Jump to content
The Education Forum
John Geraghty

JFK assassination logic

Recommended Posts

Pat, Cliff,

Can one of you start a new thread on the back wound discussion? I'm just trying to keep the thread on topic.

Thanks guys,

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, Cliff,

Can one of you start a new thread on the back wound discussion? I'm just trying to keep the thread on topic.

Thanks guys,

John

John,

Unfortunately, Mr. Varnell has a habit of hijacking threads with his T3 theory. Best bet is just to skip his posts...

Cheap shot.

On the Don Thomas thread I criticized Mr. Thomas's placement of the back wound.

On this John McAdams thread Pat Speer criticized Prof. McAdams's placement of

the back wound and referred to his Nutter "lunacy." I've taken Pat to task for

espousing a "lunacy" similar to McAdams', as they both use the same degraded

evidence to reach a very similar conclusion.

How is any of this "off-topic"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co...80230758&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.

I too would like this thread to remain topic specific, and stay focused on John McAdam's book and what he says, as I think it is important to keep tabs on who is playing on the game board and what they are doing.

McAdams is certainly a player, though I don't know where he fits in the scheme of things.

Does anybody have a better idea of what he's up do?

And I'd like to hear from anyone who gets an early copy of his book and reviews it.

Thanks,

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dean : we all do.

But try not to pay retail for it.

I really dont want to give McAdams my money Jim, but just like "Reclaiming History" I showed up when Barnes and Nobel opened the day it came out and bought it

I will do the same with McAdams book because I have to read it right away as soon as its avalible

Its just a habit, I would rather pay full price to read the book right away then wait until the price drops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A request to the moderators:

Could my exchange with Pat Speer be removed from this thread and given its own

"Member Discussion" thread? Starting with this post (#3)...

Apple polly lodges to John G.

Thank you.

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co...80230758&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.

I too would like this thread to remain topic specific, and stay focused on John McAdam's book and what he says, as I think it is important to keep tabs on who is playing on the game board and what they are doing.

McAdams is certainly a player, though I don't know where he fits in the scheme of things.

Does anybody have a better idea of what he's up do?

And I'd like to hear from anyone who gets an early copy of his book and reviews it.

Thanks,

BK

Based on McAdams posts on aaj and his attempts to character-assassinate anyone who points to conspiracy, including letting loose his two bulldogs on any unyielding CT (Reitzes and Junkkarinen), it would seem logical that the thesis of his book will be 'all roads lead to Rome" -- eg. WCR. McAdams has no familiarity with logic in any respectable manner, but instead uses every fallacy known to man to try to bully dissenters back into the fold. Thus, including 'logic' in the title is probably done as some sort of irony, an inside joke as it were, amongst the WC defenders. I shudder at the thought of actually spending money on this book, much less having to look at it on a shelf, but I don't know if I can wait for it to appear in my local library system (they have a very eccentric pick of assassination books, so it could happen). We'll see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John C. McAdams

Associate Professor of Political Science. Ph.D., Harvard University, 1981.

john.mcadams@marquette.edu

Prof. McAdams teaches American Politics, Public Opinion, and Voter Behavior. He has previously taught at Harvard University. Research interests include Congressional elections, social class and politics, the New Class, and the death penalty. Publications include articles in various journals including American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Sociological Quarterly, and Law and Contemporary Problemsourses

Faculty teaching this course:

John McAdams | Syllabus

4195. Politics of the Internet 3 sem. hrs. The origins and growth of the Internet. Legal and regulatory dilemmas posed by the Internet. The impact of the Internet on politics, society and economics. Offered occasionally. Prereq: POSC 2201 or Jr. stndg.

Faculty teaching this course: Barrett McCormick | Syllabus

6201. American Politics 3 sem. hrs. The development of the field of American politics. Currently used concepts and approaches. Extensive reading, short papers, and discussion. Offered alternate years.

Faculty teaching this course: John McAdams | Syllabus

BK Notes: Marquette is a Jesuit school, and the Jesuits are known to be strict and learned in the classics going back to the Greeks.

