JFK assassination logic

[John Geraghty]

Amazon has listed a book available for pre-order and due out in November of this year.

It is called 'Assassination logic: How to think about claims of conspiracy' by John McAdams.

I'm not sure if this has been posted on the forum before so I'll delete the topic if it has.

Description:

The mother of all conspiracy theories is the supposed one about the assassination of John F. Kennedy (JFK). Many of its elements have become part of American folklore: the single bullet, the Grassy Knoll shooter, and the mysterious deaths of interested parties.

JFK Assassination Logic shows how to approach such conspiracy claims. Studying Lee Harvey Oswald’s character and personality, for example, doesn’t help determine whether he alone shot the president, and our opinion of bureaucrats can often cloud our judgments. How people view the JFK assassination can be a model for how to (or perhaps how not to) evaluate other conspiracy theories, including those generally considered dubious—the U.S. government and 9/11, the moon landing, Pearl Harbor—as well as those that are real, such as Watergate.

John McAdams does not just address conspiracy theories but also how to think, reason, and judge the evidence in these cases. How do we evaluate eyewitness testimony? How can there be “too much evidence” of a conspiracy? How do we determine whether suspicious people are really suspicious? By putting the JFK assassination under the microscope, McAdams provides a blueprint for understanding how conspiracy theories arise and how to judge the evidence.

This book puts the reader into a mass of contradictory evidence and presents an intriguing puzzle to be solved. The solution, in each case, involves using intellectual tools. Eyewitness testimony, the notion of “coincidence,” selectivity in the use of evidence, how to choose between contradictory pieces of evidence, the need for evidence to fit a coherent theory, how government works, and basic principles of social theorizing—all provide the elements of how to judge not only the JFK conspiracy, but all conspiracies.

About the Author

John McAdams teaches American politics, public opinion, and voter behavior at Marquette University and has taught at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is the author of several articles in the American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Sociological Quarterly, and Law and Contemporary Problems.

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Logic-Claims-Conspiracy/dp/1597974897/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280230758&sr=8-1

Publisher: Potomac books inc.

Has also published ' Directors of Central Intelligence as Leaders of the U.S. Intelligence Community, 1946–2005', ' Fr. Francis Duffy, Wild Bill Donovan, and the Irish Fighting 69th in World War I', 'A farewell to justice', 'John F Kennedy- world leader' by Stephen G Rabe, 'Operation Overflight' by Gary Powers, 'Secrecy Wars' by Philip Melanson, and 'The forgotten terrorist' by Mel Ayton. Interesting collection.

[Pat Speer]

Amazon has listed a book available for pre-order and due out in November of this year.

It is called 'Assassination logic: How to think about claims of conspiracy' by John McAdams.

I'm not sure if this has been posted on the forum before so I'll delete the topic if it has.

Description:

The mother of all conspiracy theories is the supposed one about the assassination of John F. Kennedy (JFK). Many of its elements have become part of American folklore: the single bullet, the Grassy Knoll shooter, and the mysterious deaths of interested parties.

JFK Assassination Logic shows how to approach such conspiracy claims. Studying Lee Harvey Oswald’s character and personality, for example, doesn’t help determine whether he alone shot the president, and our opinion of bureaucrats can often cloud our judgments. How people view the JFK assassination can be a model for how to (or perhaps how not to) evaluate other conspiracy theories, including those generally considered dubious—the U.S. government and 9/11, the moon landing, Pearl Harbor—as well as those that are real, such as Watergate.

John McAdams does not just address conspiracy theories but also how to think, reason, and judge the evidence in these cases. How do we evaluate eyewitness testimony? How can there be “too much evidence” of a conspiracy? How do we determine whether suspicious people are really suspicious? By putting the JFK assassination under the microscope, McAdams provides a blueprint for understanding how conspiracy theories arise and how to judge the evidence.

