal traits displayed here are so cognate with what McAdams had done in the JFK arena that some people wanted to write Marquette a letter signed by some prominent researchers. I advised against it for the simple reason that what he had done with Abbate was so appalling on its own, that I thought it would surely be enough to make for some kind of serious punishment. It did, but even then, McAdams was offered a deal to come back if he pledged to abide by the faculty handbook. He refused. PS As per DVP's latest carnival barking, please give us all a break will you? When I heard what you did to Bob Harris, it reminded me of just how bad you really are.
  6. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    The Carnival Barker--DVP-- is at it again. Look, anyone who sat through the 75 minute presentation Gary Aguilar arranged in San Francisco where Randich and Grant thoroughly explained why their old friend Guinn was wrong on this, came away with a basic understanding of why it is not reliable. I also read a very long paper on this by Tobin. Guinn was not a metallurgist and he was not a statistician. And Blakey, who hired the guy to create the so called lynchpin to the cover up, later was forced to admit what Guinn did was nothing but junk science. Anyone who listened to that oral analysis, or read the written analysis, could understand why Guinn was wrong. Here is a good essay which exposes both Bugliosi and Guinn, scroll down to the Bullet Evidence in the JFK case for the relevant part. Even Baker can understand this I think: http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History.html
  7. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    Oh no, the scientist who still supports the discredited NAA bullet lead testing review. Anyone can find the Burnham debate with McAdams simply by using Google. It is really rich that Baker accuses me and Greg of using ad hominem attacks on McAdams. Shows how well informed he is. Before my debate with him, we both agreed not to do that. He broke his side of the agreement and did it, especially in part one. But that is Baker for you. And anyone who can say that what the professor did to Abbate reflects not at all on his behavior in this sphere does not know the whole Abbate affair. Which is nothing new with this guy.
  8. Davey, There is something called a chain of evidence in record keeping. What Bob is saying is that this record did not follow that chain. Now, there are other such pieces of paper in this case that have similar problems and most logical people now believe they entered the record after the fact and therefore we do not consider them valid.
  9. Bob: You never answered Alberto's entering question: Who do you think the nurse was? He maps out three suspects and asks if you talked to any of them.
  10. Philadelphia did-it

    Boo the Broad Street Bullies.
  11. Philadelphia did-it

    What is the topic?
  12. Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

    Michael: I think you and Ron understand my point. Michael Paine was benefiting from two trust funds at the time. In today's money there would be worth around 2.6 million. And somehow with that kind of loot, he has a desire to check out ACLU meetings, rightwing meetings, and engaging SMU students in debates about Castro? And he also had a communist visiting his house? With a clearance from Bell Helicopter? (Which, btw, he could not recall for the WC what type it was. Just like he could not recall the date of that oh so interesting phone call.) To most normal thinking people, this is rather unusual. I know a couple of millionaires. They don't do that stuff.
  13. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    Joe: McAdams is paying for nothing. That law firm he employs is part of the Koch bothers network of state legal bodies formed to push a rightwing agenda in certain regions of the country. I wrote about it in one of my essays on the subject. Also, McAdams had them lined up well in advance of the administrative hearing. Because in his first administrative interview, he actually warned the dean that he had a law firm he could use to sue Marquette. Nice way to make a good impression on your first interview eh?
  14. Trejo 2. I have a tendency to give some people too much credit. Davey is a carnival barker across more than one platform. Typical of those types to insult someone delivering important information.
  15. Davey is conveniently leaving out the fact that he told his wife and she confirmed this to Mickey H. Connally never went as far in public as he did in private. Which is something else that DVP refuses to acknowledge-- even though its true. Doug Thompson asked him flat out if he bought the WCR. Let me quote that discussion verbatim from Joe McBride's book in order to get it through DVP's rather obtuse thinking pattern: DT: Did you think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy? JBC: Absolutely not. I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission. DT: So why not speak out? JBC: Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe. (p. 418) Now, if that does not explain a few things I do not know what would. He is not denying the SBT here Davey Boy. He is saying that Oswald did not fire a shot that day. And he is saying he felt that way from the start. Which would seem to be from when the WCR announced its conclusions. And he hid what he really knew and felt because of this goofy misguided patriotism that has screwed up this country. And maybe that is why he told his wife in secret. And that is why he did not disclose it until he was at death's door. It completely jibes with what he told Thompson. BTW, one last humorous aspect. In this day and age, for Davey to quote the WC testimony of anyone, especially when the questioning is by Specter, is simply ludicrous. If you dig up Ken O'Donnell's false affidavit about the direction of the shots, you will see that that was rehearsed with him by Specter. And that is just one example of falsely elicited testimony. And these are the kinds of people DVP trusts.