When I was in high school in 1968 I had a Jesuit teacher Father Quinton Walsh, who smoked, cursed and was really smart. He was the first to introduce a class in political science at the high school level in New Jersey, and I took the course.

Besides having to read all the classics in philosophy and the basis for political science into the 20th century, for our final paper we had to write a constitution for a fictional country. I think I decided that it would probably be best to have a benevelent dictator.

One day I will never forget, though I did forget for many years, Quincy, as we called him, lit up a but, paced up and down and then wrote KUAIT on the blackboard.

Did anybody know what or where that was?

No.

Well, he explained, that is where World War III will begin.

And the reason?

Oil.

I forgot that class until the day Sadam Hussain invaded Kuait, and then I remembered the entire lecture.

He was decades ahead of his time. Quinton Walsh, Jesuit priest, political scientist.

For some reason, I think that John McAdams, however smart he is, Kennedy School of Government, Marquette, swimming with the Jesuits.......just doesn't get it.

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the posts lifed from the Education Forum to McAdam's forum

quotes me calling McAdam's a "Cracker," but it was taken out of the

context in which it was said - in defense of McAdams being called a

disinformation agent.

When I tried to correct this misimpression on his forum, McAdams

refused to post it and in response to my querry said:

It's officially a "reject."

John

Well, here's the post that was officially censored by John McAdams.

Those who read his forum will have to come here to read it since

McAdams is keeping his readers from knowing this.

Jezz, I feel like I'm back in college and getting repremanded by

the teacher, again.

That's Jesuit discipline for you.

BK

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Bill Kelly wrote:

On Jul 22, 8:32 pm, David Von Pein <
> wrote:

Dean Hagerman wrote this follow-up message (since it's nearly

impossible to tell from one minute to the next if a conspiracy kook

has his tongue in his cheek or not):

"Just so you know I was being sarcastic about McAdams sending

him over here to fill up my inbox (I'm sure the guy just kept hitting

send because the message wouldn't go through). I need to start putting

spoilers with (sarcasm) and (just a joke) in my posts from now on." --

D. Hagerman

..

Well I wasn't being sarcastic. I was responding to the efforts of

Prof. Fetzer, J.P. Molz, the guy who quotes Fetzer in his article at PROBE, and

DiEugeno to redefine the definition of Disinformation - which is

intentionally false information that stems from an intelligence agency

or network, so they can apply the word to anyone they disagree with,

like McAdams and DVP and Reitze.

We know what real disinformation is, and we know that it can be traced

to an intelligence source, like all of those who claim that Castro was

behind the assassination can be traced to the CIA.

I don't think McAdams is a disinformation agent, and neither is Ken

Rahn or DVP or Reitze.

If people are going to call them disinformation agents, then what are

we going to call the real disinformation agents, like Issac Don

Levine, Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Carlos Bringuier, Frank Sturgis,

Gus Russo, et al.?

Unless the CIA is paying McAdams to play at his fourm and publish his

book, he's not a disinformation agent. He could be a disinformation

idiot, though I like the word Cracker.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McAdams is still censoring at his forum.

Wow.

And David Von Pein says he believes in Freedom of Speech on this forum, but it's okay for him to censor his own forum, especially when I call him a Disinformation Idiot.

I think McAdams and Dale Myers are due to check in here any time now.

They ought to keep Kathy really busy.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McAdams is still censoring at his forum.

Wow.

And David Von Pein says he believes in Freedom of Speech on this forum, but it's okay for him to censor his own forum, especially when I call him a Disinformation Idiot.

I think McAdams and Dale Myers are due to check in here any time now.

They ought to keep Kathy really busy.

BK

LMAO! they need ALL the help they can get!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And David Von Pein says he believes in Freedom of Speech on this forum, but it's okay for him to censor his own forum, especially when I call him a Disinformation Idiot.

I never once said that I, myself, approved of any censorship on McAdams' moderated forum. And I don't know where William Kelly is getting that idea.

Click here.