This book puts the reader into a mass of contradictory evidence and presents an intriguing puzzle to be solved. The solution, in each case, involves using intellectual tools. Eyewitness testimony, the notion of “coincidence,” selectivity in the use of evidence, how to choose between contradictory pieces of evidence, the need for evidence to fit a coherent theory, how government works, and basic principles of social theorizing—all provide the elements of how to judge not only the JFK conspiracy, but all conspiracies.

About the Author

John McAdams teaches American politics, public opinion, and voter behavior at Marquette University and has taught at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is the author of several articles in the American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Sociological Quarterly, and Law and Contemporary Problems.

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Logic-Claims-Conspiracy/dp/1597974897/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280230758&sr=8-1

Publisher: Potomac books inc.

Has also published ' Directors of Central Intelligence as Leaders of the U.S. Intelligence Community, 1946–2005', ' Fr. Francis Duffy, Wild Bill Donovan, and the Irish Fighting 69th in World War I', 'A farewell to justice', 'John F Kennedy- world leader' by Stephen G Rabe, 'Operation Overflight' by Gary Powers, 'Secrecy Wars' by Philip Melanson, and 'The forgotten terrorist' by Mel Ayton. Interesting collection.

While McAdams' book is designed to teach us how to think about the Kennedy Assassination, you have to wonder why anyone would want to think like him.

I mean, do we need to read a book to learn how to pretend?

[Cliff Varnell]

Vincent Bugliosi puts the back wound in the same location you do, Pat.

He can't defend that conclusion any better than you do.

[Martin Hinrichs]

I mean, do we need to read a book to learn how to pretend?

No, i don't think so Pat.

But we should read and judge what unbiased reseachers might have to tell about this book to

the neutral audience.

Martin

[Pat Speer]

I mean, do we need to read a book to learn how to pretend?

No, i don't think so Pat.

But we should read and judge what unbiased reseachers might have to tell about this book to

the neutral audience.

Martin

I was having some fun at McAdams' expense. I'll probably end up reading his book, and agreeing with a lot of it.

[Pat Speer]

Vincent Bugliosi puts the back wound in the same location you do, Pat.

He can't defend that conclusion any better than you do.

Wrong. Bugliosi spends a great deal of time defending the HSCA FPP, and claiming that the back wound was at T-1, and below the throat wound, but that that doesn't necessarily mean anything because Kennedy could have been leaning forward.

He then completely contradicts himself and claims the autopsy photos prove the back wound was well above the throat wound. Well, this is idiotic. You can't have it both ways.

He was, apparently, snowed by the Artwohl exhibit on McAdams' website, the one on my slide. As I recall, he, as McAdams, fails to admit that in claiming the back wound was well above the throat wound, he has moved the back wound up above where the HSCA FPP claimed it was. Apparently, he, as McAdams, lives in a la-la land where a bullet can enter at T-1, descend sharply within the body, and exit at T-1.

Lunacy.

[Martin Hinrichs]

I was having some fun at McAdams' expense. I'll probably end up reading his book, and agreeing with a lot of it.

I know. The good side of McAdams is, he going to destroy a lot of fairy tales from the CT'er side.

But on the other hand he is biased as one can be. I'am certain we can agree with a lot of his research.

When it goes to the hard evidence, we will face the dilemma of McAdams.

It doesn't hold water.

best

Martin

Edited July 27, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

[Cliff Varnell]

Vincent Bugliosi puts the back wound in the same location you do, Pat.

He can't defend that conclusion any better than you do.

Wrong. Bugliosi spends a great deal of time defending the HSCA FPP, and claiming that the back wound was at T-1, and below the throat wound,

Pat Speer spends a great deal of time defending the HSCA FPP, and claiming that the back wound

was at T1, and below the throat wound.

Other than the different paths of illogic the both of you take, how is my assessment "wrong"?

He then completely contradicts himself and claims the autopsy photos prove the back wound was well above the throat wound. Well, this is idiotic. You can't have it both ways.