Here's what I said to Bill Kelly, via two recent e-mails, regarding the topic of John McAdams and the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup:

Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots"

Date: 7/30/2010 6:26:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: David Von Pein

To: Bill Kelly [exact e-mail address deleted]

BTW, Bill,

After looking over the post that McAdams rejected at aaj, I can only ask you:

Why on Earth are you the least bit surprised that such a post of yours was rejected at McAdams' moderated aaj newsgroup?

You, in effect, called John McAdams an "idiot" in your post. Of course it was going to get rejected. What did you expect?

[A portion of Bill's post that was rejected by McAdams is quoted below:]

"Unless the CIA is paying McAdams to play at his fourm [sic] and publish his book, he's not a disinformation agent. He could be a disinformation idiot, though I like the word Cracker." -- William Kelly

DVP

========================

Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots"

Date: 8/1/2010 11:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: David Von Pein

To: Bill Kelly

Yes, he did. That's exactly why he rejected that post of yours. I'd almost bet on it.

John McAdams doesn't allow anyone to use that type of remark ("idiot") at the moderated aaj newsgroup if it's aimed directly at a CURRENT MEMBER of the newsgroup/forum, which McAdams, himself, is.

I can call DiEugenio and Fetzer "kooks" all day long at aaj...and the posts won't get rejected--because those people aren't current members at the a.a.j. forum.

But I can't ever say that you're a "kook" anymore at aaj, because you're a currently-active member.

That might seem like an odd rule--being able to only call people "kooks", "liars", and "idiots" who aren't around to defend themselves from the aaj onslaught, while not permitting those types of descriptive terms to be utilized against people who ARE members, who CAN defend themselves on the forum--but that's the way it is at McAdams' aaj.

DVP

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And David Von Pein says he believes in Freedom of Speech on this forum, but it's okay for him to censor his own forum, especially when I call him a Disinformation Idiot.

I never once said that I, myself, approved of any censorship on McAdams' moderated forum. And I don't know where William Kelly is getting that idea.

Click here.

Here's what I said to Bill Kelly, via two recent e-mails, regarding the topic of John McAdams and the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup:

Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots"

Date: 7/30/2010 6:26:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: David Von Pein

To: Bill Kelly [exact e-mail address deleted]

BTW, Bill,

After looking over the post that McAdams rejected at aaj, I can only ask you:

Why on Earth are you the least bit surprised that such a post of yours was rejected at McAdams' moderated aaj newsgroup?

You, in effect, called John McAdams an "idiot" in your post. Of course it was going to get rejected. What did you expect?

[A portion of Bill's post that was rejected by McAdams is quoted below:]

"Unless the CIA is paying McAdams to play at his fourm [sic] and publish his book, he's not a disinformation agent. He could be a disinformation idiot, though I like the word Cracker." -- William Kelly

DVP

========================

Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots"

Date: 8/1/2010 11:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: David Von Pein

To: Bill Kelly

Yes, he did. That's exactly why he rejected that post of yours. I'd almost bet on it.

John McAdams doesn't allow anyone to use that type of remark ("idiot") at the moderated aaj newsgroup if it's aimed directly at a CURRENT MEMBER of the newsgroup/forum, which McAdams, himself, is.

I can call DiEugenio and Fetzer "kooks" all day long at aaj...and the posts won't get rejected--because those people aren't current members at the a.a.j. forum.

But I can't ever say that you're a "kook" anymore at aaj, because you're a currently-active member.

That might seem like an odd rule--being able to only call people "kooks", "liars", and "idiots" who aren't around to defend themselves from the aaj onslaught, while not permitting those types of descriptive terms to be utilized against people who ARE members, who CAN defend themselves on the forum--but that's the way it is at McAdams' aaj.

DVP

You're right Dave,

And so is Jimmy D.

Why should I be surprised that he would do such a thing at his forum?

I didn't go over there uninvited though, my post was hijacked there by someone else.

And I get it now, it was the "idiot" part he didn't like, not the "Disinformation" part.

What about Crackers? Can I still call him a Cracker?

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about Crackers? Can I still call him a Cracker?

Probably. Give it a shot. (Hopefully it'll be a Ritz Cracker. John likes those I think.)

Although you've probably already used that word in previous aaj posts that went through. Right? If so, then the answer is "Yes, you can".

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...