He was, apparently, snowed by the Artwohl exhibit on McAdams' website, the one on my slide. As I recall, he, as McAdams, fails to admit that in claiming the back wound was well above the throat wound, he has moved the back wound up above where the HSCA FPP claimed it was. Apparently, he, as McAdams, lives in a la-la land where a bullet can enter at T-1, descend sharply within the body, and exit at T-1.

Lunacy.

And Vincent Bugliosi, John McAdams and Pat Speer all conclude JFK's back wound

was at T1 in spite of the fact that they can't name one witness to this who

didn't describe the wound lower at another time, and more than a dozen witnesses

who unambiguously put the wound in a location consistent with T3 or lower.

All of you need to adopt Craig Lamson's fraudulent bunch theory in some part

to reconcile the clothing holes with a T1 inshoot (why can't any of you guys

ever show us what this massive shirt/jacket Gross Ease looks like?).

All of you need to claim that improperly prepared medical evidence trumps

properly prepared medical evidence.

Lunacy.

[Pat Speer]

Vincent Bugliosi puts the back wound in the same location you do, Pat.

He can't defend that conclusion any better than you do.

Wrong. Bugliosi spends a great deal of time defending the HSCA FPP, and claiming that the back wound was at T-1, and below the throat wound,

Pat Speer spends a great deal of time defending the HSCA FPP, and claiming that the back wound

was at T1, and below the throat wound.

Other than the different paths of illogic the both of you take, how is my assessment "wrong"?

He then completely contradicts himself and claims the autopsy photos prove the back wound was well above the throat wound. Well, this is idiotic. You can't have it both ways.

He was, apparently, snowed by the Artwohl exhibit on McAdams' website, the one on my slide. As I recall, he, as McAdams, fails to admit that in claiming the back wound was well above the throat wound, he has moved the back wound up above where the HSCA FPP claimed it was. Apparently, he, as McAdams, lives in a la-la land where a bullet can enter at T-1, descend sharply within the body, and exit at T-1.

Lunacy.

And Vincent Bugliosi, John McAdams and Pat Speer all conclude JFK's back wound

was at T1 in spite of the fact that they can't name one witness to this who

didn't describe the wound lower at another time, and more than a dozen witnesses

who unambiguously put the wound in a location consistent with T3 or lower.

All of you need to adopt Craig Lamson's fraudulent bunch theory in some part

to reconcile the clothing holes with a T1 inshoot (why can't any of you guys

ever show us what this massive shirt/jacket Gross Ease looks like?).

All of you need to claim that improperly prepared medical evidence trumps

properly prepared medical evidence.

Lunacy.

Actually, McAdams, taking his cue from our old buddy Chad, always claims the wound was at C7/T1, so he can pretend it was really at C7.

Cliff, this whole "properly prepared evidence" is nonsense, and you know it. No one cares what evidence was, to your mind, properly prepared. They don't care about where Burkley momentarily guessed it was located. They care about where it was actually located.

And the key to that is the back wound on the autopsy photo--which proves the Rydberg drawings were in error, and that Humes lied to CBS, and that Specter suborned perjury. It, entirely by itself, proves a cover-up.

But you won't let people focus on that. Instead, you feel the need to disrupt every thread in which the incredible importance of this photo is discussed, and insist the photo is fake and that the only thing that matters is Burkley's report, etc...

It's too bad. At one point, when I was trying to match up back wound locations, etc, you offered that, since Kennedy's collar was of a known width, I could use that as a measuring stick. This proved most helpful. It helped me prove that the back wound location in the photos fails to support the SBT.

Do you now think that's false?

If so, then it is you who shares conclusions with McAdams and Bugliosi, and not I.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Actually, McAdams, taking his cue from our old buddy Chad, always claims the wound was at C7/T1, so he can pretend it was really at C7.

My old buddy Chad Zimmerman. He went on the Discovery Channel with a guy named

Stan who was JFK's height and weight. He placed metallic markers on Stan's shirt

and jacket 4" below the collars, then took an x-ray with Stan standing.

The markers lined up with T2/T3. This location presented a problem for Chad: he can only identify ONE INCH of jacket elevation in this Dealey Plaza photo:

Please note that the shirt collar isn't visible at the nape of JFK's neck.

Subsequent Dealey Plaza images all show the shirt collar visible at the nape of

JFK's neck.

So according to Pat Speer, Chad Zimmerman, Vincent Bugliosi, John McAdams &Co

the fabric immediately below the jacket collar RODE UP an inch even though

the jacket collar itself DROPPED.

Lunacy.

When are you people going to replicate this event?

Anwswer: never. The scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

Cliff, this whole "properly prepared evidence" is nonsense, and you know it.

The FPP concluded the wound was at T1 on the basis of a photograph they

dismissed as being of such poor quality that it was "difficult or impossible"

to accurately locate the wound.

The autopsy report lists two separate locations for the back wound:

1) "just above the upper border of the scapula"

2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process"

Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, pg 179:

In his ARRB interview, (Col Pierre) Finck stated that "JFK's spine, a fixed landmark,

was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this

posterior wound."

So one of the guys who signed off on the autopsy report dismissed the wound

locations listed in the report he signed off on.

The FPP concluded the back wound was T1 based on a photo with "obvious deficiences

as scientific evidence."

But, according to Pat Speer et al, to challenge the credibility of the autopsy photos

and final autopsy report is "nonsense."

Lunacy. In spades.

No one cares what evidence was, to your mind, properly prepared.

And you took this comprehensive poll when?

I think you are underlining the fact that lots of people in the JFK Assassination

Critical Research Community have a vested interest in pushing back on the prima

facie cases for conspiracy: the T3 back wound, the throat entrance wound.

None of your folks can effectively challenge the prima facie case.

You always end up sounding like desperate Nutters.

They don't care about where Burkley momentarily guessed it was located.

Burkley and more than a dozen other witnesses, to say nothing of the clothing

evidence which you like to pretend about.

Everyone who saw the low back wound got it wrong, everyone who saw the

throat entrance wound got it wrong, Pat?

Has there ever been such a concentration of delusionals as was to be found

in Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, and Bethesda?

They care about where it was actually located.

But rather than quote the people who actually saw the wound, you quote

government experts who dismiss the very evidence upon which they based

their conclusions.

Lunacy as egregious as anything we get from the Nutters.

And the key to that is the back wound on the autopsy photo--which proves the Rydberg drawings were in error, and that Humes lied to CBS, and that Specter suborned perjury. It, entirely by itself, proves a cover-up.

Not only would these photos be prima facie inadmissible in court -- according to the FPP -- there

is no chain of possession for them.

But this doesn't create any problems for you and Vince et al, does it, Pat?

But you won't let people focus on that. Instead, you feel the need to disrupt every thread in which the incredible importance of this photo is discussed, and insist the photo is fake and that the only thing that matters is Burkley's report, etc...

When you make claims of egregious inaccuracy you're going to get push-back, Pat. When you

repeat well-worn Nutter talking points here -- well, you're going to have your "important"

threads disrupted with facts you'll never effectively challenge.

The very people you cite -- the FPP -- gave credence to the theory that the photos

were not authentic.Vol 7 (emphasis added):

...3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible

to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound

in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks...

...Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the

obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some

have questioned their very authenticity. These theorists suggest that the body shown

in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent

deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren

Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish as such

a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial, might

have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction

of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity

of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution.

This "important" evidence was prima facie inadmissible in court, had no chain of

possession, and was of such poor quality that it was "difficult or impossible"

to accurately locate the wound.

Put according to Pat Speer and John McAdams this dreck is definitive.

Lunacy.

It's too bad. At one point, when I was trying to match up back wound locations, etc, you offered that, since Kennedy's collar was of a known width, I could use that as a measuring stick. This proved most helpful. It helped me prove that the back wound location in the photos fails to support the SBT.

Do you now think that's false?

No, Pat, your conclusion that the wound was at T1 is false -- demonstrably. The conclusions

you draw from this false conclusion are irrelevant.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Please note that the shirt collar isn't visible at the nape of JFK's neck.

Subsequent Dealey Plaza images all show the shirt collar visible at the nape of

JFK's neck.

So according to Pat Speer, Chad Zimmerman, Vincent Bugliosi, John McAdams &Co

the fabric immediately below the jacket collar RODE UP an inch even though

the jacket collar itself DROPPED.

Lunacy.

Please note Cliff Varnells ignorance of something as simple as ZERO PHASE ANGLE.

Thus his ignorant musing above can be dismissed as such...just more ignorant musings from one ignorant cliffy varnell.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, you always repeat the same ole series of evasions, and never answer the questions before you.

1. Do you believe a T-1 entrance supports the single-bullet theory?

If not, then what's the point of embracing Burkley's death certificate as the end-all be-all it was never meant to be, and cherry-picking eyewitness statements to claim the wound was at T3?

If so, then get with your buddies McAdams and Bugliosi and please show us how...

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, you always repeat the same ole series of evasions, and never answer the questions before you.

1. Do you believe a T-1 entrance supports the single-bullet theory?

I've answered this many times. T3 is a prima facie case for conspiracy; T1 is not.

We don't have to ask if the T3 back wound supports the SBT because at T3 the wound

is prima facie evidence debunking the SBT. We don't require the services of

Pat Speer or David Mantik to explain how the location doesn't work.

You can cite no credible evidence for the T1 theory -- so why do you advance it, other

than the fact that it doesn't support the SBT?

All you are doing is putting a spin on LN talking points, and obfuscating the

neck x-ray by claiming that the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse

process was the result of this nutter-friendly T1 inshoot.

First class obfuscation, pure and simple. As bad as anything McAdams can come up with.

If not, then what's the point of embracing Burkley's death certificate as the end-all be-all it was never meant to be,

More Nutter rhetoric. I can cite the witness statements of more than a dozen people,

the properly prepared documents (death certificate, autopsy face sheet, FBI autopsy report),

and the holes in the clothes.

You can cite 3 or 4 witnesses who contradicted themselves at some point; autopsy photos

that were poorly made, prima facie inadmissible in court, and have no chain of possession;

a final autopsy report disavowed on this issue by one of the guys who signed off on it,

and notations on the face sheet made in pen, a violation of proper autopsy protocol.

The properly prepared medical evidence is consistent with the witnesses and the physical

evidence.

The improperly prepared medical evidence is internally inconsistent, as the Fox 5

autopsy photo contradicts one of the wound locations listed in the final autopsy report.

By what alchemy of logic does poorly and improperly made evidence with no chain of

possession trump properly prepared and well-corroborated evidence?

and cherry-picking eyewitness statements to claim the wound was at T3?

If so, then get with your buddies McAdams and Bugliosi and please show us how...

Just because T1 doesn't work for the SBT doesn't make it true.

Where do you come up with such egregious absurdities?

Show us how you get 2-inches of tucked in custom made dress shirt to bunch up.

Or are you like our buddy Chad Zimmerman, who maintained that clothing experts

cannot be experts on clothing fit?

Edited July 27, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Show us how you get 2-inches of tucked in custom made dress shirt to bunch up.

Better yet, YOU show us ANY fabric arrangement that can produce the artifact seen in Betzner and fulfill the unbending demands of light, shadow and angle of incidence.

Fact..unimpeachable fact...there is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. Varnell cannot dispute this singular fact.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Dean Hagerman]

Im going to buy McAdams book

I need a good laugh these days